Michelle Dion, writing in her blog, details the troubling circumstances Mexico is in:
As the time nears for the swearing in of Mexico’s new President, the PAN’s Felipe Calderon, the situation is not looking good. Earlier this month, the PRD’s Lopez Obrador had himself sworn in as President in an unofficial ceremony. Yesterday, a small fight broke out in the Congress (for the leftist version of events) when members of the PRD tried to take control of the dais and the PAN stepped in to stop them.
Felipe Calderon, member of the right-leaning PAN party, won Mexico’s presidential election on July 2, 2006 by a narrow majority, so narrow that a recount was conducted. López Obrador, member of the left-leaning PRD party, immediately started with accusations of irregularities in polling stations and demanded a national recount. Back and forth went the accusations until finally, after a targeted recount still showed Calderon the winner, on September 5, 2006 Calderón was unanimously declared President-elect by the Tribunal. The citizens of Mexico trust the Tribunal. They trust the Federal Electoral Institute.
So what does Obrador do? He certainly doesn’t admit defeat like a person with class would do, on the contrary, all of these rulings against him make his resolve stronger. He stages protests, he disrupts speeches, he tries to do everything he can to disrupt the transition of power. Lastly, and this is the one that might bring the most long term harm to Mexico’s Democracy, he has now staged a parallel government that will try to implement its own policies in defiance of Mexico’s long established government - all of this despite the fact that the majority of Mexican citizens have turned against him.
Why is it that lefties around the world, whether with Al Gore in 2000, Democrats in 2002 and 2004, or Obrador in Mexico - have a hard time accepting defeat? Contrast this to Republicans, who in the recent election lost both houses of congress in very close races. In fact, George Allen, the Republican Senator who lost in Virginia, was entitled to a recount under Virginia law but declined to do so, knowing that the recount would last until December, leaving the leadership of the senate in question. In fact, the only lasting contested race is one where a democrat contested her loss to a republican, again, following in the tradition of democrats before her.
So why this significant difference? Steven Den Beste, writing in the Chicago Boyz Blog, gives the best answer yet:
2000, Democrats: “We wuz robbed!”
2002, Democrats: “We wuz robbed again!”
2004, Democrats: “We wuz robbed yet again!”
2006, Republicans: “Bummer. Oh, well, we’ll do better next time.”Note that right-wing pundits and bloggers don’t seem to be fixating on voter fraud, despite documented evidence that the Democrats have been doing that kind of thing? Note that Republican candidates who lost very narrowly gave in gracefully, without demanding recounts or resorting to the courts? Why the difference?
I think it’s the basic Democrat culture of entitlement showing through. Democrats were angry in 2000, 2002, and 2004 because they felt that they deserved to win. Republicans don’t feel that anyone deserves anything. They believe that all rewards have to be earned.
There’s another way of looking at this. In 2000, 2002, and 2004, Democrats explained their defeat by looking to see what the Republicans had done to inflict defeat on the Democrats. In 2006, the Republicans seem to be explaining their defeat by looking for all the ways they themselves loused up. The Democrats are showing their investment in the cult of the victim. They didn’t lose because of any fault or failure of their own; they lost because of the nefarious acts of villainous Republicans.
It’s another manifestation of their epistemological breakdown regarding the principle of cause-and-effect. The Democrats do not fundamentally believe that they are in control of their own fate — or ours. They were victims in 2000, 2002, and 2004. The only reason they weren’t victims in 2006 was that the nefarious Republicans didn’t successfully pull off their nefarious plots and plans this time. And in general Democrats demonstrate a broad belief that there’s no relationship between acts and results, cause and effect. What matters is motive, not behavior. If you do something with good intentions, the result will be good.
And never mind what road is paved with good intentions. They don’t believe in Hell, either.
The full post, with much more not quoted above, can be found here.
Update: France seems to exhibit the same phenomena, see here.
HP, Isn’t there some way you can signal at the top of your post that what I am about to read is just some partisan cheap-shot? I thought I was reading a post about Mexican politics, and then I ran into the sentence below, and - bang! - I knew I had just wasted five minutes of my life.
(sigh)
Oh well, at least that alerted me that I didn’t have to read the Steven den Beste section.
This article provides an excellent example of the difference in the political cultures between liberals and conservatives. I’m a Hispanic conservative living in Virginia and I can only blame that maccaca Allen for our loss.
