Des Downunder On Sundays

By Desmond Rutherford | ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA -- Elective Surgery

Why is the U.S. right wing intent on forestalling the advancement of the human race?

Why do I ask that? Could it have something to do with the mindless drivel being anally vomited by the various 'family' organisations?

It is very difficult to not be concerned with the concerted stand against logical states of mind in the U.S.

Washington is not exempt from mental disarray. Maybe politicians have something to do with that? Why does no one seem to understand the principle that the side winning the largest number of seats gets to make the decisions? Or at least it can initiate debate on legislation. Bipartisan decisions happen over time. The party with the largest numbers makes the laws, rejecting or accepting amendments from the members in opposition with respect for minorities.

Then, when the opposition gains the largest number of seats, it changes or reviews laws as well as making new ones, also rejecting or accepting amendments from the members now in opposition.

Does President Obama not understand this principle of governance? Each side has its turn at governing, and from that comes compromise and bipartisan legislation. If something is terribly wrong it will fail or get overturned, or be adjudicated by the courts. It isn't possible to begin by being bipartisan when the majority of the American voters have clearly opted for the man who promised change, and not only for the way things are done politically, but to the taxes and laws which seem so unfair to so many.

That seems simple enough, until we realise that the legislative process is corrupted by economic greed, religious beliefs and personal aspirations to pander to proclamations of popularity for its own sake.

What happens however, when the numbers in the House and the Senate have opposing majorities, rendering a checkmate, or if there is a threat to passage of a supply bill? What happens when minority parties disrupt the balance of the Congress away from the changes that were stated as the objectives of the President's election campaign?

In an extraordinary swing against the President, we see the possibility of electors voting against Mr. Obama in the forthcoming 2012 elections not because he brought changes, but because he did not bring the changes that he and his party were believed to have promised, seemingly having broken covenant with the voters.

In an abandonment of logic, voters seem to be falling for the right wing media propaganda that he is destroying the nation, when in fact he has just been trying to balance the forces in Congress.

If he wishes to win a second term he will need to convince the American people that he has seen the light, move back to the centre from his apparent right wing position and stand on a deliberately progressive platform of saying exactly what he will change, and that he will do it with the aid of a Congress that supports the progressive Democrats.

"The legislative process is corrupted by
economic greed, religious beliefs and personal aspirations..."

The dilemma of the American people is clearly represented by the predicament of most LGBTQ individuals, who find themselves being tempted to vote against this President and these Democrats because they have not performed as promised or expected. Such voters seem to be encouraged to overlook that the extremists in the right wing will act against their best interests, even to the point of denying the American people their Constitutional protections.

The fact that religious conservatives in the right wing are encouraging the dismantling of the Constitution seems to be something that is not readily apparent to those who will be severely disadvantaged by the election of the alternatives to Mr. Obama.