Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Service and Sacrifice

Last evening I experienced a wide array of emotions.  I felt a sense of disappointment at the way the McCain campaign had been run but a sense of pride as I reflected on the principled deportment of Governor Sarah Palin. I stayed up to watch McCain's concession speech and to watch Obama's acceptance remarks.  Senator McCain conducted himself in the composed manner of an elder statesman, accompanied by Governor Palin. A short while later, I watched Obama stride out into the blaze of lights, awash in the adoration of his crowd. There were people of every color, male and female, beaming with earnest expectation.  Obama began his remarks, his tempo and tone modulated with an artful command of polished rhetoric. And, oh, how the faithful soared with Obama, lifted on the wings of his oratory, drawn to visions of teary eyed rapture.  Oprah was there, with the tear stained visage of the acolyte. And, Jessie Jackson too. The faithful were drawn inexorably into the high emotion of the conclusion of a hard fought victory and a shared success. Their leader, possessed of the masterful intellect and seasoned wisdom to chart a course to a promised land, had at last overcome. Obama's speech assumed the quality of a civil rights march and his words exhorted his people to rally in the rebuilding of the republic. The scene of the thronging thousands, in adoration of the uplifted leader was, dare I say, almost messianic. The crowds in Chicago and all of us as a nation were challenged to engage in service and sacrifice. Then, Obama cast a paternal eye upon the gathered thousands: vassals in a new and bright republic, shining forth with the hope of equality of outcome, the golden dream of planned fairness burning in their hearts. 

The edict was issued: service and sacrifice. 

But what are we to serve? And, what are we called upon to sacrifice? If history is any guide, we will be called upon to serve the ever widening interests of the welfare state. The evil lies in the open ended nature of this social commitment. The limited resources of the state will be pressed to the utmost to provide for fairness and security where the self regulating forces of the free market would most efficiently secure the same objects to the people. We will know sacrifice. We will sacrifice economic prosperity 
as the engines of economic growth grind to a mere sputter under the malaise of oppressive taxation. Innovation will be discouraged, expansion penalized, the cost of goods and services will rise as the cost of doing business is passed on to the consumer. Ultimately, the middle class sacrifices the dream of upward mobility as a ceiling is placed on acceptable levels of success. This is the grey and dreary fairness of the welfare state. We will know the sacrifices imposed by recession. We will sacrifice national honor and security as Obama imposes his doctrines of retreat and appeasement. Our enemies will become emboldened and the Islamo Fascists will strike with renewed vigor. Men and women will pay for this naiveté with their lives. The lives of the unborn will be sacrificed. And, the liberty of the individual will be sacrificed, in creeping increments, to the tyranny of the many. 

I hope that the legacy of Obama will be different than this, but I am not optimistic. Using his past conduct as a guide, we don't have much change to hope for. Obama's legacy will be recorded here. Prepare for four years of, "I told you so." Obama is no messiah and will, of course, fail to deliver his people.


MorDred said...

Had McCain issued a similarly open ended call for 'sacrifice and service' would you have attributed a hidden evil to his words? Of course not. With his record of sacrifice and military service, it would have never been interpreted so negatively.

Obama served his community as a community organizer and has called for an expansion of national service organizations like the Peace Corps, in part as a way to help students earn their way through school. He was raised in part by his grandparents who sacrificed during WWII. Obviously this sort of selfless spirit is what he is referring to.

I can understand that you are very disappointed that McCain did not win.

However you can follow McCain's example and unite behind the President-designate. Please stop spewing the senseless hatred, for your children's sake if nothing else.

It also hurts you in the end.

Phillip said...

Thanks for your hard work for a good cause. Sarah Palin in 2012? I'm with you on that one! We need Biblical morality to matter again.

Steph said...

Apparently you don't agree with Tami that "it is time to be cordial." Instead, you seem to have become a prophet of despair.

Vinita said...

I'm a mom of a 5 year old and an under two toddler. I understand your attraction to Palin. However, I disagree with your fear that the US will become socialist state and drag down the economy. The only drag on the economy thus far has been the war in Iraq and the sub-prime crisis, both due to Republican choices in gov't. That is why the people have chosen a different leader. It's obvious.

