The tsunami that swept the Democrats Tuesday night may not have been a vote of confidence for the Republicans, but it was at the very least repudiation of progressive policies that have been ravaging America. The conservative point of view won because Americans still believe in the superiority of our system and in American exceptionalism.
Some on the left clearly disagree. Next morning, I had the displeasure of reading an article by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast. Beinart, an elitist left wing raving lunatic of the same magnitude as Paul Krugman, is a political writer for The Daily Beast, an associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation - a fringe left organization dedicated to social democratization of America.
Beinart, like other dedicated socialists in politics, media, and academia, has apparently been busy rationalizing the defeat Democrats suffered Tuesday night. In his article, he opines that Republican victory will end up helping Obama get re-elected in 2012 as he will be seen as a check on Republican radicalism (he adds "as Bill Clinton did in 1996", which shows his mind boggling ignorance as Clinton moderated greatly after his party's 1994 defeat - remember "the era of big government is over"?)
He goes on to lament that the big loser of the night was Keynesianism. Here is a guy who thinks that the world's best economists (likes of Paul Krugman no doubt - a legend in his own mind to say the least) are screaming that abandoning Keynesian policies is exactly the wrong thing at this moment. I mean, how irrational can a progressive liberal get? Maybe Mr. Beinart (who is not an economist or, quiet obviously, has any understanding of economics), could point to a single instance of Keynesian policies succeeding in the modern era? Did it succeed during the 1930's America, or in post WWII Europe, or in Japan for the past two decades? The answer is no in each case, unless of course your definition of success involves people getting further and further mired in centralized, stagnant economies that are flirting with bankruptcy.
The article goes on to claim that FDR made significant cuts to the federal budget in 1937, "which according to many economists prolonged the depression for several years". This statement alone qualifies Mr. Beinart as an intellectual midget. Is he not aware that the Great Depression had started more than a half decade before? Including Hoover's misdirected efforts to right the economic ship by a series of anti-trade, tax, and spending measures, U.S. implemented varying degrees of Keynesian policies for almost a decade before 1937. Shouldn't the question then be "if Keynesian policies did not work then, why would they work any other time"? Unfortunately, such reasoning lies beyond the intellectual limits of the liberal elite.
Mr. Beinart concludes his article with the usual progressive parting shot of questioning American exceptionalism by comparing upward mobility in India and China to that of American citizens. The merits of such an argument are non-existent since such comparisons cannot be made between the richest country in the world and some of the poorest.
Progressive liberals may not believe in American exceptionalism any more than Indian or Chinese exceptionalism because they do not believe in the promise that America holds for anyone who is within its borders regardless of their background. Believing in American exceptionalism would require them to abandon their collectivist ambitions.
Mr. Beinart (or Mr. Obama for that matter), American exceptionalism is borne out of the single greatest constitution in the world - the only one that truly empowers individuals over governmental entities. Our innovativeness, entrepreneurship, productivity, and wealth all attest to it. Do not confuse the concept of exceptionalism with superiority complex or arrogance, which you and all other progressive liberal elites suffer from.