And that reply follows:
I have no doubt that he is, as are many of his supporters. A large portion of the people who voted for him voted for him to be seen voting for him, to be on "the right side" when their progressive friends asked -- so they could be all painted with Hopey-Changiness.
The guy wrote two autobiographies by his mid 40's! And biggest claim to fame seems to have been his "community organizing" with the shake-down group ACORN. There's no question he's a narcissist.
If you listen to him when he speaks and actually try to make logical sense out of what he's saying, it quickly becomes apparent that he is saying nothing -- nothing that he can be pinned down on. Ultimately there is a lot of flash and little substance to his words. It's gotten him far in life. In his own words: "I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." It is clear that he nurtures this image with his lofty but empty language.
I'll tell you what really bugs me, though, is his repeated talk of removing "ideology" from government. What he means to his core supporters on the far left is "Christian Ideology". But Progressive Ideology is just fine, apparently. It's somenow "not" ideology, (even though progressivism definitely has its own moral code - or "ideology"). In the larger context, it's even more scary. What it really means is that if you disagree with the cause, you're an "idealogue", and your opinions are to be dismissed out of hand, end of discussion. And that cause seems to be To each according to his needs, from each according to his means. And of course it's the government that gets to decide who needs and doesn't need what. It's not even thinly veiled socialism, it's socialism with a flashy paint-job. It's socialism of the "National Socialist" flavor, which in Italy was Fascism (where the State is in effect God, becoming the arbitor of morality) and in Germany, Nazism (Nazi was a German abbreviation for "National Socialist").
As we've seen in the past, these movements eventually get particularly ugly with those who do not get on the bandwagon and support it. Excuses come up to imprison or dispose of those who espouse or promote incorrect thought. Already we see conservatives being marginalized by progressive organizations, progressive politicians as evil, mean, or just stupid, depending on their social class. Oh, and the trump card is "racist". Or if you happen to be a black conservative like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Condeleeza Rice, Bob Parks, or Michael Steele -- then you're an "Uncle Tom". Either way, the message is the same. You're not worth listening to.
And his party has a majority on the House and a near super majority in the Senate. Quite scary.
If you'd asked me a few years ago what the greatest threat to the country was, I'd've said the global Islamist threat. But apparently the country's fundamental character has changed if we can muster enough people to vote for you that promises a nebulous "I'll give most of you more money from the Treasury" and Hope™ and Change™ to go along with it. I can't believe so many people fell for that deliberately ambiguous sideshow and gave him a pass on the litany of past associations, speeches, interviews, and writings that showed absolutely who he was on the inside.
But today the danger Abe Lincoln spoke of no longer seems abstract to me.
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. - Abraham LincolnI no longer believe that it must be some future generation that will be its author and finisher.
No comments:
Post a Comment