John Q. Public said...

Sarah Palin 2012

Do we cry. NO

Do we get upset. NO

All that matters is what's next.

Where do we go from here?

Because of the amount of money Obama is able to raise.

Because the media is so pro-Obama.

The race for 2012 has to start now.

If Ted Stevens wins re-election in the senate race, Sarah Palin has to remove him and take over his Senate Seat. I don't know the laws in Alaska but, she could appoint herself, or step down and have the Lt.Governor appoint her.

U.S. Senator Sarah Palin has a better chance to win than Governor Sarah Palin.

John Q. Public said...

Did Obama steal it. YES HE DID

A lot of keys states were very close 1 to 3 %.

Widespread Voter Fraud was key to an obama win.

Many people in a lot of states voted 2 times or more

A team of investigative journalists from WSB-TV in Atlanta, WFTV in Orlando and WFTS in Tampa and WCPO in Cincinnati compared Georgia's voter rolls with those in Florida and Ohio and found more than 100,000 people who appear to be registered to vote in more than one state, with no government oversight to catch it.

The Florida Division of Elections has a backlog of more than 108,000 possible felons who have registered to vote since January 2006 that it hasn't had the time or staff to verify them.

Widespread Voter Fraud in Florida a many other states.

We need to make made sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed.

Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...


cordial doesn't mean, at least in my dictionary, to lay down and change my beliefs and suddenly buy into all the garbage that Obama spews. The VERY same people who came here cussing me out and saying the most hate filled things I've ever heard suddenly now want to preach "unity" to me. I'm NOT buying it for a nano-second. THE only reason I am willing to have a discussion now with some is that their tone has changed, it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEAN THAT MY BELIEFS OR WHAT I THINK ABOUT BARACK OBAMA HAS CHANGED.

Just wanted to be clear on that. Otherwise, John can speak for himself, and does so quite well.

Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...

We'll see.
DOW plunged.
Layoffs of massive proportions have already begun...that's just the economic part of it, and he's not even in the oval office yet.

Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...

Uh and noooo, THE FACTS do NOT point to Republicans on the economic mess. THE FACTS are what matter, Venita.

John said...


You are quite correct. I would have interpreted the same comments from McCain in a completely different way. That, Mordred, is because McCain's world view and Obama's world view are diametrically opposed. Comments are interpreted in the context of who is uttering them. Therefore, interpreting Obama's comments in light of his radical history casts the phrase "service and sacrifice" in an ominous light.

Here there will be no compromise, no quarter given to the proponents of the Marxist inspired welfare state or to the butchery of abortionists. There is no common ground to be shared between the conservative and the radical left. You have to pick a side in this fight.


The "drag" on the economy has been produced by Democratic social reengineering policies in Congress. Research the numbers before you make assertions. When the inept left wing Democrats took over in Congress in 2006 the DOW stood at approximately 12,400 (the apex of the Bush Boom). Check CNBC today and view the results of the left wing Democrat bungling. Oh, and you can thank that pervert Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for the sub-prime meltdown. Republicans were blocked at every turn when regulation was attempted. The left's revisionist version of history will not go unchallenged here. Frank and Dodd should serve prison terms for their malfeasance in office. Don't think I approve of the Republican party's concessions to socialism re: the 700 billion dollar welfare check to the fat-cat banks. We can all attribute the ascension of Barack Hussein Obama to the spineless Republican centrists. Hopefully, the next four years of left-wing radical incompetence will give a new impetus to the Republican conservative movement.

MorDred said...


You didn't respond to Obama's stated position on national service and sacrifice, in terms of the sort of person who uttered them. He deliberately spoke of the Peace Corps and evoked the memory of his grandparents to give people an idea of exactly the sort of service and sacrifice he was referring to.

The entire socialist/marxist/evil baby-eater line of reasoning is based on Obama's intention to roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making over a certain amount per year. It amounts to a 3% increase for them. This is a far cry from true socialism, which would call for public ownership of the means of production. I have a hard time believing that rational adults would even take such an argument seriously when trying to pick their next leader.

