If Obama is a Socialist then the Pope is a Muslim!
There are similarities between what is going on now in the White House and what went on in past administrations that resemble what went on in Tolkien and Herbert's novels. The dynamic of those elites close to a leader betraying the followers and creating a disaster is relevant to all of us right now, regardless of where we find ourselves on the Nolan Chart! by Russell G. Davis
(centrist)
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
I can remember comparing the dismal fate of George W. Bush's administration in 2008 to destroying Sauron's Ring at the end of Lord of the Rings. When I was called upon to say what came next for the U.S. using a Middle Earth metaphor, I decided that the relevant novel was not J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy but Frank Herbert's Dune! Obama was building a following around himself akin to Muad'Dib in Dune. I said at the time that these cults of personality don't sometimes disappoint, they always disappoint!
And predictably, as Muad'Dib proved himself an inept ruler and slave to sycophants, Obama's campaign of Hope, Change and Unity fell to the Machiavellian machinations that enslave both major parties. It was over as soon as Rahm Emanuel joined as Chief of Staff.
I've decided that Dune is not the proper metaphor anymore. I must go back to Lord of the Rings. Sauron has fallen but his daughter, Liz Cheney, remains on the talk show circuit trying to rescue his legacy by rewriting history, while Gollum survived the fall and remains on the faculty at UC Berkley teaching the next generation of domestic enemies of the Constitution. And ruling us, is a potentially great leader, Barack Obama, asleep and in as decrepit a state as Theoden of Rohan was. And by his side, spreading poison is his Wormtongue, Rahm Emanuel.
Arguing in the White House against the agenda the public sent Obama to Washington to implement, Mr. Emanuel has fought against closing Guantanamo Bay, trying terrorists in public courts (where they belong by the way-don't make martyrs out of terrorists, publicly try them! Everyone then sees what happens when you use violence to get your way, you get locked up for life!). Mr. Emanuel continues to prey on the fear of a Republican smear campaign that keeps the Health Care reform agenda timid and worthless despite there being a nation full of insurance company victims.
But if Obama could awaken himself out of his spell like Theoden of Rohan, there would be so much good that could be accomplished. We could have better protection from the white collar criminals who caused this economic mess. We could have Health Care that doesn't use getting sick as an excuse to bankrupt people. Domestic enemies of the Constitution like Bybee, Feith, Yoo and Dinh could be prosecuted as he promised in the campaign. Instead of freezing NASA's budget at this crucial time we could devote our resources to returning to the moon, mining the Helium3 that is abundant there, and converting our economy to one based on nuclear fusion aka clean energy! It would be as simple as changing the Pentagon's mission from protecting the fossil fuels of yesterday to claiming the fuel of tomorrow. An Obama/Theoden could give us a new New Deal, get paychecks in people's hands and get them spending again. (Granted he'd have to lead an anti-obstructionist charge against the 41 Uruk'Hai in the Senate. But such a campaign can be won. I say LET them filibuster and shut the government down during an election year. When that happened in the 90's the public turned against the Republican Congress.)
All if this and more are not even considered due to the words of Emanuel/Wormtongue in Obama/Theoden's ear.
But is there really all that much of a difference between Obama and Emanuel? Wasn't Obama's only job in the private sector being a lawyer for a Chicago slumlord? That never sounded like much of a socialist to me. When Obama recently compared the bonuses of bank executives to baseball players saying that he didn't "begrudge people wealth or success. That is part of the free market system", he showed the people who believed his speeches and campaigned for him in 2008 that they were out of luck when it came to reclaiming that tax money.
You didn't have to look further than the list of CEOs and CFOs for major corporations who were listed as major contributors to Obama for America. Major officers for Sotheby's (Michael L. Ainslie), Comcast (John R.Alchin), HBO (Chris Albrecht), Boeing (James A. Bell), Bergstrom Corporation (John F.Bergstrom), Motorola (Gregory Q. Brown), Goldman Sachs (Gary D. Cohn), Kindred Healthcare (Paul J. Diaz), Disney (Michael Eisner),Viacom (Thomas E Dooley), Morgan Stanley (Amelia C. Fawcett), and Lehman Brothers (Richard S. Fuld Jr.) were all donors to Obama for America. So were Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. And that's just a small part of the list.
I think you have to admit, that is one insidious socialist conspiracy!
And if all of those people and their candidate are socialists then it's fair to call the Pope a Muslim!
So maybe Obama/Theoden isn't quite the slave to Emanuel/Wormtongue as I'd like to think. That certainly makes more sense. Obama is no fool. He must have known during the primary that if you can't get the big donors like those mentioned above, you can't buy the ads to compete in any election much less win the Presidency. And of course they are going to expect something for their money.
