Well, now we know: there is nothing Obama’s enablers wouldn’t excuse and justify
We used to ask the joking question: what could Obama do that would get his supporters to cross that imaginary line from defending him to condemning him?
The joke was that the answer was “nothing.” There was nothing he could do that they would not try to justify.
It was a joke, but not really a joke. The very harsh reality is that it seemed clear that almost all Democrats, pundits on the Democratic side, liberals, and the left were so in the tank for the man that they had abandoned all principle—that is, those who had ever cared about principle in the first place (other than “power forever”), or had seemed to care about principle, or had mouthed words that sounded like caring about principle. They would now find other words to explain why those principles were really not being violated by things Obama was doing that obviously violated them, or why this or that violation had to happen because somehow the opposition (Republicans, conservatives) had driven Obama to it.
And so, if Obama literally had crowned himself king last night instead of merely doing it figuratively, his enablers would say that Reagan had done the same thing, since he once wore a crown on Halloween.
If Obama had called a Republican senator into the Oval Office for a talk and then had taken out a gun and shot him dead, Obama’s enablers would say that Reagan had done the same thing, since he once spoke harshly to a Democratic senator. What’s more, they would say, the Republican made Obama do it by being so mean and racist to him—and, furthermore, it shows the need for more gun control.
You get the idea.
Obama has crossed many many important and heretofore sacred lines; too numerous to mention them all. This blog is one of many that describe/demonstrate the reaction of the right in real time. But the line he crossed last night into trashing the Constitution and dictatorship was the most important line of all that he’s leapt over—so far, that is. I have little doubt that he has other lines he intends to violate, especially if there is no effective pushback to this action of his.
It was midway in Obama’s first term that it suddenly occurred to me that in a second term (if he managed to win one) he would be far, far worse in terms of boldness and willingness to act out his radicalism, because no fear of the public in a future presidential election would check him, and he felt himself to be unimpeachable. What I didn’t think about was that the radical nature of what he was willing to do would take still another leap after the 2014 election, because then there would be no more voter feedback towards Democrats in Congress during the rest of his term, and time would be getting short for him to accomplish that Hope and Change stuff (that is, changing America into a leftist dictatorship with a permanent Democratic majority dependent on Big Government).
Obama would be nothing without his enablers in his Party, in the press, in the schools, in entertainment, and in the public at large. They are legion.
So here we are.
You just defined, “ideology”.
And those supporters of Obama exhibit every bit the ideologues they are.
So, there we are.
You comparison of Obama to Chavez in a previous post is on the money. As we look into the future we can take Venezuela as a road map, perhaps slower, but with the same end destination. Unlike a Latin American country however, there is a lot more here to pillage.
My biggest fear now is that with advertised open borders the country will be ripe for terrorist infiltration. It’s as if Rome openly invited the Vandals to cross its frontier.
I am a curious person by nature.
That said, I wonder how it is that someone, like Neo-Neocon can undergo a change, so seemingly significant as represented by the tone and tenor of this attached post.
Please understand, I have read the category: “A mind is a difficult thing to change.”
There are some kernels of wisdom within. Still, the metamorphosis is remarkable.
I’m similarly fascinated by the changes other Liberals have made in their political positions:
Dennis Prager (a personal hero of mine)
Michael Medved (incredibly erudite individual)
David Horowitz (teetering on radical-conservative).
I am wondering whether anyone else here has read, r/K Theory, very much related to the aforementioned?
A bit haunting in its revelatory reasoning as to what the underlying profile of a Liberal and a conservative is.
Actually, it is scary in what it portends.
I bring this up given that Neo-Neocon refers to just how invested Liberals are in this “Messiah” they pay homage to. To be so myopic as to excuse repeated dangerous and adolescent behavior by this sitting president is stultifying. When I meet someone who voted for Obama, not once, but twice, I have to swallow hard. My brain is simply not wired to comprehend just how……….well, as Jonathan Gruber so succinctly put it, “stupid”, one needs to be to support such an individual who represents the policies, the positions, the blatantly persistent LIES “FORWARDED” by this man-child in the white house.
r/K Theory.
It is so clean, so understandable, so resolute in its elements.
