Beware Our Rousseauian Imaginer-in-Chief
Yes, this is powerful symbolism. But it is still as empty and imaginary as Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire Cat. It is new wine in old leftist bottles, and thus suffers from the same confusion and fantasies as the old left.
It all starts with a fundamental intellectual error — namely, that one’s notion of an ideal society as created by government somehow encompasses mankind’s most inner and precious purpose. Once you assume, as philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once did with his idea of the “general will,” that you have discovered the ultimate end-all of social life, you naturally become less concerned about limiting your means in trying to reach this ideal. All that messy business about checks and balances on government from Montesquieu and James Madison gets thrown out the window because, after all, you have embarked on a path much loftier and nobler than merely preserving freedom.
Trying simply to grow the economy or to give people more freedom and opportunity is way too mundane for a visionary leader of this ilk. The old-fashioned view of the good life in which as many people as possible can live as free and happily as the government will let them has given way to a vision of society in which no one is happy unless all are. The fact that this is an impossible goal makes no difference, because if you object you not only are accused of lacking imagination, but of callously depriving people of their happiness.
This is no small matter. How else could you justify “transforming” America’s constitutional order as President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have promised to do if not for some great transcendent purpose? Pelosi famously responded to a question about whether her health care bill was constitutional with an incredulous “are you serious?” She could not even imagine health care being a question for the Constitution because, in her imagined world, everyone having health care trumps all other possible considerations.
The old cliché that the road to hell is paved with good intentions obviously applies here. But so too does “be careful what you wish for.” Any state that can acquire the power to try to create these imagined communities is one that can and will eventually bring the hard cold reality of deprivation and misery. A government that promises health care to everyone at lower cost will inevitably acquire so much control that it will make no difference if it doesn’t deliver. The power will belong to the government regardless, and despite all complaints, there will not be anything anybody can do if the reality falls short of the imagined outcome.
We are talking about statism here. Only the state (by mobilizing coercive power in government supposedly on behalf of the people) can make promises that, if broken, will lead to more state power, not less. The perverse logic is to prevent accountability for failure. Failure brings more government power, not less, because more power is supposedly the only way to fix a problem that government created in the first place. So, for example, if health care reform fails, the president or his liberal successors will not repeal the health care bill, but simply demand that more money is poured into the failing system — and the government be given even more control.
Moreover, only the state can promise something which otherwise would make people collapse into heaps of derisive laughter. Those who believe that you can get much more health care for less cost obviously are on a different emotional and intellectual plane than those of us who balance our own checkbooks. They may imagine that the same government that can win world wars can and will deliver their wildest social dreams as well. But beware of pat comparisons of the brutal force used by armies in war and the power of government to remake society. Therein lies the road to tyranny.
President Obama is practicing the politics of imagination all right, just like countless other liberals, progressives, and leftists before him. But we should remember one thing: Imagination in this sense is fundamentally irrational. Its opposite is not thoughtlessness and stupidity, but rather reality.
In other words, the truth.
You believe the president pursued these obnoxious initiatives because he followed his imagination, I say you are as naïve as he is “imaginative.” President Obama is a class warrior methodically and relentlessly destroying our society to remake it to something that suits his image of an ideal America – one that Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers would approve of.
I say “methodically” and “relentlessly” not without deliberations. Look at how he pushed Health Care: Why must “we” do it “this year?” Why had the most crucial vote in the middle of the night? Why cut the shameful deals to get votes? Why…? Is this how a person pursues his imagination, which would be checked by reality? No. This is how a politician forcefully pursues an unpolular agenda before the window of opportunity closes (i.e. when the voters wake up.)
Sorry, but his “imaginations” are only your imaginations.
Simply brilliant, in scope and erudition. My deepest thanks for your having written this.
“When he promises a world with “no nuclear weapons,””
Er, no. He didn’t do that.
“no one will die because they don’t have health care”
Nope, nor that. Traditionally, when you stick quotes around something, it’s because your subject actually SAID IT. I don’t think anyone’s completely sure how that particular soundbite got started – but it sure wasn’t because obama said it (or even the misquoted version you’re using – the original said “should”, not “will”)
“nor will he be the last to promise the end of poverty”
When did he do that? I don’t think he did.
“he transcends mere liberalism and ascends into the realm of potential redemption for all of America’s past sins.”
Go back and watch the presidential debates again. Then be honest – do you REALLY think mccain lost that election because of obama’s “personal story”? Put aside palin openly refusing to answer questions and just look at the ball of confusion that was john mccain in that last debate. He looked exhausted, lost, out of his depth, completely unprepared for predictable responses to accusations about obama.
If I was writing a polemic about an “imaginer in chief”, I’d be using a lot fewer imaginary claims.
The road to tyranny is always paved with “good” intentions. As in, we are the intellectual elite and we know what is best for “the people.”
As a matter of fact, so did Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. The first three nationalized their economy [or "communised" it if you prefer] while the fourth simply controlled his via taxes, regulation, and political intimidation. The fact that three were called “communists” and one was called a “fascist” [a misnomer since he was a national socialist] really does very little to differentiate among four totalitarians. We seem to walking down the road taken by the fourth. It remains to be seen whether their is a racial component this time.
C.S. Lewis once said, I will run and hide when someone comes to tell me they have some plan to improve my life.A good rule to live by.
Give me a break.
Obama is a semi-professional babbler that has yet to utter one coherent, grammatically correct, goal oriented sentence.
“I am the one.” “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” “Er, let me be clear.”
In order to satisfy the blood thirsty left’s desire to kill Bush plus slap Hillary down, the liberal Democrats could have run a circus monkey with a tin hat and music box as their candidate and still mopped the floor with John McCain’s carcass.
From here can we agree that the voters simply, “Acted stupid-idly…?”
This is a fantastic article, and gets to the essense of the futility — the lethally dangerous futility — of Obamist-style leftism. Bravo, Kim Holmes.
Utopianism is both at the base of, and, at the same time, is the logical conclusion of, all leftist/statist thinking, throughout history.
And the historical record is clear: the more powerful the urge to social and political utopia, the more appalling the dystopia that follows.
This is why the attempted “re-making” of America by Obama and his gang is even more dangerous to our freedoms than any previous Democrat-spawned catastrophes. (Compared to the enormity of the Obamist “vision”, the previously unprecedented disaster that was the unhappy interregnum of the fatuous Jimmy Carter pale to a mere insignificant nuisance.)
As the philosopher Karl Popper wisely warned: “The attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell.”
Oh, I remember the days when my imagination ruled my world and I created the perfect community for myself and my family. Those wonderful, glorious days–before I went to first grade.
If only I’d been allowed to follow a path in life where my imagination could continue to rule all–I could also imagine myself *charming* yet show no regard for anyone but myself. I could imagine myself *brilliant* yet never offer any evidence other than self regard. I could read words written for me from a teleprompter and people would imagine I was a great orator. I could imagine that enemies around the world would be my friend, if they only had a chance to talk to me.
What a shame so many voter’s BS-meter was broken in 2008. Let’s not let that happen again. I don’t imagine the current ImaginationPresidency is going to turn out very well, for the rest of us.
Utopianism is what separates Communism and Nazism from other forms of Fascism. Beware the Utopian.
One should not forget that this sort of utopian statism often comes at a high price in the real world – on a personal level in the lives of the statists as well as for everyone else should they gain power.
While ideas need to be evaluated on their merits, it is often instructive to look at the lives of those who have been their strong advocates: in the case of Rousseau, it is a very ugly picture. The man had a number of illegitimate children with a mistress he treated badly, and he give several of his children to a foundling home. The morality of a sociopath. He was a clever mooch who, while writing all of his “noble” sentiments, constantly put his immediate interests above those of others. A prime example of an almost complete disjunction between the ideas and the reality of behavior.
At least half the judgment of ideas should be the company they keep.
Someone with a narcissistic personality like Barack Obama is inclined to embrace utopian schemes. They are not only psychologically immature and intellectually lazy—but also rightfully sense that this is superb way of grabbing enormous power and a guaranteed affluent lifestyle. Results are deemed of far less importance than good intentions. Anyone daring to provide rational objections can easily be dismissed as minimally an intellectually backwards individual, if not even an outright disgusting enemy of the revolution. These folks can conveniently be ignored. And if they dare persist, these irritating people can be dealt with in a severe manner.
Obama is a poorly read and intellectually shallow man. More importantly, he doesn’t feel the slightest obligation to get his act together. “My heart is in the right place” is implicitly Obama’s rationalization to justify his continued ignorance. The current president is not “going to grow into the job.” The odds are that Obama will become even more incompetent—and dangerous.
I think you make some interesting points, but weaken your argument by tiresome over-use of the word “leftist”.
It’s actually quite feasible to eliminate poverty, in real terms.
If the government has the power to redistribute assets by fiat, and thus ensures that nobody ever has more than anyone else does (i.e, a “national mean worth” redefined as the only “worth” allowable under law), and becomes the sole proprietor and source of assets (to prevent “cheating”), then ipso facto, poverty is eliminated because everyone has an equal outcome.
Of course, this is more likely to mean that almost no one has even adequate assets. Except for those running the government, who in most such systems (Red China, etc.) have traditionally been “more equal than others”, as Orwell observed.
There’s a distinct difference between an idealist and a fantasist. Most obviously, that most idealists can at least be compelled to listen to reason when reality jumps up and smacks them in the face. (Example; Neville Chamberlain, who worked closely with Churchill after being turned out as Prime Minister before his death).
A fantasist, by comparison, will insist that he is right in spite of any evidence to the contrary, and will blame others for any situation in which his “vision” proves to be at variance with reality. A classic example is anyone who believes they have invented a perpetual-motion machine (which violates so many laws of physics I don’t know where to start).
Obama has occasional episodes of “idealistic” behavior (witness his “change of opinion” on the “BVD Bomber”), but generally remains a committed fantasist (his overall “worldview” of terrorism seems as unaffected by such incidents as his view of economics seems unfazed by the actual economy).
This is not a very useful philosophy for a President of the United States. It does, however, show that Obama may genuinely be the “transformational” figure he believes himself to be.
However, I also believe he truly does not understand exactly how his “dreams” really will transform the united States, and the world, if he succeeds. As opposed to how he thinks things will turn out.
Visionaries, as a rule, rarely concern themselves with such fiddling details. Not when there’s a world, or a Universe, to be “made new”.
clear ether
eon
Obama is also guilty of seeing the citizenry of the United States (those not in the Ruling Class) through the eyes of a ghetto citizen. He sees us as falling into one of two categories: Racist haters/oppressors or helpless victims looking for a savior government.
Entrepreneurs, and all successful business people are automatically placed in the first category. In other words, the people that create wealth for themselves and this Country are automatically the enemy.
So, for example, if health care reform fails, the president or his liberal successors will not repeal the health care bill, but simply demand that more money is poured into the failing system — and the government be given even more control.
Yes – as is being done now with the calls for a new Stimulus Package. The first one not only didn’t work, but made things worse. The answer is to do it some more! It will all, I am afraid, go donw the line of overbearing Statism as you reasoned. My question is whehter there is ever a time when we fight them back, and how? Must it come to collapse and revolution, or might we stop it beforehand? I really hate that America is heading down this road now. We didn’t ask for it, and we don’t deserve it.
“His particular twist on this age-old idea is his charisma.”
And yet, I find his speaking voice to be utterly flat and lifeless, utterly unappealing. Appearance is meaningless, and the way he reacts when under pressure makes him, frankly, ugly to me.
Obama is “charismatic” because we’ve been told, ad nauseum, that he is. He is “brilliant” for the same reason — there’s certainly not been any evidence presented, either in terms of his academic record or his governing ability.
Stop trying to clothe the emperor, please.
So, for example, if health care reform fails, the president or his liberal successors will not repeal the health care bill, but simply demand that more money is poured into the failing system — and the government be given even more control.
Yes – as is being done now with the calls for a new Stimulus Package. The first one not only didn’t work, but made things worse. The answer is to do it some more! It will all, I am afraid, go donw the line of overbearing Statism as you reasoned. My question is whehter there is ever a time when we fight them back, and how? Must it come to collapse and revolution, or might we stop it beforehand? I really hate that America is heading down this road now. We didn’t ask for it, and we don’t deserve it.
This is true of all liberal thinking. There is no learning process; no adjustment of means and goals as the result of life experience. For these reasons, it is a faith rather than a rational approach to governing.
While I think the fundamental premises of this article are essentially correct – that Obama is an imagineer-in-chief and living in a rather idealistic fantasy world (he epitomizes Cameron’s “Avatar”) – to equate Obama and the Enlightment bon vivant, Rousseau is incongruous.
Rousseau’s philosophic constructs were born out his contradictory and self-indulgent existence. Involved in many unusal dalliances and surviving under the patronage of wealthy elites (yes, I understand the parallels), he was nonetheless quite contemplative. That can not be said of our POTUS.
Moreover, Rousseau’s “Social Contract” is an elaborate and dianoetic piece that is far beyond the reasoning capacities of Obama. The dichotomy that Rousseau and other contemporary thinkers struggled with was the apparent contradiction between the necessities and complexities of a civil society and the constraints on natural right. Obama is unable to or incapable of reasoning at such a sophisticated level and his particular tendencies mirror those more of Marx or Engels’ utopian nightmares – all perversions of Rousseau’s intent.
Rousseau was right about one thing. It starts with the teachers.
The evil utopianist view he propagated lives with John Dewey in the US school system today.
You’ve got to destroy the teachers’ unions, replace the teachers and wait several generations to change it.
Ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime nor yours.
Dictators such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, & Communist China all believe in transforming their countries into Utopia; however, it is really a nightmare. For this to happen in America is wrong & hence the severe shockwave this November. Thankfully, our Constitution & different powers in Congress in the House & Senate will keep America from becoming the next Cuba. Obama will be cast out & be the most hated POTUS ever, beating President Jimmy Carter. He will also destroy the Democratic Party.
Hah, the imaginer-in-chief is actually increasing the odds we will die because we DO have healthcare.
Excellent piece but It can be said in a much shorter sentence.
:”The first impulse of every Utopian is to make the people obey the government”.
Why is it so many things surrrounding this President are unknown? Birth Certificate, College Records, Passport, Religion, etc. Is he a puppet directed by others such a Soros, Emanuel, Alexrod, Wright, Soloinsky and other Communists or Marxist? I think he is a fraud and a danger to all of us.
While ideas need to be evaluated on their merits, it is often instructive to look at the lives of those who have been their strong advocates: in the case of Rousseau, it is a very ugly picture. The man had a number of illegitimate children with a mistress he treated badly, and he give several of his children to a foundling home. The morality of a sociopath. He was a clever mooch who, while writing all of his “noble” sentiments, constantly put his immediate interests above those of others. A prime example of an almost complete disjunction between the ideas and the reality of behavior.
He also stole money, between other things. But he had found the magic formula: tell the guilt-ridden aristocrats from his readership (who hadn’t abandonned their children to begin with) “you aren’t better than me” so they continued buying his books.
Also, Rousseau was the main source of inspiration for Robespierre.
Please do not think “Rousseau.” Rather, think Alinsky, Lenin, and Stalin. Mr. Obama is not “liberal.” He is “radical.” Failure to understand the difference between “liberal” and “radical” will bring America to its feet.
The great majority of the American people love and support President Obama. He will lead us into a bright new world of justice and peace.
Those who persist in their vile attacks on our new Leader are nearly all racist white males. Their ill-gotten wealth will be confiscated and redistributed as reparations to those whom the racists oppressed and exploited in building this fatally flawed country.
The racist white males cannot stop it – they are finished.
A couple of Wally Wombschool’s peanut gallery peanuts seem to be better informed about the fiend Jean-Jacques than he/she/it is its/her/his ownself.
On the other hand, most of ’em plainly don’t give a hoot, which is what one would expect from the base ’n’ vile of a Party piously devoted to the maxim “History is bunk!” [1] Not even to mention their Destructive Creationism (®) product line.
So why does Wally bother? Nobody doubts that it/she/he went to high school once and learned a whole lot of thoroughly useless [expletive deleted].
To rehearse acknowledged bunk like this does not seem to do the neocomrades any good, and of course to make any impression on us cultivated despisers, Wally would have to do better, accuracywise and/or provocationwise.
Now if it/she/he had written up “The Dangers of the Imagination” in its/her/his own words, leavin’ poor defenseless Jean-Jacques out of the neo-circus altogether, would that not have made for far better entertainment?
Why, Wally Misophantastes might even have soared to the point of becomin’ refutationworthy.
¡Healthy days!
___
[1] Nowadays Their Ford’s oracle of yore is often neo-worded “That was then, this is now!”
“_Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!_,” says I — and oddly enough that, too, is a neowordin’ of the very same stale tripe and bologna!
Yours is an excellent article and points out the very stark differences in thought patterns between children and adults. Obama, unfortunately, falls into the former category.
The Heritage Foundation thinks Obama is a lying, delusional idealist?
Well, when such fair, balanced, and objective organizations as the Heritage Foundation say so, then it must be true!
Your description more aptly fits the personality of Nancy Pelosi. Obama is a cold and calculating politician, first and foremost. His rhetorical skills are used as a means to advance his political persona. He is clever and he sees his political position clearly. He will be more difficult to remove than Bill Clinton was. The ideology is a facade. This man believes in nothing beyond his own power. We will dismiss him as an idealist at our peril.
“Obama is a utopianist, not an idealist, and the body politic is now engaged in a debate between fantasy and truth.”
Huh, and all this time I thought he was simply a dirtbag Stalinist.
This is what makes him, in the eyes of his supporters, America’s Jesus. In the biblical narrative, Jesus was sent to redeem mankind from Eve’s sin, and without his redemption, man was doomed to bear the burden of original sin forever.
This narrative, so deeply embedded in Western culture, is reformulated to apply to America: all (white) Americans bear the original sin of slavery, and must be redeemed by following this (sort of) black redeemer, or bear this original sin forever.
This is the only reason why such an unqualified candidate was elected.
Islam is the answer.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
0bama is in actuality more of a Robespierre who simply believes himself to be a Rousseau. Either way he is no Locke…Or even an American in his thoughts and actions.
At this point some new ‘progressive’ construct of the tired old “Committee of Public Safety” would not be unexpected given the Orwellian naming conventions of the 0bama administration’s anti-liberty apparatchiks that have been appointed to the various committees and departments they declare their utopian edicts from.
As it is we have:
“Man-caused disaster” doers who were once terrorist enemies.
“Overseas contingency operations” that used to be war against something called enemies.
“Employee Free Choice Act” that give unions a bigger club to intimidate their ways into control.
“Transparency” that isn’t even translucent.
“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″
Now called either; “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” or “Affordable Health Care for America Act” depending on which branch of democrats are meeting behind closed doors to ram and bribe it through.
“American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009″ AKA Cap and Trade which will neither provide ‘energy’ (clean or otherwise) nor ‘security’.
The only response there is to this usurpation of our individual liberty is to fight it tooth and nail instead of guzzling the sweet Koolaid gruel that is ladled out from the soup kitchens of our would-be rulers.
Mob – mon
Very Robespierre-ian slip…
“A government that promises health care to everyone at lower cost will inevitably acquire so much control that it will make no difference if it doesn’t deliver. The power will belong to the government regardless, and despite all complaints, there will not be anything anybody can do if the reality falls short of the imagined outcome.
…
Those who believe that you can get much more health care for less cost obviously are on a different emotional and intellectual plane than those of us who balance our own checkbooks.”
Superb, superb writing. Bravo.
Pajamas Media, let’s have much more of this commentator, please.
“37. Jeff Perren:”,
so I take it you’re against Medicare as well?
Yes, thank you Musker, Jerry and Jim Baker… There’s nothing idealist about Obama, a radical Alinskyite. Obama is more of a Machaviavellian nihilist who is seeking his “utopia.” He is indeed very smart and intelligent when it comes to perceptions and manipulating. Folks who don’t see this aren’t seeing the larger picture. One good example is his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. Andrew McCarthy of NRO says it well in his article “Alinsky Does Afghanistan”:
“The second thing to bear in mind is that the president is a power politician who shrewdly reads the vulnerabilities of both his opponents and his backers. He knows conservatives want to support both our troops and presidential initiatives that at least seem supportive of our vital interests. That makes conservatives a cheap date for Obama.”
Obama dumb? Hardly. He played Repubs like a fiddle.
To fully appreciate the nihilistic nature of Obama’s agenda, start reading financial blogs like Zerohedge, where one can get the real news about what is happening to our trainwreck of an economy. Folks need to wake up to where we’re headed. On our current trajectory, a collapse is a matter if WHEN and not IF. What better way to reach Utopia!
Hey Matthew, are you counting the days (just ten more!!) until Gitmo closes – man, I bet you can hardly sleep with such a momentuous event just around the corner. Anyway, here’s a cracker, Polly. You are such a good mouthpiece!
eds,
Though that’s beside the point here, as a matter of fact, I am. Social Security, as well. And every other Federal, State, and local government charity. It is immoral for the government to use its power of coercion to take from Peter to support Paul.
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
…
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794
Repeating the mistakes that cost immense sufferings and immense poverty is not being a utopian.
It is being IGNORANT, or fanatic, or fanatic and ignorant. And full of hate.
That can be said of many persons of this administration.
And there is no utopianism in weakening America and helping the terrorists.
Can we stop playing with elegant words and can we start working seriously to roll-back the communists who are at work to build a regime ???
We have elections to win next November, and playing the words-games of the communist universities will not help us.
This article makes it sound as if Obama is intellectully involved in an ideology of utopianism. Utopia, by the way, means ‘no-place’ and refers to an ideology that is virtual and cannot exist in reality.
I disagree that Obama has any ideology. Obama is a malignant narcissist and as #11 David Thomson has pointed out, is intellectually shallow and ignorant. Obama cannot, either intellectually or psychologically, be involved in any ideology – virtual or real.
His involvement is only with himself and his need to control others around him into a state of adulation and commitment to him.I suspect he moved into this psychological state as a boy and it has proven successful – with its techniques of misinformation, distortion of facts, manipulation of emotions and accusations of bias if you try to withstand his control. This ‘ability’ to charm and manipulate was, I suggest, seen by the Democratic Party as the means to get them into power
I maintain that Obama is a narcissistic puppet of the radical socialists running the Democratic Party, and it is THEIR very real agenda to set up America in a socialist statist structure. Obama himself has no intellectual capacity to devise or understand policies and programs; he does indeed live in a virtual or imaginary world but its horizons refer only to himself and his’reach’ of your adulation. If you refuse to be part of this fawning set then for Obama, you literally cease to exist – as he ignores Americans who question him,
These manipulative skills got the Democrats into power, but, they are having trouble with Obama now because he cannot sell their statist program. He’s uninvolved, intellectually and emotionally in it – or in anything other than himself. The Democrats are trying to ram through their statism before the 2010 elections, because they realize that their use of Obama is limited.
I suggest that they might ditch Obama before 2012, moving him into a UN position where he can live his narcissistic virtuality without accountability from any electorate.
Matthew, thanks for getting me to go back and read Obama’s speeches as candidate and as president. He has either said those things or something very near. Example: you can find “no nuclear weapons” quoted at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/obama.speech/; or the variation, “a world without nuclear weapons”, at http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/05/signs-at-obamas-speech-in-prague/#more-11986 and http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/09/24/2009-09-24_president_barack_obama_opens_un_security_council_meeting_on_nuclear_free_world_w.html. It’s even worse than I thought.
We need a media that is on the side other than Obama side…there is no such thing as middle of the road anymore
Without this, the left will brutalize the conservatives in 2010 and 2012, and the “right” will sit back and let it happen, just like McCain did…
An example of how our media works is the Harry Reid deal, a conservative would have been massacured by now..simply drug through every mud puddle in town, Harry boy is given a pass and “forgiven” .. just as Pelosi was with all her remarks.
We have and are allowing Obama to continue his damage to our nation.
We need to be sure that we all vote, and get people that cannot get off work to send in an absentee ballot . There should be no excuse.
History repeats …. ad nauseum.
Every time someone tries to create utopia and equality the only people who are happy are the few at the top and the only equality achieved is the equality of the gulag.
*sigh*
I was all set to give my opinion, but ETAB said it for me. Thanks! Obama is a typical cerebral narcissist. You can look up the symptoms that describe, and cause this pathetic mental aberration. Obama cannot create anything himself. No policy, no plans, no great ideas. That’s why he appointed all the Czars,,to do the thinking for him. Actually, I would bet that was done by his puppeteers. As a president, he is an abysmal failure. As a marionette, he is a smashing success.
America’s road to hell is apparently paved with Obama’s good intentions. Regardless of his good intentions, we’re still on the road to hell.
The assumption that Obama and company want a classless society smacks of naivete or delusion. The very essence of obama’s vision for America is that of a society with two distinct and separate classes.
The first group, in which obama sees himself, is the ruling elite, the people who by virtue of their proper ideology and education will make all the decisions on how and where people will live, work, what they can buy, and try to control what they think. In their position as a member of the ruling class they will live as kings, no expense deemed to great to provide for their comfort, after all it’s hard work controlling the unwashed masses.
The second group in obama’s classless society consists of everyone else. They will slowly loose all rights and become merely a renewable resource to be managed for the benefit of the all wise and powerful rulers.
Some of the proof is shown in the health care debate. Comments are being made that the people just don’t understand how beneficial this will be for them or after it passes people will grow to understand the benefits. Already the the beginning of we know better writ large.
How far is it before we see Obama’s friend Bill Ayers vision of reeducation centers for those who refuse to stop “clinging to their guns and bibles” in order to achieve the great transformation of America.
History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
Lots of variations on: In a mature society
Civil Servant equals Civil Master
Excellent article and comments (esp. #11 – D. Thompson.) This thread articulates much of what I’ve thought about the cognitive dissonance you see with the elites and their mush-brained robots that have put our nation into such decadence and weakness -t’s all about Rousseau.
I will also mention, that it might behoove our libertarian secular friends and allies to reconsider the doctrine of original sin – the flaw that Rousseau vehemently denied thus starting the deconstruction of every principle and foundation the western system was built on – that man is inherently flawed and needs to be protected from each other by a well-built system of laws, inviolable constitutions, and a democratic government of checks-and-balances.
What I would like to know is, where is the leader who will marginalize the moral equivalence crowd, and provide a competing vision than what is peddled by, and on behalf of, the deformed soul currently in the Oval Office.
So much negativity and name calling. As Chris Matthews asked his conservative guest last week, “please name one thing the Republicans (conservatives) have done for anybody in the last 20 years?” The guy he asked was Todd Harris who I believe works for your conservative savior in Florida, Rubio. He refused to answer except to say that Bush kept us safe after 9-11, of course not mentioning that Bush was not keeping us too safe on 9-11.
Peace
#47 Sir Shrek – yes, I agree that the appointments of the czars was done by Obama’s Masters, whom I call the BackRoom Gang. Obama has no vision for the country, no intellectual understanding of economics, history, policy, programs. All he can do is read from a teleprompter.
And, as others have suggested, his narcissism, which isn’t a ‘normal’ political egoism but a pathological case, drives him with its need for him to feel that he controls how others interact with him. If he feels that he is losing control that he once had, his fragility could make him dangerous. And if he feels that you are outside of his reach and that you are immune to adulation of him – then -you simply have no existence for him. As shown by his disinterest in foreign affairs, in the Iranian demonstrators whose desire is for democracy..not Obama.
#49 gverdi27 – I agree with your very nice outline of the two-class society that the Democrats, using Obama as their puppet, are setting up. They are essentially destroying the middle class, the site of free individuals, entrereneurship, dissent, questions and innovation.
The arrogance of this elite Set is boundless; their assumption of inherent superiority, their contempt and disdain for the ‘masses’ ( as exemplified in their contempt for the Tea Parties, and the Town Halls) and their rejection of the basic definition of America as outlined in the Constitution (free individuals)..is an outrage. Obama’s narcissism fits in with this elitism.
It’s interesting but the Democrat elitism is similar to that of the landed gentry in 18th c England, who considered that the valued citizen was one who inherited that position (land ownership or Ivy League school); and had nothing but disdain for those ‘in trade’ and who ‘worked’. Exactly the same mindset.
51. Bmoon: Original Sin>Men must be ruled
A convenient consequence for religious rulers,
particularly the implicit permanence, due to
man’s Fallen Nature; Sane Secularists strive
to minimize the necessary evil of government
by maximizing the maturity of society.
to me democrats are crooks. central planing, socalism and utopia are shell games democrates play to further being a crook.
but the author could be right. obama’s stated goal of getting ride of all nukes for all times is so stupid it’s hard to discribe.
Look at the History of Russia and France over the last 300 years. Both nations have faced multiple invations that have caused catistrophic damage and pain to thiar people. There is no way in hell eather nation will give up the Bomb. Only a moron would sugest it.
Wow, Yes We Did wrote something new. Unfortunately for him, it is, surprising as it may seem, more nonsensical than his previous posts. Why? Because Obama’s approval rating is at 45% and falling. That’s total approval- 45%. Burn that into your mind, YWD, your dear leader is disliked by the majority of Americans, and his numbers get worse by the day. He will leave office in 2013 with a lower approval rating than Bush, and believe me that is both possible and well deserved.
55. You don’t get it. What you propose is intrinsically impossible. Only a moral and religious people can be the mature, self-governing society that you seek. Your so-called wisdom is a dead end. Original sin is not some nebulous excuse that must be taken on faith; it is an empirical FACT.
Interesting article. Unfortunately, people as a whole are quick to forget and forgive one’s shortcomings, failings. For a majority of them, sadly, don’t know how to cope with real decision making or scoff at the idea of looking within for self improvement.. physically, mentally, emotionally, financially etc.,
Why else would the Harry Reid’s, Trent Lott’s, Marion Barry’s, Charlie Sheen’s, Strom Thurmond’s, Ted Kennedy’s, Tom DeLay’s., ad infitum. Be given chance after chance after chance after chance..?
People as a whole are gullible, short sighted and in many respects, stupid.
It’s a fact our society is getting ‘dumber’, intellectually. The more our republic is given to Government hands, democracy is lost and filled by those who have created a 12 + trillion dollar debt amongst other woes. Even moreso today telling us ‘what’s best for us’. Yikes.
Obama talks of ‘stimulus improving’ ‘evil profiting corporations’ ‘special interests ruining..’ ‘Wall Street is bad’ etc.,
The Fed had a record earning year (52 billion) this past year in its 96 year history.. under Obama.
Pharmaceutical, health insurance companies are excited by this mandated health insurance or living tax getting pushed through. Albeit ‘the most transparent administration’ is anything but..
History shows numerous instances when a Government claims knowing what’s best for you, moreso than yourself.. it fails.
Though a large voting base want to hand the reins over to these bureaucratic, self serving ideologues in the name of ‘balance’ and ‘fairness’.
I find it to be more liberating to look within for self improvement. I know, crazy talk in this day and age..
Obama missed his true calling. He should be a TV star. On the Sci-Fi channel, right between ‘Ghost hunters and Wrestlin’. Or am I confusing him with D.C. Bob?
OneWomanWondering:
In this case, close isn’t good enough. Unless he actually “promises a world without nuclear weapons” then he hasn’t done what the author criticized him for doing.
The whole point here is that he’s accused of promising things he can’t deliver. There are good examples of that, but promising to eliminate nuclear weapons isn’t one of them. He never did anything of the sort – he DID say he’d try to stop their spread and reduce their number, both of which are perfectly reasonable things to claim.
Someone here mentioned gitmo – and that’s fair enough. But if he really does manage to close it and deal with its occupants, I don’t think history is going to be too fussed about whether it took one year or two. Sorry about that.
Anyone here ever wonder how many of the obambi koolaid drinkers who post here actually work in the Whitehouse or for the DNC?
#61 matthew – your argument is weak. A ‘promise to do something’ and a ‘commitment to act on something’ are conceptually similar.
And now you are admitting that he can’t deliver on these ‘promises/ commitments’? Then why say them?
Obama declared:
“As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong deterrent. But we’ll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy.”
July 16, 2008.
Exactly HOW does one make this a central element when HE and the USA have NO control over the agendas of the other countries with such weapons? HOW? How does he achieve this central element? How does he, and he declares this agenda of eliminating such weapons is a ‘central element’…how does he tell Russia to get rid of its weapons? Israel? India? Hmmmm? What’s the method? Or is he talking utter empty nonsense?
And at the same time, he said with regard to N.Korea and Iran: “Both should face strong and increasing sanctions if they refuse to verifiably abandon their illicit nuclear programs. And both demand sustained, aggressive and direct diplomatic attention from the United States, and that’s what I’ll provide as president.”
Yeah, sure. Obama’s rhetorical deadlines to Iran have been passed and passed;Iran has laughed at him and the deadlines, and declared that it will do exactly what it wants. And has Obama’s response been ‘sustained’? Aggressive? Direct? Heh. Remember the Dec 31st deadline? Hmmm. Silence from the WH and Obama.
Oh, and what about “The campaign also said Obama will seek to secure all nuclear weapons materials in four years and to increase funding by $1 billion a year to make sure nuclear weapons are removed from vulnerable sites around the world.”
Hmm. Silence about that as well.
As for his Gauntanamo promise, well, despite your attempt to trivialize the time span, a promise of ‘by the end of the year’ means exactly that: by the end of the year.
Excellent article. Utopianism is not limited to Obama; President Bush’s Democracy agenda for the world was utopian. Since utopia can never be achieved, scapegoats ultimately must be found. This is why failed utopias result in mass murder, gulags and concentration camps.
uh oh “where is my post” ?
2e essai :
JFM
Also, Rousseau was the main source of inspiration for Robespierre.
Rousseau is more than suspicious towards the notion of representation, because his wish is to leave full and constant sovereignty to the people, the Jacobins advocate for their representative system. The heart of the revolutionary institution, the Representative Assembly, which is completely at odds with the thinking of the man that the new government wants to claim as an inspirator. The opposition is obvious and there is misuse of Rousseau’s thought. One took from Rousseau’s thought, according opportunities, and one set aside that could not serve the cause
The French Revolution was partly indebted to Rousseau. Though it is not in its purely political fonctionment, but in a certain state of mind which highlights the concepts of equality, popular sovereignty, virtue, simplicity, patriotism and renewal of morals. The idea that what makes Human history is not inevitable, unavoidable but there are ways to build a new story on a new foundation is also deeply in the tradition of Rousseau. That’s where his major influence. The revolutionaries were not looking at
Rousseau techniques of government, but to a spirit and this spirit is undoubtedly the fruit of most his works but not directly of his essais as a political thinker.
http://www.lecavalierbleu.com/images/30/extrait_99.pdf
so they continued buying his books.
Rousseau had the faculty to charm his audience, like Voltaire BTW, the kind of writers needed mecenes (sponsors) to survive, though curiosly his political books weren’t the attraction, but rather his novels and their spirit of “Paul and Virginie” exotism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_et_Virginie
Elegant words and expressions pertaining to this enigmatic subject.
I enjoyed reading all comments.
In plain language, Everyone has met that person or persons, that thinks they knoe all. Someone who is above all, can do no wrong, GOD LIKE. (OBAMA).
These kind of people can be controled by others. (OBAMA). Tell them what you want in a way, that they think they are the only person that can do it. control. THE ego of this type of person, will do anything to accomplish, said task.
They walk and strut and tells everone how great they are. (OBAMA)
The people controlling this type person, laughs at them, behind their back, but praises them, face to face.
EGO = BEING STUPID.
What peaceniks don’t get is that mutual abandonment of all nuclear weapons would enable war. Nuclear weapons are the greatest peacekeepers on the planet right now. If we didn’t have nukes during the Cold War, it wouldn’t have stayed cold for long. It would have been WWIII, and there’d have been at least 100 million dead.
I don’t really believe the president is a utopian – his words and actions show him to be a determined advocate of top-down government, what we might call the European model. This, of course, is a radical makeover of our founding principles, which are Jeffersonian, small-d democratic, and emphatically bottom-up.
We will have to choose one way or the other. Don’t see a middle ground.
See “A return to first principles: The test”:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/a-return-to-first-principles-the-test/
You confuse utopian with scum bag traitor.
“Reza:
Islam is the answer.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!”
A-ha. And would that be before or after we grind your craphole, 7th century despotisms into the Earth? Know what the “Pearl Harbor” syndrome is? It means we Americans will take something and take it and take it some more. And then one day you push us too far, and discover we are the nastiest bastards on the face of the planet.
Don’t believe me? Go ask Adolph Hitler his opinion.
#68 Vulgar moralist
if your referrence to get informed on what is going on in Europe,and especially in France, is No pasaran, then your whole reasonment is like if you were demonstrating a Gödel theorem, for this site main aims are “bashing”
After watching Obama and his lack of human feelings, his detachment and his obvious ignorance of the history of the world and its civilizations, I am beginning tho think this thing is not an idealist, not a utopian dreamer, not a messiah, but an android programmed in the wee hours of every morning by David Axelrod.
Prove me wrong. Any medical records out there?
#3 Matthew,
I don’t want to commit an ad hominem, so I will say that, not you, but your mother is one stupid !@#$%.
