Constitutional Mandate- Election 2010

Election 2010, 2010 Election Results, Politics, GOP, Constitution, Mandate, Agenda, Bill Collier, Constitutional Mandate

Was 2010 About Ideology Or Weirdness?

The GOP MANDATE For Popular Constitutionalism

Bill Collier

 Politicians love to claim a mandate and often use the term “the American People want…” (fill in the blank). This kind of “speechifying”, at its most basic level, is a “polite” way of saying, “I’m right because The People say I’m right!” It doesn’t matter whether, logically or morally, that politician is right, much less whether or not the People who gave that politician the votes to win REALLY support their whole agenda, or even whether the People are simply tossing out the other politicians who disappointed them!

 Today, the new majority party for the House and for State governments overall, the GOP, is sounding not much different in its grandiose claims than the old majority party, the Democrats, who still control the Senate and the White House, and most of the media and education establishment.

 Did “the American People” choose one set of ideological principles over another in the 2010 mid-term elections?

 In Delaware, the “People” surprised even the Freedomist, with our prediction of an upset based on polling data from multiple sources, and chose a crony capitalist who uses “Progressivism” as a cloak for his, well, cronyism, all because the Democrat controlled media used high school popularity contest tactics, essentially calling his opponent, Christine O’Donnell, “weird.”

 Did ALL the voters decide to support the crony insider simply because the media made O’Donnell seem “weird”? NO, many of these voters lean to the Progressive side of the aisle and genuinely believe in limited economic freedom in exchange for public guarantees of their welfare and “freedom from morality.” Most of the Coons voters were, in fact, genuinely voting their ideological tendencies, or at least for their own self-interest (for largesse at public expense) but many of them knew nothing more than that O’Donnell was “weird”, because that’s what their local journolist media SAID she was!

 Can the same be said on the other side, that voters rejected Democrats, who took a shellacking in the race for the House and the State gubernatorial races, simply because the media portrayed them as “weird?”

 The fact is, the progressive journolists portrayed almost the entire Tea Party movement, and as many of the GOP contenders as they COULD, as “weird.” They did not throw one single punch at the other side. It was as if the only “weird” people were on the side of the aisle that thinks excessive government power over our lives and wealth is itself “weird” in relation to Constitutional norms.

 It is not weird, according to this model of weirdness, to think that the commerce clause can pretty much mean anything you want, thus nullifying the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, but it is weird to think, for instance, that fantasying about having sex with someone you’re not married to is the same thing as adultery.

 Can you imagine how the Apostle Paul would be treated by the progressive journolists? TALK ABOUT WEIRD!

 Harry Reid would talk about how the Apostle Paul said “those who do not work, should not eat” was “callous and insensitive.”

 Nancy Pelosi would read the bit about not being “unequally yoked” with sinners as “extreme.”

 Ariana Huffington would read where Paul described homosexuals as “reprobates” as “bigoted homophobia.”

 Of course, as with the servant, Paul, so with the Master- Jesus Christ Himself would have been just as easily condemned and crucified for his “crimes” by the progressive journolists and their political allies.

 Would the progressive journolists crucify Jesus and the Apostles in the Roman way?


 For modern crucifixions see the way the progressive journolists treated Juan Williams and how it treats people like Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Joe Miller, and Sarah Palin! Not only do the progressive journolists seek to smear the names of their political opponents, and turn people off by portraying these people as being “weird”, but they are not happy until they have DESTROYED their lives!

 Some Americans, enough to be move an election loss for an ideologue whose policies would not in and of themselves gain popular support, were persuaded by the “coolness” argument- the other person is weird, therefore not cool, and so vote for the “cool person.” In Delaware, Nevada, and California, this “coolness” argument may have been enough to propel candidates whose ideology is shared by only 20% of the population into the winner’s circle.

 On the other hand, were the candidates who WON, and whose ideology is not unpopular, propelled to power on the basis of their ideology?