I get a distinct “Please proceed, Governor (Romney)” vibe out of all this. Remember that set-up in the Candy-moderated debate?
Mostly theatre to give the GOP a chance to look like extremists who are racist and unfeeling.
Neo says
Of course.
In this regard see the response of a 70 something “political activist” and one time chemistry teacher from Delaware, who, writing on a largely disused blog provided for him by another, describes himself thus:
In a recent post titled, “The Worsening Impact of Income Inequality”, he complains: “There are limits to what radical Republicans can do to suppress the vote, so they are running out of time, or at least should be unless the Repubs find some more dirty tricks to pull.”
No which I, using a spare AOL address to sidestep his known propensity of attempting personally directed life disruptions, comment:
In response, the progressive “activist” posts this:
http://www.gapbridging.com/?p=1822#comment-1360
What more than an admission confirming what we had already observed, do we need?
I like Jennifer Rubin’s take on this — The best revenge for the GOP is victory: Don’t get mad, get back the White House:
Read the whole piece for some details on how she thinks this can be done.
Well, now we know: there is nothing Obama’s enablers wouldn’t excuse and justify.
Yup. Nancy Pelosi’s justification of Obama’s executive order on immigration is an example. A friend of mine bills himself as a “conservative” Democrat. When I expressed my dislike of Pelosi’s saying “we have to pass the fill to find out what’s in it,” he defended Pelosi.
Enablers all down the line.
Neo: “Obama would be nothing without his enablers in his Party, in the press, in the schools, in entertainment, and in the public at large. They are legion.”
Exactly.
Your point is solidly addressed in the recent “Silent Revolution: How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance”, by the late Barry Rubin (see http://pjmedia.com/blog/silent-scourge/).
In a sense — and in reality, too — the central problem has never been the Presidency of Barry Soetoro / Barrack Hussein Obama, per se. Of course, that’s altogether serious enough. Doubtless the next two years portend — alas, alas – to be an interval that may be chillingly “interesting” to any future historian of American domestic politics, and in inevitable turn, geopolitics. (That is, is the profession of “historian” is permitted to survive…)
Rather, the central issue has always been that on levels political, intellectual, and cultural, a man imbued with such a warped intellectual heritage, distorted political worldview, and an appalling if not morally grotesque array of backers, enablers, and associates, was ever (ever!) deemed acceptable as an American presidential candidate, to begin with. On one level, this is an searing indictment of the “Democratic Party”, which — paraphrasing that old gibe about the “Holy Roman Empire” – is neither democratic nor a political party. Rather, it’s a self-perpetuating (once blue collar, now red/white/green collar) syndicate, the fundamental ethos of which is power, for power’s (and money’s) sake. On another level, this is a commentary about the metamorphosis of the institutions that have formed the bedrock of American, and indirectly Western, civilization.
It is precisely this that validates a point that Neo (and other equally astute observers) has addressed, previously. That is, what seems to have been the successful “Gramscian March” of the “Left” through the institutions that have formed the bedrock of “Western Civilization”. In this regard, it’s compelling that thinkers as disparate in intellectual worldview as Angelo Codevilla and Joel Kotkin seem to have arrived at parallel conclusions about the evolution and future of political and economic life in America.
Anyway, I agree with Chuck. Neo’s comment about Hugo Chavez is spot-on. With Comrade Hugo, I’d toss in one part Benito Mussolini, one part Juan Peron, and one part Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.
As for Neo’s point, I think that what we are facing is a constant of human nature. That is, in every society, in every age, some are pure, utter opportunists; some are ideologues for whom politics is a form of personal, secular redemption (such folks would have been religious fanatics in another era); some nakedly adore power; some adore wealth. (Yes, these people will back the President’s policies regardless of anything. And I mean anything.) And above all, many – if not the overwhelming majority – who are happily complacent.
The latter is the real problem.
I’ve been wondering for a long time if this country needed a kind of John Galt.
I’m beginning to think we’ll really need an American incarnation of Hari Seldon.
Back when Obama first started running for president I noticed the cultish behavior of his supporters. I was reminded of the Jim Jones cult. Jim Jones was a communist and community organizer. When he told his followers to drink the cool aid they did it. Obama supporters will continue to support him no matter what he does.
