The movement of Progress
Like other political ideas that express themselves as “movements,” Progressivism is a youthful ideology. Youthful because it is always moving, not always in a consistent direction. The believers may buy into, for instance, saving water. In the 70s , they did this by putting a brick in the toilet tank to lower the amount of water used. The brick was good enough then, but by the 80s it was a joke. They had to have a low flush toilet. A few years later, a dual flush. When will their efforts suffice? The answer is never.
Like the Stakhanovite communist toiler, the good Progressives’ work is never done. Extraordinary efforts are the norm. And must always be exceeded next time. We’ll get you health coverage, but if you don’t go along with the program, there’ll be fines and jail time for you miscreants out there. Later, you will have to continually adjust your lifestyle in order to maintain compliance.
Sounds like the cruel capitalist boss telling his sales force that last quarter was great, now exceed it. Funny how the left ultimately looks like their favorite bogeyman.
The false dilemma of profiling Muslims
The default position of the government bureaucracy, and apparently the armed forces, is that profiling Muslims constitutes religious discrimination. As a result, the government and the dominant media are loath to ascribe jihadist meaning to any domestic attacks committed by American Muslims. The danger inherent in this policy of willful blindness is obvious.
What then do we do? The answer to the dilemma is that Islam is not merely a religion. No one is prepared to stop anyone from praying to Mecca if he chooses. However, Islam is also a political, economic, ethical and moral system. Americans need not accept any of these portions of the islamic system as religious. For example, when Islam permits wife beating and slavery, we have no requirement to accept this as religious freedom.
The islamic concept of jihad requires that Muslims overthrow any non-islamic government when they have the strength to do so. Obviously this permits violence that we have no reason to accept. And any Muslim who exhibits any trace of jihadist intent should be profiled like any criminal or military adversary.
Community Organizer in Chief II
A Community Organizer works with aggrieved parties to get satisfaction from the System. His creative role is primarily tactical: how to create a buzz, how to put the representatives of Oppression in a corner. What the aggrieved want is simple: more money and power. The CO figures out how to get them.
In Washington, getting a big bill through requires presidential arm-twisting, cajoling and bribe offers. The classic example is Lyndon Johnson, famous for making Congressmen see the light of their own self interest. The current Congressional leadership is ineffective, and too far to the Left, in the hands of Reid and Pelosi to produce bills that can pass without presidential involvement. In the face of public opposition, and in the absence of presidential cover, Congressmen are wary of committing themselves.
Obama’s aloof method has not forced resolution from the legislature. Like a broker, the Community Organizer does not force the parties to the table. For a conventional leader though this appears as weakness–he is failing to get what he wants. Obama might retort that “It’s not about me. Congress needs to send me a bill.” This explains his up till now complacent inaction.
Limbaugh’s audio characters
One of the qualities that separate Rush Limbaugh from the talk show competition is the variety of voices heard. From the mimicry of politicians, to the DJ’s use of impressions such as Howard Cosell and the numerous audio soundbites, the audience receives a continuously modulated feed. Other voices include the callers, the music and movie parodies, and the Official Obama Criticizer in black lingo.
Besides the callers, Rush gives his own voice to others in the audience. The party line liberal lisps “That’s right, Mr. Limbaugh….” before making a fool of himself. Dimwit Conservatives nervously object to Rush’s arguments with “But Rush, but Rush, what about….” only to be quickly set straight with a calming pronouncement.
His volume also has broad range. After making a controversial point, he may close out a segment with a quietly emphatic “Don’t doubt me.” By contrast, the talk show competition is repetitive with little of the aural variety needed to reach Limbaugh’s standard. Their fortissimo bursts appear designed to provoke the listener to shout, “Enough, already!” With Rush, the show usually ends with the listener wanting more.
Community Organizer in Chief
According to the community organizer model, a leader’s job is to discover and increase public dissatisfaction with “the system.” The organizer functions as a broker, extracting concessions for his client, the oppressed group, while maneuvering to assure future business. Transferring this model to the presidency is problematic in several ways.
Claiming that the”system” is unfair posits a have-have not distribution of wealth and power not embraced by most Americans. Most people do not believe that this country and its institutions are fundamentally unfair. They tends to believe in the fundamental fairness of a free market and in individual effort rather than government allocation. Citizens generally identify with the system even if they do happily gripe the day away. The community organizer generally works with passive people who feel they are outside the system.
Audience knowledge that it will pay the bill also limits the appeal of a spread the wealth strategy, a strategy that is inevitable once you have decided that there is a class struggle to be won. While it’s generally accepted that the left will target the rich, most people are sensitive to overreach in this area. Obama’s repeated attempts at reassurance have failed owing to his inconsistency: is high net worth the enemy, or those making $250K per year, or just $150K? In community organizing, the taxpayer is not part of the discussion: the players are the broker, the oppressed group and the targeted organization.
Obama also flounders as he blames more and more people for frustrating his solutions. The financial services industry, insurance companies, auto manufacturers and even doctors are targeted as greedy plutocrats, polluters or exploiters. Middle-class protesters are invalidated if they carry a sign or are merely properly dressed. Knowing that they are all on the hit list, the targeted groups will tend to unite.
In contrast, the community organizer is successful when he takes on his victims one at a time, while the later targets stand by, hoping that they will be spared. Because he is trying to remake society, Obama cannot apply the community organizer’s dictum that the target must be narrow and fixed.
