Public opinion in America

The sociopolitical fabric of a nation, as charted through a Pew study...

The following is a summary of the findings of a Pew Research Center report on American public opinion and political trends, with my own insight of course. I skimmed the full 112-page report (the last 30 or so pages are just raw numbers), which you can find in PDF form.

American public is changing for the better. However, the changing demographic and much of the population, is politically apathetic. The still-widespread apathy explains why more polarized thinkers take action; there are more conservatives than there are liberals when one gets to either side. The middle is the section that is shifting towards a less traditional, more secular, more rational mindset. The middle is also unsure of itself and is losing confidence over what power they can exercise over their own government. The solution is simple: actually do something. Instead of complaining about your unrepresentative government, elect a different one or push your current one. At the moment, the special interests or polarized politicos dominate Washington. It doesn’t need to stay that way.

This latest Pew study is very informative and lays down some notions that most Americans — including the younger generations — are becoming more conservative, more intuitional, more religious, in a nutshell everything people like Rush Limbaugh, Sam Brownback, Dick Cheney, and James Dobson want them to be.

Americans still have a long way to go. They need to regain confidence in the power of the people instead of just lamenting their poor government, which, inevitably, always happens in a developed democracy.

Overall, this report projects good news and bad news about the course America and its people are taking and their views on such a course — for me at least. I've heard some say this poll is good news for Democrats; some say its good news for moderate Republicans.

The study also points out that Republicans are largely more conservative than Democrats are liberal; and that there are more conservatives interested in politics than liberals. Still, roughly half (Democrats and Republicans averaged) of those polled think `immigrants threaten American customs`, only emphasizing a need for proper education, especially in politics and history. People must have forgotten that their grandparents or their parents or their parents were immigrants. For example, a large number of Americans are of Irish or German heritage, and have ancestors who immigrated to the US only relatively recently (late 1800s, early 1900s). More on the immigration issue here, and more coming soon.

The government should help people in need and take responsibility of the needy, a good majority say. A lesser majority hold the above view, even to the point where debt is incurred from the government programs to help the needy (e.g. welfare, public health). In addition, many think a public health system is in order.

In foreign policy topics, Americans now finally view "getting even", i.e. employing 'an eye for an eye' strategy just isn’t a good idea. This complements the downward trend in the number of Americans who think peace is best achieved through military force — another slightly counter-intuitive notion.

There is also a decent dip in the overall percentage of people who think the US should remain active in world affairs, though the number is still in the 80s. The number who completely agree that America should keep active internationally has dropped from 50 percent in 2003 to 42 percent now. Bad news does come with that statistic: more and more Americans are developing isolationist sentiments.

The falloff in strong support for an active U.S. role
in global affairs is consistent with other Pew surveys over the past two years showing a decline in support for internationalism among the public. In “America’s Place in the World,” conducted in the fall of 2005, 42% said they believed the U.S. should “mind its own business” internationally – the highest percentage expressing that sentiment since the mid-1990s, after the Cold War, and the mid-1970s, following the Vietnam War.

That survey found that the growth in isolationist sentiment was largely concentrated
among Democrats. However, the values survey shows that both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to completely agree that the U.S. should take an active role on the world stage than they did four years ago. Similarly, the percentage of conservatives – regardless of party – who strongly favor an active U.S. stance in world affairs has fallen from 53% to 39% since 2003; this is comparable to the decline in strong support among self-described liberals (11 points).

I myself am an internationalist. However, that does not mean I think the United States and other powers should be able to meddle in other countries affairs, especially if the results are negative and there is no sufficient reason for the interference. Between the expansion of global free trade — like it or not — and the international exchange of ideas being fuelled by the Internet and the rise of developing countries, and the need for international awareness to take action in and prevent things like genocides and civil wars with mass implications (even to a country’s interests), isolationism is less of an option now than it was in the American know-nothing era between the two world wars. For economic, humanitarian, political, and security reasons, a global mindset is needed and, because of the aforementioned, the United States needs to stay active in international affairs. People need to realize the activity is not the problem, it is what that activity is that is the real problem: failed policies and bad politic. America doesn’t need to be less involved in world affairs to prevent another Iraq, it just needs to change its policy and policy-makers.

