Dec 31 2010

The Political Year In Review

Published by at 10:04 am under All General Discussions

The best review of 2010 I have seen so far from a political standpoint comes from RCP:

“The biggest mystery of 2010 may be Democrats’ failure to explain and sell their landmark health law, and the public’s sustained resistance to it despite the popularity of many of its components.”

The mystery is why it’s still such a mystery. About 85 percent of Americans had healthcare. Polls showed Americans were largely pleased with the status of that care. The one consensus complaint was cost. But Democrats sought to address everything but cost.

Democrats’ top priority was healthcare when the nation’s top priority was the economic crisis.

There was a major but subtle political realignment in 2010. It comprised two simultaneous shifts. First was the Democrat Party’s fall off the left fringe of the political spectrum. Once Pelosi, Reid and Obama (Jarret) were in control there was no way the far left would ever allow the moderate left control of the party again. To lose control of the Democrat Party would relegate the liberal/progressive movement to long term marginal status. While they are marginal in reality, their egos cannot grasp this reality – so they will distill the Democrat Party down to nothing in a few short years.

On the GOP side the social conservatives have run out of gas and support. Attack someone for being a Christian, try and silence their right to pray in public or wear symbols of their religion and the conservative movement will still rally to protect freedom of religion. But if anyone thinks government will be used to dictate social ‘norms’ they have not learned the lesson of 2010. The era of big government is over.

I was not a big fan of DADT being repealed, but the truth is it has been repealed – so be it. The world did not end and our military is above and beyond pettiness and insecurity. Our brave men and women in uniform have struggled through a lot worse hardships than this. What it also means is we can now stop obsessing about sex. The public square needs to go back to being G or PG rated (no PG-13). Adults have plenty of freedom and private spaces to do whatever silliness they want to do – just keep it out of sight and hearing of families with young kids. This is not hard to fathom folks. Just as we have exercised the ghosts of slavery and racism with the election of a black president, the end of DADT should be signal the end of homo-hetero wars. Give the everyone the right to civil unions, reserb=ve ‘marriage’ to be the label used to refer to hetero-unions and be done with this madness.

But the political center of gravity has finally been moved to the center around libertarian concepts. Right now the populist political message is the Tea Party’s minimal government mantra. As RCP put it:

The media went from underestimating the tea party movement in 2009 to obsessing over it in 2010. Yet the establishment press still undervalued this movement’s appeal. A New York Times-CBS poll reported last spring that one-fifth of Americans identify themselves as tea party supporters. But Election Day exit polls found that two-fifths of voters considered themselves “supporters” of the movement.

The Republican establishment rode that tiger to the ballot box. Tea party activists rallied around deficit issues

The new path has not even begun yet. We have the House of Representative seeded with a lot of Tea Party libertarians, but with the Senate still in left-wing hands, as well as the White House, we now embark on a 2 year education and political learning process to expose who much federal government we can (and have previously) lived without. We need to show what a minimal FCC and FAA would look like, why we can live without either DoE, how science and technology research that spans DoEnergy, USGS, NASA, NOAA and others should be combined into one organization to streamline overhead, create consistency in results and prioritize our investments in science and technology.

We need to see how not only the deficits go down, but industry can replace needless and endless paperwork with productivity and results. We need to stop Obamacare from destroying our health care system.

All of this will take two years to find the steps and pace Americans are ready to travel down a libertarian path. We don’t need petulant impatience and ridiculous goals. We need well thought out leadership (like that seen in NJ and VA) that tackles the problems in order and with the support of the people.

We can make this work if we stop worrying about what divides us and focus on what joins us in common cause.

13 responses so far

13 Responses to “The Political Year In Review”

  1. WWS says:

    Like you, I am overjoyed to see a predominantly libertarian movement finally move into political ascendancy. Still, all we have right now is an *opportunity*, not a done deal by any means.

    What has always soured me (and many others) on libertarians in office before is that often they do well on many of the smaller issues but fail miserably when it comes to major issues that truly do take national action, areas like national defense, for example.
    (Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas, for example, are simply embarrassing)

    But if a voting bloc can emerge in the Congress which “gets” where the country is moving, then this has the opportunity to be a movement which will guide the course of politics for a generation or more.

    that’s my New Year’s wish!

  2. dbostan says:

    It’s too early to proclaim the era of the big gov. is over.
    I’d like that to be, but we need to wait some more for that to happen.

    Happy New Year to all!!