I guess its ok if you want to focus on the most negative things you can find about Obama's character and use that spectre to interpret everything he does negatively. I just wonder if you even realize the subtle ways in which you are doing it.

When I see senseless hatred, not respectful disagreement, but abject hatred, it really makes me take a step back and wonder where the emotional vitriol is coming from.

I think that people who rationalize their emotions with dodgy logic are unstable, and I would not want to choose a leader from among them. I hope that the Republican party will take note of this in the future.

Common ground exists if you are interested in looking for it. I'm not looking to pick a fight. I'm just curious about why people support Palin so fervently. I imagine that she will be back on the national stage before long.


I am a 28 year old African-American Buddhist who has spent much of his life living in large cities. This is the second presidential election I've participated in, and the first time I've donated to a political campaign. I believe in a separation of church and state, and small government that invests in its people ( no handouts ). I identify closer with Libertarians than anyone else. My brother is a former Marine and a die-hard Republican in Pennsylvania who voted for Bush and for Obama.

The quickest way to have me never visit your blog again is to insinuate that I vote based on race.

The Wood Man said...

I find it interesting how well this post started, then how quickly it turns to condemnation of Obama again. Just because McCain/Palin lost does not mean Obama is an evil individual. BTW if Obama wanted socialism he probably wouldn't have voted to give money to some of the biggest names in Banking, as a bailout. Which McCain voted for as well. I think McCain and Obama aren't as far apart as you seem to think. Honestly Obama wasn't in the senate long enough for him to really have much of a voting record.

I do believe that the current economic problems have more to do with specific Senators and Congressmen than with one party or the other. And a lot of that has to do with lobbyists. You have to remember how much money is spent by lobbyists to get what they want. Look at Ted Stevens. He is Republican, been in the senate for a very long time. He just got convicted of accepting essentially bribes from an oil company. That isn't very hartening. It isn't a party issue, it is a political issue. People in power have a hard time divorcing themsevles from their own self interests. A big portion of the corruption in Washington is due to American and international corporations trying to change laws to suit their purposes.

Hopefully this will help you to understand why i feel that it is useless to try to predict what will happen, since we don't know all the factors involved. No one person knows everything the Government is doing at any given time, no one knows how many plots and intrigues these politicians are involved in. But remember, everyone of them owes someone something, even Palin. You don't get to be in charge without someone else's approval(and no im not talking about the public, im talking about those who make dissisions through money).

Cheryle said...

John, if you know so much about EVERYTHING, why aren't you running for office?

I am an American first and a Democrat second. You sound as if your only loyalty is to the Republican party. I'd be interested in knowing if you ever wore the uniform of one of the military services in this country. The men and women in my family have served this nation since before it was formed, including two of my sons.

When can we expect you to announce your candidacy?

John said...


Thank you so much for recognizing my obvious brilliance. I don't know when I'll be running for office. Maybe, I'll run for president. If Obama can do it, anyone can. I have worn a uniform, two in fact. I'm a Navy veteran and a former local law enforcement officer. I continue to serve my country. It is precisely because I'm loyal to my country that I am a Republican. And, I oppose Obama because he will not serve the interests of the Constitution that I swore to defend.

Apparently, you are either a dupe or a dullard. You must be one of the two, having supported the "man- child." Most likely you are a combination of both, a product of the "if it's on t.v. or in the newspaper it must be true" school of blinding ignorance.

For a time, I watched the incessant stream of your awkward comments and impertinent quips with bemusement. But now, really, you tire me. You are a bore. Perhaps you could practice your scribbling on someone else's blog. I'm sure you can find some small scrap of the blogosphere on which to improve the crippled offspring of your prosaic muse. Surely, there must be somewhere else, that looks just like this blog, where a tired huddle of misfits will give audience to your drivel. Leave issues of import to the serious and educated.

John said...