I find this a truly evil part of our system. That the same machine in charge of lying to us regarding car dealership financing, unhealthy processed foods and $14 per month "free" credit reports must be appeased during all of our election cycles. They are the same people that make these campaign ads during election years. But, as much as I may despise this, that's how it is. Obama is certainly aware of this. If you can't raise the cash to compete in this arena, a victory in modern politics is not even a possibility. "Spread the Wealth Socialists" need not apply.
They'd be happy to back a rousing populist leader who stirs people to fight as did Theoden. As long as the agenda can be brought under a spell and managed by the Wormtongues of the D.C elites when all is said and done.
We see the same dynamic play itself out time and time again no matter whom the candidate or party is. George W. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" won the Republican party nomination in 2000 only to be short circuited immediately when he asked Dick Cheney to chose a Vice Presidential nominee. Clinton's brief window for change was cut short when he brought on board David Gergen, who saw to it that Clinton was little more than a Democratic stamp on a Republican Congress's agenda. And the same betrayal will inevitably happen to the Tea Party if they ever elect a national leader.
I said in 2008, that these cults of personality don't sometimes disappoint, they always disappoint! And I was proven right unfortunately.
In real life, it is never enough to dethrone Bush or Obama, or throw the One Ring into Mt. Doom, or lead the Fremen to overthrow Shaddam IV. It really doesn't do much. It can be the beginning of a new day only when the people are truly united and willing to show elites that there are more of us than there are of them!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Russell G. Davis only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Russell G. Davis is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I find that most people who think he isn't a socialist do not understand the term properly.
Socialism is not one concrete idea; there are many policies that could be considered socialist.
It would seem Obama appreciates the "To each according to his contribution" philosophy, as seen in his support for SEIU and other Unions.
You must not forget that we as human beings create terms. Definitions progress over time. Socialist in many views today is indeed "spreading the wealth." Is it socialist? Maybe. Is it anti-capitalist? I would say so.
Certainly the concept of "it's not fair that he only makes this much, so government intervention is necessary" is socialistic.
I do believe we have gotten used to the progressive's idea of gradual change. The newest generation praises the idea of the minimum wage, for example. They are taught that it's ok to make little money, because "everyone should make enough to live off of." Really? Wouldn't the capitalist thing to do be letting them work at their $3/hr job until it doesn't support them? They then realize this and try to get a real job, leaving behind the old crappy jobs for teenagers who don't need the money. The free market then naturally raises wages according to supply and demand for the work force.
This anti-capitalist idea, just one of many, has become so common and natural to us in recent history that we don't think of it as an extreme policy any more.
Your examples of his supporters are only an argument from the extreme of the issue. You seem to suggest that only some god-hating communist could vote for him, by the opposition's logic. In their defense, any one person can have any one problem with any one candidate. Someone doesn't have to be on the fringe left to support Obama. Someone doesn't have to be on the fringe right to support *insert Republican candidate here.*
As for the fruit of the other point here, look at socialists Rage Against the Machine. They said themselves that you need to use the current system to change it. Note, I am not suggesting Bill Gates is a socialist; he falls under my "fringe" argument. I am conveying that if a rich socialist were to support Obama, he must use capitalism anyways to get his point across.
As for Obama himself, you can put lipstick on a pig....
"They are taught that it's ok to make little money, because "everyone should make enough to live off of" is the solution the government offers with the welfare state.
Thanks for the comments. I'll be addressing them as best as I can because you touched on a lot of bases.
1.Socialism actually is a concrete idea. It has a definition. Keeping concepts deliberately vague and flexible is a trick used so that anything that someone wants to apply to said concept can apply. If Beck or another hack doesn't like something it"s Socialist. Hence all these "Socialist" CEOs that supported Obama. It's a McCarthyesque tactic and shouldn't be used.
2. Nowhere in the article did I mention minimum wage laws. I couldn't disagree more by the way. When I can find an Economics professor that wants to practice what he preaches and take a pay cut so more graduate assistants can be hired, I'll listen. Oterwise I consider it to be Ivory Tower sophistry and thus a bad idea on those merits alone.
3.I wasn't suggesting that someone had to be an extremist to vote for Obama. I was pointing out how incosistent the label SOCIALIST is when attempts are made to tar Obama with that label. If Obama is a Socialist, then labels mean nothing and the Pope is a Muslim. That was my point.
How is wealth redistribution in line with "To each according to his contribution?" I believe everyone should make enough money to live off of not be given the money for doing nothing more than accepting that they are poor. The helping hand a vast perscenage of folks are looking for is at the end of their own arm. If you don't contribute you get someones money that does? Common sense?
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
