Does The Middle Still Matter?

I actually wrote this blog post below when I was home in the US over the summer and fully exposed to American politics. Keep in mind that prior to that, it had been a good 2 years since I was fully immersed in the wonderfully chaotic intenseness that is the American political system. Now after being back in Europe for a couple of months (while continuing to follow the next round of elections...we always seem to be voting in America), I'm wondering if what I wrote a few months ago still holds true: does the middle still matter? For the sake of America, I certainly hope so. Original post below:

My political beliefs are a bit of a hodgepodge. In general, I’m a middle-of-the-road person, not terribly prone to extremes on either side of the political spectrum. Since I find that most political issues are too nuanced to simply come down hard as a righty or a lefty, I generally tend to reside somewhere in the middle and normally refer to myself as a moderate (not a “fence straddle” as one of my friends put it). There are of course several exceptions to my moderate views (I have both liberal and conservative tendencies…just ask me my views on abortion or fiscal responsibility if you want to see how I make the conservative and the liberal peacefully co-exist in my mind), but for the most part I’m firmly in the middle. Which, for me is an awesome and interesting place to be.

As Congressional races heat up and the claws come out, I’m starting to wonder if my old political mantra still rings true. What is my political mantra you ask? The middle matters. In my rather limited time as a voting adult (10 years and counting baby!), I can’t think of too many political campaigns (with the notable exception of some local GA races) where appealing exclusively to one’s hard right or hard left (or hard Libertarian/Green/Independent) base actually resulted in a victory. Sure politicians need to secure their party base. And if you happen to live in a congressional district that has a sh*t ton of folks from you’re party’s base, then you’re golden.

But let’s consider for a second something a bit large, such as a national political contest. Let's say Sarah Palin, for example, decides to run for president (*shudder*). Sure she’s very popular with her hard right conservative base. But that doesn’t mean jack sh*t. Those numbers aren’t enough to get a majority of the votes (I hope). And the hard lefties wouldn’t vote for her regardless of what she says or does. She would need to be able to convince those moderates like myself that she wouldn’t bring about one of the following: World War III and/or Armageddon/the Apocalypse. Frankly I’m not convinced she wouldn’t. Joking, joking (not really).

The same rings true for President Obama when he runs for re-election. His hardcore supporters will vote for him regardless (I mean unless he does something like turn into the second coming of Ronald Reagan and even then I'm pretty sure I can find some liberals who would vote for him). Those vehemently opposed to him (I’m looking at you Tea Party and Take Back America crowds) wouldn’t vote for him anyway (even if he out-Reaganed Reagan). So where would he pick up the needed votes? In the middle with us moderates (and I’ll go ahead and throw the undecided in there as well).

The same basic principle applies to the upcoming Congressional elections as well. Sure Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell managed to win their respective primaries with their base of Libertarian and/or Tea Party supporters. But that alone won't necessarily be enough to carry them through the doors of Congress. They need to convince us pesky fence-straddlers moderates that they're up to the job.

But now I fear that with a crappy economy, a crappy housing market and pissed off people looking for an easy target to scapegoat blame that the middle, as so often happens during political campaigns, will be ignored…at least by the mainstream media. Too often the focus is on the more diehard left/right voters. Rarely will you hear a sound bite from moderate, middle-of-the-road voters. Instead he who can shout the loudest with the most extreme viewpoint is more likely to get airtime (and in the case of political pundits, get paid handsomely for it). Perhaps it’s more entertaining to watch polar opposites argue on political points that they’ll never agree on. But for me, I’d prefer to see some moderates have an honest discussion on the nuances of government policy and do something radical...like come to a compromise and resolve it. But I suspect Glenn Beck will retire his blackboard and stop crying on cue air while renouncing his fanboy devotion to Sarah Palin while voting for Obama before that happens.

Thoughts?

P.S. For my fellow Americans abroad: don't forget to request your absentee ballot for the upcoming elections. Don't know how? Well click this link...unless you plan on voting for a Tea Party candidate...I kid, I kid. No but seriously, don't click that link if you're going to squander your vote on the Tea Party.

P.P.S. Before I get any comments accusing me of "not getting" the Tea Party/Take Back America crowds or being a mindless liberal/progressive/communist/socialist/nazi/facist (actually, if you accuse me of the latter, you clearly weren't paying attention to the blog post...but I digress), trust me when I say I've done my homework on both. Don't believe me? Check out the following posts:
An Open Letter to Tea Parties/Anti-Big Government Crowd
Random Musing on Tea Parties
Taking Back America
Tea Party! An(other) Open Letter


Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.

Taking Back America

As I’ve previously mentioned, I somehow ended up on some random Tea Party e-mailing list. So, every few days or so I receive an e-mail in my inbox (or my spam box, as Gmail is getting much better at filtering those bad boys out) with headlines screaming about Obama or the Feds or taking back America.