Obama is a Muslim. He said so, himself, when he declared that the USA is one large Muslim country. All Muslims practice polygamy. But that ignorant graduate student that you and yours chose for a president, does not know that all Mulsims celebrate polygamy and that polygamy has been illegal in the USA since its founding. So, there you have it, an ignorant graduate student chosen as president who does not realize that he is advocating violation of law when he calls the USA a Muslim country. Just how stupid can you be?
Theo Goodwin:
“I don’t want to commit an ad hominem, so I will say that, not you, but your mother is one stupid !@#$%”
Gosh. You’re the clever one.
“Obama is a Muslim”
Except he cleverly disguised himself as a practicing christian for most of his life JUST TO FOOL ME. Yeah. Right.
“He said so, himself”
He also said there are 57 states.
“when he declared that the USA is one large Muslim country”
No, he didn’t.
“All Muslims practice polygamy”
No, they don’t. But most muslim countries recognise it, yes.
“But that ignorant graduate student that you and yours chose for a president, does not know that all Mulsims celebrate polygamy”
How would he not know that if he was a muslim?
“and that polygamy has been illegal in the USA since its founding”
Hmm. I’m not sure that’s actually true. Mid nineteenth century, absolutely – but since founding? I don’t think so. I’m sure it’s probably always been illegal SOMEWHERE, but certainly not consistently.
“There you have it, an ignorant graduate student chosen as president who does not realize that he is advocating violation of law when he calls the USA a Muslim country. Just how stupid can you be?”
Not all muslim countries recognize polygamy. And besides – he didn’t call the US a muslim country.
You don’t feel even a little bit silly when posting this stuff?
ETAB:
#61 matthew – your argument is weak. A ‘promise to do something’ and a ‘commitment to act on something’ are conceptually similar.
One is a guarantee to achieve a specific outcome and the other is a promise to take steps toward achieving that outcome. As has been pointed out by the author of this article, a promise to rid the world of nuclear weapons is wishful thinking. A promise to try to reduce stockpiles and secure nuclear material isn’t. A promise that NOBODY WILL DIE because they don’t have health care is arguably ridiculous, but a promise to increase health care coverage isn’t. A promise to “end poverty” is basically impossible (in that nobody has ever achieved it), but a promise to improve overall living standards isn’t.
“And now you are admitting that he can’t deliver on these ‘promises/ commitments’? Then why say them?”
It depends on which version of the promises you think he made. If you mean the magical versions this author prefers, then he didn’t say them at all. If mean the real versions, it’s because he actually intends to try to do something about it (and, generally speaking, that’s what he’s doing)
“As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong deterrent. But we’ll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy.”
Yep. Good. You got one right.
“Exactly HOW does one make this a central element when HE and the USA have NO control over the agendas of the other countries with such weapons?”
How do you suppose that any NPTs or reduction treaties were ever signed? Because nuclear weapons are REALLY expensive to build and maintain. They also create unstable security situations (For example, I imagine that india has had second thoughts about its own nuclear program since pakistan got the bomb). There is actually a down side to having a nuclear capability – particularly when it means you have a sworn enemy who’s trying to up the ante. That’s why so many countries who were at various stages of armament backed away and signed the NPT instead. Both russia and the US have been gradually reducing their capabilities since reagan – because it’s been in the interests of both countries to do so.
“how does he tell Russia to get rid of its weapons? Israel? India? Hmmmm? What’s the method? Or is he talking utter empty nonsense?”
South africa had nukes. It doesn’t any more. It can happen. I actually imagine that india is one candidate for disarmament – but not until pakistan can be sorted out. Israel, probably not any time soon.
“Obama’s rhetorical deadlines to Iran have been passed and passed;”
Not much else has worked, either.
“Iran has laughed at him and the deadlines, and declared that it will do exactly what it wants”
Actually, it’s said that it wants a civilian nuclear power program. If you’re going to take iran at it’s word, at least get it right.
“And has Obama’s response been ’sustained’? Aggressive? Direct? Heh. Remember the Dec 31st deadline? Hmmm. Silence from the WH and Obama.”
He can say what he likes to you – what you think doesn’t matter to iran. I’d like to know what he’s saying to iran. Iran is a tough nut to crack – so is north korea. They’ve been that way for a while.
“Oh, and what about “The campaign also said Obama will seek to secure all nuclear weapons materials in four years and to increase funding by $1 billion a year to make sure nuclear weapons are removed from vulnerable sites around the world.””
I think it’s a good idea. It’s considerably better than doing nothing. If he doesn’t achieve the complete outcome (and he won’t), I’ll still be happier than if he didn’t do anything at all. But you’ll notice that he HASN’T said “there will be no vulnerable nuclear weapons materials in four years”. It’s not possible to guarantee something like that – for one thing, there’s unaccounted for fissionable material out there somewhere. I, for one, will be judging him on where he’s at in four years.
“Silence about that as well.”
Silence about WHAT?!?
“As for his Gauntanamo promise, well, despite your attempt to trivialize the time span, a promise of ‘by the end of the year’ means exactly that: by the end of the year”
And he missed the deadline. Absolutely. You’ve got obama on something. The mess that bush created couldn’t be solved in a year. Ok. You win, I guess. I still want to see it closed, so I’ll wait and see.
Rousseau is more than suspicious towards the notion of representation, because his wish is to leave full and constant sovereignty to the people, the Jacobins advocate for their representative system.
Jacobins were French and thought of direct sovereignty as unpractical in a country the size of France (not to mention that only Paris supported them to the hilt). Rousseau was born in Switzerland remember?
Anyway just as I don’t share Proust’s taste for madeleines and still less these other ones (Gilberte? Albertine? Aren’t these names quite unusual for girls?), Jacobins could have him as their main source of inspiration and disagree with him on some of their thesis.
70. Allston: The Pearl Harbor Syndrome
Actually, the PHS is where TPTB allow
the US to take a blow, in order to
get the people angry enough to deal
a blow, per your description;
The technique was named by the
ancient Greeks, and was old then.
Not a good strategy for TPTB in our
current situation; Vaporizing Mecca
would make every Muslim on earth an
enemy of the US.
The kinder, gentler, (Heh-heh) 21st
century option is to use Hi-Tech
surveillance and sniping (by drone)
to make terrorism too terrifying
to engage in; No glorious battle
against the Infidel, no free ticket
to Paradise, just a shadow drifting
over your position, or a rustling
in the dark of your hiding place,
and then nothing.
#75 matthew – nope, I’ll continue to disagree; your argument remains weak.
Semantically, you can’t differentiate between a ‘promise to do’ and a ‘commitment to do’. Same thing. Both are a declaration that one will do/not do such and such.
Obama’s promise to reduce nuclear weapons around the world was empty pompous rhetoric because, as I pointed out, he has NO control over the actions of other sovereign countries. Therefore, to make it a CENTRAL part of his nuclear policy is specious self-heroics. And Obama said ‘nuclear weapons’; not stockpiles.
Equally, Obama’s promise to cover ALL people with health care, without raising taxes – is yet another of his ‘pure rhetoric’ proclamations – without any relation to reality. Just like his ‘C-span’ openness promises. And his ‘all bills publicly posted for 5 days before I sign them’.
And a ‘promise to increase health care coverage’ is an empty statement, since you don’t specify what ‘increase’ actually refers to.
And now, you are changing the meaning of ‘promise to fulfill’ to ‘attempt to do something’. There’s an infinite space between those two actions. Kindly read the difference between Obama’s words about ‘eliminating nuclear weapons’ and YOUR transformation of this to ‘reduce nuclear stockpiles’. Read the difference between ‘universal health care’ and your ‘incrase health care coverage’.
