It’s been a while since I wrote anything here. Partly, that is because life has simply been very busy recently, but mostly, it’s because I’ve been really trying to understand where we are after the November election.

I wrote earlier that the outcome mattered significantly in the short-term, but not so much in the long-term. When I wrote those words, I failed to adequately take into account the behavior of the Republicans in Congress. It appears that they simply do not have the courage of their convictions. The do not act as if they believe that they are right. Their actions are very tentative and, when confronted, they appear to be confused about their core beliefs. They are not willing to go out on a limb to support the President.

Of course, it’s hard to blame them. The President is willing to stand alone, but his beliefs seem to be getting further and further from the limited government philosophy that has been the historic hallmark of the Republican Party. George Bush appears to believe, like the Democrats, that the purpose of government is to use its muscle to force certain behaviors that those in charge have arbitrarily decided are in the best interest of the most powerful.

Specifically, I’m referring to Bush’s attitude that the border should be open enough to allow unfettered access to the resources of the United States by, at least, the lower class of Mexico. He uses arguments about how Illegal Aliens do work that, without them, would go undone or at least cost more. But that is precisely what free enterprise means. The market decides what a good or service is worth; not the government. Bush is trying to redistribute income from the middle class to businesses by allowing businesses to bypass the expense of medical plans and social security payments. Since these workers then simply get free medical care at taxpayer expense, all he has done is change who pays the bill.

This is extremely dishonest and most Republican Congressmen realize that supporting it will cost them their jobs at the next election. They know that supporting this president may hurt them at the poles.

Bush’s refusal to intervene in the horrible travesty of justice perpetrated on 2 border patrol agents who are going to prison for simply doing their job is evidence that he either hasn’t the courage to do the right thing or philosophically he believes that the appropriate winner in this conflict should be whomever comes closest to accomplishing his political goals.

You know, this sure sounds like I’m describing a Democrat doesn’t it? Bush looked good when the only issue was the war, but we may now lose the war because his other issues are unsupportable by people of high moral character.

The election is over. The result was, well, interesting. In some ways I’m disappointed, but in other ways, I’m pleased. The Democrats clearly are in over their heads with respect to managing the cultural crisis and, as a result, that problem is going to get worse before it gets better. But when you look at the election from an anthropological / psychological perspective, the outlook is much less dismal.

Let’s look at the roles played by both parties. First the Democrats:

• Their goals are based on ideology rather than a logical plan to achieve specific outcomes.
• They continue to work, year after year, to achieve long range goals.
• They care more about how people feel than such esoteric concepts as justice. This includes Terrorists. They think the only problem with Terrorists is that we made them mad.
• In short, their choices are based on emotion rather than logic and facts.

The Republicans, on the other hand:

• Are only concerned about the last election and the next election
• Are afraid to actually do anything because they want people to like them.
• When they are motivated (which isn’t very often), they do look at facts and try to have at least a limited, short-term understanding of cause and effect.
• Don’t know how to use political power consistently

For this particular election, we can add the following:

• Democrats still think they were cheated in the 2000 election and as a result, they hate everything about George Bush.
• This hatred blinds them to many other significant issues.
• George Bush’s ideology is not classic conservatism. He seems to believe that big government is usually part of the solution rather than the problem.
• George Bush and other non-conservative Republicans think illegal aliens are a good mechanism for shifting the financial burden of unskilled labor from business to individual taxpayers and the resulting benefit to business outweighs all other factors.
• Republicans won’t try anything until they think it will succeed. They waste political opportunity and then have few accomplishments to show.

Then, if we look at the “undecided” voters themselves, we find:

• They are fed up with the status quo. They want any change.
• All they ever see in the news is negative reports. The media will not report the good things that happen in Iraq or show Bush or other Republicans in a good light. (The media actually won the election and the Democrats rode to victory on the media’s coattails.)
• They are fed up with the Republican’s failure to carry through on their promises.
• Since most voters do not devote a great deal of time and effort to studying politics, they make choices based on little depth of understanding.

While these lists are incomplete, they do shed some light on what we have to work with. Pretty dismal isn’t it? Based on this analysis of the current situation, the fact that this election was so close in so many races is pretty remarkable.

But every “old media” news report pushes more people toward the inevitable conclusion that they are being manipulated. Soldiers come back from Iraq and report that what’s really happening in the war is dramatically better than what is being reported. Some Republican politicians are beginning to understand that they must walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. And, of course, there is the big one; another attack or two like 9/11 and it will be obvious that Democratic action is as bankrupt as their rhetoric.

The average voter has a short memory and doesn’t handle intellectual depth very well, but they usually make good choices when they realize what’s at stake. It would have been better to have avoided this step, but make no mistake about it, the proverbial two-by-four is on its way and a lot of people will have sore heads.

If John Kerry’s screw ups weren’t so funny, they’d be pitiful. No … wait. If they weren’t so pitiful, they’d be funny. Well, anyway, he’s done it again. In a fit of carelessness, he let slip how he really feels about the military – as if there was any mystery to that.

While stumping for California gubernatorial candidate, Phil Angelides at Pasadena City College, Kerry said, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Of course, there are a lot of people pretty unhappy with such a statement and there are a lot of people who think it’s great for Kerry to have told it like it is. (including Kerry himself) And there’s speculation that he inadvertently threw next week’s election to the Republicans. But, you know what, this didn’t change very many opinions about Kerry or the Democrats. The people who liked him last week, still like him and the people who didn’t like him last week, still don’t like him.

