The 2012 Presidential Election. What Does it Mean?

I watched the election returns last night on television.  Moving between channels, it was interesting to observe how, as time passed and it became obvious that Mr. Obama would be re-elected, the various networks reacted.  From the muted tones of Fox to the outright drunken joy of ABC, it was fascinating to watch.  This morning, of course, pundits of every stripe were busy on television, radio and newspapers extolling the political acumen of the Obama camp and dissecting the mistakes of the Romney effort.

It seems to me that every person I have heard, seen, or with which I have conversed on the subject seems to see it on political terms.  Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Tea Party, it doesn't seem to matter.  The politics of the situation seems to be what is on everyone's mind.

I think that this misses the point completely.

There is no way, whether Mr. Obama ran the smoothest political campaign of all time, or Mr. Romney ran the worst (neither of which is accurate), that the American public could have missed the basic political philosophy of either candidate.  To assume that either mans position was mis-understood to the extent of influencing ones vote is to assume that the vast majority of Americans are utter idiots.  To me, thinking of Obama voters as idiots would be comforting, but I cannot be honest and state this as accurate.

The sad and much less comforting truth is that America voted for Obama because they prefer Obama and all that he stands for.  Since the early 20th century, leftists have sought to influence the country through the political process, the courts and the education system.  Their tireless efforts have finally borne fruit in the person of Barack Obama.

We were once a country filled with people who had little use for national government.  They understood it's neccesity, but were also deeply distrustful of people who sought to rule their lives while having little or no knowledge of their situations.  These people understood freedom intimately, and sought to keep their government local, and therefore within reach.  They knew that it's hard to do bad things to a man with whom you will be sitting in church only days later.

Leftists understood this natural inclination towards personal freedom, and knew that in order to defeat it, change would have to be gradual.  It took them many years, and they showed great patience.  Like the Taliban soldier who told a GI "you have the watches, but we have the time", leftists filled the place where change could be instilled among those most suseptible to influence, children in the schools.

After many decades of effort, we now have a nation whose majority trust the government, but don't trust the church.  They see the government as the judge of what is good and right, not as an encroachment that muct be kept in check.

We now have a nation that legalizes marijuana, and criminalizes 17 ounce Coca-Cola.  What once was right is now wrong, what was once morally incomprehensible is now right, and we have only ourselves to blame.

Evil Wal-Mart Strikes Again, USA Today Reports Company Run by Satan

Wal-Mart stock slides on bribery probe  USA Today 04/23/2012

Let me see...a news item showing Wal Mart in a bad light for bribing officials in Mexico.  Leaving out the worn-out anti-Wal Mart sentiment in the media, does anyone really think one can do business in Mexico without bribing officials? Is anyone in the US that naive?  I have traveled extensively in Mexico and have had to bribe local officials in order to simply drive my auto through the town.  In addition, does anyone who is over 21 and can read really believe that business is done much differently here in the good old USA?  Many years ago (1983), I attempted to open a business office in a mid-sized Georgia city.  I could not get a fire inspection until I had bought my business license, and could not get a business license until my building had been inspected by the fire department.  Being young, I actually went back and forth a few times until I realized that both offices were expecting a bit of renumeration for speeding the process along.  Once these wheels were greased, things went very smoothly.  I have had to do business this way many times since, most often in union dominated cities such as NYC and Boston.  And with the mention of unions, we go full circle to just why these articles are popping up about "shocking" Wal-Mart revelations.  The union attempting to make inroads into the Wal-Mart company know that they may have less than a year to succeed, for with a new administration possible, things may become a bit less friendly.  I hope that readers of the news are not as dumb as the writers and editors think they are.

Just as a fact check, something the New York Times / USA Today may have overlooked in their "investigative" reporting.  The following is from the Justice in Mexico Project, but the statistics and facts can be easily gathered from any number of valid sources:

04/05/11 – In a recent press conference, Coparmex or Confederación Patronal de la República Mexicana (Mexican Employers’ Association) revealed new statistics regarding acts of corruption. The President of Comparmex, Gerardo Gutiérrez Candiani, affirmed that recent studies show companies in Mexico spend 10% of their revenue on acts involving corruption. Additionally, more than 44% of companies make unofficial payments to public servants at the local, national, and federal levels. Gutiérrez stated that as a result, 7 out of 10 companies have experienced a reduction in their competitiveness due to these factors. He also reminded the public how Mexico ranked 98th out of 178 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index for 2010, which is a drop from their 2009 score in which they ranked 89th. Studies from the private sector have calculated that the costs of corruption are equivalent to 9% of their gross domestic product. Families that have little resources are the ones most affected by these illicit actions.