 Let’s think of it like this. If a trend is wide and broad and deep, than we might safely say that there are factors at work other than purely local factors.

 The “coolness” argument is always a local factor, because it relates to how cool, or un-cool a particular candidate is. If you say “they’re ALL un-cool because of their ideology” you now have the problem of talking about that ideology, which, if your ideology is not popular, opens you up to having to talk about your ideology.

 In 2010 the progressive journolists and their political friends and allies pretty much tried, on a massive scale, the “coolness argument.” They had some successes and probably limited their losses, and may even have saved the Senate for their CLASS of Progressive Elites.

The other side, those who rejected Progressivism, used the “ideological argument.” They tried to remind people of their opponent’s true Progressive ideology, or how they SUPPORTED that ideology by their votes, and they presented their own ideology, which was remarkably similar across the board.

What did they say?

They said their opponent’s shared or would support the ideology of Progressive Elitism, based on the premise of state-controlled and managed “solutions” coupled with some form of freedom FROM morality (especially in the areas we might consider “carnal pleasure”).

Not all of the winners from the Popular Constitutionalist side of the aisle emphasized the social morality aspect of their opponent’s ideology, but almost ALL pointed out the difference between Progressive Elitism (using terms like “liberal” or “elitism”) and the basic and fundamental ASSUMPTIONS and beliefs of the Founders of this nation.

When the Democrats ran the board in 2008, they DID NOT make an ideological argument- they made a sales pitch for all the goodies they were going give and all the beneficial things they were going to do for each special interest group in their coalition, and they exposed the rank hypocrisy of the GOP, while capitalizing on the fact that the core supporters of the GOP were themselves angry with the compromise of their leaders.

THIS WAS NOT THE CASE IN 2010! The election did not see an emphasis on the “promises to make your life better” argument, in fact the GOP almost never promises any government largesse or benefit and rarely if ever uses the “promises” argument!

In West Virginia, the one “win” the Democrats were most excited about was a product of a campaign that switched from the “coolness argument” in a state that was leaning against the Progressive Elitist Ideology, to a purely ideological argument in which the DEMOCRAT in the race claimed to be in 100% accord with the IDEOLOGY of his opponent!

While the Popular Constitutionalists argued against their opponent’s ideology, and while some also used the argument that their opponent was corrupt (this, notably, failed in Delaware and Nevada), almost all emphasized their own ideology for “lower taxes, less government, more economic freedom, and a return to the principles embodied in the nation’s founding documents.”

When progressive journolists SAY that the GOP did not “have a positive message”, what they mean, in their own code language, is that the GOP did not OFFER any “largesse.” The GOP offered an ideology, of Popular Constitutionalism, and, for the progressive journolists, to NOT make promises of largesse is an alien concept- their Progressive Elitism is not anything if it isn’t at least consistent!

For a Popular Constitutionalist, the very idea of running on a campaign of saying what government can do to make your life better seems like something that only the technocrats of the USSR or Chavez’s Venezuela would do! Government, in the Popular Constitutionalism embedded in our founding documents, and in the hearts of millions, sees government as a protector of rights, persons, and property, from all enemies, foreign or domestic, but relies on people, free associations, the free market, and local communities as the nearly SOLE vehicle and platform for meeting real needs and finding and doing what brings you fulfillment and “happiness.”

(We refer to Popular Constitutionalists as “Freedomists”.)

For Popular Constitutionalists the predominating argument was NOT promises or how corrupt the other side was, or the coolness argument. Exceptions do not prove a rule and, while there were exceptions, and notably the exceptions seemed to fail, the rule was that the GOP overall ran an ideological campaign. They made ideology the center of their argument AGAINST their opponent and FOR themselves, and they promised to follow that ideology if elected.

