0 comment Wednesday, August 20, 2014 | admin
Is the idea of ''worse is better'' still floating around out there? It seems to be, judging by some of the discussions I read in certain forums.
How does this idea persist? It's always been misguided, to view it charitably, or downright treasonous, to take a less charitable view of it.
I've written about it before, and I presented my reasons for thinking that an Obama presidency will not ''wake people up" or ''galvanize the right" or bring about some kind of conservative epiphany and restoration.
There have been so many events over the last ten or twen years that should have been wake-up calls, but were not. We've all become, to some extent, jaded over the steady move leftward and the transformation of America right under our noses. Going back to the early 90s, we saw the L.A riots, the O.J. Simpson acquittal and the jubilation of blacks following that. In more recent years, we've seen the lawlessness and shocking behavior in New Orleans following Katrina, and then the Knoxville murders, (ignored by our mainstream media, as the Katrina atrocities have been airbrushed away or denied) and the daily spectacle of the mass invasion of our country and the brazen marching by the invaders in our cities and towns.
Through all these events, there may have been isolated grumblings or flashes of resentment on the part of the majority, but ultimately people go back to sleep or back to their toys and distractions, while Change marches on.
When I pointed this out in the past, I was told that I was being negative, denying the possibility of an awakening on our part. I would love to believe that THIS time it will be different, that an Obama presidency will be the one galvanizing event. Why should it be, though?
Most presidencies have a 'honeymoon period' in which the new President is given some latitude and enjoys the goodwill of a majority of the people. Obama will coast on that goodwill for a time, but be sure that the very pro-Obama media will provide a permanent honeymoon for their guy. All criticism will be treated as examples of racism and bigotry.
Americans may well become lulled by the initial 'honeymoon' period and even those who did not vote for Obama will grudgingly say 'he's not too bad" or perhaps be taken in by this vaunted 'charisma' which I am told he has. Many Americans who are not troubled by anything resembling political philosophies or moral principles will accept whatever Obama proposes to do. Many Americans are not politically savvy, so they will see nothing wrong with most of the more radical leftist ideas he will promote.
Ever try to explain to an apolitical person, in very basic terms, why leftism and socialism are bad for America? When Obama says we need to 'spread the wealth around', that sounds good to many non-thinking Americans. Who can object to "wealth-spreading"? I've tried to explain why that idea is wrong, but my words don't penetrate through the fog in some cases.
Political illiterates, people who have no idea of our founding principles, or people who vote based on how nice a guy or gal the candidate appears to be, are not swayed by logical arguments or arguments based on principle.
They will not see how Obama is making things worse; they tend to believe whatever they hear on NBC Nightly News or what they hear on The View or Oprah or from Katie Couric.
As to the conservatives who think 'worse is better', I would like to hear specifics regarding how long it will take for worse to become measurably better? And how much worse will it have to get?
The biggest question I have is: how do the 'worse is better' proponents have so much faith that little lasting damage can be done by a Democrat President, plus a Democrat Congress, aided and abetted by a liberal media? The underlying assumption seems to be that whatever harm is done can be easily undone, but yet, when was the last time any incoming Republican administration undid what the Democrats did while in office? Did even the Reagan administration, which most Republicans consider the zenith of conservatism in modern America, undo the liberalism so entrenched from the New Deal and 'Great Society"? To my knowledge, nothing much was undone that had been wrought by a very busy left during those earlier reigns.
When our current President was elected, some were certain he would 'clean house' but he never did, instead choosing not only to abstain from criticizing his predecessor, but to buddy up to Clinton publicly.
And are the worse-is-better advocates confident that Obama will not institute a radical agenda when in office? Who will oppose him? Certainly not a majority Democrat Congress and a lot of supine, spineless Republicans who will be scared spitless of being called bigots.
Over at Red State there is an entry and a discussion on what an Obama administration might do.
This CNN transcript from a while back has Obama discussing his plans for a 'civilian national security force' which he says will be just as strong, powerful, and well-funded as the military. Imagine his followers mobilized into some kind of 'national security force.'
Can we embrace the idea of such a 'civilian national security force'? Or universal national service?
He has said he would like to institute a draft, which would involve young women as well as men. He says if some of us are going to war, all of us should be going.
