We have to accept it, sort of

For all practical purposes Barack Obama has won the presidential election. I am now waiting for a great golden light of understanding and hope to wash over me from above.

Here it comes.

Never again will we hear from the radical left in our nation, or from other nations, that the USA is a nation of racists. That is a good thing, and may actually be helpful in international relations, as well as silencing a very irritating component of society. I celebrate with gusto the freedom of speech, but most of us can admit that forty years of vitriolic poison spewed by the radical minority can get tiresome.

Freedom of speech is an important right to me, and I respect that right for everyone. Now, with the "Fairness Doctrine" certain to be reinstated, the government will give us a right that we already have. In fact, the government will force that right on privately owned radio stations. That serves those small broadcasting corporations right for thinking that they could own anything.

Dang, that light faded.

Okay, here it comes again.

Brett Hume, of Fox News Channel is talking about how much he believes that Barack Obama is a great guy, and he is speaking from his contacts with him in his professional position as a news anchor. "The Barack Obama we have seen during this campaign," Brett Hume says, in so many words, "is not the same guy we came to think of as a liberal lawmaker."

And Carl Rove is saying that now is a time for America to celebrate, for the same reasons I gave in the second paragraph of this post. We have come a long way from the sixties, and that is definitely a good thing.

I actually feel some hope that President Obama can rise to the challenges the office he is about to take. He is going to have to deal with an empowered Democratic Congress with an agenda that even he--if he is the pragmatist he says he is--will have to reject.

He will face challenges from North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Ecuador, and Pakistan, among other countries, and the way in which he took the election should give us hope that he has the will and courage to stand up against them, and act in the best interests of his country.

I remain somewhat skeptical, because I am not against big government because of something I learned, but because it is part of my very nature. Barack Obama comes into office with the same hope and promise that his predecessor, George Bush, had--to change the way things were done in Washington. But he plans to do so through a bigger government. That, to me, is more of government as usual. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Any government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away."

I don't feel that the current economic crisis is the fault of any political party or person. My Libertarian Soul agrees with Alan Greenspan's sentiments, which imply that it is the lack of any sense of self-preservation by careless and criminal financial executives that caused the problem.

The laws of the land should be enforced. If someone trespasses on the inherent right of others to prosperity, that person should go to jail. Period.

I remain skeptical that the lessons of history can be ignored, and that more taxes and more union involvement will be good for the economy. In the past, such policies have resulted in the loss of jobs and a higher cost of living.

If Barack Obama can make his plan work to the betterment of our economy, then good, but it would only be a temporary fix at best. If it doesn't work, well, there is another Congressional election in two years.

We will survive, and we will overcome hardship. That has been proven by the American Spirit time and time again.

Looking Ahead

"Don't insult drunken sailors. They spend their own money, not yours and mine."--Steve Forbes, in response to the statement that Republicans have spent funds like drunken sailors.
I would like to see Steve Forbes run as the Libertarian candidate for President in 2008. It is time for him to do so, as people should be completely disenfranchised from the Demopublicans by then. I can't see the new majority in Congress as being any more competent than the old majority.
It doesn't seem to me as though the new Congressional majority faction is all that interested in "integrity, civility, and bi-partisanship." The new leadership designate has already indicated that indicated that it will not confirm John Bolton as Ambassedor to the United Nations. There is no reason for this except as a show to flex muscles, in retaliation against the former majority faction.
Success should not be a partisan issue. If the new majority is interested in leadership, it should be interested in what has been successful. Bolton has accomplished what no other official in his position has done before--get a viable UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon. He also got the Security Council to agree on sanctions of North Korea, which also persuaded China to put pressure on that country to abandon its nuclear arms program. We obviously need someone like Bolton in that position to get the UN to take action in the Darfur region of Sudan, to get aid to the refugees and prevent human rights atrocities up to and including genocide.
But it doesn't seem to be in the interest of the Democratic faction to meet with success, especially if it was initiated by the Republican faction. They will make the same mistakes that the Republicans did--to do nothing that could be construed as agreement with the opposition. The only successes we can anticipate from the new Congress would be a minimum wage hike, with safeguards for small businesses, and a guest worker program dealing with undocumented immigrants. Otherwise, politics-as-usual will continue to ignore reality, and Congress will be just as ineffective as it was under Republican leadership. The only practical new direction "we, the People," can take is to reject the Demopublicans completely.