Click Here for My Full Website

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Obama: Intellectually Trapped in the 1960's

Candidate Obama was marketed as a reincarnated 1960's civil rights leader--sort of a cross between Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and Thurgood Marshall; with a dash of Louis Farrakhan on the side.

Progressives cannot get their heads out of this vision of the 1960’s, and this will be their downfall.

Progressives were instantly in love with the man who epitomized their most triumphant period. In keeping with this narrative, they continue to attempt to color their opponents, not as intellectual rivals, but rather as racist segregationists. This worked in the 1960's--after Sen. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he was defeated by a large margin as Republican nominee for president that same year.

But what should we expect from someone who thinks the 1960's civil rights movement translates to progressivism in 2010? Answer: someone who is incompetent and far out of the main stream.

Obama brings all the incompetence of John F. Kennedy. Some people idolize Kennedy, but he was only president for 3 years. It was Lyndon Johnson who accomplished much of what Kennedy is remembered for. Progressive don't like to talk about President Johnson, because he became so unpopular for lying, escalating Vietnam and his leftist policies.

Progressive don’t like to talk about the real John F. Kennedy either. There are many good things to say about him. But, he was undoubtedly a man with little integrity who had absolutely no idea what he was doing in the White House.

Kennedy had little-to-no experience. He is famous for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it is rarely mentioned that the Russians showed no signs of aggression while Eisenhower was president for 8 years. They perceived Kennedy as weak and intellectually vulnerable, and that is why they started putting missiles in Cuba to start with. Kennedy brought the nation closer to nuclear war than any person in history. This is why I'd rather have a boring old Eisenhower for president, than an Obama any day.

The comparison we see by President Obama's opponents is to President Jimmy Carter, whose handling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis was a public perception disaster. As we are beginning to see, more and more, President Obama is similarly incompetent for this job. Whether it be his dithering on Afghanistan, the "beer summit" situation, or the recent oil spill, the examples abound. He is a great campaigner, but as an executive, he is failing. This came as no surprise to most of us though.

Main Steam Views
I usually don’t criticize people for “being outside the main stream.” Frankly, I think the main stream is often wrong. But I also believe in government by consensus building over time—not dictatorial mandates by self-proclaimed intellectuals.

Progressives had several successes in the 1960’s because they were right about certain things. The country needed to address a host of social issues. The federal government was finally catching up with the rest of the country, which was desirous of government intervention.

However, progressives think that this was the beginning of a movement toward socialism. It was not. Rather, it was a refining process for a country that still fundamentally values individual rights—and does not distinguish between social and economic rights. There was always a tension between freedom and the right to engage in repugnant acts. There always will be. An effort to sort out this tension is not the complete abandonment of private property, as progressive would advocate.

Jesse Jackson said, “you cannot vote against (Obama’s) healthcare bill and call yourself a black man.” This view shows the insane prejudice and bias of progressives. They are trying to sell their prejudice that anyone that disagrees with them is racist. This is because they are sincere in their desire to help the needy. Therefore, anyone who doesn't arrive at their conclusion, must lack this sincerity.

Of course, the problem is that their definition of the "needy" is ever expansive, and generally politically advantageous for them. I always support helping those who are truly needy. However, progressives are intellectually incapable of addressing the biggest issue in 2010: the question of what aspects of 20th century America do we want to retain, and which parts to we want to dispense with?

For them, if abandoning the Constitution a little bit was a good idea, then why not abandon it completely?

Most people in this country are not progressive. In fact, most people don’t like progressive policies. Granted, some are dependent on some progressive programs, and are therefore protective of them. But that wont get progressives very far politically. When your support comes from the net beneficiaries of government spending, you sacrifice the support of those who actually pay for the programs. This is a divisive and ultimately losing battle--as Europe is slowly discovering.

To say that those who oppose progressive are really just a bunch of racist, is so patently ridiculous and offensive, that it is usually not worth discussing. If you cant argue on the merits of your ideas, then you shouldn't talk at all. But this is the Democratic Party narrative.

Their 1960's civil rights President is no Martin Luther King. Rather, he's just actor who plays the part well. In response to the Obama Presidency, there will be no movement. Rather, it is merely a revelation of the shallowness, offensiveness, and unsustainability of the monster that the progressive movement has morphed into. Progressivism is anti-civil rights because it rejects economic rights--not just to curtail racism, which is justified--but also to empower the government on a much broader scale, which is not justified. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Its time to get with the times. We need to dispense with the old guard--Republican and Democrat alike.

People want to retain prohibitions on discrimination—an accomplishment of the progressive movement. But we don’t want to retain the welfare state or the warfare state. We want to retain the fruits of our labor and our property rights. We don’t want a massive mortgage on our children’s earnings anymore. We don’t want to end up like Greece and the European Union. We don’t want the whole country to be run like Chicago and Detroit or California.

I gladly join the anti-incumbent movement going on today.

No comments: