Barack Obama has gone on a full-court publicity press to sell health care, deploying the ultimate weapon: The Full Ginsburg.
Obama will be interviewed Sunday on five shows — ABC News’ “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” CNN’s “State of the Nation,” CBS’s “Face the Nation”, NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Univision’s “Al Punto with Jorge Ramos” — in what is called a “full Ginsburg.”
In modern media lore, the first time someone pulled the five-show feat was 11 years ago, in 1998, when Monica Lewinsky’s attorney, William Ginsburg, made the rounds to defend his client. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., did a full Ginsburg in 2007 after launching her presidential bid.
For both Ginsburg and Clinton, Fox News Sunday made the cut, and Univision didn’t. Such is not the case for Obama: Democrats said the Fox News Sunday audience is largely entrenched in its opposition to the president, essentially beyond persuasion, and so submitting to an interview might not be the best use of Obama’s time.
For the media mavens, this is the equivalent of winning a tennis Grand Slam. Wikipedia says only five people in history have ever done it.
* William H. Ginsburg, February 1, 1998
* Dick Cheney, 2000
* John Edwards, October 10, 2004
* Michael Chertoff, September 4, 2005
* Hillary Clinton, September 23, 2007.
But there’s a subtle difference in the comparison. While you can’t win too many tennis matches, it is said you can appear on too many times on TV. It is supposed to result in something called “overexposure”. Some pundits — admittedly Republican — warned of this dread media effect.
Republican strategist Kevin Madden said it’s too much. “I think the worry is it’s gone beyond overexposure and now we have what I would call the ‘Obama omnipresence.’ You almost can’t escape this president,” Madden said on ABC News’ “Top Line.” “It goes beyond just cable news and it goes into whether or not you’re flipping on ESPN and you’re seeing him talk about basketball or you turn on the Lifetime channel and you hear what Michelle Obama is wearing this week. And I think that begins to wear on a lot of people.”
There is remarkably little literature on when “overexposure” occurs. On the Sunday talk show circuit, for example, are two appearances better than one for a celebrity? Why is a “full Ginsburg” considered so good, yet at the same time believed to be near the cusp of something bad? At what point does N+1 yield worse results than N? There seems to be no empirical basis for an answer. There is something called “Communication Theory” which purports to shed light on the subject. But since “communication theory remains a relatively young field of inquiry and integrates itself with other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology, one probably cannot yet[update] expect a consensus conceptualization of communication across disciplines” — that looks like a disclaimer that it actually provides any answers.
From first principles it would appear to be the “density” of appearances, not their total number, which is at issue. If Barack Obama appeared on 10 TV shows over the course of a year that would hardly be “overexposure”. If he appeared in 10 shows in the course of a single day, then it might be considered excessive. Why exactly does this happen?
One intriguing Japanese medical study noticed that a series of EEG readings called the P300 latencies increased with repetitious tasks. People literally got “tired” of doing the same thing over and over again. Maybe people get “tired” of hearing the same message repetitively as well. That’s when the Full Ginsberg fails to deliver anything but boredom. Yet it’s possible that at even higher doses of exposure something else kicks in: brainwashing. Brainwashing first came to popular attention after the Korean War.
In the late 1950s, psychologist Robert Jay Lifton studied former prisoners of Korean War and Chinese war camps. He determined that they’d undergone a multistep process that began with attacks on the prisoner’s sense of self and ended with what appeared to be a change in beliefs. Lifton ultimately defined a set of steps involved in the brainwashing cases he studied:
1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth
None of this can be achieved in a single “Full Ginsburg” cycle. But if a message can be sustained long and ubiquituously enough, so it is encountered at every turn, a minor kind of mind control can occur. When I was boy, it was customary for people to go the cemetery on the Feast of All Souls. Hundreds of thousand thronged the graveyard, ostensibly to visit the dead, but mostly making merry and drinking. But as the Feast of All Souls that year happened to coincide with the run-up to Election Day (in November), a loudspeaker truck had parked itself right outside the graveyard and broadcast some campaign propaganda. Unfortunately, whoever rented the truck neglected to provide the operator with more than one 45 RPM record (yes, they played records in those days). One side consisted of “Let Me Tell You About the Birds and the Bees” and the other was a bombastic screed for the candidate. (“Vote for Senator Roseller Lim!”) And so it went for hours, one side alternating with the other. By the end of the day when people were heading home, some were involuntarily singing that immortal classic or repeating the slogan, almost unconsciously like zombies. Does brainwashing work? Maybe for a few hours. Now let me tell you about the birds and the bees …
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
“But there’s a subtle difference in the comparison. While you can’t win too many tennis matches, it is said you can appear on too many times on TV. It is supposed to result in something called “overexposure”
The first “Full Ginsburg” was early in 1998, a few months after the theatrical release of “The Full Monty”, the film that suspect inspired the eponym. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119164/
Synopsis: “Six unemployed steel workers, inspired by the Chippendale’s dancers, form a male striptease act. The women cheer them on to go for “the full monty” – total nudity.”
Clearly Obama won’t be taking off his clothes. Nonetheless, the risk of overexposure of the other kind is very real.
I reached Barack Overexposure at N=1.
The best way I can sum up my feelings of the current President?
What a pussy….
Big Brother is watching you!
Mussolini is always right!
The Obama administration has demonstrated an unprecedented mastery of psychological operations and propaganda. Whoever the yet to be publicly identified Propaganda Czar is had a target audience analysis conducted and determined that the target audience reached by Fox News Sunday is so far beyond their reach as to not be worth expending finite effort upon.
Who watches Fox News Sunday? That demographic may well end up being the saviors of the Republic.
Happy Constitution Day, Americans!
Happy Betrayal Day Poles & Czechs! That’s what you get for trusting Americans.
By not going on Fox, The Community-Organizer-In-Chief shows that He is not out to persuade anyone with all these appearances. These are defensive appearances. He’s going out there to keep his side from melting away and joining the enemy.
Hey, doesn’t this:
“1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth”
Kind of seem like the process by which the Left tries to assault the United States, or even the West in general?
Go to the link, and read through the descriptions. It seems to me that it follows the general pattern of what the Old media, college left, liberals, etc, try to do:
“Assault on identity: You are not who you think you are.
This is a systematic attack on a target’s sense of self (also called his identity or ego) and his core belief system. The agent denies everything that makes the target who he is: “You are not a soldier.” “You are not a man.” “You are not defending freedom.”
Guilt: You are bad.
While the identity crisis is setting in, the agent is simultaneously creating an overwhelming sense of guilt in the target. He repeatedly and mercilessly attacks the subject for any “sin” the target has committed, large or small. He may criticize the target for everything from the “evilness” of his beliefs to the way he eats too slowly. The target begins to feel a general sense of shame, that everything he does is wrong.”
And so on.
