Mike Ramirez in the NY PostI am particularly sensitive to signals that may foretell radical changes in our political system. First, I see that Obama has become a charismatic cult figure, much loved for who and what he is. His followers, including those in the media and schools, are devoted to him. He strokes this devotion with vague and comforting rhetoric that camouflages his lust for power. He will never admit to nationalizing health care. No, he will “reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.” Who is going to oppose that?
Second, the Democratic Party, with Obama as its head, has a stranglehold on Congress. Hispanics, Blacks, gays, single and employed woman, unions, teachers, most foundations, thousands of lawyers, and the major media strongly support Democrats, in some cases by well over by 70-80% percent. Then there are the leftist groups and the very rich who provide many resources for the Democratic electoral campaigns. Need I mention ACORN?
Third, Democrats are blessed with an inept and hapless Republican Party which has been unable to provide meaningful and aggressive opposition. Republicans have no clear leader, being badly fractionated into supporters of Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and perhaps a few others such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Despite what the Democrats in Congress have been doing to the country and on taxes, its generic poll average is 40 percent versus 35 for Republicans. This is a testament to the power of the Democrat’s organs, and the deceptive major media which hides and lies about the doings of Obama and the Democratic Congress.
It is possible that Democrats may further overreach for power, create an abominable scandal, alienate the media, and create a huge backlash. The Republicans may get their act together, and recover as they have in the past. But, the current power grab by Democrats has no precedent. We are seeing here not a trend line, but seizure of power by leaps and bounds.
The consequence may be an authoritarian political system—a one-party state.
We have a new state religion—secularism. Government suppresses free speech for the sake of political correctness, global warming, energy efficiency, and electoral fairness. Were I teaching now, I would be fired for speaking out on things I believe are true. Businessmen are not free to fire and hire, or now, even to pay workers what they wish. Big business is at the mercy of big government.
At the last count, Obama has created directly under his control, responsible to no one else, twenty-nine czars with far reaching power over our social and economic affairs, including compensation, energy, borders, drugs, intelligence, regulations, climate, urban affairs, health, cars, AIDS, green jobs, weather, and on and on and on. Even the courts, including the strict constructionists, have become statists. The federal government now thoroughly dominates the states. State sovereignty is a mirage. In effect, the balance of power, checks and balance system, created by the Constitution is a theory for political science courses, but no longer a reality.
If you think I exaggerate, ask yourself. Are you freer today than you were years ago, even six months ago?
Why do you say that secularism is the new US national religion? I can't think of any changes that Obama's made in this area. I was surprised when I read this, as I've never seen you talk about religion much beforehand.
ReplyDeleteI've just looked at your website's FAQ, and you say on there that all communist and fascist governments were secular. That's not true: Franco's Spain was both fascist and strongly Catholic. Also, Mussolini's Italy had Catholicism as the state religion, although it seems likely that Mussolini himself was an atheist.
I am neither more nor less free since Obama took office. The only thing that you can argue that his administration has done in that regard is require the purchase of health insurance—and that's not in effect for another couple of years. (And I for one don't think that making everyone ensure that they are covered—so that medical care overall isn't made more expensive by people who can't pay and thus get care and then skip out on their bill—is such a bad idea at all.)
ReplyDeleteI did, however, become a whole lot less free during G. W. Bush's terms in office. I and other Americans, for instance, rightfully feel concerned about the PATENTLY illegal phenomenon known as warrant-less wiretapping (which started under Bush and continues under Obama). And don't give me any "trust the government to do the right thing and attend to only the phone calls/electronic messages of terrorists" hooey, either. Not unless you're prepared to extend precisely the same amount and kind of trust the Obama administration, or any other administration with which you philosophically disagree.
I long for the day when political criticism exceeds the bounds of partisanship. I'm just a professor who was poking around looking for such criticism when I ran across some references to Dr. Rummel.
Needless to say, I was sadly disappointed.
Wow! I first read Rummel's treatment of a couple different aspects of civilization, and altho I started to get a feeling that perhaps some cherry-picked stats were being offered as evidence for his theories on democracy, war, deaths rates per gov. ideology, etc. I didn't have the stats to prove it so I just kept reading, albeit with skeptical reserve.
ReplyDeleteBut now I come across this screed and see the same Tea Party/GOP talking points regarding the evils of Obama that one can find on any given day being pushed by FOX onto the viewers they know are cognitively incapable of critical analysis of their stories, whose high-RWA (authoritarian follower) status means they will also be extremely deferential regarding whatever they hear for excuses re: GOP foul-ups, TP embarrassments...really anything their in-group sources tell them is true.
This is the same low-calibre rhetoric thats been pushed by Beck, Newsmax, Freepers, and those other echo-chambers that high-RWAs must use to avoid having to learn something that might possibly force them to reevaluate some part of their existing beliefs system. That creates fear and thoughts of mortality to suddenly rise in just this one particular idealogical strain. Not in MOTR types nor even in the far left. Needs for closure, certainty, regulatory focus, low cognitive complexity, increased fear and aggression.... All these and more now strongly suggest that at least for quite a few people who have adopted political conservatism, it seems they arrived at it...not as a result of any thoughtful comparisons made on the relative merits of each system, but rather they were compelled to it by a psychological syndrome that results in cognitive impairments of a sort that require following some simplistic "Us and Them, right and wrong" dualism, the slogans and rhetoric (eg. the "talking points" reference I made earlier) that seem so common among US RW conservatives lately.
And sadly...he appears to be yet another high-RWA. Or perhaps one of those more rare SDOs who put out this kind of stuff in hopes they attract a following of their own. Is that it?