BIRTHERS: a conservative group who dispute the American birth of the President

The precipitous growth of populist organizations on the conservative side of things has spawned groups commonly recognized in the media by the supplementing of a word by the syllable "...ers."

For example, a group of conspiratorial folk have questioned the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship, claiming that he was not born in the United States. Therefore, according to law, he is not qualified to serve as President of the United States. This group has come to be known as birthers.

As with any one-issue group or organization, the birthers are known to generate more heat than light. Despite the Obama administration's repeated production of a birth certificate and accompanying announcement of Barack Obama's birth in a Honolulu newspaper, the group insists that none exists, and that the documents are false.

It is useless to attempt in this blog to present a rational argument against the birthers, as reason is not one of the tools employed by the group. Rather, I want to identify what I believe are the root factors in the very existence of the group. I believe there are three which are noteworthy:

1) I believe there is racism among some who identify themselves as birthers. The very idea of a non-Caucasian serving as President of the United States is anathema. The only thing worse would be a woman non-Caucasian.

2) The fear of change is rampant among extremely conservative voters.

3) The policies of a Democratic administration take us into uncharted territory where the fiscal, social, and diplomatic practices require a different kind of thinking.

All three of these root factors, when blended, create a frantic mindset which demonstrates itself in extreme behavior. Dealing with birthers requires patience, which only seems to further inflame them.

My concern with birthers and other anti-Obama groups is that their behavior attracts too much attention from the media which seems to revel in their gatherings and their sound bites. This distracts the viewing audience from the very difficult and urgent matters which are before the President, his administration, and the Congress. With congressional elections pending (when are they not pending?) legislators pay undue attention to the highly-vocal groups who tend to make it seem as if they are the dominant voters. Back-pedalling on necessary legislation produces milque-toast bills which fail to serve the country effectively.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights give opportunity for political discourse without restriction. I support that. But I regret the effect of irresponsible and inflammatory activity which serves only to shut down the forward progress of Congress.