Americans are less confident, still patriotic but a bit less so, and still believe they should fight for their country, even if they don’t agree with what they are fighting for. Only a third overall believe torture is never justified, and the younger think it is more justified than the older. A majority still think preemptive force is justifiable. Americans are tough and fairly closed-minded on immigration, one of the few views kept constant since the Pew study of 1992. There has been a small boost in the number of people who view immigrants as a serious threat to traditional, all-American customs. Xenophobia is still popular, and, along with isolationism, are major sociopolitical threats to American progress in many ways.

Around one in ten is agnostic, atheist, or non-religious.

The survey also finds steady – if slow – declining support for traditional or conservative social values, in such areas as homosexuality and the role of women in society. This movement has been apparent on most of the six different measures of attitudes on social values, but is more evident when looking at the questions collectively (these values measures do not include opinions about abortion).

In 1987, about half of the survey’s respondents (49%) gave conservative answers to at least four of the six questions. In 2007, just 30% did so.

Keep in mind this is just a poll: one public study. It is a study put together by a reputable source, yes, but its results, like the results of many similar reports of public opinion and politics, should be taken with a grain of salt.

This report states the number of social conservatives is declining from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, there have been studies that suggest otherwise, including those looking at an increasing number of evangelicals and members of the religious right. No doubt the religious lobby is as powerful now as ever and the evangelical vote is more likely to be captured than the moderate vote because of the rampant apathy and feelings of a lack of options in the mind of the general public.

A majority of people still oppose gay marriage in any form. The death penalty also still has public support by a good majority. For the first time ever recorded in one of these Pew studies, a majority of people (51 percent) completely agree with the idea of interracial relationships. The number who agree (but not "completely") is at 83 percent, compared to a meager 48 percent in the 1987/1988 report. The government does not benefit people, its programs are usually inefficient and don’t have good outcomes, elected officials do not care about me or what I think — these are three statements most people, according to the study, agree with.

Most think governmental regulation of business is bad; the statistic is up dramatically for Democrats and down a bit for Republicans, possibly because of scandals similar to Enron. Companies have too much say in government, make too large of profits, and do not usually act in the public interest, say a majority of people polled. There are corporate skeptics of `evil` companies like Halliburton and ExxonMobil. On the whole, more young people view the success of business as a direct correlation to the success of America as a country. We are seeing less ethical, more commercialized young people (i.e. Gen Y), who are, at the same time, less religious and socially conservative. On socioeconomic issues, like government helping the needy and prevention of warrantless activity, blacks are more progressive than whites.

People view the political intelligence of the people as down. Also, most believe in the obligation to vote and interest in local politics is at a high. Far more people are afraid of personal information collected by business than government. Nearly 40 percent think warrantless searches should be allowed of "people like me" who may have terrorist leanings. 40 percent believe some civil liberties must be put aside in order to fight terrorism.

A very large majority of people believe in "stricter laws and regulation" to protect the environment.

Yeah, the Democrats won, what's next?

Okay, the “thumpin’”, as President Bush put it, is over. The 2006 US midterm elections came to a close weeks ago, believe me, after all the blogging I did during the elections, I am relieved. Yeah, yeah, the Democrats took the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, by a landslide and a margin, but what’s next? Time to celebrate for moderates and liberals in the country? Time for change with the new majority Democrats? Not exactly.

The upcoming Democratic-majority US Congress may well be as bad as the current one. One positive: maybe the Dems will stick it to President Bush. One negative: do they have enough of a majority — even within their own party — to get anything done, let alone show the president that he is not the sovereign leader of America (or the world)? What about the fact that Bush has veto power? Just the squabbling — regardless of political affiliation — over Iraq, which, coupled with economy, was the main focus of the voters this past election, shows that the American people may be in for some ride these next years.

2006 elections
Even before the elections, political analysts were warning that even if the Dems won not all would be well. First of all, winning Democrats would most likely be unseating moderate Republicans, replacing them with slightly conservative to conservative Democrats, and, since they would not be able to get any moderate or liberal change done, the Democrats would be sad and worn out (as if they were not already). Meanwhile, the GOP would be ready to rise up to the Democrats. America [usually] loves an underdog, and keep in mind, a quarter of the electorate are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians — predominately in the South. The GOP would rally this massive demographic and stall any good chance of reform by creating a Democratic nightmare in 2008.

Gridlock, past and future
For the next two years, the Democratic Party will also have to deal with the fact that, even though they control the legislature, the executive still has its occupier — a Republican. I am speaking, of course, of President George W. Bush.