LaurenceB,
Every now and then I have to show my partisan colors, else I might lose my membership to the right-wing-conspiracy Hillary Clinton is so fond of talking about.
Look on the bright side though, atleast I didn’t post this. Even though I forwarded it to all my partisan liberal friends, I decided not to post it on my blog as it is too partisan.
I like LaurenceB’s suggestion. Actually, it would probably be easier if you created a “not-partisan” category. You’d barely every have to check it!
There are some partisan points that need mentioning. This is one of them.
Hmmm.. What precisely is the “partisan point that needs mentioning”? Surely you don’t really believe that only “lefties” contest elections when they lose. That’s just silly on its face. Right?
So there must be some other point that needs mentioning.
Maybe I should go back and actually read it this thing.
I should add that I don’t object to partisan posts - only to those that don’t have really anything instructive to say other than to make some kind of a wild cheap shot. As HP says, there are indeed partisan points that need mentioning, I just don’t see one in this case.
I was trying to cast a light on the generally different ways the left and the right view the world and how that may be playing out in the way each sees election losses.
It seems much more than mere coincidental to me.
News flash! Three weeks after the election, Ohio Democratic House contender Victoria Wulsin finally conceded to incumbent Jean Schmidt, but only when confronted with the unpleasant truth that the remaining uncounted ballots was smaller than her margin of defeat.
Democrats are no more pre-disposed to throw temper tantrums after losing elections than are Republicans. Likewise - contrary to the recent claims by Democrats - Republicans are no more likely to be corrupt than are Democrats.
These are both nothing more than strategical attempts by one party to propagandize and gain votes by assigning some deep flaw to their opponent. Two years from now, or ten years from now, or twenty years from now, when the Democrats have enough power to abuse, or when the Republicans are losing close elections under shaky circumstances, the roles will be reversed.
It has nothing to do with the faulty philosophy of Liberalism. One side is not virtuous, and the other evil. They are both simply human. Humans don’t like to lose. That’s it. Nothing more.
Democrats are no more pre-disposed to throw temper tantrums after losing elections than are Republicans.
So the striking contrast between the last three elections and this one directly contradicting the above statement means nothing? Mere coincidence?
At least we are gracefull about losing.
There will be other races, and we will get it back.
Angelo; What allen was counting on after that poor choice of words he used was the Military vote, and they spoke LOUD, and Clear.
First of all, there isn’t much of a “striking contrast”. Other than Mexico, is there a case where a Democrat refused to accept the official results?
Second, I can’t believe we’re even discussing this! You really believe that there is something in their genes that makes Democrats sore losers, but not Republicans? That’s crazy.
Is there something in Republican’s genes that makes them more corrupt? I think that’s crazy too. Don’t you?
The striking contrast is not in whether or not they refuse to accept the official results, the striking contrast is in how they take their losses.
Democrats tend to follow the ‘we wuz robbed’ view, blaming their losses on others. Republicans tend to take the more personal responsibility view, arguing what we could do better next time and how we messed up.
As far as the causes of this, no, I don’t think there is something in their ‘genes’ that makes them more disposed to this, but I do think there is something in their view of the world that makes them more disposed to this.
Republicans and Democrats, or more accurately, the right and the left view the world in very different ways. There are fundamental philosophical differences that unite righties and lefties in the United States and, though to a lesser degree, even around the world…and I am arguing in this post, re-affirmed by the linked post above, that it is those different views of the world that drive the striking differences in how they each deal with losses.
Views on merit, on personal responsibility, on motives, and on entitlement, these views are all different between righties and lefties, and I am arguing that it is those differences that drive the striking difference in how one side tends to take defeat as opposed to the other side.
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee (Republicans and Democrats, need I remind you) both care about who is in power, because it takes a steady hand to steer the huge government we have accumulated over the years. (Isn’t our National Motto “Supersize me”?)
The Libertarian probably doesn’t see it that way; if he could achieve limited government constrained by the Constitution, it would be much easier for a leader to steer the ship of state, and it would be easier for the rest of us to keep tabs on where he’s taking us.
For those of you interested, the WSJ has an article on the Democrats shenanigans in Florida here.
For those who are interested, the Houston Chronicle has an article on the latest Republican wrongdoing here.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4389552.html