Iraqis Point Purple Fingers at American Voter Apathy

While I am displeased with this week's election results in the House and Senate, I sense that the greatest setback for America was the continued apathy the vast majority of Americans have toward choosing their leaders. Election statistics indicate that only 40% of registered voters took the time to cast a ballot in an election held while our nation is waging a war in the Middle East, working to disrupt terrorist planning, and crossing its fingers that the strong economy continues its record growth. The direction of a war. That seems like a serious issue for voters, right? Eight state ballots included marriage amendments, and every state ballot contained local bond and tax initiatives that directly impact the pocketbook of each resident. Yet only 40% of registered voters bothered to voice their opinions through voting. Ironically, 100% of American citizens exercise their right to complain when their elected officials pass harmful legislation or make decisions the citizens oppose. Everyone has an opinion on the War on Terror and the Iraq Conflict, yet more energy and time are spent calling talk shows or writing emails to newspapers and news networks than the brief expenditure of time required for voting.


It is no wonder much of the world is skeptical of America's attempt to instill democratic principles in Iraq (or anywhere else), given that the Iraqi elections (remember the symbolic purple-tipped fingers?) were an inspiring display of courage and participation despite the threat of death each Iraqi voter faced simply for voting to establish an elected government. Americans in some voting precincts cry about "voter suppression" or "voter intimidation." While the validity of those claims is unconfirmed, one wonders how much these complainers really value their freedom to vote. Iraqis stood in long lines for hours while armed militants, snipers, and bombers lurked nearby. Car bombs and other improvised explosives detonated; snipers hit several innocent targets, and yet in the face of potential death 63% of these brave newcomers to democracy cast their ballots. When was the last time voters in American cities braved car bombs and snipers to vote for their leaders and tax/bond initiatives? That is real "voter intimidation" and "voter suppression," and if the Iraqis could overcome it, what is our excuse as a nation for failing to overcome the perceived "inconveniences" of going to the polls to vote? It is disturbing to consider the apathy and mindset of the 60% of registered voters who failed to participate in this election.


The Iraqis are wagging their purple index fingers at us and are wondering: in which country does democracy have greater need to be planted and nurtured, Iraq or America?

voter apathy purple fingers Iraq elections

"Permissives" Better Description than "Progressives" for Today's Liberals

Having listened to media coverage of the campaigns from a wide variety of sources, I could not help but notice that the MSM uses the term "secular progressive" with increasing frequency to describe social liberals, and unfortunately many conservative columnists and talk show hosts (like Hugh Hewitt, whom I enjoy) accept this term and use it themselves. I know that using the term "secular" draws a distinction between those who espouse a religious world view and those who would prefer an absence of religion, but it is the term "progressive" which rankles me most.

I refuse to accept the term "progressive" when talking about liberals, as it is a politically correct euphemism (almost as bad as "undocumented worker" used for illegal alien). Conservatives are called conservative because they seek to preserve, as closely as possible, the institutions and socio/economic policies established at the founding of our nation as provided by the constitution. True conservatives then could rightly be referred to as "constitutional conservationists." What is the opposite of a conservationist? One who destroys, demolishes, ruins, or abolishes.

Liberals engaged in environmental conservation take pride in preserving, maintaining, and protecting that which they value. When corporations or local governments determine that economic "progress" will be enhanced by encroaching on the environment through construction and land development, liberal "conservationists" seek injunctions and decry construction as being destructive and harmful. They certainly would never refer to the land developers as "progressive."

"Progress" then, is in the eye of the beholder.Since the definition of progress is entirely subjective depending on what one considers improvement, social liberals should not be allowed the moniker of "progressive." They should merely be called what they are, permissives. Everything unnatural and immoral is accepted, embraced, and declared a "right." Moral absolutes? The Permissives surrendered to moral relativism decades ago, and have now "progressed" to the point where they permit what is wrong to be called right. They lack the fortitude to declare any behavior as wrong (except religious expressions by Christians). No, "progressive" they are not. The "Secular Permissives will eventually permit the collapse of our defense (by "progressively" negotiating with terrorists), our economy (by "progressively" raising taxes, and our national morality (by "progressively" permitting a complete abandonment of religious values in public life).

campaigns conservatives liberals Secular Progressive Hugh Hewitt