A few final comments. There are different iterations of socialist dogma. The concise defintion you provided oversimplifies a complex matter. There isn't space here to provide that kind of education. Pick up a copy of F.A. Hayek's, The Road to Serfdom. Read it thouroughly. Obama is socialist. Spreading the wealth around is a socialist idea. If you don't see that, you've got to question your level of education on the matter. Obama probably won't come right out and say, "hey, America I'm a socialist and read Karl Marx every night before I go to bed!" But, Obama does indicate, in a subtle fashion, that he is socialist in orientation. Equating the individual's right to freely choose how to dispose of his income with "selfishness" is a socialist point of view. Wake up.

It seems that people just love to label debate as "hate." If you're afraid to get into the ring and throw some punches, just be honest with yourself and stay in the crowd where it's comfortable. There is no common ground in the ring, where the battle rages. For Democrats, where was the common ground with President Bush? Where was the support for Bush and his policies? Mordred, where were you when your president was being castigated in the media and by your friends and associates? Where was the bipartisan support for America's president during a time a war? It's all so sickening and hypocritical. So, after years of hate, lies, obfuscation, subversion, and consort with a war time enemy the Obamabots now call for peace and reconciliation. I will have no part of such an ignominious aquiescence.

By-the-way, I do have black friends. Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous of you and even racist of you to assume otherwise?

Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...


First, John made the last statement based on something he thought he read in your comment, but was in another...someone suggested he go visit a black church and get some black friends...

I go to church because I worship God. There are people of every color in my church, and we don't go to church to be with our "white brothers and sisters". We go to worship. When our pastor stands in the pulpit, he speaks about biblical things, not hating a particular race, as "Rev" Wright does, among other things.

You guys are always (and for God's sake QUIT telling me I'm racist for saying "you guys"!!!--by that I mean you on the LEFT) bringing up race. ALWAYS. GET OVER IT ALREADY. You have a black man in the White House. You should now feel empowered...and good for you. I mean that. But we didn't bring up race here, YOU did. Enough already. We're all Americans.

Furthermore Mordred. None of the contributors invited you here, last time I checked. Not sure why you're THREATENING to never come here again. You came here by choice and chose to comment, so I'm not sure why you are making threats.

Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...


Cheryle, I thought our discussion was decent yesterday. Civil.

I must say that I left the cruising of your blog to the other contributors on this site because from what they told me I had no time for all the nonsense.

I went today and frankly, it is pathetic that you girls waste valuable time, NOT focusing on issues, but instead posting about me. While I appreciate the attention, it's almost unbelievable. If I didn't know better, I'd think Jennifer might have a girl crush or something as much as she obsesses over me.

As long as that's going on, there's no need to debate any of you here. Clearly you're quite two faced to come here and be all nicey nice yesterday and then your blog shows something quite the opposite. By the way, for the record: the first time I ever saw your blog it looked nearly identical to mine. Every time I post a feature, you guys do the's all very funny and quite unoriginal to say the least, especially when it started after you saw mine. So, while I never claimed to have some sort of hold on the "black background", I did find it amusing that the blog, in the beginning, looked exactly like mine and changed immediately upon my comments. So, why don't you girls get a life, cause blogging about a blogger is...well, just pathetic.

That unity you speak

azdave said...

I wonder if Sarah Palin will actually experience a bit of a resurgence in the next couple of months. The McCain campaign leadership is getting LOTS of flack for the way they are now throwing Palin under the bus in an effort to deflect attention from their own gross misfires. If Palin holds the high ground she may benefit from the recognition that she was pretty much used as disposable material during the campaign. I think it also reflects badly upon McCain, though, since he selected and retained that campaign staff, even after it became apparent they are incompetent hacks. Let's just be thankful he didn't have the opportunity to make equally bad choices for his presidential staff.

MorDred said...

John and Tami,

I should probably explain the reason I included a disclaimer. It was a means of introducing myself so that you knew a bit about the background of the person who posted on your site, because I was intrigued enough to want to come back. Thats why I included details such as my race and religious leanings. I wasn't threatening not to come back, I just wanted to be sure that I would be treated with respect if I did. While some people may have voted for Obama for the reason of race alone, I wanted you to know that I did not. Terms like 'obamabot' are exactly why I said this, its so insulting, and I'd like to keep it clean. I don't want to be lumped in with any other person you've spoken to about politics. If you find me getting snarky or being disrespectful, call me on it. I hope that clears things up a bit.

