Gay Patriot Header Image

Why does American suddenly become “ungovernable” when Democrats are in power?

In the wake of Evan Bayh’s announcement this past week of his decision not to seek reelection to the Quayle seat in the U.S. Senate, there has been much hand-wringing in the mainstream media about how “ungovernable” America has become. The president, you see, can’t get his agenda through Congress despite super-duper majorities in both Houses.  The opposing party just won’t cooperate.

Well, just about four years ago, another president couldn’t get his agenda through Congress–and we didn’t see similar hand-wringing in the media. Those today calling the filibuster an affront to democracy (or some such) were once calling it an indispensable tool to protect the Constitution (or some such).

One of my favorite blogresses, Jennifer Rubin, has been all over this. On Wednesday, she wrote:

. . . liberals can’t accept the underlying message — that Obama and the Democratic leadership have failed to govern and are chasing moderates out of the party. So the battle is on to make this about the “system” or “partisanship” — floating and amorphous defects untraceable to Obama or any particular Democratic leader.

Can’t these guys just admit defeat?

Yesterday, Rubin built on this notion:

Democrats have two excuses for what has gone so terribly wrong in the last year. The first is the “America is ungovernable” meme. Well, it has been impossible to govern from the Left, certainly. But we have yet to see evidence that a Centrist agenda, fiscal restraint, and pro-growth policies don’t work or can’t pass. Maybe Obama-Reid-Pelosi aren’t capable of formulating or passing broadly popular proposals, but that is different from claiming that there is something broken in our constitutional system or political culture.

America is not ungovernable; Americans just don’t want to be governed from the left.

UPDATE:  Seems Rubin isn’t the only one offering this hypothesis.  Via Instapundit, we get this from George Will, “[W]ith metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments have one thing in common: The Left is having trouble enacting its agenda.”

Why Doesn’t the Gay Community Embrace the Tea Party Movement?

One of the oldest arguments regarding homosexuality is whether or not we’re “born with it“. As a rule, I don’t wade into that discussion. But what has always intrigued me is a corollary I’ve postulated, Are gay men and lesbians predisposed to being Leftists? Almost more prevelant than the cliche that we’re all a bunch of effeminate (or butch, for you gals) promiscuous drug addicts who love dance music is the conventional wisdom that we’re all Leftists.

But something struck me just now while watching this video, which puts the lie to the Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo narrative that the Tea Party movement is populated by nothing more than an assortment of your average mouth-breathing red-neck racists angry simply that a black man would ever attain our Nation’s highest office. (This video clip features a parade of black folks not only participating in, but speaking at and leading various Tea Party events.)

That, in addition to Bruce’s experiences at and reflections on the CPAC event in DC this past week got me to thinking: Why hasn’t the gay community embraced the Tea Party movement?

The long-and-short of the Tea Party thesis is simply smaller government, lower taxes, and greater liberty and freedom. (Or, if you’re a detractor, that’s the insincere veneer painted on the group to hide the actual motives described by the MSNBC crowd noted above–more on that in a minute.)

Given that we demographically are more likely to have more disposable income and own our own businesses, it’s understandable that the gay community should be first in line to pull the lever for tax-cutting, regulation-reducing, and business-encouraging political candidates. Insofar as the gay Left in America has sold the gay and lesbian community’s interests out for the sake of electing socialists and statists and, simply, Democrats, who are all opposed to the very types of market-friendly policies that would benefit us, we surely should be (if we’re as smart as we like to say we are) in the market for better representation.