Hipsters Ain’t Shit but Coke and Kicks: Elected for all the wrong reasons

I’m going to say this one time, and one time only. I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. I don’t like partisan politics, as I have tried to make clear in my column.

I’m not at all upset that Obama was elected president. Had McCain been elected, I’d feel exactly the same way. Indifferent, you could say. Why am I indifferent? This election was not decided based on issues. It was not decided based on experience. This election was decided because America wants to rekindle their hope that our country is different from others, that our country is the country of freedom and revolution. Americans wanted to be reassured that in America, anything can happen. Somehow, the distraction of ideological reassurance appeared to be the solution to our country’s problem to many people, and this belief led to millions of misguided votes.

People didn’t vote for Obama because of his policies, and if anyone tells you they did, they obviously didn’t fully understand the policies that he has proposed. For example, he is not ending the war in the Middle East, which nearly all of his supporters whom I’ve spoke with think. There are two battles in the Middle East: one in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. While Obama wishes to pull troops from Iraq, so does President Bush. And, surprisingly, people are missing out on one huge detail: Obama wants to put more troops into Afghanistan. Redistributing troops is not ending the war, and many people have been under the disillusion that somehow, the war in the Middle East will magically end now that Obama will be in office. This is not true. If anything, it may continue for longer. Obama has little experience when it comes to war and international relationships. If anyone has been keeping up with the news, Russia just lined up missiles and has stated that they are going to electronically jam the U.S. missile shield that is based in East Europe. The Russian president has actually proclaimed that he is going to deploy short-range missiles between Poland and Lithuania; so much for Obama’s cries of peace. Obama may be a great speaker, but when it comes to speaking with President Medvedev, what experience does he have that qualifies him to be part of such a vital discussion? While votes were cast for a peacemaker, they elected a newcomer into the international sphere touting a diversion-of-troops policy.

People also operate under the illusion that, somehow, the Democratic Party has the instant solution to the economic recession. There is no instant solution, nor have they proposed an especially amazing one. Excessive taxing of the oil industry is not a solution; it is an attack on the industry itself. If anything, this will raise gas prices significantly. The relief plan he proposes is going to cost a lot of money, which inevitably needs to be borrowed. Money doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, and this relief plan is going to specifically target state jobs, not private ones. What happens to people who have jobs in private industries, which were hit hard by the stock market collapse? He also wants to reward companies that employ Americans rather than workers overseas; sadly, most manufacturing companies DO employ workers from overseas because the labor is significantly cheaper. They can’t just suddenly move their factories, so this will not create a significant number of jobs. If those companies lose their tax breaks, they will lose profit and will definitely not be able to sustain a conversion to American labor. They aren’t even proposing heavier regulation on the mortgage market. They simply believe they can solve the problem by fighting fraud. Why? Because the Democratic Party has historically supported the idea that all people should be able to take out loans, and somehow the Democratic Party plans on preventing another crisis without addressing the real problem. Some of these policies would work in market socialism, where the private and federal businesses compete, but I wasn’t aware that we were living in China. While votes were cast to rescue the American economy, the people have elected leaders who support socialistic economic policies.

Voters were further swayed by the idea that somehow removing the Republican Party was the solution, because the Republican Party was the problem. It is very easy to lay blame on those who are in charge, even when it’s not entirely their fault. The departure of the Republican Party from the White House is not a solution; the Republicans are not the problem. While it is easy to see that Bush administration policies have been the catalyst for many of America’s current problems, these problems will not simply leave because the catalyst is gone. The Democratic Party needs to be capable of fixing the problems, and their mere existence as “non-Republicans” does not make them suited for the difficult job they face. People need to be very careful when they begin to generalize blame among entire groups of people, based on the idea that every member of that group identifies with the ideology that led to the problem. It was not Republican ideology, but the agenda of the Bush administration which caused many of our problems. Again, while votes were cast for a revolution against conservative politics, a new administration with a new agenda simply replaced that which was destined to leave regardless.

America did not vote for Obama on Nov. 4. America voted for an incarnation of liberal ideology, an anthem of hope for a scared nation. However, the country does not need a Democratic deity to pull itself out of the economic crisis; it needs strong policies and dedication to reworking the American economic policy. Barack Obama is a politician just like any other. He is not a superhero. If you voted for Obama because you truly believe his policies will save this country, I respect that. If you voted for Obama because you believe that his gentle words and song of change will save us, I hope you learn your lesson while you are still young.