The hate I was referring to was in your seeming refusal to acknowledge that perhaps the call for 'service and sacrifice' was not filled with evil intent, especially in light of his other statements on the subject that would seem to clarify his meaning. In this case, you seem determined to view Obama's words in the worst way possible, and to ignore the obvious meaning in his words. I didn't think that was logical, so I thought it was an emotional response. Perfectly understandable though, I was wondering how conscious you were of your bias.

As for socialism, yes I was oversimplifying. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to post a book on the topic. I wanted to note that Obama's stated policy didn't amount to socialism, even if the 'spread the wealth around' sound byte sounds similar. I could point out that both the Qu'ran and the Bible have similar sounding principles as well, but their implementation, the way they direct people to live is obviously very different. I think its important not to seize on simple sound bytes and to actually examine the candidates policies.

I don't think that Obama was equating selfishness with an individuals right to dispose of their income, I thought he was referring to Ayn Rand's 'Virtue of Selfishness'. I gathered that perhaps he thought the distortion of his tax plan as socialism was a rather extreme take on Rand. People are making it seem like he's trying to take all of their money and spend it the way he wants to, which is a gross distortion. Let me know if I'm missing something on the socialist line of attack here.

Tami, I completely disagree with the Reverend Wright. Obama made it clear that he disagrees as well, I thought his speech in Philadelphia laid out his take on it pretty well. I think that while Wright has done many good things in the service of his country, his views are the bitter product of a generation past. In my disclaimer/introduction I stated my age. The beautiful thing about youth, while they may lack experience overall, they also lack the foibles of the past as well. I see a young generation that sees themselves as Americans. Period. Its very encouraging.

Personally I hate label terms like '(insert race)-american', I use them as descriptive terms with other people, not as an identity term. I elaborated on who I am a bit in my disclaimer/intro so that you would know something about my identity. Rev. Wright is a fairly long discussion, won't get into it on this thread, but I'll keep an eye out for another thread on that topic if you post one.

As for feeling good that a black man is in office, I do take a measure of pride in that. Not just for myself but for my nation. What other superpower do you know of that has allowed a class of people that were once considered less than human to ascend to the apex of its leadership? Knowing well the struggle and history of Americans descended of slaves in this country, this election was unspeakably moving. I haven't yet found the words myself, just letting it sink in slowly.

Personally, I didn't need to wait for this election to feel empowered. I'm pretty damned awesome if I do say so myself.

I am not a Democrat. And I did not support all of Bush's policies. I don't think its unpatriotic to disagree with my president. I elect members of Congress that do that all the time. That said, I wasn't castigating him in the media either, even if I don't have a very favorable opinion of G.W. Bush. I don't think he's an evil person (anyone who has daughters who are that hot can't be all bad), but I don't think he's a great leader either. Since it was brought up though, would it be unpatriotic not to support all Obama in every way once he is inaugurated? Of course not.

This thread is getting a little long, maybe a new post would help?

have a great night,

P.S: I know your names, and now you know mine. Mordred = more dreds. I have a head full of dredlocks. I'll probably use the two names interchangeably.

Steve said...

"The scene of the thronging thousands, in adoration of the uplifted leader was, dare I say, almost messianic."

When Sarah Palin would give a speech to her thousands of adoring fans, she would be described as a wonderful and energetic speaker who captivated her loving audience, but the scene of Obama winning a historic election to become the first minority leader of a democratic nation where the majority of the population is white, then it's "messianic." John, you are a racist. You're an intelligent (and often arrogant) racist, but a racist none the less. You find reasons to try and justify your racism, but that doesn't make it okay.

I'm sure you'll be tempted to respond with something to the effect of I'm not worthy to criticize you or that I'm just threatened by your knowledge and intelligence (more like your massive ego), but belittling me would just be dodging the truth.

John said...