This Full Ginsburg talk show exposure is a greater risk for Obama than for a politician like Cheney because BHO is so devoid of content. The more time spent listening to a man like Cheney, or to be fair Ted Kennedy who was venial but intelligent, the more he could interest. For Obama the problem is that the more he is exposed the thinner the veneer will wear. Obama is like the airhead girlfriend that some get trapped into marrying. For the ladies I am sure there are vapid High School hunk equivalents who disappoint also. Now most women can fascinate most men, especially when both are in their 20s, for up to 36 hours. After that you have to think about whether you really want to try and have a conversation with this person. After Obama has trotted out the same tired rhetoric for the third time some reporter will feel a selfish itch to scratch and will ask him something like, “So was it a good thing that you were a lawyer for ACORN?”
So much for Barack Obama “healing America”.
I still remember that song from last year.
We’re gonna bring happiness
We’re gonna bring freedom
Obama’s gonna change it
Obama’s gonna lead ‘em
We’re gonna change it
And rearrange it
We’re gonna change the world
Well, whenever I hear that song in my head, that last line usually turns into “We’re gonna rule the world.
Sometimes what gets said isn’t quite the same as what gets heard, particularly when correlated with actions. Poles, Czechs, and Hondurans may not be hearing quite the same lyrics that Ahmadinejad and his Venezuelan puppet are hearing right now.
So how many converts can he get from preaching to the choir? Probably not many, but it definately seems that he’s afraid to debate his ideas with a critical audience.
This makes him look weak. Feeble even.
Barack Obama seems the impulsive anti-Bush. I faulted Bush with not being very adept with using the ‘bully pulpit’, OK, he was atrocious, alternately, Obama seems hell bent on abusing the bully pulpit and uses language that sounds like “I am going to do this whether you like it or not ”. It is an implied threat to the system of checks and balances and it should give everyone reason to pause.
I started having flash forwards from 1984 when every time I turned on the TV, there was Dear Leader beaming down upon extolling the latest triumph to be of glorious party. This has been going on for the past several weeks. Creepy stuff.
and as far as “overexposure” is concerned, one usually expects a chief executive to come out and speak to the overall plan and rationale for doing it. Then you’d expect that the administrative cronies would step into the picture to sell the details. So far, Obama has embroiled himself into the very fabric of the plan and is selling it himself. This puts him in a very confrontation position where he has nowhere to fall back on. He has burned his fleet at the shores of the enemy and if you do not like it…. you’re a racist.
There’s a good reason why there was a Dick Cheny on the list and not a George Bush.
imho Love for God both public–expressed as worship– and private–expressed as prayer– translates as courage in the female mind. That in turn encourages the woman/women. Inversely, a man cannot be a whole lot more courageous than his woman. Then of course there is the question…courage to do what? That’s why so much time is invested in the question of who God is. You act out of who you are. You become like that which you worship. That’s why you don’t want to be worshiping sticks or stones or the squirrel y fickle gods.
Look at the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Index. Obama is slipping again. He was down to -13 before his big speech a week ago. That bounced him up to -3 but the air is going out again. He is now down to -8 and the uptick looks like an aberration in a steady decline. He can try to keep the pressure on but as I noted above the more he has to carry his own water the harder it gets. If he cannot get sustained returns from stunts like The Full Ginsburg over the next 5 weeks then his supporters might get crushed in the local off year elections coming up. If the economy faces a second crash in the Summer, as I suspect because of the unfunded debt, then the Democrats could get blown out in the midterm elections. This is not cause for complacency but hope is a basis for effort. Here is the graph for today from Rasmussen, http://tinyurl.com/lftn9e.
Thought to consider: the ‘revision’ under consideration is a total construct of the House, not the Senate, not the Executive. Who wrote the bill [ask glenn beck], and for whom was it written? Why is O doing the full monte for a bill he didn’t write? I don’t understand.
Union payback?
tom
I suspect that Obama’s compulsively academic wonkishness (very different from Bubba Clinton’s) ticks off a large part of the democratic constituency. Of course, the Republicans loathe him on sight, for good or bad reasons, and the same wonkishness doesn’t help him there, either.
Of course his avoidance of Fox plays a bit to his base, but is childish and unpresidential, in the extreme.
Call it the Commmie Ginsburg.
Frankly, I’m surprised the MSM networks want to play their roles in the full or partial Ginsburgs, but perhaps they have little choice, competitively, or in their very natures.
Such an interesting list:
1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth
This maps closely to the philosophical underpinning for modern, progressive educational curriculum. Antonio Gramsci is smiling in the Beyond…
who watches those shows anymore? and who would watch more than one, knowing obama was going to say the same things on every one of them? this is a sign of desperation and obsession.
15. “I’m surprised the MSM networks want to play their roles in the full or partial Ginsburgs…”
I have to agree with Bernie Goldberg, who suggested we stop calling the “MSM” mainstream. Maybe we should adopt a phrase such as “The Elite Media” or some such.
When I was in my late 40′s I realized that I still had the same bunch of stupid/lame/evil/crazy songs rolling around in my head that I learned in my teens and twenties. So I joined a church choir so as to overwrite the soundtrack that one learns in one’s youth.
this popular song by paul robeson was long before my time but I think his old man river is apropos to this conversation.
Paul Robeson – Ol’ Man River (Showboat – 1936) J.Kern O. Hammerstein II
Here are two worship songs sung at church on sunday.
Blessed Be Your Name
I have a hope
For those who want to be their own dj’s…this website called Pandora enables you to type in your favorite music/musician and it will look for and find music just like or similar to your preferences.
revised..sent it before I finished…
The first “Full Ginsburg” was early in 1998, a few months after the theatrical release of “The Full Monty”, the film that I suspect inspired the eponym. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119164/
Synopsis: “Six unemployed steel workers, inspired by the Chippendale’s dancers, form a male striptease act. The women cheer them on to go for “the full monty” – total nudity.”
Clearly Obama won’t be disrobing. Nonetheless, the risk of overexposure of another kind is very real: a greater number will see that this emperor has no clothes.
It’s true that communication theory is relatively new, but information theory isn’t, and at some point you become so familiar with a particular view of the world that it becomes simply insulting to be reminded of the “facts” that are posited. If someone tells me, particularly on a sunny day, that the sky is blue, they haven’t really conveyed any information that I didn’t already have, except that they’re a ninny for informing me so.
Like any ubiquitous background noise long sustained, Obamarama has reached the point where most people have learned to block it out. It’s gone past the point of ridicule, to a place where people see he’s yammering again and wonder when he has time to listen. Most have come to the conclusion that he doesn’t, this confection of talking points whom we call Mr. President.
cjm-
who would watch more than one…?
That’s why it does make sense to go on several, most people will not see him over and over, hence no “overexposure,” but he reaches the unduplicated sum of the 5 audiences.
Now, whether he has anything worthwhile to say, is another matter.
18 DW: Rush calls it “the state controlled media”.
LotM (#13):
The number that always fascinates me in this daily tracking poll is the “Strong Approvers,” which is today at 32% and seems to fluctuate between 30 and 34% for the most part.
Are these the Obama die hards? Could his “strong support” ever drop below 30%?