Back in 1992, a man from Arkansas, a man with a hope for America, was elected. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, served for eight years, many of which were probably not what he wished they were. In 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich and others launched what they coined as the “contract with America”, now referred to as the ‘Republican Revolution’ that resulted in massive seat gains for the GOP in both houses of Congress. This disabled Clinton from passing many of his sought-after laws. This also gave Americans a good taste of what political gridlock really is.

After the 110th United States Congress is sworn in next January, there will be at least two years of this gridlock. The differences between the Clinton era gridlock and the upcoming gridlock include the fact that back then the Democrats controlled the presidency, the Republicans the Congress, and it is now the other way around. The Dems also have less of a majority now then the Republicans had back in the ‘90s, and there is an ever-increasing conservative base ready to be fired up to come to the assistance of the Republican Party.

Pelosi and the Democratic roadmap
It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will bring. Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years).

I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party and America as a whole. Pelosi’s "100-hour plan" — a spin-off of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “100-day plan” — looks especially promising, albeit quite ambitious. The plan, outlined in an often-cited Associated Press article, calls for ethics reforms (e.g. lobbying restrictions), implementation of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), and an easier way for people to pay for college (e.g. interest rate cuts for student loans, educational initiatives). On Pelosi’s 100-hour to do list is also the passing of federally-funded stem cell research legislation, a raise of the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7.25), the creation of a path to lower drug prices (which 85% of Americans back) [for those using Medicare], and other positive and progressive goals.

The ethics reforms are planned for the first day, in order to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation,” says Pelosi. During this entire plan, Pelosi has told AP she does not wish to further raise the national deficit that has ballooned under this president and this Congress; she says she is to institute a “pay-as-you-go” plan after her first 100 hours. The ultimate goal of this so-called 100-hour plan: "drain the swamp" of Republican rule the past 12 years in Congress, says Pelosi.

Political climate
The political winds have changed with the elections resulting in a Congressional majority for the Democrats, but it may be too insignificant, too late. Speaking of changes in the political winds, President Bush seems to want to be everyone's bipartisan friend again; a "united, not a divider", I doubt it. Much of the White House's political strategy depends on polarizing and dividing a nation, which is easy to do with (1) lack of government transparency and accountability more than ever (2) fear mongering in the "war on terrorism" (3) splitting a two-party nation so most vote for the GOP, using (1) and (2) as vote-gainers. This is all along with ideological and economic class partitioning, e.g. evangelicals/religious right, neoconservatives, 'safety moms', 'Wall Street types', and [other] special interests.

One ongoing question is whether the GOP can keep these conservatives and evangelicals on their side and can get them out to the polls, while staying congruent with respective ideologies of their various right-wing bases. This is where a two-party system with lax campaign finance regulation gets America: extreme polarized partisanship, elevated positions for special interest groups, and very limited choices for already-disgruntled constituents.

Representatives Pelosi (D-CA) and Boxer (D-CA) are two of the few quite liberal House members; Senators Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), and Kennedy (D-MA) are some of the few quite liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).

Dem options; in conclusion
The Democratic win in Congress is symbolic at best. There are, however, a handful of things that may be of good use to the Democrats and the nation. One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. DeLay is now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges, including those relating to campaign finance, and is being investigated for his roll in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals.

It ultimately comes down to this question: can the Democrats make a significant difference with their new majority in the US political scene? Unless the Democrats can rally support for the required two-thirds vote for a presidential veto override, I remain pessimistic. The Democrats may be or may not be lucky enough to get some of the forward-looking reforms passed by a majority of Congress anyway.

I am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena, but not to the extent that Executive-Legislature relations are harmed [too much]. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30-seat advantage in the 435-seat House of Representatives. No matter what, there will be gridlock.

Meanwhile, the race for 2008 is already well underway. That’s politics.

The above is an essay outlining the Democratic victory and the issues surrounding it in this past midterm election in the United States. Some of the writing is extracted from previous posts I wrote on this blog.

technorati tags: democrats, republicans, gop, dems, pelosi, nancy+pelosi, bush, chaney, delay, house, congress, usa, united+states, politics, news, current+affairs, in+the+news, iraq, white+house, 2006, elections, midterm, essay, opinion, news, president, senate, 100-hour+plan, minimum+wage, economy, domestic+issues, liberals, conservatives, ideologies, demographics, gengrich, newt, feingold, feinstein, boxer, california, kennedy, history, analysis, veto, gridlock, majority, in+perspective, clearthought

Fighting terror with... terror?

See earlier post on US foreign policy. (See later in this post for a list of some of the reasons America is so hated, especially by those in the Middle East.)

