Must Conservatives Rally Round the Messiah?
No — because the left's vision of "unity" means surrender in the war of ideas.
November 22, 2008 - 12:30 am
Soon Barack Obama will be inaugurated as our president. His victory was a major happening and had coattails. Indeed, the Republican Party was handed a massive defeat. Their fall provided the Democrats with a stranglehold position in both chambers of Congress. Despite not reaching the coveted 60 filibuster-proof Senate seats, the highly evident malleability of some GOP politicians and their susceptibility to the RINO (Republican in Name Only) impulse suggest that some moderates — such as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe — will assist leftist politicians in their plans anyway. The exact nature of these plans is unknown assuming one takes the president-elect’s campaign promises seriously. However, if one judges Mr. Obama by his deeds and his history, America is in store for a siege engine of leftism. That the impending avalanche will be followed by a liberal crack-up is of little consolation.
What is most perturbing about the election carnage is that, while their victory assures that the political left can forget about the minority party entirely, they continue to be obsessed with their opposition. That few conservatives will have much of a say over what transpires during the next four years is irrelevant. The eyes of Democrats remain affixed to the starboard side of the political spectrum. Obama expects conservatives to get religion, specifically his Change.gov religion, and guarantee that their own beliefs do not venture into the samizdat-place of ideas. We must reserve spots at The One’s pride parade, learn to stop worrying, and love the left. If it takes a lobotomy for us to get with the program then so be it. No doubt Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will assist us with public funding should we require such an operation.
On his night of yore, the president-elect reminded his serfs that it was time to move beyond judging him critically: “Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”
His partisan statement was devoid of ambiguity. When one is pole-vaulted to the top of a status hierarchy and then defines all correction as being petty and immature, then the only conceivable alternative is for us to express fealty to the leader — who, in this case, conveniently happens to be Barack Obama. I wonder if he felt the same way in 2000 and 2004 when George W. Bush sat in the position he now occupies. Ah, but to ask the question is to answer it. Sorry to disappoint the now undisputed pal of William Ayers, but his promotion will neither change water into wine nor make conservatives embrace socialism.
Several associates of mine, aware of my red-state predilections, approached me after the black day that was November 4 and demanded my allegiance — I’m serious — proclaiming, “He’s your president so you should stand behind him.” I thanked them but rebuffed their suggestion. As mentioned above, none of these individuals ever saw fit to do the same for our 40th, 41st, and 43rd presidents, so by what precedent should they expect special treatment for their Barackstar? None of which I am aware. Their hypocrisy is hardly surprising. The left’s approach to their opposition lacks consistency, honor, and responsibility as they see those traits as being anachronistic and possibly even Eurocentric (the horror!). To hardened Obamabots, all questions regarding their savior’s goals are illegitimate. Those who battle them either possess false consciousnesses or are evil, and should this dichotomy not be immediately evident, then all heretics will be dismissed as rednecks, evangelists, racists, or whatever ism is on the menu.