South Africa decided, on its own, to stop its nuclear weapons program. There was no need for any external influence. I’m sure you know the history of this era.
And don’t bother imagining what India might do,or what any other country might do. That’s Obama’s style. Face up to reality.
No, one doesn’t simply listen to rhetoric and accept it as an exact replication of reality. That’s Obama’s style. I consider what Iran is doing and wonder why it needs nuclear power when it has oil and gas. And why are its plants secret if it is just energy-generation?
Again, matthew, you denied Obama’s statements about a world without nuclear weapons – and yet, the FACTS are that this was to be ‘the central part’ of his nuclear program.
Silence? About his 1 billion a year plan to secure all nuclear weapon sites (are they insecure now?) And does he think that he’ll be given access to the Israeli, Russian, Indian, Pakistan sites???? Who does he think he is: the Supreme Leader of the World?
No, I’m not into playing ‘gotcha’. The fact is, Obama is purely and only about rhetoric and verbal emotional manipulation. Moving on to reality – he’s unable to do that. I suggest you go to:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/
You’ll see a list in the hundreds about Obama’s broken promises. These arise because Obama lives in a virtual world, a world made up only of WORDS. He tells different audiences different words. On different days. And he can’t move away from words into reality.
Responding to # 21. Sebastian Shawbama: “Obama will be cast out & be the most hated POTUS ever, beating President Jimmy Carter. He will also destroy the Democratic Party”. Well Sebastian, at-least BHO accomplished two good things during his four years as usurper-in-chief, (1) being the most hated POTUS and, (2) destroying the Democratic party. I see these as good things, in saying this, dose that make me a racist? Oh, before you answer I’m a black tax payer.
RE: #55 M. Report – “Original Sin>Men must be ruled.”
It is the one religious teaching that can be proven empirically. Acceptance of the truth sets you free. Societies who recognized this truth sought limited government and redemption through personally seeking God. Societies (such as ours) who reject it, will seek redemption through transforming society through state power and unlimited government.
Fundementally, Americans find themselves in political conflict based on their concepts of the role of government.
“As Chris Matthews asked his conservative guest last week, please name one thing
the Republicans (conservatives) have done for anybody in the last 20 years”
The Republican party initially based its creed on small government and fiscal responsibility.Small government leads to less interference in the lives of American citizens, of course. As citizens we pay taxes that are assessed by government employees and these tax-paying citizens should be allowed to weigh in on whether the establishments that receive these hard-earned funds spend them wisely-we owe them the taxes, and, then what does the Federal government owe us in return ?
Nothing much other than defending our Constitution and borders from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Does the government owe each and every American happiness(if it does,I have quite a wish list) for instance, or just the ability to pursue the dream of being happy? Does the government owe me a job I will love, will allow me to prosper, and that gives me the dignity I deserve for just being born a human being ? Really, shouldn’t every one us get to experience education at one of the most highly-rated institutions in order to secure the job of our dreams ? Shouldn’t someone compensate me for all those times I have been dealt with unfairly-crabby bosses with bonuses, salary ignoring my true worth,etc.,etc.,etc..
While the above listing could go on for some time enumerating the entitlements too many American citizens believe are owed them, how realistic is it to believe the playing field can be leveled.? I think the variations found among individual human skills/talents/intelligence/work/ ethics/motivation/beauty/strength/health are too great to give us all what we might like.
I personally know of several conservatives in my local community who have devoted their lives to helping others.Did the government pay them to help ? Well, no-they volunteered.So let us not conflate conservatism with a political party that functions through government bureaucracy. Obviously not every American needs to be payed to help others. I think if you figure in the statistics regarding conservative giving, you will see they are no slackers in that regard. Do we need more than volunteerism ? Well, sure, when people are disabled, elderly, or too young to fend for themselves, we need reliable and consistent assistance, but when able-bodied folks don’t fit that criteria, do American tax-payers(government)owe them a living ?
I’m not indifferent to the poor, or any suffering/unfairness and neither are the other conservatives I associate with. I like the idea of everyone being the most they can be, but I realise that I, personally, haven’t lived up to that even with advantages. Chris Matthews makes the mistake of thinking government can social engineer us out of the human conditions we all, to some level, suffer under. That some people actually think any government, anywhere, can provide all of these pursuits of life through legislation and the use of tax-dollars is fantasy. What have the Republicans done for anyone ? Too much considering the irresponsible spending.
Here’s to Mathew at #3.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/obama.speech/
Like a good little communist, you know nothing of the facts. And the communist propoganda network is the one that dimed him out.
“It’s time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons,” the White House hopeful said.
The Republican party initially based its creed on small government and fiscal responsibility
Actually its creed was abolishing slavery. This, not small government was what cemented former whigs, free-soilers and anti-nebraska democrats and was what mentionned as primary objective when the Republican party was formed.
JFM
Rousseau conceptions of a democracy concern small states or rather he was inspired by cities like Geneve and or the Greec cities, and certainly didn’t intend to aply them for France
uh, too bad you don’t like “Madeleine”, she is quite good dunk into café, Albertine, Gilberte were fashoniable nics about the same times as Madeleine was created
for the fun, Jacques Brel says that “Madeleine” is his “America”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRCBpMmhrgg
ETAB:
“Semantically, you can’t differentiate between a ‘promise to do’ and a ‘commitment to do’. Same thing. Both are a declaration that one will do/not do such and such.”
But you CAN differentiate between a promise to achieve an outcome and a promise to pursue it. Some things that can’t be finished in 4 years are still worth working on.
“Obama’s promise to reduce nuclear weapons around the world was empty pompous rhetoric because, as I pointed out, he has NO control over the actions of other sovereign countries. Therefore, to make it a CENTRAL part of his nuclear policy is specious self-heroics. And Obama said ‘nuclear weapons’; not stockpiles.”
When I say stockpiles, I mean stockpiles of nuclear weapons – it’s the same thing. And if you want to split hairs, he can easily reduce the number of nuclear weapons just by decommissioning some of the US’ own. That alone would get him across the line, for people who’re unable to understand the difference between promising an outcome and promising to pursue it. I’m sorry that it has to come down to that. The US has a real interest in reducing nuclear arsenals because it costs a fortune to maintain them. That’s exactly the same interest that russia has, that india has and that pakistan has. It’s a complicated problem, but that’s no reason not to offer to bargain.
“Equally, Obama’s promise to cover ALL people with health care, without raising taxes – is yet another of his ‘pure rhetoric’ proclamations – without any relation to reality. Just like his ‘C-span’ openness promises. And his ‘all bills publicly posted for 5 days before I sign them’.”
Yep, sure. Now lets go back to the claims made in this article, which are what I criticized and which remain imaginary.
“And a ‘promise to increase health care coverage’ is an empty statement, since you don’t specify what ‘increase’ actually refers to.”
You can argue over definitions, but increasing health insurance coverage is hardly an empty statement. You’re covered for medical care or you aren’t.
“And now, you are changing the meaning of ‘promise to fulfill’ to ‘attempt to do something’”
No, I’m not. I’m pointing out that they are DIFFERENT. You can’t just substitute one with the other. The author of this article is trying to do just that. I’m pointing out that she’s doing it, and I’m saying that it’s incorrect. You’re apparently agreeing with me. Obama did not promise to eliminate poverty or promise that “nobody would die because they don’t have health care”.
A completely different article might be absolutely correct. But THIS article isn’t. It relies on imaginary claims to argue that the president is an imaginer in chief. That was my point, and it still stands.