The "War on Terrorism" is not a real war*, it is a series of offenses — military and otherwise — launched by the United States and its participating allies following the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the US. This "war" is or should be targeting the fairly fragmented extremist movements throughout the world, whose followers are like a [more] violent form of America's religious fundamentalists. I would think the US government would be able to understand fundamentalist Islam better than it does, considering the tens of millions of fundamentalist Christians (religious right and evangelicals, et al) residing in the United States. Alas, this is not the case.

These Islamic extremist movements do not target the United States and others because of their/our 'freedom', as has been heavily rhetoricized by the George W. Bush administration (and some by British PM Tony Blair), but because a multitude of actions and policies that anyone who studied up realistic sociology and history may grasp (i.e. not most of the Neoconservative movement).

Just some of those things causing the easy recruitment and support to fight against the "western menace" include:

the discrimination America** has shown or seems to have shown (in the eyes of the 'repressed') towards Muslims, partly due to a lack of understanding (poor public education) by many;

American — and overall western — foreign policy in, but not limited to, the Middle East, specifically the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and the pro-Israel stance that US foreign policy reflects, this stance is seen as an anti-Palestinian thus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stance in such a delicate region on such a delicate topic (see here for my latest post on Israel);

a narrow view with an "us versus them" (black and white polar view) mentality shown by the US especially after 9/11 (11 Sep. 2001 terror attacks);

the notion that the United States, as the one standing superpower, has the right and privilege to police the world — even in defiance of international laws, etc.;

and, of course, Iraq, which practically speaks for itself (see my withdrawal plan here).

When Israel attacks a village, like Biet Hanoun (in Gaza), and kills civilians or causes other direct anguish, those in Gaza or elsewhere who may have sympathized or even really liked Israel are automatically targets of extremist groups, especially if they are also united by religion. That is, if such people are not recruited by extremists — or at least support anti-Israel causes — they may even become core extremists themselves. That is the fire paradox at work: you breed terrorism in your attempts to fight it.^

Vengeance is the ultimate recruitment tool, not fear of freedom.

*: See Wikipedia, BBC News, Amnesty International, and others (Google search).
**: I am generalizing, something I do not like to do too much, because there is no other way to put it).
^: More on this 'fire paradox' (esp. in the Mid East in re to terrorism) in an upcoming post.

While on vacation this long weekend (Thanksgiving weekend in the US), I wrote down in a little journal — several times — ideas I had in my head. I often do this. An established opinion, or just a random musing, may run through my head and, if I can find somewhere to write my thoughts down, I record this thought for later use. Sometimes it gets lost if I am not able to write it down; sometimes I am able to record the thought but it never gets used; sometimes I make a record of the thought and later use it (e.g. for a blog post). The point of this explanation of my thought processes is that the opinions expressed above were entirely manufactured in a seemingly random fashion as I woke up the other day, were written down, typed up (after translating my odd handwriting, which looks like shorthand plus vowels, the same I use for note-taking), and posted.

technorati tags: news, politics, current+affairs, usa, united+states, foreign+policy, US+foreign+policy, foreign+affairs, world+affairs, middle+east, mid-east, palestine, palestinian, pa, israel, fire+paradox, in+perspective, opinion, thanksgiving, 2006, november, clearthought, US+politics, islam, muslim, fundamentalism, evangelical, religion, views, terror, terrorism, gwot, war+on+terror, bush

My status; "Is the Swede a Human Being"

I finished Kite Runner and I am working on a blog post series — and eventually ebook — called How to Talk to a Closed-Minded Person (If You Must). I will be taking a short holiday the end of next week (Thanksgiving time, in the US); I can't guarantee I will be blogging then.

Here is an interesting International Herald Tribune article — talking about the book Is the Swede a Human Being? — on how Sweden's socialist-like welfare system (as talked about in this post) may actually make Swedes more individualized than those in a different governmental system (e.g. that of the United States).

Ever since the idea of nations and nationality gained serious popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, peoples across the world have asked themselves that most basic of questions: Who are we? For Swedes, the answer has, for the last 50 years, included some kind of notion of collectivist semi-socialism, with their country the epitome of a high- tax, strong-state, cradle-to-grave welfare society.

But that self-image is being turned on its head. A recently published and widely discussed book, provocatively titled "Is the Swede a Human Being?" ("Ar svensken manniska?"), contends that Swedes are the opposite of collectivists: they are deeply individualistic.

