Understanding the Election in 2012

The following is an attempt to describe actual events (with

some name changes) as fiction in hopes the real world
around the reader takes on more meaning. It was written
after the 2012 elections for my own enjoyment. We must
understand our past to discern what may be in our future.
The actions described below set the stage for the 2014
elections. After the 2014 elections the last paragraph of
this article takes on more importance for the 2016
elections
and
should
lead
everyone
into
deep
contemplation and realize that all elections really do have
consequences and every vote or no vote does count:
Lets write a supposedly fictional novel using the lens of an old
African American male about actual real life events around the
2012 elections, regarding a supposedly debunked theory that
assumes there is a vast right wing conspiracy. Well make one of
our main characters a few highly financially endowed individuals
who share strong conservative ideologies and concerns for
government regulations of their businesses. The other character
is a conservative political party facing demographic changes that
in some ways conflict with their ideology but this party still wants
to retain power. Assume as a base for this conspiracy they
create conservative media outlets that deliver the party line
continuously to followers who they keep agitated, angry and
ready to vote, while their opposition stays home. The
mainstream media is biased against us is their mantra.
They also create a base of well-funded organizations/foundations
that fly under the radar for years which promote their ideology.
One of the organizations for decades creates laws like supposed
tort reform that primarily favor businesses. These laws are
created in concert with law makers and the same businesses they
regulate. Over this same time period they quietly replicate these
laws across states like Texas. These state laws are often passed as
if they originated locally, using phrases like doing the will of the
people or states rights. This group only comes to the attention
of the general public in a large way when laws are replicated
which some minorities feel suppress their right to vote. They also
replicate a certain ground your stand law which some minorities

feel creates personal tragedy for a Florida African American young

man. Their goal is to quietly reshape America into their
conservative image.
These other foundations support the concept of smaller federal
government, more power to the states, anti-public education,
anti-union, anti-immigrant, anti-tax increases and anti-safety nets
in government to name a few. These individual foundations
espouse separate ideas that seem innocent enough when taken
individually. But what the public may not realize is that individuals
supporting these groups when elected may try to implement most
of their separate ideas. From the federal government they ask for
no intrusion on personal freedoms but locally the collective
agenda implemented sometimes seems intrusive when concerted
laws
are
implemented
involving
trans-vaginal
probes,
personhood, voter id, womens reproductive rights, etc. Economic
austerity is used to justify cuts to programs they dont favor.
So you thought you bought into one set of ideas and later find you
have bought a package of ideas that in some cases conflict with
your own interests. Suddenly its discovered that you are
actually in that 47 percent of Americans being derided. And this
package is implemented legislatively in a way that makes it hard
to revoke as shown in an example below. They adopt a divide and
conquer strategy to make some of the electorate one issue
voters.
Suppose around the 2010 elections this party quietly funds an
Operation Red Map to take control of state houses around the
nation in coordination with the national census and gerrymander
their home districts. They now have state control for at least the
next ten years and dont have to worry about national public
perception of their actions. Even if they lose favor by blocking
legislation or creating government shutdowns nationally, their
loyal gerrymandered home districts will protect them from
repercussions but the reputation of their unprotected opponents
will suffer also. There is now little reason to change their nocompromise strategy.
In this fiction a Hispanic president is elected and on the day of his
inauguration this conservative party holds a dinner and plan to
block his every move. A few of the leaders of this party even say
publicly that their number one priority is to deny this president a

second term. They begin to implement a strategy of blocking his

agenda, jobs program, infrastructure improvement projects and
judicial appointments and use their media outlets to dismiss his
accomplishments. What if they study how this president was
elected and who supported him and create state laws to limit that
demographic from participating in the voting process?
Unprecedented obstruction is their goal while at the same time
they publicly question why the system does not work.
Suppose consistently to their followers they attack this
presidents American birthright, say this president doesnt
understand America like they do and attack his Attorney General
to distract him from fighting what the Attorney General
determines to be voter suppression. They use their political power
to intermingle supposed scandal hearings with normal business
of government that even go so far as, for the first time in history,
finding the Attorney General in contempt of Congress. They begin
to lay a foundation of distrust for federal government agencies,
this president and his administration, trust them.
What if the mantra this party enforced for this president is no new
revenue for the federal government which effectively robs the
government of needed resources that prior presidents had at their
disposal? What if they even blocked new federal resources to the
states that would have supported hiring teachers, firemen, etc.
which were previously used to help the economy and bolster
previous presidential administrations? Yet he still overcomes and
is successful, but this party continues stoking the negative image
of him they have created among their followers.
This party says shrink the federal government small enough to
drown it in a bath tub. Give that power to the states. But what
some of us know from our own history is that there have been
times when a strong federal government has been our only
protector from predatory practices of some states. But they say
trust them.this time it will be different.
They press their thumbs down on the scales of this presidents
national healthcare plan by obstructing it where they can at the
federal and state level, in hopes of weakening or destroying it.
They say repeal this plan, they will replace it with their better
plan. Their plan basically consists of one talking point they call
patient centric care that they never create. In truth, regardless