For some years it has seemed to me (living as I do in the belly of the beast, ultra-liberal northern California) that about 30% of the national population is, essentially, Marxist, with varying levels of fervor and commitment.
Jamie Irons
One problem with “brainwash” style propaganda is that it (1) polarizes the audience and (2) creates an illusion that it is the prevailing culture.
One of the reasons why social trends become powerful is because they can use a bandwagon effect to foster an illusion of universal acceptance. The illusion of universal acceptance promotes a sense of futility within any opposition while polarization provides motivation for bullies to attack anyone who challenges the illusion. For example, accusations of insanity (or some other delegitimizing label) have often been used by totalitarians to discredit opposition.
The time for free speech is not over, regardless of what the President says. The time for free speech is never over. This fight may seem to be about health care, but this political struggle is becoming increasingly about President Obama’s attempts to culturally undermine freedom of expression in America by claiming that the time for talk is over. Regardless of the latest presidential pontification, the First Amendment reigns supreme.
Long Live Liberty!
I think part of the reason is that Mr. Obama is basically a very LAZY person. Once he learned a few talking points string together as a ‘lecture’, all he had to do is to perform it repeatedly.
To expose our president to crowds other than the carefully chosen, he needs to spend time and energy to learn new stuff.
Soon even those screaming/swooning women from last year would be completely tired of him and embarrassed to admit their infatuation. What would happen if all of his ‘events’ need to have bus-in paid crowd to cheer him on?
On one hand WH strategists gave up on the FNC crowd, but it could also be said the FNC crowd gave up on Obama first.
Now, if someone could hack into major network broadcasts and put a ghost image of the Obama/Joker face over the screen during the President’s appearances, it would be worth watching.
Democrats said the Fox News Sunday audience is largely entrenched in its opposition to the president,
Good call. No point in trying to persuade the opposition. Besides, the Fox interviewer would probably ask an unscripted or challenging question, and we already know how thin skinned Obama is and how he personalizes everything.
Nope, better stick to preaching to the choir. Plus, he’ll get five fawning interviews (“Mister President, how do you stay so humble in the face of your own supreme awesomeness?”).
I wonder if anyone’s pointed out to him that he risks appearing desperate? “Oh please pass my legacy bill, pleasepleaseplease Puh-leeeeeeze!!!!” Watch for him to show up a kid’s birthday party in your neighborhood, making balloon animals.
“Now, if someone could hack into major network broadcasts and put a ghost image of the Obama/Joker face over the screen during the President’s appearances . . . ”
That, as they say, would be a hanging offense.
Also in the “what are they thinking?” department. Who sends out Jimmah to play the race card on their behalf? Do they not know that Carter is generally regarded as one of, if not the worst president in history?
Sometimes it just seems like they want to piss off basic America enough to get someone to pop off and do something stupid so they can use that as an excuse for whatever they want to force on us.
A man I know sat glued to set
He missed his Sunday dinner
When asked he said he liked to get
On the side of the winner
He said he was a football fan
And never missed a season
He cared not if they threw or ran
‘Twas winning that was pleasin’
He said he loved his favorite team
His favorite color crimson
He said that winning made him beam
But losing, it was grim son
So that was why he sat all day
A-thinking Alabama
And found that he’d mis-heard them say
It was all day all Obama
15. Josh:
“”"”" I suspect that Obama’s compulsively academic wonkishness (very different from Bubba Clinton’s) ticks off a large part of the democratic constituency. “”"”"”"”
This always reminds me about Jesse Jackson’s unintended live mic remark that Obama talks down to blacks. While speaking of the “Full Ginsburg” or the “Full Monty,” it may well be that the only people who like the “Full Obama” are a narrow collection of the elite. The more even liberal ordinary constituents see of the Full Obama, the less many of them like him. Obama has written that people will look at him as a blank slate that they can craft to their own beliefs. The problem is, that only works during an election campaign, and only the first one. Once you see more and more of what eventually becomes the Full Obama, many people will find that what they wrote on their slates doesn’t jibe with the reality.
It’s not that this pattern is new to Obama, it’s just that he is the most pronounced and egregious example of this kind of political phenomenon to date. He forgets at his peril that one reason he leapfrogged and defeated Hillary Clinton is because the Clintons managed to piss off a lot of people that mattered over the years. The Obama crew seem to be masters (if that is even an appropriate term here) at pissing off people that matter and have influence. Should he indeed become the weak horse, the ticked of will call in their markers on all the slights that they’ve been holding in check so far.
Lifeofthemind said:
“If the economy faces a second crash in the Summer, as I suspect because of the unfunded debt, then the Democrats could get blown out in the midterm elections.”
The economy is the elephant in the room (sorry about the tired metaphor). We’re still facing a Second Great Depression. Bernanke, Obama, the talking heads on CNBC, et al are all trying desperately to convince us that the economy is under control. Obviously it is not (reference Karl Denninger or Zero Hedge if you have any doubt). The socialized medicine and carbon credit political exercises might in fact be pathetic attempts to distract the public from the very real danger it faces from economic implosion. It seems likely that Obama-Care will fail to pass the Congress and the economy will double dip. If both events occur then the liberals will face a wipe out in the 2010 elections and the Chosen One will be a one term President. In summary, Obama is fighting for his political survival.
Obama is nothing more than his own reflection in a cheap, shallow mirror. The only talent he ever had apparently was that of promoting himself. He seems to be incapable of doing anything else. That’s why he’s doing this–there’s nothing else he can do. If you pierce his veil, there is nothing but vacuum within.
The great flaw of most con artists is that they cannot conceive that their victims will ever learn and that the illusion they have created CAN shatter. And once its shattered, it cannot be glued back together.
Tcobb said:
“Obama is nothing more than his own reflection in a cheap, shallow mirror. The only talent he ever had apparently was that of promoting himself. He seems to be incapable of doing anything else. That’s why he’s doing this–there’s nothing else he can do. If you pierce his veil, there is nothing but vacuum within.”
I agree with this analysis and yet Obama is our President.
How did it happen that someone who was so obviously incompetent end up becoming President particularly when the nation was facing the double emergency of a failing economy and Islamic fascism? One answer to this puzzle is the MSM found that it would be entertaining (and bump up their sagging ratings) if they could hood-wink the American sheeple into electing a black man as President. Fine, I have no real problem having a black man as President but could the MSM have at least found a competent black man to be our President?
It’s actually unfortunate for American blacks that the MSM pulled off this swindle. For the next 20 years when ever a black guy runs for office the first question people will ask: Is this guy another Obama?
Eggplant:
Socialized medicine is part of the problem Obama faces with health care. Yet, there is another “elephant in the room” concerning any reform regardless of whether it is called a “public option” or “cooperatives”. The various health care bills propose an entirely new bureaucracy to control about 1/9th of our economy, and that bureaucracy will be staffed almost entirely by Obama supporters.