Let’s touch on that last point. The taking back America crowds irk the ever loving hell out of me. Not everyone in that crowd mind you, but the general idea behind it. Different folks give different emphasis on what America is for them. For some folks, it truly is a land of wonderful opportunities. For some folks it’s a land of oppression. And for some folks it is (or should be) whiter than Glenn Beck’s ass. Invariably within the “Take America Back!” crowd, there are folks who actually mean “Take America back…to a time when all these uppity Negroes/fill in your other minority/previously-not-considered-white-but-given-honorary-white-status ethnic group of choice here couldn’t do sh*t.”

I suppose my issue with the Take America Back crowd is more or less the same as the Tea Party crowd: it lacks definition. Take America back from what? And what are you trying to take America back to? Other than general anger and pissiness (let’s pretend that’s a word) towards the government/the crappy economy/unemployment/a tanked housing market/etc, what exactly are you, dear Take America Back crowd, trying to achieve?

I ask not to be snarky but because, much like the Tea Party, I’m genuinely trying to figure this one out. Thus far all of my listening to Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck has yet to help me get a grasp on this. And yes, I’ll ‘fess up to listening to both on a regular basis…it’s the old journalism major/news dork in me. I like to listen to viewpoints that contrast/conflict with my own. Gets the old brain working. Which is what I’m going to need the brains of some folks in the Take Back America crowd to do in order to better articulate what the hell they stand for other than philosophy of “we’re-mad-as-hell-and-we’re-not-going-to-take-it-anymore-ism.”

Oh, and one minor point for the folks in the “Take Back America” crowd who keep bring up Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: y’all realize that the vast majority of you guys are the modern day embodiment of underling class left high and dry right? Unless of course you’re a captain of industry, in the Atlas Shrugged world y’all would be well and truly f*cked. Granted it’s been a good 10 years since I’ve read that 1,000+ page brick by Ayn Rand, so my interpretation could be a bit rusty and/or off. Anyone with an alternate interpretation that doesn’t involve calling me/all black folks/all minorities/all liberals/all progressive any combination of the words “elitist,” “America hating,” “socialist/communist,” “moron,” or variations thereof is welcome to leave a comment.

Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.

Open Letter To Arizona Lawmakers

Dear Arizona Lawmakers,
I didn't plan on writing another politic rant so soon. But then you, dear Arizona Lawmakers, decided to pass SB1070.

Oh America, land that I love! You do keep it interesting with the politics. I think that's part of the reason I <3 you.

One of the major provisions of the above mentioned bill allows the police to check the immigration status of and detain anyone they suspect of being an illegal alien. But what could possibly lead a police officer to suspect that someone is in the country illegally? I’m going to go ahead and guess that folks with brown skin who “don’t speak American” with “funny sounding” names are the main target of this bill. Anyone who would like to argue otherwise is more than welcome to. This is just my opinion after all. However, I seriously doubt if the three white Europeans I personally knew who lived in the US illegally (before I met them) would be stopped if they happened to wander into Arizona.

My first thought on reading the law (and yes, I actually read the whole thing) is that its constitutionality is highly debatable for a number of reason, but in particular because it’s the federal government that deals with things like immigration, not the states. And I'm not even going to touch on the "searches" part of the "unreasonable searches and seizures" bit of the Fourth Amendment (applied to the States via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment if I'm not mistaken). But let's be honest, it’s been a few years since that Constitutional Law class I voluntarily took in college, so please anyone with a deeper understand of the issue (i.e. a lawyer), feel free to jump in on this point.

Now Arizona lawmakers, I have just a few more minor questions for you (*rolling up my sleeves and taking off the kid gloves*): What were you thinking? Or perhaps to really address the incredible stupidity of this bill, what the F*CK were you thinking? No really, I’m curious as to the thought process that went into this. Please enlighten me. How exactly do you plan on enforcing this law? As in, what criteria need to be met to satisfy the “reasonable suspicion” part of someone being in the country illegally? And how exactly are folks who are stopped supposed to prove either their legal immigration status or their American citizenship? Hell, I’m an American citizen but the only piece of ID I walk around with in any country is my driver’s license, not my birth certificate or my passport (for obvious reasons, both are kept under lock and key pretty much at all times). And if I’m not mistaken, you don’t actually have to be an American citizen (or in some states be in the US legally) to get a driver’s license. So I ask again, how exactly is one supposed to prove their immigration and/or citizenship status?

I’m well aware of the fact that there are folks in the US illegally (like I said, I’ve personally known three) and that countries along the Southern US border seem to be especially effected. I completely understand that Arizona wants to do something to deal with this issue. I understand that and sympathize with that dilemma. I’m not against that. I’m not necessarily against tougher enforcement of current immigration law or a reform of immigration law. I am, however, against legislation like this which is essentially racial profiling rolled up in a nice pretty Birther bullsh*t package.

