Forget Train Wreck: Obama Is a Jet Crash
There's a "good" train-wreck theory circulating pretty far, and among a pretty wide swath of conservative-minded voters, concerning this presidential election. My husband has been an ardent proponent of this theory, as have been a sizable number of my own readers, who've written to explain it to me, some going into minute detail of how this theory will play out in 2008.
The condensed version, if I'm getting it right, goes something like this:
The 2008 election is a "wake-up" for the American people. We Americans are a very busy lot, say the train-wreck seers, who are very happy minding our own business, making a living for our families, and otherwise enjoying the benefits of living in the greatest country in the world. We Americans don't get fully on alert unless we are involved in a sizable, far-reaching, societal catastrophe that affects nearly all of us very negatively.
An Obama victory, these theorists contend, would inevitably result in one heck of a big-blast train wreck. A wrecked economy. Jihadi wrecks all over the place. Judeo-Christian values tied to the tracks throughout the country. Taxpayers ready to tear up the very tracks and start all over.
At the end of Obama's four years, which these theorists explain will certainly produce a "Jimmy Carter four years on steroids," we Americans will rise to the occasion and reclaim our liberties, our government, our pocketbooks, and our values. The second Ronald Reagan reformist will emerge in the form of Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin or one of the other rising conservative all-stars. All will be well and a second wave of conservative reforms will inevitably return America to the course set by our founders.
Having been a tough-love mom and a stalwart advocate of logical-consequence parenting, I can certainly see the feasibility of this theory. If we are stupid enough to elect a man who, as Mark Steyn has so eloquently noted, has a resume that "would fit on the back of his driver's license," then we deserve to suffer the consequences.
And if Barack Obama were just an old-school, misguided, but still patriotic liberal, I would be sorely tempted to sit out this election, withhold my "safety-first" McCain vote, and let the chips fall where they may.
I'm a social conservative, an economic conservative, and a small-government conservative all rolled into one. I'm an at-all-times and in-every-circumstance conservative -- in the brand of the original American patriots of 1776.
But Barack Obama, as I have painstakingly discovered, is no mere liberal. He proudly claims the progressive label, and makes no bones about his intentions to progress the internationalist socialist cause in America. In every policy sphere, from the redistribution of wealth to the federal government as nanny-caretaker, from an appeasement-first-and-always foreign policy to his plan for a national civilian security force on par with our U.S. military, Barack Obama clearly plans to change America into a country we would not even recognize as the land of the free and the home of the brave.
So, in my mind, Obama would not produce a train wreck, much less a "good" train wreck.
No, a Barack Obama presidency, coupled with a filibuster-proof Senate majority and a large House domination, is more akin to a Boeing 747 crash for America.
While folks do survive train wrecks and walk away to pick up the pieces and rebuild, surviving an Obama-style change jet crash, in my opinion, may not leave enough surviving elements of our Constitution, our economy, or our defense to allow for any sort of American renewal.
Progressive plan to rewrite Constitution through courts
In their book The Shadow Party, authors David Horowitz and Richard Poe painstakingly reveal much of what progressive revolutionaries and their prominent backers, including and especially George Soros, have been up to behind the scenes of the Democratic Party. Using campaign finance reform, which was heavily funded and advocated by George Soros, powerful 527 groups such as Moveon.org have orchestrated a veritable coup within the Democratic Party, and now exercise a heretofore unthinkable amount of control, operating as a shadow party, essentially pulling the strings on what the American public sees.
In April 2005, Yale Law School was home to an important conference, called "The Constitution in 2020." Shortly after the conference, John Hinderaker wrote up the conference implications for the Weekly Standard, noting:
The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize "positive" rights, not just "negative" rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits. The bottom line is that Congress would no longer have the discretion to decline to enact liberal policies. The triumph of the left would be constitutionally mandated.
We have seen the liberal/secular/progressive activism from the Supreme Court already imperiously revoke centuries of jurisprudence in cases like Roe, Lawrence, and a host of others, which have had profound, unprecedented effects on American culture, all without the approval of the electorate.