Part of the opposition against socialized medicine is that it is government run. Part of the opposition, though, comes from how this reform looks like an extension of the partisan spoils system. If Congress were to propose some variety of reform that uses existing agencies rather than adding any new layers of bureaucracy, I think the opposition would not be quite so tenacious.
When Obama and his supporters presume the worst motives of their opposition, they should not expect constructive opposition to result. There are many valid objections to even Senator Conrad’s plans, and these objections need to be seriously considered. Unfortunately, recent demagoguery from James Carter and William Cosby has not been helpful to rational public debate.
18. DW In honor of BHO we should call them what they are, “Barry’s House Organs”.
While considering that list,
“1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth”
and the recent Republican candidate for president I get a creepy feeling down the back of my neck. Did we avoid something worse than what we have? Seems crazy to think it, but bears consideration, anyway, imo.
Alexis said:
“Socialized medicine is part of the problem Obama faces with health care. Yet, there is another “elephant in the room” concerning any reform regardless of whether it is called a “public option” or “cooperatives”. The various health care bills propose an entirely new bureaucracy to control about 1/9th of our economy, and that bureaucracy will be staffed almost entirely by Obama supporters.”
No argument that Obama’s socialized medicine is bad news. If you want to read a damning critique against Obama’s socialized medicine, you should read Karl Denninger’s analysis of it over at Market Ticker. Also Denninger came up with an alternative plan that was quite rational in my humble opinion.
BO is looking for the Chavez effect. All the effective leaders do it. Look for 24 hours of BO coming soon to a station near you.
The Missile sheild, the F-22
He should be President of Russia, for Pete’s sake. he may not even be in their pockets, he may be doing ot for free. Will we see a sort of creeping return of a Russian controlled E. Europe? Why are Americans so silent about this? Why are they so foolish? We are sitting ducks. If we were nuked by Russia he would not even respond, other than to use it to oppress Americans. Russia is one tenth of our power and they are kicking our ass. They are making fools of us. It is like be pushed around by, well, Venezuela.
Obama is a front for foreign enemies.
We are being sold out. We will be at parity or less with our enemies in a matter of years, after such a commanding lead too, and with a debt burden that will hamper us clawing back.
Traitors, the whole lot of them. What is wrong with us that we let this happen. This is completely new to history.
We might as well have elected Putin or Chavez. Just a disaster. We may never recover.
It is amazing how much damage the Democrats can do in a handful of years. 4 tears ago we where on top of the world.
The Democrats caused this mess on wall st. They have used it to seize control of the country.
They are rolling back every accomplishment, every advantaged earned over the last 60 years. trillions for crook and traitors. No F-22, no advanced space exploration, no missile shield?
They are out to destroy us as a super power and as a first, or even second, rate nation. I truely believe that Obama, and may of the lead Democrats have taken foreign monies and have been tasked with destroying us. What a mess.
Is it over for us as the leading nation now? Will we ever claw our way back? Do we care anymore? I have never seen things so bad or so low. not even during the 1960′s or the Carter years.
None of it needed to happen, not one bit of it. It is all merely the mechanistic of internal enemies.
A nation destroyed at its height by the very people who have benefited most by it.
It is a great, great tragedy for Western Civilization. I wish I did not have to live through it.
“It is a great, great tradgey for Western Civilization.”
And freedom and liberty.
#42. AWM:
“It is a great, great tragedy for Western Civilization.”
And freedom and liberty.
AWM–”freedom and liberty” are concepts that originated in “Western Civilization.” That’s why people who consider themselves to be someone else’s “betters” hate it so much. When you have the right to dissolve economic and social relations with your “betters” at will, it means that the “betters” might be reduced to eating from the leavings in a dumpster.
Western concepts of freedom and liberty are the true revolutionary concepts of the age. Marxism and its variants are really nothing more than repackaging ancient hierarchical social structures in a new bright package. It sucked backed then, and it still sucks now. It doesn’t matter what the wrapping paper looks like, except to a fool. Only the contents matter.
Tcobb, took the words right out of my mouth. Freedom and liberty are Western Civilization, not all of it, of course, just a part of it.
But they enabled the rest of our Civilization to reach its heights. They are a sort of vessel which carries her through the storm. Not in hundreds of years has she been so threatened as she is now.
And this is not a rosy bit of idealism; it is a practical, grubby, real world business. It is about taking real stands nn the real world and bearing the consequences. If the USA does not stand tall and proud and fight for the West, the West will go down. Then we will just have Asiatic beehives, kleptocracies and warlords. Not ever the perfumed princes of the tranzis will last long against them.
That is what heaps insult onto injury, the very louts that are destroying us will be destroyed.
It is such stupidity.
I have moments where i wonder if it all is not demonic–if one is still enough, one can almost ear the clatter of hooves and smell the reek of sulfur. What a hideous moment for the West, for the USA. After all we have been through to be taken down by louts ike these. After all the generations of sacrifice and struggle.
Some Marxist plants undoing it all behinds closed doors and in a matter of months,really. At any other time in our history, this would have destroyed a POTUS. There would be shouting in the streets. How low we have come. How we have failed our ancestors.
At least Western europe had to go through 2 world wars to be taken down. We ust fall over at a stiff breeze.
Even if we take back the Congress next year, and the POTUS 2 years after, it will be hard to reverse the damage that they have caused.
Even Britney Spears got tiresome. The flavor is almost chewed out of this gum. Next!
Steve Skubinna:
I keep wondering why he feels it necessary to keep preaching to the choir. Presumably, he has them at his beck and call and should need to expend no more effort there (certainly not a full out campaign swing. One would think he might be smart enough to try picking off a little low-hanging fruit from the disloyal opposition. And he could, as Bill O’Reilly and a lot of the elitist RINO’s are just slobbering all over themselves to get an itch.
Maybe his handlers know something big about their own base, huh?
if 53% of the voters decide to commit suicide, it’s hard to stop them. he seems stalled out already though, and it looks good for taking back enough seats in 2010 to block any really bad changes in the house and senate.
The problem for Obama is that he is in a SEA of media celebrities. It’s Lindsay Lohan, or Angelina Jolie, or Brad Pitt, or Jon and Kate Gosselin, or Mischa Barton. He thus becomes just another junk celebrity, on the gossip magazines like the rest of them, subject to ridicule by a public that both worships him as a celebrity and hates him at the same time (because they can never BE famous like him).
Leaders, like Reagan, and even to some extent Clinton, who avoid being celebrities and retain leadership, can survive bad scandals: Iran-Contra, Monica, etc. Because they are in fact different than the celebrity trash on the tabloids, Entertainment Tonight, and other media outlets.
Celebrities, crash and burn rapidly. Their lifecycle is in months, not years, and while they can construct second and third acts, it is mostly as liked, but laughed at and not respected, “comforting fools.” Some never even get that far: Madonna, Michael Jackson, Britney. Perhaps Robert Downey Jr. fits into the first category of celebrity crash-burn and rebirth. Accomplished by lots of sober hard work and track record.