Would these kinds of things cause this mass awakening? I doubt it; his followers, though usually the military-loathing types, would probably gladly don uniforms for their idol. They would also not oppose a draft if Obama proposed it.
But will these things wake up the 'conservatives'? Or will they just grumble and gripe and eventually accept it and get used to it, as with just about every liberal/radical idea that has been pushed through over the last few decades?
Will we see a return of the ''Fairness Doctrine" or the passing of 'hate speech' laws, which have been attempted in the past? These things could seriously stifle free speech.
I think an enormous amount of damage could be done in a very short time, more than in a typical Democrat administration, because any real opposition would be silenced, neutered.
In recent days and weeks there have been a number of articles in the media hinting at riots and mass civil unrest should Obama lose the election. And I guarantee that there WILL be anger, and charges of 'election stealing' and worse if the election is close and Obama loses. We've seen a preview of that in the past couple of elections, with the Democrats pulling out all the stops. The 2000 election debacle, which seemed to drag on forever, was very dispiriting and infuriating. It would be worse if this election goes to McCain in a close race.
Could it not be that unrest following a McCain victory might be enough to 'wake people up? Why do we have to hope for the absolute worst case scenario to 'wake people up'? To me, the whole concept is like torching your house in hopes of rebuilding a better one.
I still say, although I've yet to have anyone agree unequivocally with me, that an Obama presidency would set a precedent. It would be a symbolic changing of the guard, a handover of power to the 'new America', the post-European America. Once that precedent is set, will we ever be able to return to majority dominance again? Or will there be cries of 'racism' and 'going backward' if the parties don't run nonwhite candidates the next time around. I feel sure the Republicans have their choice waiting in the wings, and I have my ideas of who it will be. But a precedent will be set, and with an increasingly nonwhite America, we as a people will be on the wane, permanently. Why hasten this day? Why hurry it along? It may be an irreversible step.
The old saying that breaking eggs is necessary to make an omelette is true, but how much would it take to irreparably shatter our country? And speaking of breaking eggs, we know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put him back together again.
I suspect that the people who insist on the "worse is better" strategy have convinced themselves that our country is already beyond repair, and that we have little to lose by gambling it all. But for those of us who believe that there is still something worth saving, why break what is left purposely in hopes that we might be able to put the pieces back together again?
How does this idea persist? It's always been misguided, to view it charitably, or downright treasonous, to take a less charitable view of it.
I've written about it before, and I presented my reasons for thinking that an Obama presidency will not ''wake people up" or ''galvanize the right" or bring about some kind of conservative epiphany and restoration.
There have been so many events over the last ten or twen years that should have been wake-up calls, but were not. We've all become, to some extent, jaded over the steady move leftward and the transformation of America right under our noses. Going back to the early 90s, we saw the L.A riots, the O.J. Simpson acquittal and the jubilation of blacks following that. In more recent years, we've seen the lawlessness and shocking behavior in New Orleans following Katrina, and then the Knoxville murders, (ignored by our mainstream media, as the Katrina atrocities have been airbrushed away or denied) and the daily spectacle of the mass invasion of our country and the brazen marching by the invaders in our cities and towns.
Through all these events, there may have been isolated grumblings or flashes of resentment on the part of the majority, but ultimately people go back to sleep or back to their toys and distractions, while Change marches on.
When I pointed this out in the past, I was told that I was being negative, denying the possibility of an awakening on our part. I would love to believe that THIS time it will be different, that an Obama presidency will be the one galvanizing event. Why should it be, though?
Most presidencies have a 'honeymoon period' in which the new President is given some latitude and enjoys the goodwill of a majority of the people. Obama will coast on that goodwill for a time, but be sure that the very pro-Obama media will provide a permanent honeymoon for their guy. All criticism will be treated as examples of racism and bigotry.
Americans may well become lulled by the initial 'honeymoon' period and even those who did not vote for Obama will grudgingly say 'he's not too bad" or perhaps be taken in by this vaunted 'charisma' which I am told he has. Many Americans who are not troubled by anything resembling political philosophies or moral principles will accept whatever Obama proposes to do. Many Americans are not politically savvy, so they will see nothing wrong with most of the more radical leftist ideas he will promote.
Ever try to explain to an apolitical person, in very basic terms, why leftism and socialism are bad for America? When Obama says we need to 'spread the wealth around', that sounds good to many non-thinking Americans. Who can object to "wealth-spreading"? I've tried to explain why that idea is wrong, but my words don't penetrate through the fog in some cases.