Obama supporters will continue to support him no matter what he does.
Worse still, one day he will be out political office, but the people who elevated him to power and backed his actions will still be there.
We used to be a serious nation with a serious place in the world. We did great things and thus we held serious debates in public.
Now, “it’s especially [easy] if the MSM is on your side, it’s easy as pie to tell effective lies….”
And so we no longer have any serious debate. This is as fine a reason as any other to leave a dying America. It’s deying, debate is dead, and dishonest plagues the body politic like a corpse in the sun, picked over by carrion.
OOPS! The last post went under the wrong thread.
Neo: “Obama would be nothing without his enablers in his Party, in the press, in the schools, in entertainment, and in the public at large. They are legion.”
The activist game is the only social political game there is.
I’ll say again that the focus on Obama is misdirected beyond that he is the President and, as such, he is their agent in the White House.
However, they are not him. He is them – Obama is an avatar, agent, company rep of a Marxist-method activist social movement.
The movement is where the focus needs to be. Taking on the avatar-man is insufficient. The Right must take on the whole Marxist-method activist social movement on the whole spectrum. Electoral politics, while obviously important, are a lesser included element of the activist game.
Hey, Clarity!! Great to see an old friend from the pre-troll infestation days at Townhall. You’ll like it here, Lad. Welcome.
The Cheering for Hitler analogy works perfectly here, as I have been saying for years.
It is so horrible to believe that our friends and neighbors are exactly the very type of people to a T who cheered for Hitler.
They are.
They will not change. They will never change. They have already been changed – from good people to people who cheer for Hitler. Only a cataclysm the likes of WWII and losing a war would ever even conceivably change them back.
Horrible as horrible gets. I know.
True as the day is long unfortunately.
Well at least I am reassured that it is not paranoia that makes me believe Obama is trying to lay the groundwork for a dictatorship in the US. If he had not done it some other “cool, handsome, intelligent sounding” fascist would have. Let’s hope he continues to act as King, maybe he will turn off and alert even more than he has.
The good news is that the more diversity in a population the less likely the imposition of uniform control. The bad news is the computer database. We are all numbers now. Anyway democracies evolve and so do dictatorships. My guess is that the yuppies will remain loyal to Obama until the Repubs run someone sexier.
I agree with Mike, Obama is no Hitler but his supporters are exactly like the morons who cheered Hitler. When I saw the crowds cheering his victory in Grant park I thought how sane Germans must have felt in 1933 at the news of Hitler’s ascension.
Rush agrees with you, Neo: he says Comrade Zero is just getting started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Yrg9xNSS0
Soros is guilty of collabortating with Nazis, not because of what he did in Nazi era but what he is doing in this century.
They are guilty of collaborating with Nazis because that is what they are doing, and not because they were born before or after WWII.
Soros is guilty in spite of his past, because even if his past had been about saving Jews, he would still be Guilty now.
Obama would be nothing without his enablers in his Party, in the press, in the schools, in entertainment, and in the public at large. They are legion.
Of course, they are guilty too.
As for Jim Jones, he had armed guards out ready to take out anyone that disobeyed and their children. Quietly disappeared, to prevent the mass of sheep from noticing rebellion and taking a bad example. Jones even killed a US Congress critter, after he stepped off the plane for negotiations, blaming it on CIA Imperialism.
The Left has always been dreaming of assassinations and coups. If they could not succeed with the bullet, they would with the ballot.
You know what the response to such piffle is?
Yes ‘millions’ now have health insurance. Millions more have lost their insurance because their plans are now outlawed by 404Care, with tens of million more to come losing their health insurance when the employer mandate kicks in. Health insurance is not a zero sum game.
Ray:
Actually, you are simplifying the Jim Jones suicide pact and how it played out.
In fact, although some of the people in Jonestown were still True Believers, many no longer were, but had been terrorized in a sort of Gulag run by Jones, where resistance was futile.
Get the story here. Excerpt:
I read this post after reading the Jonestown one. We are in big trouble.
…and when Ferguson explodes this week, The Bama will say “now, now, y’all..”.
Anyone morbidly remember when this Snake Oiler In Chief was claiming to be a Uniter..??!!