Obama ran on and won the Presidency by virtue of being a global rock star. BUT … ask Madonna, or Jacko, or Elvis, or Gary Glitter on how that turned out.
“”"”"”" The problem for Obama is that he is in a SEA of media celebrities. It’s Lindsay Lohan, or Angelina Jolie, or Brad Pitt, or Jon and Kate Gosselin, or Mischa Barton. He thus becomes just another junk celebrity, on the gossip magazines like the rest of them, subject to ridicule by a public that both worships him as a celebrity and hates him at the same time (because they can never BE famous like him). “”"”"”"”
Interestingly, the trashy papparazzi site TMZ asked why Jon Stewart (excuse me, Jonathan Leibowitz), and other funnymen didn’t go after Obama. The found Stewart slanted and said so. The rubes are starting to wake up and pay attention.
Somewhat related and possibly of interest regarding the topic of “brainwashing.”
In particular, James Cameron’s concept of “psychic driving”
It gained some notoriety in Canada as Cameron had applied it to the wife of a Canadian Member of Parliament without her prior knowledge or approval of the procedure.
A course of action such as that, well, its frowned upon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
Regards
Oh, no, Whiskey. You have to understand, Obama has The Gift. And he will unleash it on the public:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orNpH6iyokI
I think it’s because if he rests, for even a minute, they’ll lose interest, and he’ll lose his message. Marxists the world ’round rely on propaganda day in and day out; constant pressure and noise to keep their “revolutions” going, and their opponents, if any, off balance. Without obama saturation he’ll simply disappear. It’s all or nothing now.
To #47:
Actually 53% of 56.8%, or about 30%. And since obama as a candidate presented himself as an American, somewhat sympathetic with American interests, I’ll bet that only the hard-core 20% of that 30%, or 6%, are in anyway interested in national suicide. That is a number that I don’t find too large to contest. The rest need to be either encouraged or put to sleep with ever more bullshit. A bunch of them are no doubt open to re-considering the motives that caused them to vote the way they did. I know a few of them myself. So I’m thinking of a pool of 50+% to draw from to line highways with Flags, write their representatives, and otherwise make themselves seen and heard. Obama’s P.R. staffers are good at what they do. In fact I suspect that they are the very core of the administration. I don’t know what the morbidity threshold for a successful national brainwashing effort would be, but I don’t want to learn through experience either.
46: I keep wondering why he feels it necessary to keep preaching to the choir.
Obama ran for office on a whole hell of a lot of promises. He hasn’t kept many. Maybe he just needs to keep them from focusing on things like gays in the military or Gitmo or Afghanistan or Irag. Just when are we going to invade Pakistan?
It strikes me as bizarre that anyone could think that these Sunday shows will have any effect on the situation at all. Oh, if there’s some major gaffe they could make the situation worse; but there’s no potential to make anything better. Is Team Obama doing this simply because they’ve run out of ideas and have absolutely no idea what to do next?
Here’s why it won’t have an effect – ordinary voters, the ones who Obama so desperately needs to bring over to his side, Don’t Watch These Shows. Among people I know personally, I can count on one hand the number who have ever watched any one of these shows no matter who was on. (I’m one of the few that has) These shows are for political junkies, the media, and the inside the beltway crowd. Nobody out among us hoi polloi pays any attention to these self serving dog and pony shows – they really are, as one poster already has said, just a bunch of preachin’ to the choir.
So ok, he may do a great job on them. Doesn’t matter – he’s not going to get anywhere close to the audience he needs to be reaching. And that’s why there’s no chance at all of this Sunday’s performances having any kind of influence on the issue.
Prince Hal was told that a King, or a potential King, shouldn’t show himeself too much. Takes the mystique away.
The urgency of govt medical and cap/trade has been reiterated by President Obama and it keeps ramping up. President Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid all know they have until 2010 (NEXT YEAR) to pull it off. The supermajority and majority in Congress will be gone! It would also be nice if some stupid Religious Right (American Taliban) Repubs get replaced.
As for F-22′s, Euro based missile shield, not needed and too expensive. I even doubt another generation CVN is needed. We will launch our UAV’s from submarines! Aegis can protect us in interim. Go NAVY!
Forgive my optimism but I believe cooler heads and the U.S. Constitution will prevail.
Salaam eleikum Y’all!
The most bipartisanship President ever!
Marzouq, You should not believe everything you read about UAVs and the F-22 or CVN’s and “submarine carriers” in Popular Mechanics.
They are hardly a replacement for F-22, and will not me for the next 20 years. Even after that they will function mostly as wingmen. Communication capacities,senor limits and computing and software short comings will limit theie use to being pretty much to bomb trucks. It is a preposterous assertion to think that UAV’s would replace an F-22 within a generation–it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the respective roles of the two in air combat practice and doctrine.
If you knew anything about AF doctrine and capabilities, you would know that the F22 is essential for overmatch, as are good solid and modern CVNs necessary for the same as far as the navy goes. Seriously, to imagine that submarines can operate in the same tolerances of CVNs, and can be protected in a battle group is to not understand modern naval warfare at all. Mouthing the propaganda of those who wish to undermine our overmatch out in time by proposing some solution that will likely never come, is not being “optimistic”, it is foolish.
You systems will not materialize how or when you imagine, and when they arrive they will not be the solution to the problems at hand. Really we are facing losing our edge by the end of Obama’s presidency. I do not think you inerstand the current state of our AF against the competition. The F-22 was an essential component of out planning for the next two decade.
“cooler heads” than yours are involved in this business. A lot of their findings are on the internet.Go look them up. If you know some people involved in this world you should talk to them. You will find that you are quite wrong–dead wrong, in fact.
As to the Constitution, well it will take a massive across the board reawakening in this country to turn that around. Just look at the GM deal. One must realize that it has been hanging by a thread for a very long time. “Restoring” it to 2008 “standards” solves nothing.
The central issues of Federalism, the abuse of Commerce clause (not to mention te 10th amendment) will have to be successfully address. I do not see that happening.
People said the same thing in the countries of the EU–look what is happening there. Ireland will keep voting until they get it right.
The Republic is in deep danger–no matter what happens in 2010, or 2012, we are still sliding down that slippery slope, and we will be in for the same tussle again. With each passing year, we are inexorably moving toward a tyrannical socialist state. I do not see that any trends offering to reverse this. If it were not for older folks alive today, there would be no meaningful resistance as it.
I do not think that you fully understand the moral and structural damage the Democrats have wrought, and the spiritual damage to the nation and its institutions.
It seems extremely unlikely that America can rouse herself to resume her former leading role, but if there is will, it will take decade of sustained will, but private and public to turn this around.
In the mean time, our competitors will advance and catch up with us, and not just militarily. I think that you discount this.
Marzouq, you also make an error when you say that they have until 2010 to get this done. Next year is an election year – whenever economic times are bad and the electorate is surly, Congress goes into total paralysis in the spring and summer before the election – they are terrified of doing anything that an opponent could use against them.