As was predicted, any opinion critical of Obama will be labeled as racist. This is the American version of the "Thought Police." Far from bringing some closure to the question of racism in America, the election of Barack Hussein Obama will only serve to strengthen and enlarge the race bating industry. Obama comes from a chruch deeply racist and so many of his supporters harbor a racism of assumption. It is assumed that anyone who is not black and who has the timerity to oppose Obama's ideas must necessarily be a racist. Scour every word in this blog, you'll not find one syllable of racism here. I don't care if Obama is purple, I oppose his ideology. Steve, check yourself. Root out the bigotry which is so evident in your heart.

Stay tuned for part two of my response Steve!

MorDred said...

John and Steve,

When I hear people refer to Obama as a messiah-like figure, it makes me think that they are portraying him as arrogant and presumptuous, as if he would dare to be greater than others. I don't see it as a racist line of attack.

The way this argument is delivered comes off as racist though.

Obama's middle name has been used by his opponents' supporters ( i.e. John ) in this campaign to suggest that he is not truly an American. Might want to google for what Hussein/Husayn really means. Its an Arabic name. Arabic is the language of the Qu'ran, which is never translated. To truly know Islam you have to study Arabic. There are many people ( even former US Presidents and Generals ) with Arabic names. Obama doesn't even know Arabic, its just his name.

This attack is also subtly offered as if there is something wrong with Islam, a peaceful faith whose principles have been distorted by extremists. This is so ironic, because most American Muslims tend to be quietly moderate conservatives. In this election though, the extreme right has driven them to choose Obama, who carried a populist and inclusive message, a message Republicans share, but have not put into practice lately. Conservative values do tend to appeal to many minorities though. Martin Luther King Sr. was a Republican until his son was imprisoned for civil disobedience.

John, you say that Obama's election will only strengthen race baiters. I must say, comments like yours are _not_ helping any. I don't think it is assumed that opposing Obama's ideas means that you are a racist. I think that because of conversations I've had with some friends lately, I've begun to realize more how much the charge of 'racist' can hurt people, especially in this country.

Please point out something that Obama himself has done that is racist. He hasn't. If he had, he'd be ostracized just like Reverend Wrong. He wouldn't enjoy the support that he has among various minorities and ethnic groups, not just his own, if he were truly a racist. Scour the internet. Scour Obama's books. Find a quote that is racist in nature and start a post on it.

As for Obama supporters that harbor 'a racism of assumption', this is something I have seen also, albeit by a relatively small minority. Its a tragic loop, each side assuming that the other will perceive them as racist. I encourage you to break the cycle through your own actions.

It is very important for the sake of our democracy that people *feel* free to challenge the Obama administration without fear of being charged with racism. As a culture, we've not yet learned how to disagree and dissent without making it so personal.

Lastly, back to the 'messianic' line of attack.

Running for President of the United States takes a bit of ego. Clinton, Bush, McCain, Obama - these guys have massive ego to think that they can run the most powerful nation that has ever existed. Obama described it as a 'healthy ego'. What is important is their willingness to listen to and seriously consider opposing points of view. Obama did not surround himself with weak yes-people during his campaign. I am watching his Cabinet selection process to see if he continues this trend. I expect he will.

This is also a good example of why branding oneself as a 'maverick' was such a stupid idea. When I heard that, I thought "Gee, so that means that if you get elected, you'll just do whatever it is you think is best." I'm sure that seems like assertive leadership to some. It sounded pedantic and childish to me. But I'm biased against people whom I perceive act rashly.

Barry Goldwater said 'Politics and governing demand compromise.'. If McCain was to play the role of maverick, I don't think he should have chosen yet another maverick. Someone has to be the consensus builder.

I am not surprised by the claims of infighting among the McCain/Palin camp. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I'm so happy they are not running my country.


Steve said...

Criticism of Obama isn't racist at all, but describing the scene of him giving his victory speech as "messianic" is. You would never use that type of language to describe the reception of the public to Sarah Palin. Why? I think you know the answer to that question.

Calling me a bigot because I call you racist sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. I don't buy into the reverse racism argument, mainly because I'm not a follower of Pastor Thomas Robb.

satiate said...

