Shifting Political Winds
January 20, 2010
Since the Roe
v. Wade decision of the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, the
political left, right, and center of American politics has divided most
distinctly around the issue of abortion. In that decision, the Court held that a
woman may abort an unwanted pregnancy, for any reason, up until "the point at
which the fetus becomes viable.” The Court defined "viability” as the point at
which the fetus has the potential "to live outside the mother's womb, albeit
with artificial aid."
In addition,
the court ruled that, after the point of viability, abortion must be available
when needed to protect a woman’s life or health… a ruling that has lead to the
horrific procedure known as "partial birth abortion,” in which a full term fetus
is destroyed while exiting the birth canal.
The Roe v.
Wade decision was based on the majority’s belief that a constitutional "right to
privacy” existed under the "due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In
disallowing
state and
federal restrictions on
abortion, the Roe v. Wade decision
divided the American people along strict party lines, with Democrats leaning
heavily toward a woman’s right to choose and Republicans, with few exceptions,
maintaining a strong position against abortion, even in the first trimester.
Abortion has been such a divisive issue that many millions of Americans,
particularly those described as moderates or independents, have often made their
voting booth decisions based on the abortion issue… some gravitating toward
Democrats, based on their belief in a woman’s right to choose, and others toward
Republicans, based on their strong belief that life begins at conception and
that abortion is the taking of a human life.
The
divisiveness of the issue has been such that, in a nation that is clearly a
center-right nation, the abortion issue has prevented either of the two major
parties from becoming the clear majority because of the number of independents
who refused to buy into a strict party line on the abortion issue and to the
"litmus” tests that the parties often imposed on potential candidates.
But all of
that is about to change… in a big way. While public opinion on the abortion
issue moves inexorably in the pro-life direction... even Norma L. McCorvey, the
principal plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, has come out in opposition to abortion... a
massive overnight shift to the pro-life position is not likely. Nevertheless,
for many millions it will no longer be the decisive issue it has been because a
much larger, much more important issue now exists. That issue is Barack Obama,
his policies, and his leadership… or lack thereof.
For example,
in 2008, independents gave Obama a three percent overall margin of victory in
Virginia and a seven percent margin in New Jersey. However, in Virginia’s 2009
gubernatorial election independents favored Republican Attorney General Bob
McDonnell by 21 points over Democrat State Senator Creigh Deeds. While in the
New Jersey, where 46 percent of voters claim to be independents, the independent
vote swung even more heavily toward the Republican gubernatorial candidate. They
favored Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine by a
margin of 60% to 30%.
It is
evidence that, while a great many independents thought it would be "cool” to
elect a "light-skinned” African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he
wanted one”… as Senator Harry Reid describes Obama… a strong sense of "buyers
remorse” is setting in. Now that they’ve given him the keys to the White House
and to Air Force One, independents are beginning to pay attention to what he’s
doing and they’re not happy with what they see.
Even the most
economically illiterate can understand that, whatever it might take to reverse a
strong downward spiral in the economy, Obama is doing precisely the opposite of
what needs to be done. They understand that the vast number of jobs created in
our economy are created by small business. Yet, Obama and congressional
Democrats appear intent upon preventing the startup of new businesses and the
systematic destruction of those that already exist.
While labor
costs are among the leading factors in deciding whether to start a new business
or to expand an existing one, Obama and congressional Democrats have increased
the minimum wage for unskilled and entry level workers by a whopping forty
percent in just two years. Economists estimate that, for each ten percent
increase in the minimum wage, the number of jobs available for unskilled and
entry-level workers is reduced by four to five percent. In other words, in the
absence of the Democrats’ 40 percent increase in the minimum wage, we would
likely see 20 percent more unskilled and entry level jobs available.
Another major
factor in the economics of job creation is energy costs. Yet, it is estimated
that Obama’s cap-and-trade legislation would increase annual energy costs…
heating, cooling, lighting, transportation, etc… for the average American family
by $3,000. Energy costs for small business, especially in the manufacturing
sector, would increase by an even larger margin.
A third major
factor in job creation is the cost of employee benefits, especially healthcare
costs. The Obamacare proposals now before Congress will impose a heavy new
burden on business. Those businesses that struggle to keep their heads above
water… unable to afford healthcare as part of their benefit package… will find
themselves paying a penalty equivalent to eight or ten percent of their gross
payroll. Many companies in that category will simply lay off workers or close
their doors.
In promoting
healthcare reform, Obama has promised the impossible and has lost all
credibility in the process. He has said that he wants to insure up to 40 million
who are not now insured... including at least 12 million illegal aliens... while
reducing costs and improving the quality and accessibility of care for
everyone... an unachievable goal on its face.
Obama
promised not to raise taxes... at least not on healthcare plans owned by union
members... to pay for this largest of all boondoggles. Instead, he plans to pay
for it all by cutting $400-500 billion from Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements
and by squeezing out another $400 billion by eliminating waste and fraud. If he
and his people know where to find that $400 billion in waste and fraud, why
haven’t they already moved to recover it? Nor has he said anything about
eliminating nuisance medical malpractice suits that drain hundreds of millions
of dollars from our healthcare system. So long as the trial lawyers own the
Democrat Party that will not happen.
In the field
of foreign affairs, Obama has achieved what few ever thought possible. In office
for only twelve months, he has succeeded in alienating most, if not all, of our
European allies. He has insulted German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French
President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and he has
disappointed the Poles and the Czecks by announcing a reversal of the Bush
Administration’s decision to install a ballistic missile shield over their
territory. His handling of the matter was so ham-handed that the decision was
announced on September 17, the 70th anniversary of the day that the Soviets
invaded Poland. The date was of no particular significance to the boy president
and his thuggish handlers, given their naivete and their sheer
incompetence, but it certainly was not lost on the Poles or the Russians.
In the Middle
East, Obama has soured a sixty-two year relationship between the United States
and Israel. In China, the man who leads the most secretive and corrupt
administration in U.S. history lectured the Chinese on openness and
transparency. While in Saudi Arabia and Japan the boy president stooped to kiss
the rings of the King and the Emperor, respectively. Meanwhile, south of our own
border, he continues to support Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Daniel Ortega in
their attempt to force pro-democracy Honduras to reinstate its deposed communist
leader, Manuel Zelaya.
One would be
hard pressed to point to a single Obama action or decision that has been or will
be of benefit to our country. If history honors him for any single
accomplishment it will be the unintended consequence of his leadership… the
total discrediting of liberalism and its primary repository, the Democratic
Party.
Obama’s first
year in office has given the American electorate something that liberals and
Democrats rarely permit... a clear, unobstructed look at what
liberalism/socialism are all about. Hence, after just one year of
Obama-Pelosi-Reid leadership, polls show that some 41% of voting-age Americans
now describe themselves as conservative, while only 20% describe themselves as
liberal.
It required no particular prescience to predict, in January 2009, that Obama’s
leftist ideology, his lack of experience, and his total lack of accomplishment
would provide a very brief presidential "honeymoon.” So it is no mystery that
if, as the polls now suggest, Republican State Senator Scott Brown defeats
Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley in tomorrow’s special U.S. Senate
election in Massachusetts, it will mark a clear end to the Obama era... a day
short of one full year in office. And as we look forward to the 2010 midterm
elections... in the wake of devastating election results in Virginia, New
Jersey, and Massachusetts... the shifting political winds created by the Obama
brand of "hope” and "change” promise to evolve into a political tsunami that
will wash many Democrat lawmakers out of office.