of how many people would be helped, the simple reality is they

dont believe in the government providing a service like this.
Suppose in one state they created laws so disliked by some,
opponents can get one million signatures in opposition and this
party just ignores their grievance because their belief is no
compromise and that their ideology is best for the state. Suppose
they create laws regarding women such that protests arise, but
this party just ignores the women and says their policies are the
best for them. Suppose in the states which have new ID Voter
laws those affected object but the party ignores them and
reminds the public about that yet unidentified person trying to
steal their vote and these laws are needed. No compromise, trust
them.
What if this party implemented its austerity plan in one state and
starts reducing the revenue that normally went to cities? Suppose
they redefine democracy and create a manager emergency law
that takes away the right to govern from elected city officials in
certain economically ailing and minority led cities and turns those
rights over to one governor-appointed emergency manager in
each city. Suppose citizens got enough signatures to put repeal of
the law on the state ballot but had the petition rejected by party
election officials because the font size was supposedly incorrect.
Suppose courts allowed the petition and the law repeal petition
was put on the state ballot and passed. Suppose within weeks the
party ignored the state-wide repeal vote and just reissued the law
with appropriations added that prevented it from being voted on
in the future. They say trust them, they know best.
What if there was a hurricane that created havoc and financial
ruin on the eastern U.S. coast and this partys federal government
legislators first response was to deny aid to devastated states
unless budget cuts can be found in other agencies. Keep that
federal government small and slow enough to be insignificant in
every day Americans lives. Austerity is king, trust them. Fend for
yourself federalism is the official name of their game.
What if this conspiracy worked so well in 2014 that even the
Presidents own Party did not seem to understand what was

happening and bought into the image this party created. All that
was necessary was for the opposing candidate to run against the
image they had created of the President.
What if this party had such disdain for this president that they
ignored a time honored tradition that policy differences stopped
at the waters edge and sent an open letter to a rival countrys
leader opposing an ongoing nuclear negotiation? Suppose they
added on to that insult by inviting the leader of a foreign country
to speak against those nuclear negotiations on the floors of the
American congress. Trust their foreign policy understanding, not
the sitting presidents policies. Trust them.
What if in 2016 the party starts the cycle all over again against
their new presidential opponent who they have encountered in
the past and just run against a negative image they created
previously and not on issues? They use their current political
power again to mix faux scandal hearings with normal business
just like they did against the present administration.
Now the party and their media outlets start insisting that political
correctness is not necessary? Say what you truly believe. What if
they chose as a nominee someone whose authoritarian style
perfectly matches characteristics desired by the base of
supporters this party has cultivated? He is good for media ratings,
but uses the basest of rhetoric that appeals to voters base
instincts and in many cases espoused ideas against previously
accepted American values? What if he chastised and tried to limit
access for journalist who gave him unfavorable reviews. He
ignores Americas growing diversity and tends to make ethnically
insensitive comments. And even with these obvious flaws, this
party falls in line behind him.
This candidate is covered so broadly now that ideas previously
confined mostly to conservative outlets are picked up by
mainstream media and spread to the general public. What if some
of the media and public started accepting along with this
expanded divisive rhetoric, the idea that being factually correct

no longer was necessary? What if this nominee was chosen as

leader of the party? Trust the party and their new leader.
My observation is that some of the real-life political and legislative
actions I chose to highlight above appeal mainly to a
demographic base different from the larger national demographic
while offering little redress through normal political means. The
question should be, if this party gained control nationally and
started creating these same authoritarian laws: What would be
the reception of the more diverse national demographic they
would now govern? But lets just remember this is supposed to be
fiction, this couldnt really happen in America.