“About his 1 billion a year plan to secure all nuclear weapon sites”
Yeah, see – that’s not what he said. Go back and read the words again. If you want to argue about the precise use of semantics, at least get the words right.
“The fact is, Obama is purely and only about rhetoric and verbal emotional manipulation”
I don’t think so. Turn down the noise and just pay attention, and in a couple of years you’ll see what he’s actually done. That’s all I really care about.
CJ:
“Like a good little communist, you know nothing of the facts. And the communist propoganda network is the one that dimed him out.”
Oh, for pete’s sake.
“It’s time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons,” the White House hopeful said.
I’m sorry, but where does that say that he has promised a world without nuclear weapons? (or even during his term – which I think is sort of assumed, but I’ll just throw that in there because I’m beginning to wonder how bright you guys are).
You can take issue with whether or not america DOES seek a world without nuclear weapons (obviously not all of america does). But you can’t claim that he’s promised that he will personally achieve that outcome. And no, that doesn’t make it an empty statement, because it’s pretty clear that obama does actually want to reduce the number of weapons/warheads/stockpiles in the world and is actually pursuing that. Even if he doesn’t eliminate all nuclear weapons, but if he manages to reduce their number, then he’s achieved something. How much of that “something” he will achieve remains to be seen. I’ll judge that on the results, not his campaign rhetoric.
Great article. I concur wholeheartedly. I would like to comment on Heritage Foundation policy and my exception to it.
The Heritage Foundation’s mission is critical to the United States. However, your director has taken you down the wrong road. First, people founded this country; minutemen defended it; and millions of men and women have died for it; yet your direction is away from people. A very ill conceived and unlightened position. Yet you have the audacity to want “people” to donate their estates to your organization! Your out of touch completely.
I offered to donate my entire estate to you, ignoring the rest of my family. All that I asked in return was a speaker at my military funeral. My service to my country, my whole-life, has left me alone. I was rudely blown off immediately. I felt like I was talking to some Obama socialist government bureaucrat. Yet you would quickly fly a spokesman to NYC to appear on the Fox news channel to bloviate on the air for 30 seconds or a couple of minutes and probably stay in an expensive hotel in Manhattan. Now this mission has merit, however, imagine your speaking a military funerals, where you could announce the estate donation to the Heritage Foundation in front of the American people. They wouldn’t forget. If you had been asked to speak at Senator Ted Kennedy’s funeral [a far left liberal politically, yet an member of the rich establishment] you would have jumped at it. One year of doing that would put you on the map in the hearts and minds of the American people. Any organization that forgets the people will go down hill. This was arrogant and foolish. You need to establish your organization with the people you supposedly serve. Like all American institutions you are completely out of touch with the American patriots and citizens. Thank you for listening. I enjoy your historical writings very much.
Respectfully, Michael P. Darcy BS, MEd.
As usual ETAB talks sense and Mathew responds with Utopian ‘Pie in the sky’ gibberish.
#75 Matthew
What a clever argument: the difference between promising an outcome and promising to pursue it.
The words are different, but to the recipient, they mean the same thing. What is the point of promising to pursue an outcome if you know you are unable to produce it? Would you trust a doctor if, instead of saying he would heal you of sickness, he says his ultimate goal is to make you live forever?
….
Obama apologists have one unfailing argument, when everything else fails(or, rather, when anything fails): B L A M E _ B U S H.
Musker:
“What a clever argument: the difference between promising an outcome and promising to pursue it.”
Most of the time, it’s the difference between lying and telling the truth.
“The words are different, but to the recipient, they mean the same thing”
Rubbish. And that still doesn’t mean that obama promised to end poverty or make sure nobody ever died because they didn’t have health insurance. Those claims are the basis of this (apparently indefensible) article and that’s what I have pointed out.
“Would you trust a doctor if, instead of saying he would heal you of sickness, he says his ultimate goal is to make you live forever?”
We know that’s a pointless goal. No doctor is going to say that. But back in the real world, much of the time a doctor CAN’T promise to heal you. There are diseases and procedures that don’t have a guaranteed outcome. Doctors do what they can – that’s all they can promise to do. Most of the time, that does the trick. Some of the time it doesn’t. A doctor can’t always promise to heal you, but be CAN tell you what he’ll try to do and possibly estimate your chances. If he does that, and you interpret it as an ironclad guarantee, then that’s hardly the doctor’s fault.
See? You can come up with a deliberately ridiculous analogy and I can STILL show you how it relates to the real world.
“Obama apologists have one unfailing argument, when everything else fails(or, rather, when anything fails): B L A M E _ B U S H.”
What’s that got to do with anything we’re discussing here? Ohh – SQUIRREL!!!
Albertine, Gilberte were fashoniable nics about the same times as Madeleine was created
Humm, don’t know. Could have been different in those times but I certainly never heard of any Albertine or Gilberte. Scores of Albert or Gilbert however. And Gilberte plays at leapfrogging. When a child never saw one of my girl classmates, who were wearing trousers or knee length skirts, play this. And we have to assume Gilberte all while wearing robes reaching her ankles is playing leapfrogging and doesn’t kill herself not to mention that people could see her legs when she jumps. Now if Gilberte was wearing trousers and in fact was named Gilbert then everything fits.
you’re weird !
but we invented french cancan too
Matthew:
If someone tells me that he is out to transform society so that all men will be unselfish, I say he is either a liar (if he knows it is not possible) or a fool (if he thinks it is possible) – a pretty dangerous one, in fact. Yes, some men are unselfish; some can be “taught” to be unselfish, the vast majority will be selfish. Don’t interpret the word in a negative light; it is the result of evolution. The survival of the human specie depends on it.
Regimes have learned through history that they have to have an effective defense, or procure one through treaties. Yes, some nations do not have nuclear weapons, some does not even have a defense force, and still some has given up nuclear weapons. But those that have been well taught by history will have or want to have nuclear weaponry, or something more lethal. Their survival (and freedom) depends on it. If someone makes a proclamation that his goal is to make the world free of nuclear weapons, I say he is either a liar of a fool.
Well. Let’s say he is not a liar.
“But those that have been well taught by history will have or want to have nuclear weaponry, or something more lethal. Their survival (and freedom) depends on it.”
No, I don’t think that’s true. There are plenty of countries that are quite capable of developing nuclear weapons but have decided not to. Those countries made a rational decision that their safety was best pursued otherwise. The (pretty vast) amount of money that would be spent on nuclear armaments could be spent on pretty flash conventional equipment instead.
“If someone makes a proclamation that his goal is to make the world free of nuclear weapons, I say he is either a liar of a fool.”
It’s possible that he’s neither. I wouldn’t bet on a nuclear-free world occurring any time soon, but I don’t think it’s impossible. Nuclear weapons were (generally) not developed by most countries for use as part of their general defense arrangements – they’ve mostly been acquired as deterrents against being attacked by OTHER nuclear powers. As long as one guy has the bomb, self-interest does tend to push others in that direction. But it’s not impossible for the process to go the other way. The hard part is dealing with countries that can’t be trusted – which is why I don’t think it’ll happen soon. Any sort of nuclear disarmament is going to be a massive exercise – everything has to be verified, the stuff has to be dismantled and disposed of (which hasn’t been all bad. At one point, something like a quarter of the US’ nuclear electricity generation was running on old russian warheads – yes, that’s a vast simplification, but you get the idea). It’s a big project, but worth taking on.
If obama believes he can personally pull off the goal of full disarmament then he’s definitely a fool. But to make useful progress? No, not at all. And that’s all that any one president can do.