An Election, or a Revolution?

Was the 2008 U.S. election truly and election, or was it more specifically a cultural

revolution? I think it was a cultural revolution comparable to the one occurring in Iran today.

Ponder this; in a post 9/11 era what are the likelihood that the American mind was ready to elect a president name Barak Hussein Obama; and not just the name, but the questions surrounding

his Islamic orientation( a Muslim father; growing up Indonesia, a Muslim-oriented country), and, even questions concerning the truth of his American citizenship. If you still believe our was simply an election, in the traditional American way, then I've got a bridge located along the east coast that I would like to sell you.

What I believed actually occurred in November of 2008 was forensic evidence of a fault line that has developed, right here in this the greatest country on God's earth. It's not geological, as say the San Andreas fault line that threatens California, but yet a fault line nevertheless, and one that carries essentially a similar risk, not just for California, but for the whole nation. One side of the fault line is occupied by the traditional role the white American male has played in this country. The opposite side of the fault line is occupied by the emerging role of the white American female [a role I loosely refer to as being the second advent of the woman-the role of Eve being the first]. Along with the white American female is assembled an assorted coalition of others; some young white American males who think they too have reasons to be disenchanted. And, of course the various ethnic and racial minorities who see in Obama their ensign, their Moses, if you would, who would lead them out of their perceived socioeconomic dis-enfranchisement.

If my characterization is indeed correct, it would behoove the Republicans to rethink their strategy for the next election. They will need to fine-tuned their talking points. I suggest that the party revisit its 1994 strategty as spelled out in the Contract With America. In it specificy reasons were put forth as to why the Republican Party's plan for America was superior to that of the opposition. The usual and customary rhetoric is not sufficiently productive and should be abandoned. The party should state and defend it's traditional values, plans and strategies for improving the lives of Americans. It should say so in a language and manner with the least ambigiuity.
When we put our defense of moral issues, we should defend those moral issues on the basis, not so much that they are religious values, but present then on the basis of their value they offer Americans in the present, and in the generational future. If these arguments can't be made, then the party should leave such discussions to churches to put forth and defend.

Les W