Realistically, Obama and the House majorities only have about 6 weeks left to pull this off, the time remaining before Congress breaks for the holiday recess. (yes, they take VERY long holidays) After that, the chances of getting anything besides meaningless boilerplate passed are just about zero.
That’s why you see the tone getting so desperate – the Battle is Now.
Apparently I had my own little psychic break there @# 50 and mixed up my Canadians (its so easily done). I replaced Donald Ewan Cameron with James Cameron.
In my defence, some might say, given the title song to Titanic, both Camerons were engaged in the same process.
Simple mistake.
Must do better
Charles @ 19: Im sorry. But Ive become convinced that any church music written after 1925 is unsingable by normal people and devoid of any readable message. See Wesley, Watts et al.
Walt:
Someone should note that Bryant took to the dirt nap in ’83 and that its been more than three days.
wws writes:
whenever economic times are bad and the electorate is surly, Congress goes into total paralysis in the spring and summer before the election – they are terrified of doing anything that an opponent could use against them.
With the stimulus bills they have already done that. They are like the army of Cortez who conquered the Aztecs. They have burned the ships. Their only options are victory or political death. And the savages of “flyover country” are howling for their blood. The outcome in America for the “progressive” conquistadors might not be like it was in Mexico all those many years ago.
No, not at all.
Fearless prediction:
Sunday morning ratings for “Fox,” “ESPN,” and “The Anything-but-Obama Channel” will go through the roof. Most people (even a lot of Democrats) will maybe watch 4 or 5 minutes of Obama’s first appearance, mutter “Same s***, different Sunday,” and click over to “Animal Planet.”
Then again maybe some folks, seeking to amuse themselves, will keep watching as they play “Obama Cliche and Stock Phrase Bingo.” I played it as I watched Obama’s speech to Congress the other night–I won too!
Then again maybe some folks, seeking to amuse themselves, will keep watching as they play “Obama Cliche and Stock Phrase Bingo.”
At least you’re not playing the OCSPB drinking game– people have been known to get serious alcohol poisoning from that.
This should make Whiskey’s night: it looks as if the Full Ginsburg, FLOTUS version, is on its way: [from Politico]
For the health care reform push, which got something of a reboot last week with President Barack Obama’s address to Congress, the aim is for the first lady’s imprimatur to put a friendly face and a noncontroversial spin on a complex, highly partisan issue.
She won’t get into the weeds on health care, pushing specific details or plans as Clinton did. Instead, she’ll make the soft, soccer-mom sell, highlighting the need to eat healthy, exercise and get preventive care. On Friday, Michelle Obama will appear at an event where women and families will talk about the health care system, and she will deliver remarks that will “amplify the president’s message on the need for health insurance reform,” according to the White House.
I have yet to see an imprimatur, which is a license or permission to print or publish something, put a friendly face on anything. A good example of a pathetic fallacy in more ways than one.
I say that this adminustrations disapproval ratings are in direct proportion to their incompetence. They gorge themselves on media exposure and think nothing but good can come of it, because hey, they can’t stop themselves. charge it to dad’s credit card.
miserable spoiled brats
62. herb:
Plenty of people feel the same way. Modern worship music has far less teeth than hymns of yore.
Guys you know the rules are changing, and though I wish the AF (the Administration) optioned more F22’s we have a couple squadrons (100+) and we have the technology. Have blue that is. Can we declassify our technology enough to sell a few to our friends and neighbors in the mean time? I hope so.
Marzouq, “ American Taleban”? Are you sure about that?
Now put yourself in the Straight of Hormuz. What exactly is the advantage of having a CVN? There is a time and a place for everything and if we don’t spend ourselves silly in the next 3 ½ years than we will have what we need to take care of what we have to. One good strategy is to have kit for all contingencies. Another good strategy is to have enough capability left over to monetize your future war commitments.
WWS- “Is Team Obama doing this simply because they’ve run out of ideas and have absolutely no idea what to do next?”
I think it is because they are going to use their narrow majority and strong arm tactics and they do not have a plurality of Americans for such a bold adventure that it is to legitimize the illegitimate means that are going to be used. Obama is betting the farm and after screwing most Americans, who couldn’t believe that the One could use so much hubris, he will be successful and have enough people on board they will all hold together their alliance. Same problems when you are instigating a coup.
So many good points to address.
1. The brainwashing technique mentioned above is succeeding. The start of the assault on the concept of truth and meaning may have started with Decartes’ effort to do the opposite and discover undeniable truth. In “cogito ergo sum” he thought he had reached something that could not be questioned. But instead he made one’s personal thoughts the standard of whether something existed. From there it was a meandering trip to Berkeley and Hume, a short sprint to Nietzche, and a slalom ride to Derrida and his cronies. We have several generations of chipping away at logic and meaning and truth. Now we have Gen X and Gen Y who have been converted.
2. I belong to that small intergenerational group born between “The Silent Generation” and “The Baby Boomers.” That is those born after Pearl Harbor but before the post-war baby boom. I could never understand the consciousness of the world in the late 1930′s. It seemed so obvious to all of us reading about it in the late 1956 – 1960 period as we took our world history and US history courses in high school. Yet there it was. And here it is again.
3. Will the Constitution prevail or will it be “relativized” to fit the latest intellectual fads a majority of Supreme Court Justices say it is? I am grateful for the energy of the Tea Parties and the courage and daring of investigative reporters who video tape corrupt groups like ACORN, but I am skeptical of their staying power. Winning streaks feel great but in the end the house, with its deeper pockets and longer staying power always wins. The house never runs out of money so it can withstand the customer’s winning streak. With the government, they not only never run out of money, they can print as much as they want.
Amateurs (read citizens) typically have less stamina than professionals (read government). And in this ADHD era that is even more so. But for the pre-ADHD generations the Tea Party ranks would have been rather small.
4. Some things are relatively easy to reverse; others are more difficult but can be undone. But there are a few things that, once transformed, are nearly impossible to restore. A broken bone can be restored; a crushed brain cannot, for example.
Cap and trade can be reversed eventually. Tax hikes can be reduced after a new election. But the transformation of health care delivery is nearly impossible to undo. If it is not stopped now we will pay the price for generations.
tomw @ 14:
tomw – Check out this comment at American Thinker: Posted by: tj Sep 14, 12:10 PM
The health care bill, written as you know by the Apollo Alliance is just a shell game to hide the real agenda =
49erDweet @ 38:
There was lots and lots of “debriefing” that went on for the person in question. Essentially they are returned to themselves. No fear.
whiskey @ 48:
I think it is more of his inner need for constant reinforcement that is part and parcel of the persistent malignant, pathological narcissism. He has a constant need for his ‘fix’.
Today’s wretchard threads have not got me scratching my head. I have heard nothing that turns me from my held opinions on The Won, The 0bamanation and the current crop of fools in Congress. It is more like, “yup, yup” moments.
We had a long day of steady rain today, which is unusual for the desert SW. Real nice day to read.
