Given the high-stakes ideological wars being fought in modern American politics, and with such intense levels of rhetoric, it’s interesting to consider what the Presidential election of 2012 might look like. Three scenarios present themselves: an extension of the current situation, a Republican Congress for the coming two years (or at least half of Congress), or a Democratic Congress

Assuming for the moment, no matter how improbable it is, that Congress stays in essentially the same form of seat-based gridlock, a curious situation arises: if Congressional Republicans, and the GOP at large, continue the path they’ve begun of obstruction, rollbacks, repeals, and “how far can we move to the right”, they will have essentially handed the Presidency to President Obama for his second Term of Office. Contrary to the belief of some, a policy of obstruction and extreme conservatism is not what the majority of America wishes to see, and it places the members of such a party in an unelectable position. More importantly, however, is the gift they give to their opponent: talking points.

Even if nothing else is passed in Congress over the next few years, President Obama will have healthcare reform, financial reform, the beginning of Iraqi withdrawal, an Afghanistan military timetable, and considerably more to speak about. Additionally, the GOP’s “Pledge to America” and well-documented behavior will give him the ability to point toward the actions of Republicans over the preceding four years, and ask America if this is truly what they want more of. It’s easy to see how, no matter who the Republican candidate is, this would be another landslide election for President Obama – no matter personal opinion of his time as President, he truly shines in a competitive campaign environment, and hard data will only strengthen his position.

Similarly, a Democratic Congress for another two years is merely an extension of the aforementioned situation, as it would both give Republicans the ability to continue to obstruct and generally fail to govern, without actually handing the government over to them. Therefore, the presentation of a Republican Congress is the only truly different scenario, as there would be a period of two years for President Obama to reference, using their failed control of Congress against them. It’s not difficult to imagine a Republican Congress refusing to cooperate with President Obama’s policy goals, just as it’s not difficult to imagine President Obama handily vetoing many of the pieces of legislation passed under such a Congress.

If, however, a Republican Congress manages to achieve some of their stated goals, such as a repeal of healthcare reforms, continued protection of Big Business, or a version of “fiscal conservatism” that results in an even greater national deficit, they will have once more walked into a corner. Two years of Republican policies, perhaps even ones that negatively effect the country, will be far easier set of talking points for a Democratic Presidential candidate to use on the campaign than the obstruction of a Congressional minority. When President Obama can point to the number of ludicrous bills he vetoed, or bills turned into law that were catastrophic in their results, the election will have again been won.

Perhaps Republicans will take some Congressional seats in November, although any form of majority seems unlikely, but this is not necessarily for the net negative – two years of Republican rule in Congress will see President Obama handily re-elected for a second Term of Office, and control of Congress passing once more to Democrats, in a far larger majority than in 2008. The only choice the GOP has to avoid this future is to stop, effective immediately, their continued push to the extreme right of both ideology and religion, but this is, realistically, all but impossible. Having built their existence and negligible growth on the fundamentalist ideology of the Tea Party and other similarly non-mainstream ideas, it would, at this point, be difficult to reverse course, or even slow the process.

Republicans, welcome to your future.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

What you are about to watch is the result of a nation where the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are revered by millions and continually reported as legitimate political and journalistic voices by the mass media. In a fast and furious stump speech for his bid to become Ohio Stark County Treasurer, the equivalent of a village bean counter, Davison flies into a bizarre political berserker rage, very much in the same vein as Beck or Limbaugh. His level of intelligence and preparation, and the resulting unintended humor, mirrors Palin in every way, and his self importance falls in line with the one and only Mr. O’Reilly.

With an audience of only a few dozen people, Davison does his best to imitate his GOP heroes and in the end, actually pulls it off. What we here at RELATIVITY OnLinecan’t figure out is how in the hell no one in the room didn’t burst out laughing.  Ah yes, Republicans certainly do have a way with words.

