1. a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person.
2. a person without culture, refinement, or education; a philistine.
3. (loosely) a foreigner.
4. (in ancient and medieval periods)
b. person living outside, esp. north of the Roman Empire.
c. person not living in a Christian country or within a Christian civilization
5. callous, self-serving, humourless Republican
[tee-an-der-thawl, -tawl, -tahl; tey-ahn-der-tahl]–noun
1. Teanderthal Party. A group of teanderthals with badly spelled campaign signs
2. (often lowercase) Informal
a. an unenlightened or ignorant person; barbarian.
b. a reactionary; a person with very old-fashioned ideas.
Okay, I made some of that up including the variation on neanderthal but for the most part, these definitions are straight out of the dictionary. I couldn’t help myself in making fun of the current crop of outraged citizens and their over-the-top rhetoric.
But why are they mad? Are these just the sore losers from the last campaign? Is their anger so great that they have begun buying ammo, stocking the panic room, and waving the second amendment around as a real solution? Do they seriously want to water the tree of liberty with blood (note: trees actually prefer water)?
I suspect that whenever a big change occurs there will always be a segment of the population that will be ferverently opposed to it. Change is difficult. Adaptation is a slow process. But it is necessary because evolution rejects those who are unwilling to move along; stumbling towards utopia.
My concern is this: we voted for change in 2008. And by ‘we’ I mean the majority; the cornerstone of democracy. We voted to try something new. We voiced our dissatisfaction with the status quo because it had not served us well. Since then, things have improved a little but they could be a lot better. Maybe a new regime will bring about some better results. Maybe someone else can make it happen faster because those other guys aren’t producing the outcome we want to see.
The problem with this scenario of the pendulum swinging back and forth is that the Obama administration doesn’t get a chance to accomplish anything.
Here’s a metaphor. Reluctant as I am to use wartime examples, let’s say we want to take an island from an opposing faction (the status quo). We assault it with everything we have and gain a toehold on the beachfront. We even gain some ground (healthcare reform). We still face fierce opposition but we are resolved to endure. It’s hard, our morale is low and our resources depleted, our faith is challenged. Maybe we ought to call this whole thing off.
Is that what we really want? Say we did that. Say we chose not to reach for something better even though we knew in our hearts the status quo was wrong. What would be the result?
We’d get played for suckers. We’d be the submissive dog lying on our backs hoping the overlords wouldn’t beat us. We’d be guilty of letting the status quo win. We would be losers because we didn’t stand up for the right thing because it was easier to accept the long-standing, ineffective process.
Complacency is the enemy. Complicity with the status quo is the barbarian at the gate. It is not a matter of resisting the onslaught, but rather a matter of fighting for an unrealized ideal.
We are in danger of losing the toehold and the island this November. I beseech you, do not give up the fight. Go vote for the Democratic ticket. Give change a little more time.