Eggplant,
It’s actually unfortunate for American blacks that the MSM pulled off this swindle. For the next 20 years when ever a black guy runs for office the first question people will ask: Is this guy another Obama?
wretchard addressed this point on the Quangos discussion but it has metastasized across threads. Remember that the Democrats are still running against Herbert Hoover 80 years after the Crash of ’29.
Perhaps there is hope in Obama’s very emptiness. Since he is so content free, except for the hard core of socialism that few actually believe in, he will be easy for his constituencies to drop. As Jackson and other Blacks have pointed out Obama is not really a member of their community and they can dump him without shame. Once Blacks start standing up and asking “Who in H*ll is this guy?” the women and elites will run. My prediction is that a conspiracy theory will start making the rounds that BHO is really someone interjected by Da Man (read Soros and the Jews) onto the innocent black community.
Read his Wiki, Hoover was one of the finest men ever to grace the White House. When the Democrats attacked him they attacked the core values of individual achievement and volunteerism that built this nation. The Republicans could not run away from Hoover, even if they could criticize some of his tactical measures such as signing Smoot-Hawley.
Since the Democratic Party are basically playing the role that the Washington Generals used to play in basketball – that is, being there just to make it seem like a contest is actually being waged – there is no chance that any health care package will be passing anytime soon.
Look at the political power match-up:
On one side you have the wealthy elite (the Harlem Globetrotters) who in fact do enjoy the best health care in the world. These guys, who represent the top 10% of the nation, have absolute control over both parties in the United States, although they sometimes allow a little heresy from conservative Republicans in order to keep up appearances. These masters of the universe have no problem getting trillions of dollars for Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and AIG; and through their absolute control over the American media they will have no trouble blocking the Democrats weak-ass attempt to drive to the health care hoop. Obama’s pathetic trip to the Sunday shows is just a way to prepare for the recriminations that will follow the inevitable loss he is about to suffer on health care.
Then you have the middle class who are worried a little about health care but are too busy worrying about making that next house payment to care all that much.
Then you have the bottom 60% of the country, people who desperately need a better health care system, but these clowns are too busy watching celebrity-drenched TV, smoking crack, shooting meth, or various other dubious activities to be able to assist in anything more that the political equivalent of a ¾-court Hail Mary shot at the final buzzer. In other words there is no political power behind this supposed push for health care; it is all Kabuki theatre, and therefore it must fail.
And as for that brainwashing list, here is how it has changed the minds of Americans who previously supported universal health care:
1. Assault on identity – Universal Health Care is Socialist!
2. Guilt – Patriotic Americans are not Socialist!
3. Self-betrayal – Not being Socialist is more important than poor kids getting health care, isn’t it?
4. Breaking point – Yes or No; are YOU a Socialist??
5. Leniency – That’s better; We love you because you are not a Socialist.
6. Compulsion to confess – Poor kids aren’t that important anyway.
7. Channeling of guilt – It’s Obama’s fault
8. Releasing of guilt – Poor kids suffering is a very small price to pay to not be Socialist.
9. Progress and harmony – Together, we have defeated Socialism!
10. Final confession and rebirth– Vote Palin in 2112
On a slightly different note, but one that highlights just how much damage Obama is in a position to cause and how the msm protects news about this guy from actual journalism, has anyone seen the news around Acorn’s ties with unions – particularly the SEIU/AFL-CIO?
What is shocking is that nothing is being said about the guy recently appointed as the head of the NY Federal Reserve, Denis Hughes.
Where did obama tap him from? The financial industry? Academia? No, this guy was the president of NY AFL-CIO.
Scary what this guy has been getting away with.
Lifeofthemind said:
“Hoover was one of the finest men ever to grace the White House. When the Democrats attacked him they attacked the core values of individual achievement and volunteerism that built this nation. The Republicans could not run away from Hoover, even if they could criticize some of his tactical measures such as signing Smoot-Hawley.”
Herbert Hoover was an interesting guy. He was among the first graduates from Stanford University when it was merely an obscure rich kid’s finishing school. I think(?) he got a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology (his diploma is on public display at the Hoover Institute at Stanford). Hoover then distinguished himself as a mining engineer doing much of his work in Australia. He made a name for himself in the gold fields of Kalgoorlie, W. Australia and is mentioned in some of the museums there. Hoover then did a career change and went into politics. He immediately distinguished himself and rapidly advanced to becoming President of the United States. Then his luck ran out and the Great Depression hit. Hoover probably(?) did the right thing in advocating a strict legal approach towards the depression by insisting that market forces be allowed to work out all of the bad debt. Unfortunately the nation was dying and people were not interested in legal niceties or proper economics (they needed to feed their families ***Right Now***). Demagogues were starting to crawl out of the woodwork and the stage was set for FDR and the liberal Democrats.
I’m confused about FDR.
It’s hard to argue with success, i.e. FDR kept the nation together during the Depression and enabled our generals to achieve victory during WW-II. Unfortunately the legacy of liberalism was another of FDR’s achievements and one is left to wonder if that canceled out all the good that FDR caused. Of course there were people far worse than FDR waiting in the wings of the Democratic Party, e.g. Henry A. Wallace. One can argue that if FDR had not been president then dangerous men like Wallace would have eventually gained control. Who can say? Too bad Herbert Hoover didn’t work out. He had a lot of potential.
Eggplant:
Hoover was the first person of note to suggest that Americans had a “right” to own a home (1920). He was a progressive, as was Teddy Roosevelt. While both men still hewed to many fundamental American values, they were among a core of leading Americans who began to lead us away from the original intent of our governing system. Teddy Roosevelt even openly fretted about the obstacles to “progress” in the Constitution; he was joined in this heresy by Woodrow Wilson, who stated, in so many words, that we “moderns” were so different from the founders that we could wing it on constitutional issues. These were the formative years of modern progressivism/liberalism.
The Roosevelts and Wilsons et al, laid the foundations for us becoming a world power, and I don’t have a fundamental problem with that, just as I don’t take issue with the fact that there were many social injustices back then that needed addressing; but I believe we paid too high a price in terms of individual freedoms because of many of the methods we chose to employ to right those wrongs and also stand astride the world stage. It is the progressive agenda that extracted that exhorbitant price from our hides.
Herbert Hoover saved millions of lives. Very few people in history have saved as many as he did both after WW-I and then again when asked by Truman after WW-II. FDR treated him like dirt and it speaks well of Truman that, partisan though he was, he reversed that policy.
It was small of FDR to reject Hoover’s offer to serve in any capacity during WW-II. Great men reach out and allow their rivals to serve something greater than themselves. Churchill welcomed the dyeing Neville Chamberlain to serve in his Cabinet in WW-II, after Churchill had taken the Prime Ministership away from him. Chamberlain worked tirelessly to strengthen Britain and defeat the Axis. Churchill gave him an eulogy that sets the standard for respect and political maturity.