While the so-called “9/11 mosque”, which is actually instead an Islamic community center, has merits on both sides of the conversation regarding its existence, the conversation should not even be occurring, let alone at the level or with the furor that it currently holds. The simple answer to the situation is Freedom of Religion, via the Constitution’s 1^st Amendment, and that should be enough to silence any of the ludicrous commentary.

Except it apparently isn’t.

There are two core problems that are either confusing or enlarging the issue: a Republican interest in psychotic, election-cycle pandering, and fundamental misrepresentation. It would be slightly more understandable for people to be upset if a traditional-style mosque were opening at the very foot of the fallen towers, but the basic fact is that it’s a community center, no different than a Y with a different religious bent, that’s going inside of a former warehouse. There will be no spires, no minarets, no calls to prayer – none of the traditional items associated with Islamic properties. More importantly, however, is that it is not as close to the World Trade Center as is being portrayed: a few blocks, yes, but bringing such an institution to an area of strip clubs, sex toy shops, and other not-so-Christian-values enterprises is not quite the outrageous event that is being put forth.

The overwhelming problem, however, is one of Constitutionality. As a nation, the United States promotes religious freedom, and has since its founding – why should that be subject to geographical location, local proximity, or specific religions? A small group of fundamentalist individuals with extreme views of their religion has caused great trauma and havoc, but they do not represent their religion, as has been proclaimed so often since the events of September 11^th, 2001 by Muslims worldwide. True that there are those who believe their religion justifies such acts of terror and aggression, but this mindset of justified abhorrent behavior is not limited to Islam – are all Christians held accountable for the slaughtering seen during the Crusades? Are all Germans held responsible, presently, for the actions of a dictator half a century ago?

Islam is merely an extension of Christianity, and yet it’s demonized as some sort of inhuman belief system, especially by those of fervent Christian belief – there is deep irony in the persecution of Islams at the hand of Christians in the United States, because some of the very reasons for the founding of the United States having ties to religious freedom. The 1^st Amendment delivers freedom of religion to all religions and all individuals within the United States, not just selectively chosen groups of people or religious sects, and believing otherwise belies an arrogance and ignorance that is simply unacceptable.

The fact that this is even an issue points to the motives of those arguing against the building of the community center: elections. Republicans are currently in the process of pandering to their extreme base, made even more extreme by the laughable Tea Party, which involves, essentially, the subjugation of any and all cultures and people that aren’t white – Arizona’s racist attempt at immigration law, a scramble to modify or repeal the 14^th Amendment, the Manhattan Islamic center, and various other behaviors of the last year have proven this quite staunchly. After the elections in November, Republicans will have no interest in touching the 14^th Amendment, walking all over the 1^st Amendment, or participating in any other actions that will essentially frame their party as one of an anti-Constitution, anti-minority, pro-white ideology – at least until the next election cycle. This coming from the party that believes, wrongly and without evidence, that President Obama is “walking all over” the Constitution, even while they attempt to do so.

Build the Islamic community center in Manhattan – there’s no reason not to, unless those reasons include racism, religious discrimination, or political pandering.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Ridiculous court decisions financed by large corporations and industries seem to not only be increasing in number, but also be ever-more transparent in their intent – the recent block of President Obama’s moratorium on deep-water drilling by a Federal Court is no exception. Even more preposterous is the support of the State of Louisiana for the overturning of the drilling ban, despite the ongoing ecological disaster that very state is currently experiencing at the hands of an industry they so blatantly choose to support.

The problem of Deepwater Horizon surrounds a search for profits over safety and a complete disregard of federal regulation, not any sort of accident or event otherwise removing BP, Transocean, and Halliburton from positions of culpability – who’s to say that this is an isolated incident? Given the vicious, highly litigious, heavily lobbying industry that is Big Oil, it’s very easy to assume that such practices are being carried out on other oil operations in an effort to maximize their bottom line. This is the simple reason for the temporary ban on deep-water drilling, a mere six months, allowing regulators and other oversight bodies to ensure the proper construction and operation of facilities that have the potential for disaster of comparable, or greater, proportions.