As the authors point out, American individualism is more a matter of anti-statism than this Swedish striving for intrapersonal independence).

But the book's conclusion is that, in the end, the Swedish project has been surprisingly successful. As for the question posed in the title, the answer is: Yes, the Swede is a human being.

technorati tags: sweden, welfare+system, socialism, individualism, usa, united+states, swede, is+the+swede+a+human+being, ideology, governmental+system, government, personal, kite+runner, blog, blogging, blogger, weblog, in+perspective, clearthought, international+herald+tribune, book

What a Savage...

I just thought this kinda coincidental considering I posted two posts (HERE and HERE) on homosexuality today, then later watched a Seinfeld episode about gays.
From Media Matters:

Days after telling his listeners that the "radical homosexual agenda ... threaten[s] your very survival," on the November 16 edition of his radio show, Michael Savage asserted that a "society that embraces homosexuality is a society that will not last much longer." Savage then predicted his remarks would "wind up tomorrow in several of the blogs run by gays -- and they think only of that 'cause they're like drug addicts." Later in the broadcast, Savage claimed, "There is not a mean bone in my body," and concluded: "With God's will and your listenership, we shall nuke Iran."

Well guess what Savage, I'm not gay and I'm not on drugs... yet I am still blogging your hate speech comments. You know who else is 'like a drug addict' Savage? Your pal, Rush Limbaugh. He is one. A great irony would be if Savage ended up like Ted Haggard or others on the ultra-right wing who ended up not only being homosexual, but into some not-too-legal things (including illicit drugs) too.

Stem cells in the US, part 1

See post on stem cells and cloned food.
See also this post on the stem cell wars between ideologues and normal people.

From a BBC News Q&A article on the United States and stem cells:

There are religious and social conservatives who oppose abortion and consequently the destruction of embryos required for stem cell research. Many of these are also supporters of Mr Bush.

This junk from the large group of social American conservatives is largely false. Scientists have found that they can do stem cell research without the risk of cloning or injuring a potential baby, yet most of these people have still refused to accept any form of stem cell research or treatment. Bottom line: the majority of staunch American partisans and conservatives are closed-minded and won't go by any of the facts, only the fantasies and fallacies they create in their quasi-moral (e.g. supporting torture of "enemy combatants"; no consented death for those with terminal illnesses?) politic.


technorati tags: stem+cell, stem+cells, united+states, religious+right, christian, conservative, social+conservatives, science, politics, ethics, biology, biotech, technology, commentary, in+perspective, clearthought, news, current, bush

Israel's disproportionality, defenders and friends

(Left) An explosion in Gaza, an Israeli-controlled part of the Palestinian Authority. The West Bank is Israeli-controlled and occupied by Israel, against agreements with their neighbours and the international community (e.g. the United Nations).

I believe in Israel's right to 'defend itself', but much of what it has been doing since its inception — by Zionist terrorists mind you (even the UN labels the early Zionists and some today as such) — are disproportional responses resulting in more breed terrorists (I am working on a post comparing Israeli offenses to the attempts to put out wildfires, which often result in more. It is called the Fire Paradox.). All this along with a domestic apartheid-like system with, in comparison to South Africa, Jews as whites and Arabs as blacks. Also the Western world wanted a democratically-elected government in Palestine... and they got one Hamas. You can't cherry pick everything!

Another thing is that the US press has been too friendly to Israel; almost always on the side of Israel and afraid to often make even fair criticisms (see below).
And people should not be called anti-Semitic, as I have been called, for being against much of what Israel does. Even if someone is totally against Israel (which I am not) that does not make them anti-Semitic. (I have plenty of Jewish friends, so don't attack me for being 'hypocritical' or 'anti-Semitic' for that either.) It is the same logic that Carl Rove helped use against those against the United States' hegemonic wars: you are with us or you are with the terrorists that attacked us.
On The Media transcript on how the US news media covers Israel's conflicts;
J.J. Goldberg (editor of The Forward, a liberal Jewish newspaper in New York City):

I think at the moment, the American press is attempting to be scrupulously balanced. X number of bombs here, X number of rockets there, a story about a family that suffered losses in Lebanon, a story about a family that suffered losses in Israel. But when you look at the death tolls, you have to ask why is the balance so scrupulous?

I, myself, am not totally anti-Israel; I am not totally pro-Israel either. I see many forms of [extreme] Zionism as racism... just because I am not Jewish does not mean I should be treated differently, nor should I get special treatment and nor should people of the Jewish faith.