  3. […] on the nature of regulatory innovation – 12/31/2010 Got a light? more… The Political Year In Review – 12/31/2010 The best review of 2010 I have seen so far from a political […]

  4. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: The Political Year In Review […]

  5. Sabastian says:

    Re: Give the everyone the right to ‘Civil Unions’, reserve ‘Marriage’ to be the label used to refer to hetero-unions.

    I cannot figure out why the government is sanctioning any Marriage; man-woman, woman-woman, man-man, cat-dog.

    The government is strictly a civil construct. All government interests in the union of two (I guess we’ll have to add “or more” soon) persons are civil; mutual responsibilities, inheritance, child care, medical proxy, financial responsibilities, divorce, and the biggie – taxes. If a male and female go to the JP for a ceremony, they should get a piece of paper certifying a “Civil Union”, not “Marriage”.

    Many religions consider “marriage” to be a religious sacrament.
    So… if you want a “Civil Union”, go to a JP. If you want “Marriage”, go to your favorite religious guy and get both a “Civil Union” and a “Marriage”.

    If you find a religious guy that does man – man, woman-woman, cat-dog, then they can be “Married” too. It should have no effect on the “Civil Union” between the two entities. Here is the simple solution. Pass a law that says: “Every reference to “Marriage” in the legal code will be replaced with the phrase “Civil Union”. Simple, effective and fair.

  6. dbostan says:

    You miss the point.
    Gays are not (only) after the benefits of “marriage”, as few as the demsheviks made them, but they want their repulsive behavior to be put not only on par with that of heteros, but ABOVE it.
    In other words they want to impose on us their “value system”.
    And the movement is spearheaded by militant marxists, who want to bring about the destruction of our society.
    They started by attacking the family and religion long ago.
    If you do a search, you will see that one of the stated goals of different marxist groups and movements, from Marx himself, to Gramsci, The Frankfurt School, the Fabian Society and even the KGB, was and still is the imposition oh homosexuality as a tool to weaken the Western family and (Christian) morality.
    So, we are in the fight of our life for everything we hold dear to us, in the West…

  7. Whomever says:

    I agree w Sebastian. All unions are civil unions; they are contracts.
    Then if you also wish to be “married,” that is between you and your partner and your church – separate.

    All Unions Civil Unions: AUCU – see, it even has a good acronym.

  8. Whomever says:

    AUCU unions are what would give everyone – gay or straight – the legal rights the gays want.

    Marriage is completely separate and has nothing to do with the state.


  9. WWS says:

    I think Sebastion’s proposal is the obvious, common sense solution to the problem. Our current system is a result of a centuries old mistake where we let religion and government mix, even though we always said we wouldn’t.

    btw, just to be clear – I very much support the religious view of marriage, but I don’t think Government should be the enforcer.

    Now DBostan has a good point, and this is what makes things so hard to change. While I think most gay couples who are just trying to live their lives would be fine with civil unions, Gay Activists and the political movement they represent absolutely *Hate* this idea, for precisely the reasons dbostan has put forward. For them, it’s not about getting a workable system – it’s about upsetting the current social order and getting some kind of “revenge” for whatever ills they think they have suffered in the past.

    It is a profoundly destructive movement.

  10. Sabastian says:


    I don’t understand how the viability of my marriage (38 years) has anything to do with the fact that Richard Nixon was President. The Civil state just sets the rules.

    The state manages Civil fares. The Church, Synagogue or Mosque handle religious issues. We should separate them. Civil Union is State; marriage is Religious.

    Most of the rest of your comment shows a lack of tolerance and human understanding. I don’t understand how codifying property rights to two guys living near me affects my life or beliefs. Homosexuality is not a threat; ignorance is. If you feel threatened, I suggest you pray for your self.

  11. WWS says:

    One further thought – since the modern liberal movement is based on profoundly destructive ideas and is dedicated to overthrowing society as it currently stands, it can never be the source of anything but continued destruction.

    If there is ever going to be *Any* resolution to any of these festering social issues, the ideas will have to come from the Conservative movement. We are the only ones who have a chance of fixing anything.

  12. AJStrata says:

    Of course I side with whomever and sebastian. Marriage is more the religious form and union is the government supported contract of rights. The rest is no one’s business.

  13. dbostan says:

    My comment has nothing to do with religion.
    The extreme left’s hate for Christianity is a documented fact.
    I just state the obvious.
    And their “push” for the gay agenda is also a documented political/historical fact.