Sigh…I’m not saying immigration laws shouldn’t be enforced. But maybe, just maybe, this isn’t the best way to go about it Arizona Lawmakers. I can only hope that you come to your senses soon...or barring that a federal court overturns this puppy and sends y'all back to the drawing board. I'm fine with either.

Toodles,
American Black Chick in Europe

Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.

Tea Party! An(other) Open Letter

Dear Tea Party Leaders,
Have I mentioned I'm not a big Tea Party fan? One of the top reasons is because too many folks who participate in these rallies don't really know what they want. There's a serious lack of direction. Case in point:*



Somehow, your movement has managed to attract Birthers, racists, libertarians, Republicans, anti-big government folks and folks who are just feed up in general (among others). That's a whole lot of (often) conflicting ideologies and goals. Which means there's an incredible lack of consistency in the Tea Party position beyond "the government is too big."

A few questions for you Tea Party Leaders (excluding Fox News, since I think they're full of sh*t anyway): How is the government too big? How exactly do you suggest slimming down the government? Which federal agencies should go? What/who would pick up the slack of those eliminated federal agencies? Would the slack be picked up at all? What is the Tea Party's view on health care reform in general (not just the recently passed bill)? What about immigration and/or immigration reform? Regarding taxes, how does one propose funding the military/unemployment/Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security etc. without some form of taxation? Or should those programs just fall by the wayside?

I normally describe myself as a moderate with liberal tendencies. That's only half true. I'm a liberal with both liberal and conservative tendencies. When election time rolls around, I do actually (attempt) to research the candidates and try to choose the candidate I think will be best for America. In the last election, I heard it from both sides, both my liberal and conservative friends, because I was seriously considering voting for Hilary Clinton (hand she won the primaries), Barack Obama and John McCain (up until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate). Out of the last 3 presidential elections that I've been able to vote in, the candidate I hauled my ass to the post office/American Embassy to send my absentee ballot in for has won exactly once. One out of three is a pretty sh*tty record. When my chosen candidates lost, did I start shouting about how the tyrannical Commie Fascist  government was ruining America or talk about how my rights were being trampled on without representation? No. And why didn't I?

One, in my humble opinion no government in the history of America has been Communist or tyrannical in the true sense of the words, although some of my Southern brethren who are still fighting the damn Civil War might disagree. Sidenote: You lost. Deal. With. It. Please feel free, Tea Party Leaders, to disagree with me on the Communist/Fascist/tyrannical government point, providing evidence that does not include Fox News or anyone associated with Fox News with the exception of Shepard Smith, who I secretly kinda love.

And two, not liking your representation isn't the same thing as not having representation. You have representation. Not having representation looks something like this: being counted as 3/5th of a person while being denied the right to vote, hold property, marry or be treated like a human being. That's not having representation. So until the day the Obama administration officially repeals voting rights for all white Americans (I say this only because the Tea Party rallies seem to be overwhelming white, another point y'all might want to look into), I'm really going to need y'all to stop throwing out that whole "no representation" thing.

Oh and while we're on the topic, I keep reading all this stuff about how the Obama administration is stomping on the Constitution blah blah blah, generally from strict constructionist. Refer back to the 3/5th Compromise on why my black-descendant-of-slaves ass is not a strict constructionist. In my (over)educated opinion, part of the reason the Constitution has worked so well for so long is because it's a document which can grow and change with the times (see Article 5)....something the Framers ever so thoughtfully allowed for, even if they did drop the ball with the whole black-folks-as-chattel thing.

Since I'm leaving France in a week anyway and avoiding doing anything at all productive, I'm going to go ahead and address the Birthers element of the Tea Party movement's whole "Obama wasn't born in America" thing (despite the birth certificate) for sh*ts and giggles. Let's assume the Birthers have a point on this (they don't). Doesn't. F*cking. Matter. His mother was American. He gets citizenship through her anyway, in addition to being born in Hawaii (yes, it is consider part of these United States). And before any of your Birthers cite the "natural born citizen" clause, please note the Constitution doesn't really set down the criteria for "natural born citizen." Go ahead and check. I'll wait.

And breath. Rant. Over

Toodles,
American Black Chick in Europe

*P.S. To the young lady in the video who called Glenn Beck "very educational," I can see the American educational system greatly failed you. And for that I'm truly sorry. Beck could connect the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus to a Commie-Islamo-Fascist plot to overthrow America using that delightful chalkboard of his if he wanted to. The writer in me is impressed with his level of creativity. The non-batsh*t crazy person in me secretly weeps that folks believe him.

Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.