3 thoughts on “Connecting The Dots”

  1. I don’t buy the conspiracy theories. There may be individuals following this agenda, but I don’t think any sizable chunk of the the Democratic would be a party to such. Not that I have a high opinion of them, but rather it would have come out.

    No, I think the far simpler explanation is that a big chunk of the Dem voter base and elected officials absorbed leftist economics and politics at an impressionable age and have refused to learn since. They believe that man is improvable, and refuse to accept any vision of man as relatively fixed. It’s irrational, but it’s not evil.

    Combine the useful fools in the above paragraph with a few run-of-the-mill corrupt and power-hungry sociopaths pretending to be Democrats and you get the same result.

    Still, the ties to the radical left are very troubling. I hope that in the year ahead we never catch anyone saying “Man, I really wish the Clintons were in the White House. Corrupt sociopaths can at least be bribed into doing the right thing.”

  2. I think Brock is right. This is kind of the right-side equivalent to Kos commenter paranoia.

    See, the article’s point is that the Masterminds of the Left have been playing the electorate for a fool, feeding them bullshit about their real intentions, and feeding off of Reichstag-fire crises.

    Consider the alternative viewpoint, which is that, so to speak, the electorate has been playing the Masterminds of the Left for a fool, feeding them bullshit about their real intentions in electing them, and that the crises, while abetted by the Masterminds, have been founded on phenomena (dot-com stock, real estate bubble) that the electorate broadly supports, and thus can reasonably be said to have brought on itself.

    Take this year. Obama will be elected, and all his most fervent supporters are going to think it means a vindication by the voters of their collectivist fascist dreams. Time to nationalize everything! Let’s get a-regulatin’, big time! Establish a Department of CEO Behaviour, and order up some bales of barbed wire for the first camps.

    Not. Obama will be elected purely as a repudiation of the previous Republican Congress, and because people are tired of Bushes and Clintons in the White House. They really couldn’t care less about who Barack Obama is, which is why all his weird ideas and lack of bottom and judgment haven’t resonated, haven’t changed the race. It’s not that people don’t know about this stuff, or haven’t had it explained to them clearly enough yet. They know, but they don’t care. Obama is someone new, so he’s hired, for that reason alone.

    But does that mean he can take off the moderate mask and do as he pleases, once elected? Hardly. What the voters give in 2008 they can — and will — take away in 2010 if they please. Let Obama start preaching his Chicago Hyde Park hothouse unreal politics writ large for the nation, and he’s approval rating will plummet (and he cares about that, he’s a complete whore for it). Let Congress enact a bill or two, and watch them lose their seats a year later. So I don’t think Obama’s true deep beliefs matter very much here. I think it’s increasingly obvious he can only get elected to the extent he doesn’t follow them, and that means he can only keep power to the extent he doesn’t follow them in office.

    If I were he, I wouldn’t take the job on those terms. In a sense, he is being used by the electorate, serving as a tool to shakes things up. Sure, he gets the power, but realistically he’ll only be able to use it in directions he doesn’t particularly like (but the country does), and won’t be able to use it in directions his heart wishes. And if he doesn’t figure it out? Jimmy Carter, 1980, all over again. The voters are pitiless. They’ll love you (or seem to) one year, then punch your ticket for good a few short years later.

Comments are closed.