Political illiterates, people who have no idea of our founding principles, or people who vote based on how nice a guy or gal the candidate appears to be, are not swayed by logical arguments or arguments based on principle.
They will not see how Obama is making things worse; they tend to believe whatever they hear on NBC Nightly News or what they hear on The View or Oprah or from Katie Couric.
As to the conservatives who think 'worse is better', I would like to hear specifics regarding how long it will take for worse to become measurably better? And how much worse will it have to get?
The biggest question I have is: how do the 'worse is better' proponents have so much faith that little lasting damage can be done by a Democrat President, plus a Democrat Congress, aided and abetted by a liberal media? The underlying assumption seems to be that whatever harm is done can be easily undone, but yet, when was the last time any incoming Republican administration undid what the Democrats did while in office? Did even the Reagan administration, which most Republicans consider the zenith of conservatism in modern America, undo the liberalism so entrenched from the New Deal and 'Great Society"? To my knowledge, nothing much was undone that had been wrought by a very busy left during those earlier reigns.
When our current President was elected, some were certain he would 'clean house' but he never did, instead choosing not only to abstain from criticizing his predecessor, but to buddy up to Clinton publicly.
And are the worse-is-better advocates confident that Obama will not institute a radical agenda when in office? Who will oppose him? Certainly not a majority Democrat Congress and a lot of supine, spineless Republicans who will be scared spitless of being called bigots.
Over at Red State there is an entry and a discussion on what an Obama administration might do.
This CNN transcript from a while back has Obama discussing his plans for a 'civilian national security force' which he says will be just as strong, powerful, and well-funded as the military. Imagine his followers mobilized into some kind of 'national security force.'
Can we embrace the idea of such a 'civilian national security force'? Or universal national service?
He has said he would like to institute a draft, which would involve young women as well as men. He says if some of us are going to war, all of us should be going.
Would these kinds of things cause this mass awakening? I doubt it; his followers, though usually the military-loathing types, would probably gladly don uniforms for their idol. They would also not oppose a draft if Obama proposed it.
But will these things wake up the 'conservatives'? Or will they just grumble and gripe and eventually accept it and get used to it, as with just about every liberal/radical idea that has been pushed through over the last few decades?
Will we see a return of the ''Fairness Doctrine" or the passing of 'hate speech' laws, which have been attempted in the past? These things could seriously stifle free speech.
I think an enormous amount of damage could be done in a very short time, more than in a typical Democrat administration, because any real opposition would be silenced, neutered.
In recent days and weeks there have been a number of articles in the media hinting at riots and mass civil unrest should Obama lose the election. And I guarantee that there WILL be anger, and charges of 'election stealing' and worse if the election is close and Obama loses. We've seen a preview of that in the past couple of elections, with the Democrats pulling out all the stops. The 2000 election debacle, which seemed to drag on forever, was very dispiriting and infuriating. It would be worse if this election goes to McCain in a close race.
Could it not be that unrest following a McCain victory might be enough to 'wake people up? Why do we have to hope for the absolute worst case scenario to 'wake people up'? To me, the whole concept is like torching your house in hopes of rebuilding a better one.
I still say, although I've yet to have anyone agree unequivocally with me, that an Obama presidency would set a precedent. It would be a symbolic changing of the guard, a handover of power to the 'new America', the post-European America. Once that precedent is set, will we ever be able to return to majority dominance again? Or will there be cries of 'racism' and 'going backward' if the parties don't run nonwhite candidates the next time around. I feel sure the Republicans have their choice waiting in the wings, and I have my ideas of who it will be. But a precedent will be set, and with an increasingly nonwhite America, we as a people will be on the wane, permanently. Why hasten this day? Why hurry it along? It may be an irreversible step.
The old saying that breaking eggs is necessary to make an omelette is true, but how much would it take to irreparably shatter our country? And speaking of breaking eggs, we know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put him back together again.
I suspect that the people who insist on the "worse is better" strategy have convinced themselves that our country is already beyond repair, and that we have little to lose by gambling it all. But for those of us who believe that there is still something worth saving, why break what is left purposely in hopes that we might be able to put the pieces back together again?
Labels: Ethnic Conflicts, Party Politics, Political Campaigns, Presidential Candidates