Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio had a recent discussion on their show about Obama’s reelection, which they said had “solidified our doom.” They also said that Obama doesn’t have a mandate, he has a “womandate” because men didn’t vote for him. Oh, and he’s just like the North Korean dictator.
Swanson: It solidified our doom, it effectively said there is no way out of this thing at least for the time being unless we get back to the foundations, reconstruct the foundations, which is something we’ve been talking about for a long time. Unless we rebuild families, fatherhood, young men, unless we bring back manhood, a biblical manhood, we are going to be a bunch of softy-wofty, weeny socialists for the years to come. That’s what’s going to happen. It’s going to be the single women that run most of the households in America voting and they almost always vote more socialist, more government, more communist, because they find their security in the state and not in the social structure of that family. Dave, we’re headed in that election. I think the 2012 election really was a turning point for America…
Swanson: The man has tremendous influence. He has got a mandate; he’s got a lot of support—
Buehner: He doesn’t have a mandate; he’s got a woman-date. The men didn’t vote for him, it was the women who voted for him, which is why he’s their ‘Man of the Year.’
Swanson: He’s got a woman-date, big time. You know, the North Korean president got the most votes from the audience for ‘Man of the Year,’ he was a close second. If you had a choice between Barack Obama and the North Korean president, they’re both committed to Marx. They are, think about it. If you interviewed both of them and you said: what do you think about Marx and the redistribution of wealth? Remember what he said on that radio station in Chicago, Barack Obama some ten years ago, he said they should have had redistribution of the wealth in the Constitution. He is so committed to Marxism and so is the North Korean president, but it was a tossup for TIME Magazine.
That last part is a lie, by the way. In fact, Obama was expressing the (currently) conservative view that change should come through elected legislatures rather than through the courts.
Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn’t structured that way…. Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it…
One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.
He was arguing that liberals have for too long looked to the courts to achieve victories and they should work instead through legislatures. And I say the “currently” conservative view because this view changes due to political convenience. During the New Deal era, conservatives used the courts to put roadblocks in Roosevelt’s way; it was the left that demanded deference to elected legislatures and the right that wanted “judicial activism.” The two sides exchanged scripts, as they so often do, after 1980.