His comments have diverted attention away from whatever it was that we were talking about before to watching his antics as he tries to blame Bush for his own honesty. It is fun to watch, but is this going to have a big impact on the election … or anything else for that matter? Not likely.

Still, we should be thankful to Kerry for giving us something new and unimportant to focus on for a while. We could use a breath of fresh air before the tumult of next week.

In most elections, there is a whole slate of issues. Usually, there are a few that are significantly more important to most people than the others. The November 2006 midterm is like many recent elections in that there is one huge issue that pales in comparison to most others, but in at one very important way, it’s not that critical.

Of course, that one issue is the War on Terror. One side believes that it is essential that the present path continue while the other side is against anything that President Bush is for. Arguing the merits of either side is fodder for another time. My point here is that, to both sides, it seems pretty important. And it is - up to a point. Which side gets its way, will have a great deal of impact on how the war is executed, whether brave soldiers died in vein and on how the terrorists conduct their campaign.

Al-Qaeda has stated that one of their goals is to kill as many Americans as possible. They have already demonstrated that they are willing to work consistently over many years in order to achieve their goals. We have put a significant dent their operations, but we have not eliminated the threat. This means that unless we stop them, they will be back, and likely in a big way; So, it’s like the salesman said, “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” In one sense, this election is only about whether we pay now or later.

As difficult as it is to understand the Democratic attitude of appeasement, it is completely unimaginable that a critical mass of voters would continue to hold that attitude after another 10,000 or more civilians are killed. So the War on Terror will be fought to its conclusion because the only other choice is annihilation. It may be interrupted, and as a result, more people may die, but it will be fought.

This election is not about whether we fight. It is only about when we fight and to what extent we take advantage of the existing momentum.

Bert Bruner

According to one of today’s Drudge Report headlines, we should be shocked that Barron’s Magazine would suggest the possibility that the Republicans could hold on to a majority of both houses. Two weeks ago, it was a forgone conclusion that the Democrats were in for a real shellacking.

The media seems to think that a critical mass of voters have such short memories that by manipulating the way this weeks news is reported, they can control the outcome of an election. It makes sense for them to feel that way. Since the late 60’s their philosophy has been gradually morphing from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “I’m going to change the world.” They’ve now progressed so far down that path that they’ve even fooled themselves into believing that what they report is actually what happened.

And then there’re the pollsters who think that, even when they don’t have a clue what 100 million voters are thinking, they can anticipate which multiple choice questions when ask to .00001% of those people will the illuminate the thoughts of all of them. And of course nobody has ever designed poll questions to provide the conclusion that the guy paying for the poll wants. (And who can’t guess what the liberal media wants?)

Oh and let’s not forget the stories (like Mark Foley) that just weren’t important a year ago, but must be published right before an election. And of course, most Democrats, who have never been afraid to believe whatever “feels right”, are likely to accept whatever favorable rumor gets started. Then last, but not least, are the Republicans who still think that their being in charge is too good to be true and are willing to concede at the drop of a hat.

Put all this together and what do you have? Well, whatever it is, it bears no resemblance to a reliable prediction of the outcome of the election.

So what’s left? Do what you were probably planning to do anyway. Think it through and cast your ballot based on your understanding of what’s best for the country, your family and yourself. Then wait for the results.

In politics, just as in our personal lives, fundamental change only occurs when that change is less painful than the status quo. We've seen this principle in action in the last two presidential elections. Bill Clinton's behavior in office elicited a visceral feeling about right and wrong in many people. A lot of Republicans got real serious about change. Democrats had an emotional response too, but it wasn't felt until they actually lost the 2000 election and suddenly realized that the status quo was now Republican power.

The Democrats are very motivated because they don't like the status quo of somebody else in charge, but 9/11 gave the Republicans yet another painful status quo; that of the United State's vulnerability to terrorism. Both parties are motivated but since Bill Clinton disgusted even some Democrats, the party has been in such disarray that they ceded control to a lunatic fringe that may have done irreparable damage. They can hold on for a while, but if they don't win some major elections fairly soon, their philosophical bankruptcy may become a financial bankruptcy.

What would happen if the Democrats really succeed in self-destruction? Then our 2 party system would have only 1 party. Dynamic political systems can not tolerate such a vacuum. Another party would suddenly be thrust into the limelight. Of all the “other” parties out there, the Libertarian Party may be the one best positioned to jump into fray. In such a case, the national debate would then be about the difference in Republican philosophy and Libertarian philosophy. We would actually have choices about size of government, amount of freedom, commitment to ideas put forth in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Whether you like everything the Libertarians stand for or not, such a debate would help Republicans find their philosophical base again.

This kind of change is good. In fact, this is so good, that we should be working hard to help it come about. Today, in 2006, what is the best way to help the Democrats destroy themselves? Is it to vote Democratic because we are unhappy with the abysmal job the Republicans have done on things like immigration? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

At this moment in time, a stronger Republican Party is equivalent to a weaker Democratic Party.

Let’s look at the big picture. This election matters, but where the country goes long term and the choice that we have to make in future elections may be much more important.