The State of Israel is certainly not a democracy or fair government, and should not be seen as one, as long as they continue this elitist Jewish stance — treating others as second-class citizens. It does not matter what they were founded upon (Zionism of the Jewish faith), early colonial America was founded upon Puritan Christianity, but the US is not a Puritan state!

technorati tags: zionism, zionist, news+media, news, us+new+media, israel, palestine, jew, anti-semitic, on+the+media, us+press, press, lebanon, commentary, opinion, in+perspective, clearthought, gaza, west+bankCategories: israel, palestine, gaza, west, bank, commentary, news, opinion, zionism

Afternoon politics: Allen to concede, Bush to change?

The Democrats are about to win the Senate, if they haven't already (depends who you ask):

Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) will concede that he has lost the election to Democrat James Webb at a 3 p.m. news conference in Alexandria, according to a source close to the campaign with direct knowledge of the senator's intentions.

As of this morning, Allen trails Webb by 7,484 votes after a bruising reelection campaign. Republican sources said Allen had concluded that no amount of recounting would change the outcome, but members of the senator's campaign staff would not publicly confirm his intentions.

So far, canvassing, as Virginia law calls for when an election is as close as Allen v. Webb is, has not shown any different results than the small lead Webb has. (See previous posts on the Allen and Webb race for more.) This aftermath of the 2006 midterm election will be over soon...

Speaking of changes in the political winds, President Bush seems to want to be everyone's friend again; a "united, not a divider", I doubt it. Much of the White House's political stratigy depends on polarizing and dividing a nation, which is easy to do with (1) lack of government transparancy and accountability more than ever (2) fear mongering in the "war on terrorism" (3) splitting a two-party nation so most vote for the GOP, using (1) and (2) as vote-gainers. This is all along with ideological and economic class partitioning, e.g. evangelicals/religious right, Neocons, 'safety moms', 'Wall Street types'.

technorati tags: bush, white+house, neocon, ideological, politics, news, allen, webb, virginia, democrat, gop, republican, senate, 2006, midterm, election, elections, virginia+senate, virginia+election, current

Pelosi and the 'dirty word'

I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party. Especially her "100-hour plan" calling for ethics rules (and lobbying restrictions), 9/11 Commission Report implementation (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), an easier way for people to pay for college (i.e. insurance changes for students and educational initiatives), the passing of stem cell legislation, and more positive and progressive goals.

I do not know much about Pelosi, except that she has been called a "liberal" — which many seem to think is a dirty word. Message to those who believe that "liberal" is a dirty word: look it up in the dictionary! Ignorant closed-mindedness is not being a good conservative; it is being ignorant and closed-minded. Next, they will be saying that the dictionary is 'liberal'...

I am not saying that all who oppose Pelosi are stupid. If you can back up your arguments, and can use facts (in their factual form, of course), than even if you are a 'conservative', you are not the kinds of people I am talking about. Also keep in mind many of these ideologies are from the slightly-demented American political terms (different from political ideologies on the world scale, such as political alliances and more defined terms of what is left and what is right and what is centre), so American liberalism is "liberal", American Conservatism (including Neoconservatives and the religious/Christian right) are "conservatives".

Technorati Tags: pelosi, liberal, conservative, neocon, 9/11+commission, 100-hour+plan, nancy+pelosi, house, democratic+party, democrats, american+conservatism, american+liberalism, religious+right, christian+right, politics, news, current, opinion, commentary, in+perspective, clearthought

Will the Dems take advantage of their wins? Plus, Speaker Pelosi

One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay (now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges) set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. I, however, am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena.

As I talked about in this post outlining various election and post-election scenarios, there will be party change — for better or for worse — almost certainly in the Republican and Democratic parties. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30 seat advantage in the House of Representatives. One problem, the House is still moderately conservative since many moderate Republicans were beaten by Democrats and there are relatively few liberal Democrats (especially compared to the fact that there are 435 seats in that body of Congress).

It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House will bring, Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years). Pelosi and Boxer are two of the few liberal House members; Feingold, Feinstein, and Kennedy are two of the few liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).

I will be panning through the post-election dirt of commentary, sifting for a few pieces of gold today.

technorati tags: commentary, election, elections, politics, news, house, senate, democrats, democrat, tom+delay, gop, pelosi, congress, dems, republicans, post-election, senate, commentary, opinion, political+analysis, in+perspective, clearthought, us+midterm+elections, midterm+elections, us+elections