I don't believe that you're racist. I am curious as to what you really think Obama's ideology is however, because to me, it's the ideology that has long been held by America. America is very evidently socialist in a lot of its policies and has always been. Taxes will go up, that's a fact and they would've gone up if McCain had won. That's what happens in economic crisis - taxes are increased. To me, I will gladly pay higher taxes if it means helping our nation's economy and I will gladly pay it under Obama or McCain, Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Radical... because that's my service and sacrifice to help our country dig itself out of this economic ditch that we dug.

John said...

Steve (Pt.2),

The difference between appreciating Governor Palin and the messianic following garnered by Obama lies in what people are responding to. Palin draws her crowds by stating a clear conservative position on the issues, from the economy, and the war effort, to abortion. Those who are drawn to her do so out of an affinity for political and moral principals. Conversely, those who adore Obama are drawn to him as they are excited emotionally by his amorphous rhetoric. He chants of change and hope, while adoring masses stare on in a transfixed emotional ecstasy. On his blank slate Obamas followers project their hopes, dreams, and aspirations. He is an image, a caricature of an idealized political savior. Governor Palin presented herself as a genuine woman with a genuinely conservative ethos. During the campaign, Obama transcended the man from the streets of Chicago, the associate of thugs and terrorist, and became an idea. To his followers he is hope, he is change. To this amorphous political image anyone can attach his or her particular meaning. Obama is then, a messiah, conceived out of political notions of expediency. However, he will reveal himself in a dark transfiguration, an antihero in the political mold of Marx and Engles.

John said...


As to Obama's ideology we can only form assumptions based on the little he said directly during the campaign and based on what we know about his personal history. By-the-way, don't you think it's a bit disturbing that we have to make educated guesses regarding the ideology of someone who will occupy the office of President? I don't want to review all of Obama's sordid associations, but his 20 year association with Rev. Wright is most instructive. Wright preaches a brand of Black Liberation Theology. This heretical theological movement is steeped in Marxist principals. I would challenge you to research the subject critically for yourself. Obama subscribed to this theology of racism and Marx for decades. This alone convinces me of his anti-capitalist predispositions. I make other assumptions based on this long held association but they are off the current topic. During the campaign Obama said a lot of things that sound good on the surface: change (to what?), hope (in what?), give tax breaks to 95% of taxpayers (includes those who don't pay taxes, and campaign promises are cheap..we'll see who really gets stuck with the bill) But, what was most concerning were his comments about "spreading the wealth" and about the "selfishness" of exercising the personal liberty associated with the disposition of capital. Here Obama gave an insight into his true position on economics: central planning.

You are quite right when you assert that our nation has implemented socialist policies and continues to do so. I oppose FDR's welfare state and I will oppose Obama's coming socialist policies. Just because socialism has existed in this country doesn't mean it should be acceptable or that it is as efficient as the free market. Is a little cancer a good thing? I plan to do a post on this subject soon but I'll share a few thoughts with you now regarding the notion of a "Democratic Socialism." Let me start by saying this phrase is an oxymoron. We might as well say we're going to have a planned freedom. At its core, socialism is about central planning of economic affairs and assumes, ultimately, the existence of an omniscient administrator. On the surface, emotionally, it sounds good. How can it be so bad to direct economic resources (the means of production in 19th century parlance) to achieve specific goals? Ahh, but this is naiveté. Briefly, the issue is this, that a centrally planned economic policy is incompatible with a political system based on the model of a Republic. Democratic institutions are too "inefficient" to make the myriad of economic decisions that must be made by a central authority to successfully direct economic activity in the pursuit of a "goal." Good luck getting Congress to decide on what specific goals are to be achieved in a timely fashion. Economic activity is real time. This inefficiency must be addressed by the coalescence of power into a body of experts. An oligarchy of the wise who decide for the people how best to dispose of their capital. (Does any of this sound familiar yet?) Liberty is sacrificed for efficiency. Ultimately, it seems more and more desirable, for the sake of efficiency, to devolve power upon one authoritarian figure. The omniscient administrator. Again, this is only a very brief summary. But, you should see the gist of it. We are merely at a point on the path down the road to serfdom. Obama just wants to take us further down the path that FDR blazed for him. Many nations have traveled here before us and the wreckage of their shattered empires lie about us. We will be no different than they only our loss will be more bitter, having tasted once of liberty.