Isn’t there something … you know … important coming up next month?
On Facedouche, I was asked (as I have been before, elsewhere) if I had ANY other interest besides politics. Why, oh why, must I prattle on so?
Aren’t there enough blogs devoted to non-important garbage? Isn’t your facebook page filled enough with chatty, non-issue stuff?
I’m trying to bring CONTENT into our lives. Discussion. Debate. Let’s learn something. Don’t like what I wrote? How about some counter argument?
Content such as this, on utopian rhetoric:
Consider a commencement address by newly elected senator Barack Obama at Knox College in 2005. “So let’s dream,” said our future president. Make sure that college is “affordable for everyone who wants to go,” among other things, and “that old Maytag plant could re-open its doors as an Ethanol refinery that turned corn into fuel. Down the street, a biotechnology research lab could open up on the cusp of discovering a cure for cancer.” How did we reach the point where a politician could, as Kesler writes, “dangle before the citizens of Galesburg, Illinois, home of Knox College, the prospect not merely of a biotech research lab opening up down the street, but one that is on the verge of curing cancer”?
The oceans were going to stop rising too. WHy do people eat-up this non-sense?
The reason is because progressivism has been slowly building for a LONG time. We’ve hardly seen it coming. From Wilson, to FDR, to Johnson. Obama isn’t our first president who want to be “transformative.”
The traces of all of Obama’s progressive predecessors can be found in his presidency. Like the earliest progressives, he creates a mock alternative to his creed in Social Darwinism — erasing more than a century of debate about the purposes of government that started with natural right rather than survival of the fittest. His metaphors date from Wilson: He frequently describes the state as the instrument by which we act as “our brother’s keeper” and occasionally suggests that our politics would improve if we all saw ourselves as part of the armed forces.
Obama told us, from the beginning, that he wanted to be a transformational president. It’s sounds nice (much like the term “progressive” – hey, I like “progress”!), but only if you are clueless about the ideas our country was founded on, and what he wants to “transform.”
Which leads me to this piece of … I don’t know what to call it.
If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan. The narrative writes itself. He will emerge as an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al -Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery.
Andrew Sullivan. Conservative. (does he still call himself that?)
Obama has been playing a long, strategic game from the very start—a long game that will only truly pay off if he gets eight full years to see it through. That game is not only changing America. It may also bring his opposition, the GOP, back to the center, just as Reagan indelibly moved the Democrats away from the far left.
Sullivan compares Obama to Reagen (yea right), and this blogger builds on Sullivan’s argument, but then brings up the biggest difference between the two men.
Nothing captures better how President Reagan changed the national dialogue in this country more than his statement that “government isn’t the solution, its the problem.”
Obama is the exact OPPOSITE of that idea. For him, government IS the solution.
More than anything else, this is the pattern that President Obama has been working to transform. When the country was on the brink of financial collapse, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is what stopped that from happening. The government successfully bailed out the auto industry. Health care reform is certainly not – as the Republicans like to say – a giant government take-over of that industry. But President Obama successfully made the case that government had a role to play in insurance reforms and ensuring that all Americans have access to health care. Wall Street reform reintroduced the idea that the government plays a role in regulating the finance industry.
Yes, thank you. Obama has been transforming us from a nation of liberty and economic freedom, to one where the government pics winners and losers (usually those with lobbists or big donor.) Where government cronyism is given legitimacy.
The crux of the choice in this election comes down to whether or not you agree with the Republicans that we’re all on our own, or whether – as President Obama is saying – we have a collective responsibility to one another via our shared democratic government.
Oh, it gets worse – and this guy is ALL FOR it :
President Obama is trying to change the way we see our government. He’s making a direct challenge to the notion that government is “big brother” out to control our lives. Instead, he’s talking about our collective responsibilities to each other via citizenship.
See, now,that crap you just wrote? It’s all just words. Because a “collective responsibility” can be nothing BUT that “big brother” government. You cannot have a benevolent government force watching out for you. There is nothing benevolent about a huge, over-reaching, all powerful government. NOTHING. Give a man the power to dictate anything about your life, and he will take that power to whatever extreme he can.
State power is always coercive. And our founding fathers, and others, were right to warn us:
“The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
“Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
You cannot have it both ways.
I leave you with this last little bit, because I *don’t do* two posts in one day. Hugh Hewitt in anticipation of the debates (which Obama is spending the next three days preparing for – why one needs to prepare for THREE days to debate for a job he’s held for almost four years is beyond me …)
Watch as well for nonresponsive self-pity, verbal essays on how difficult it was when he took over and how hard he has been working. Self-pity and self-regard are not designed to endear him to the unemployed or even the economically fragile, so he will be coached to try to avoid displaying his sense of outrage at being thought a failure or “in over his head,” but the president’s sense of his own immensity is so great as to blow past such base political calculations.
Finally, watch for the parade of straw men, the president’s favorite rhetorical trick. He will set up arguments that have never been made in the service of Republican goals that have never existed, and then he will denounce both. If the appearance of a straw man serves as a trigger in a drinking game, many bottles will empty by the end of Debate No. 1.
There will be straw-men aplenty; Obama will bring along an army of strawmen. And since so many folks (not MY readers, of course) don’t seem to know what a “straw-man” is, I’ll put this handy dandy definition so you can direct them here:
A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
That’s the number ONE rhetorical trick used by President Three-Putt. I advise against the straw-men drinking game, since some people have to go to work the next day.