Setting one group against another reveals an unsettling strategy. Once targeted, one does not forget. When private individuals, including even the GM CEO, are targeted, the president can no longer play the benevolent broker working for the “common good.” Even his supporters must experience a twinge of fear of this newly emerged avenging angel.
Obama v. Britain
Many have noted Obama’s shabby treatment of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the British establishment in general. Returning the Churchill bust, offering the ridiculous DVD gift, and now failure to return the PM’s phone calls are consistent with a dated anti-imperialist world view. As a community organizer Obama seemed to think that America was trapped in 1963. The man seems a good generation behind the times even as he projects a vaporous future.
But why pick on the Brits? Aren’t there plenty of other European ex-empires to throw stones at? Yet not a word about the French, Spanish or Dutch. The answer may be Obama’s Kenyan daddy, who was anti-colonialist and therefore anti-British during that empire’s twilight in 1950s East Africa. If dad had been from Congo, Barack might be giving the Belgians a hard time. Like father like son, it’s personal.
Voter Motivation, voter commitment
Motivation usually is analyzed under categories such as fear, greed, pride, etc. But what about commitment? Regardless of the category of motivation, to what extent will a voter act on it?
A recent example is the municipal voter plagued by incompetent city government. Sure, nearly everyone you talk to wants to throw the bums out. But when asked what exactly that voter is willing to do, you are met with a rapid fire excuse, or, from the less practiced, a fumbling, silent stare.
In our fair city, the consensus is that the voter will sign a recall petition. But what will he do to make that petition come about? The answer is: not much.
The strategist is left with the problem of how to bring about the situation in which the voter will execute his “commitment” to sign. Going door to door with a canvassing army is the conventional solution. But this begs the question of who will constitute the army.
The next thought is to go where the voters congregate. Here you run afoul the general prohibition against political activity on corporate property. The mighty acme, inc. is a pitiful giant in its fear of offending some constituency. Just mention “petition” and it whimpers as if accused of racism.
So, we need a scrap of private property owned by someone with cajones. With a little imagination, we can visualize the drive-by recall. Joe, in his pickup, speeds along, sees the “sign recall here” banner and pulls off the road. A helpful member of the miniscule recall staff comes to his window with a clipboard. Joe glances at the document, grunts approval, fills out the form, hands back the clipboard: “So when is the bastard gone?” Multiply by the statutory number of signatures.
We’ll see if it works.
Getting out of the water dry
The latest Democrat scandal, the Blago affair, threatens to taint Saint Barack for the media. We are told to withhold judgment because there is no evidence that Obama had any contact with the loathsome Illinois Governor regarding the Senate seat sale.
However, it is clear that Obama was able to receive as well as deliver the goods while state and US Senator: $800K to ACORN, $200K raise for his wife, house he couldn’t afford without Rezko, dispensing millions hand in hand with Ayers.
Anyone who can do this is corrupt with a trace of doubt: crooks do not cut you in on the action if you are honest. And an honest man does obviously does not take part. He turns in the creeps. It only remains to be seen whether in this case also Obama will, as the Russians say, “get out of the water dry.”
Obama the Vase
Obama’s race, novelty, and media cover (including endless favorable polls) have maintained the illusion that he is the overwhelming choice of the electorate. Meantime, all the news about him over the last several months has been negative. And each new story or fact amounts to a small whack against the vase that is the Obama candidacy. Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, “My (half) brother’s keeper”, ACORN, “Above my pay grade”, “Punished with a baby”, Biden’s gaffes, “I just want to spread the wealth”, attacks on Joe the Plumber, aunt living in a slum–the list lengthens daily.
The sole question is whether the Obama Vase shatters from these blows before or after Election Day. If before, Obama loses and his career is over; if after, his aggressive administration, aided by the salivating Democrat congress, will ensure no action is taken, at least in the short term.
Ayers and Alinsky, Theory and Practice
Obama has dumped his pastor, dissed his grandmother, ignored the material want of his extended family, and his wife has trashed her country. But the Obama’s have not dumped William Ayers, the Weather Underground terrorist, nor have they given up the tactics of Saul Alinsky, the original Community Organizer.
Ayers long ago decided, after having narrowly avoided prison for terrorist bombings, that education is the new revolution. He is in famous company, given the number of dictators and revolutionaries who have focused on indoctrination of the youth as the easiest means of consolidating their future power.
As for Alinsky, Obama has clearly adopted his ground game tactics on the grand scale. It is now revealed that his primary wins over Hillary Clinton in caucus states were assisted, if not made possible, by bussed-in Chicago ACORN workers exploiting the weak residency & identification requirements of those states. The same manpower is being used in Ohio with the connivance of corrupt state officials.
As for the Fannie/Freddie disaster, again the policy of spreading the wealth (Ayers’ socialism/communism) was executed with the help of the (Alinsky approved) ACORN ground game, including the harassment of bankers at their homes.
Meantime, critics of Obama, such as Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, are threatened by dirt diggers working for the candidate of light. Again the ground game, using large numbers of activists.
The consistency is striking: at the beginning of his career, Obama succeeded in removing his opponents in the State Senate race, including his erstwhile mentor, by invalidating the signatures on their applications of candidacy. Obama’s innovation is to always game the system, and do it better than anyone else ever has.