It should come as no surprise, sadly, that the judge responsible for this despicable and utterly shortsighted ruling, Martin Feldman, was appointed by Ronald Reagan, the founder of the deregulatory and anti-government era, and has a personal investment in the success of American oil operations. This sort of personal investment is the very reason for recusal, and yet the illustrious Judge Feldman didn’t see fit to behave in the official and unbiased fashion for which he is employed – instead, he chose to continue the precedent of conservative judges claiming neutrality while making sure he, his friends, and his ideological interests benefit in the greatest possible way from his rulings from the bench. This type of behavior can be expected to continuously resurface as healthcare reform is challenged by irrational litigatorselection results don’t suit the conservative fringe.

Worringly, however, is the response of Louisiana: a state with an anti-Obama governor who vehemently opposed the very existence of the federal government suddenly demanded extreme government intervention, while also supporting the classic conservative financier known as Big Oil in their efforts against the President. Why would a state ravaged by the abhorrent behaviors of an oil company also litigate for those same companies to continue operating as if nothing happened? The state’s ecology is in dire peril and its people are losing their way of life, yet Big Oil must, apparently, be defended, lest a Republican-led state appear to be too pro-regulation, or in favor of anything President Obama does. This is hypocrisy at best, and extreme ignorance at worst.

The Gulf Spill should not be a politicized event, simply due to its nature and magnitude, but the GO(B)P are doing absolutely everything in their power to make it so. Extreme partisanship continues to be the political stance of Republicans, and it’s doing nothing but embarrass them on the national stage – perhaps they should continue, so that not only are Democrats in a better electoral position come November, but Eric Holder will have a number of opportunities to ensure that intelligence, in the end, rules the day.

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

From Kyle Brady…

Fundamentalism, of any kind, is dangerous by definition, especially in an era where moderation, or possibly even some sense of liberalism, is prevalent in the majority.  With this in mind, it is supremely worrisome that there appears to be a resurgence of fundamentalism, and its cousin extremism, in various parts of the world – especially America.

Religion and politics are the most widely fundamentalist-tinged issues, and they are growing both in number and in voice, on both sides of the metaphorical divide.  Within religion, Christianity is the popular fundamentalist vehicle of choice for America, especially in the South, and it is a highly exclusionary and militant nuisance – similarly, political fundamentalism comes in flavors both conservative (e.g. Tea Baggers) and liberals (e.g. Environmentalists).  Interestingly, fundamentalist Christians are often also fundamentalist conservatives.

It is this trend of fundamentalism in America that is beginning to cause major, and worrisome, problems, ranging from death threats to politicians to inhospitable and argumentative discussions to general disregard for the validity of outside opinion.  While there are fundamentalist liberals, they restrict themselves to peaceful protests and intellectual pursuits, whereas fundamentalist conservatives choose to behave as if the current instance of government is not only inherently evil, but also requiring of childish behavior.  Strict, unwavering interpretations of less-than-clear text, such as the Constitution, is always, unequivocally unacceptable.

Abortion, immigration, taxes, and, oddly enough, healthcare, seem to inflame the fundamentalist conservatives to such a degree that the political process becomes all but inept – a clear sign that the behavior so entrenched with this group of people is destructive at best.  Applied to other areas of interest, such as Islam or communism, this fundamentalist approach is scorned and jeered by the very same people, giving no credence whatsoever to their cries of intolerance and sociopolitical theft.

If America is to once again have a functioning, valuable government, these fundamentalists must be reined in, at all costs, lest assassinations, domestic terrorism, or other horrifying, but entirely foreseeable, events occur. 

The first step in this process involves a change of behavior on behalf of the conservatives/Republicans that insist on conspiracy theories and inciting violence – not with the Democrats, who have behaved rather admirably in the face of extreme partisanship.  Whether this begins with the removal of propaganda commentators such as Glenn Beck or adjusting the attitudes of Congressional members such as Mitch McConnell is entirely up to their party, but the GOP’s likely inaction will inevitably result in political and urban disaster.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.