Progressive Salesman Obama
Not to carry on, but the reason why we should focus on Obama’s second inaugural speech (and the aftermath/analysis) is because it’s very revealing. It shows how they think, and what they plan on doing. In the speech is Obama’s vision of a progressive paradise, where the federal government can solve all problems, but this in no way threatens individual liberty, etc. This is the next progression of mankind, don’t you know.
“There are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans,” he said. “Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.”
The stale political arguments no long apply? Because Obama wants to destroy his opposition. The opposition that is not worthy of him. Analysis from Reason (link above):
Indeed, that may tell you why his second inaugural is winning such plaudits from liberal pundits. What many of them seem to desire most is a government in which Obama and his fellow Democrats are unopposed, free to govern and spend as they please, unburdened of the task of fighting congressional Republicans, or convincing conservative skeptics. Obama’s speech didn’t just lay out a vision of a working progressive government, it offered a vision of a progressive establishment unopposed by argument, politics, or practical and fiscal constraints. And it let progressive pundits bask, if only for a brief moment, in the better world of their own imagination, one in which the government does many things—but not, apparently, contend with the opposition.
Most offensive in his speech is the following, imho:
But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.
Yea, but he’s not talking about fighting commies. He’s talking about redistributing income. He’s talking about control, by the federal government, of schools, road building, and research labs.
What’s even more infuriating are the words he spoke before those quoted above:
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.
Because up is down. Black is white. Freedom is is restrictions. Charles C. W. Cooke:
Within reason, the president is entitled to advocate for whatever philosophy he chooses. But “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” as the Declaration puts it, would dictate that he do so honestly and without confusion. However one couches it, individualism is not collectivism; guaranteeing free speech is not restricting speech; constants cannot be changed to suit the times. Were progressivism popular enough on its own, it would not need to be swaddled in the idioms of liberty. But it is not, and, for now at least, that means we’ll likely be stuck with that dastardly little conjunction [but] whenever progressive salesmen are at work.
The selling of progressiveness is combination of rhetorical tricks, and flat-out lies. Because people don’t want it, when they know what “it” is.