Simply put, Those of us who have made up our minds, studied HR 3200 will not be swayed by too much of BHO and the demosocialtscrats attempts to smear the air waves with their propoganda. That is why we must let as many people know about this attempt to overwhelm the senses with morbid stupidity beyond reason, and commom sense.
mongoose, your points in #59 are great, but in regard to Marzouq I didn’t read him as serious. Your sarcasm detector and mine are clearly not synced with each other, but until and unless M. shows up again to clarify, it’s a bit hard to say which one needs adjusting.
Roderick Reilly said:
“Hoover was the first person of note to suggest that Americans had a “right”
to own a home (1920). He was a progressive, as was Teddy Roosevelt. While both
men still hewed to many fundamental American values, they were among a core of
leading Americans who began to lead us away from the original intent of our
governing system. Teddy Roosevelt even openly fretted about the obstacles to
“progress” in the Constitution; he was joined in this heresy by Woodrow Wilson,
who stated, in so many words, that we “moderns” were so different from the
founders that we could wing it on constitutional issues. These were the
formative years of modern progressivism/liberalism.”
I tend to agree with this analysis that both Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican)
and Woodrow Wilson were the originators of American “progressivism”.
I should add that I detest the word “progressivism” as it is applied towards
modern politics. When you allow a socialist to use that word to describe
himself, you immediately abdicate the moral high ground to the socialist. In
reality, the socialists are “retrogrades”. The socialists advocate an
ideology that has already been fully examined by history and found to be
unacceptable.
I should also add that I respect both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
They were both good Presidents, IMHO. However I’ll not go into why I think
they were good Presidents.
Getting back to Roderick’s point on constitutional issues… The US
Constitution was written as a “living document”. It was intended by the
Founding Fathers that the US Constitution be open to amendment. Saying that
we should not be socialists because socialism was not part of the original
US Constitution is an invalid argument. I have little doubt that some of
the Founding Fathers would have embraced socialism if the concept had been
presented to them. On paper, socialism seemed like a good idea. We didn’t
really appreciate what a catastrophe socialism was until after the experience
of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.
Getting back to the so called “progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson, I’m having a problem with the concept of “being right”. How
does a person know that a particular set of political beliefs are correct
and/or moral? How can I demonstrate conclusively that moonbats are wrong?
There is a rationalization process that a good and moral person can
go through where he step-by-step metamorphosizes into an SS officer pushing
women and children into gas chambers. Coming up with an iron-clad set of
moral principles that prohibits this metamorphosis is not obvious. Also, don’t
respond with “being a good Christian” as the snappy answer because many of
those SS officers were practicing Catholics (some of them thought they were doing
God’s work). It is an article of faith to me, that the moral principles can
come through some sort of empirical and rational process. Unfortunately
I’m not intelligent enough to say precisely what that empirical and
rational process is.
With regard to the comment that Barack is not “one of us” (meaning the traditional black community):
Doesn’t it seem odd that many of the traditional black leaders in the US seem to have been marginalized since The One’s ascendance? Jesse is AWOL. Rangel is in his own deep doo-doo. Same for ACORN.
I know in some cases the damage has been self-inflicted, but don’t you think that there really may be some blow-back against BHO, especially if he continues to stumble, just so that the “old guard” can re-assert their power?
“”"”" I know in some cases the damage has been self-inflicted, but don’t you think that there really may be some blow-back against BHO, especially if he continues to stumble, just so that the “old guard” can re-assert their power? “”"”"
Possibly, hard to say, but not far-fetched. Again, I refer to Jackson’s infamous open mic comment about “cutting” Obama’s “nuts off” for “talking down to Black People.” Also, Marion Barry alluded to a disconnect between black liberal leadership and ordinary blacks on the gay marriage issue. In that same vein, there is that glaring smack in the face of Californians approving Prop 8 while the state was carried by Obama; many of those opposing gay marriage were minority voters. How much these differences and disconnects will matter depends on whether or not Obama can pull himself together, and other factors like the economy.
81. Eggplant:
“”"”" Getting back to Roderick’s point on constitutional issues… The US
Constitution was written as a “living document”. It was intended by the
Founding Fathers that the US Constitution be open to amendment. “”"”"”"
Well now, that is an interesting way to look at the “living document” notion of the Constitution. The problem with using “living document” is that the term has been hijacked by modern progressives who, like T.R. and Wilson, found the amendment process inconvenient. This is unfortunate, because it implies that not agreeing with their position means stating that the Constitution is a “dead document.” What progressives should be saying, were they honest creatures, is that they consider the Constitution to be a malleable document that can be reinterpreted without additional amendments — a very dangerous notion that has been put into practice by activist judges. The very fact that there is an amendment process in the Constitution gives the lie to the notion of it being a “living document” as that term is bandied about now. Honduras encountered the end result of similar thinking when they had to deal with Zelaya and his unconstitutional “referendum” for additional terms of office.
As to T.R. and Wilson as progressives, I have to be fair by not applying the filter of “Presentism” and look at them in the context of their times. Activist/reformists sentiments of a century ago were a simmering stew with many ingredients that didn’t always mix well, but people were trying notions that had not — or that they thought had not — been tried before. Common sense opposition to some progressive notions, plus the disastrous experience provided by the French revolution in a different lifetime, were insufficient evidence to dissuade progressives and radicals from moving forward with their ideas.
Progressivism is a euphemism for fascism. It all springs from the idea that the state is the fount of all good and that the individual counts for little or nothing. Socialism is an economic system based on a similar but not identical idea. To the extent that a fascist government cares about economics it needs a good economy to generate the funds to control the population (for its own good)
Go read Goldberg, its less a polemic than you think.
“”"”" Getting back to the so called “progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson, I’m having a problem with the concept of “being right”. How
does a person know that a particular set of political beliefs are correct
and/or moral? How can I demonstrate conclusively that moonbats are wrong? “”"”"”
By studying history, including original documents, and understanding the results of past practices that are being repeated. What were the results of past practices? Disastrous? Succesful? A mixed bag?
I have noticed that history, or, more precisely sociopolitical movements and phenomena seem to repeat themselves in roughly 30-year cycles. At the macro level, people in power and influence repeat mistakes in remarkably similar fashion to their counterparts of past generations. The details may vary, but the overall folly is the same. A similar pattern emerges for successful systems.
For instance, Senator William E. Borah in 1920 echoed Reid and Pelosi in 2007, and Sec. of State Lansing in 1920 echoed Dick Cheney and George Bush. In the context of the argument — the value of forceful, aggressive armed conflict when needed — Borah, Reid and Pelosi (and Obama) were wrong, Lansing, Cheney and Bush (and Petraeus) were right.
Mongoose #59: I do not think that you fully understand the moral and structural damage the Democrats have wrought, and the spiritual damage to the nation and its institutions.
I do. I also know how long it has been going on.
As for F-22, I understand your take but we are talking about conventional warfare. I think in terms of unconventional, assymetric and 4GW which is the current type of war we are dealing with and will for decades. It seems to be developing into a proxy war similar to “Cold” war.
WWS #60: I hear you. Point taken.
Salaam!