On matters of great importance, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal usually gets it right. Their interpretation of the election results absolutely nails it.
George Bush has no responsibility to placate the people who voted against him. He has no responsibility to "move to the center" in the interest of "healing a divided nation." People who say such things are inevitably people on the losing side who are trying to salvage some small victory in their loss. They're entitled to respect and consideration, but not much more. I don't expect them to stay silent when they don't get their way. But neither do I expect their complaining to have much of an effect for the next four years.
When liberals said that Bush's loss of the popular vote in 2000 should mean a less conservative policy approach, they had a legitimate point. But now it must work the other way. Now, he has been given a mandate… a solid electoral win and a decisive popular vote margin. Now he has a responsibility to the majority who elected him, much more so than to the minority who desperately wanted him gone. Logic dictates that it is the MINORITY that bears the greater responsibility to compromise.
Now, we must see a continuation of the administration's policy on terrorism… hopefully with better results. Now, we must see a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now, we must see an end to the Democrats' obstruction of qualified conservative judges. Now, we must see a reform of Social Security. And so much more. It's what the people voted for.
To the victors go the spoils. Gimme.
Occasionally coherent political commentary, and a guide to all the best conservative writing that I have time to read.
1 comments:
Ok Greg,
First of all I can't beleive I have to register with Blogger in order to post a comment to your blog. But I was thinking about doing this anyway so maybe now I will actually do it.
Second, I can't beleive you are actually saying that Bush has not responsibility to placate the people who didn't vote for him. He is the President of the United States of America, not just the part who voted for him. He has just as much a repsonsibility (maybe even more) to those who didn't vote for him than for those that did. Here's why. "One nation under God" soudn vaguely familiar. Does that mean he needs to rethink his position on fetal stem cell research or gay marriage? No, not really. But he is obligated to listen to dissenting viewpoints and consider the thoughts of people who disagree with him. ALL, not some, ALL the great advances in this society came from either third party issues that became part of the mainstream or from compromise among dissenting views. The Electoral college? Compromise. Balanced Budget amendment? Third Party issue (remember Perot and his charts) Abolition of slavery? Third party issue. Please rethink your stance on this.
Third, Federal Marriage Amendment? By that I suppose you mean saying that marriage can only be between and man and a woman. Well there you seem to be with the majority. But again, the majority of the weren't against slavery. The majority of the people were against women's suffrage. The majority is not always right on thing and they clearly aren't this one either. Let me quote again, "We hold the truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal" Hmmm unless of course that man as a consenting adult want to devote his life to another man who is also a consenting adult. Here's the deal. Marriage is, always has beenm and should always remain a religious issue. The government shouldn't be involved in the issue at all. That's right you heard me. No more marriage certificates. No more blood tests. Leave it up to the churches. If your church doesn't want to sanction gay marriage, that's fine but the government doesn't shouldn't have any say in the matter. I say the government gets out of the sanctioning of marriage all together.
Post a Comment