On that score, not very many of the voters who supported the Democrats were responding to the ideology argument made by the Democrats, because that argument was not made, except amongst the already initiated, in places like the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. We estimate that less than 20% of ALL voters OVERALL supported the Democrats on the basis of their agenda while as many as 40% of ALL voters were motivated by the Popular Constitutionalists’ appeal to ideology.

Of all the supporters of the Democrats, perhaps as many as 30% of their voters were driven by ideology and upwards to 10% by Party ID, 10% by race, and 10% by union affiliation with the remaining 30% being driven by the coolness argument or the promises argument. A more scientific analysis is begging to be done, but these are our initial estimates based in voter turnout, exit polling, and looking at the arguments made by the Democratic candidates and progressive journolists, who overtly appealed to party ID, race, union affiliation, the coolness argument, and the promises argument.

What then of the Popular Constitutionalists who ran under the GOP banner?

Clearly, the independents came over to the side of the GOP. But what is the overall breakdown?

Since 40% of the electorate considers itself a part of or in approval of the Tea Party, and since over 55% of Americans consider themselves to be Conservatives, one can logically assume that of all GOP voters, 80% or so were motivated by the ideological argument. Clearly, almost NONE of the GOP supporters were motivated by union affiliation. How many were motivated by the coolness argument, the promises argument, party ID, or race? That would be harder to sift out, because most all of the GOP’s candidates did not use these other arguments, or, if they did, few of the winners did.

In short, the 2010 mid-term elections were, largely, and demonstrably, the result of a mostly ideological argument for Popular Constitutionalism which the GOP leadership is compelled, ethically, to obey in all of its practices and policies going forward.

While the progressive journolists and their political allies will try and SAY GOP voters in the 2010 mid-terms were not motivated by ideology and were motivated by base motives, like race or the coolness argument, or even ignorance, the facts don’t bear this out. The Popular Constitutionalists who WON did not overtly or in any covert or indirect way make such appeals as were made by the Progressive Elite candidates who used race, union affiliation, party ID, the coolness argument, and the promises argument so often, and often exclusively, in their public communications.

The plain facts are clear- less than 20% of Americans embraced the Progressive Elitist Ideology, over 40% embraced the Popular Constitutionalist Ideology. Less than 25% of Americans gave support to Progressive Elitists because they wanted to see the Progressives fulfill promises of some kind for parochial reasons. More than 15% of Americans agreed that Popular Constitutionalism was in their interest for various reasons. IN SHORT- most Americans explicitly rejected the Progressive Elitist Ideology, while most embraced or accepted the Popular Constitutionalist Ideology!

Of course, the facts will not get in the way of progressive journolists who are just as happy to lie and make things up as to take any real morsel of controversy and turn it into a public crucifixion!

more on Election 2010 Results:

Election 2010 Results- Analysis by The Freedomist 

Election 2010, 2010 Election Results, Politics, Obama News, Obama Watch, GOP, democrats, Obamacare, Economy, Business News 

Link report on Election 2010: 

Election 2010 Results- GOP takes House, narrows Senate majority- Politics

Election 2010 Results 

GOP gains 7 Senate Seats, 64 House Seats, and 7 Governorships 


Iowa Voters repeal activist judges who voted for gay marriage- Christian News

Iowa Voters repeal Judges who struck down DOMAIowa voters beat back the godless agenda by recalling activist, godless judges 


Election 2010 referendum on Obamacare- message sent- gut it- Obama Watch

Will GOP gut Obamacare as promised?Boehner calls out Obamacare monstrosity- will action follow rhetoric? 

Teaparty drives Election, diversity in GOP takeover of House, Governorships- Freedom News 

Teaparty diversity comes out in force in Election 2010Teaparty- The so-called ‘astroturfing racists’ come out in droves and elect a diverse group of people to represent them 


Election 2010 Results- Dem supporters of Obamacare lose seats in GOP takeover

Obamacare hurts Dems in 2010 ElectionDems who passed vote for Obamacare lost vote in 2010 election- 1 GOPer who voted for Obamacare also loses