Immediately following this essay, I republish my long essay analyzing why Obama is the greater evil.
The politically correct multi-culturalism (PC MC) of Bush has been a head cold these past eight years for the Body Politic. McCain does not show signs of appreciably clearing up that head cold—
but at the same time, he shows no signs of making it worse.
If PC MC is analogous to a cold, the radical Leftism that imbues Obama is like a full-blown flu. With a Democratically controlled Congress, that flu becomes vulnerable to pneumonia, if not worse.
If PC MC is counter-productive to our most exigent concern in the 21st century—protecting the West from the danger of a global Islamic revival—radical Leftism is far worse.
The radical Leftism of Obama represents a marked intensification of two closely related sociopolitical pathogens carried by PC MC:
1) Anti-Americanism stemming from a more amorphous anti-Westernism
2) Exaltation of non-white, non-Western cultures (and most piquantly, that poster child of the Third World, Islam).
These pathogens of PC MC have rendered us recklessly myopic to the dangers of Islam. Obama’s radical Leftism will make us perilously blind.
As Horowitz with pungent perspicacity wrote today on frontpage.com:
. . . every anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-Iranian Communist in America is supporting Barack Obama; every pro-Palestinian leftist, every former Weatherman terrorist—many of whom are active in his campaign (some even on his official website); every Sixties leftist and all their disciples whose hope all their lives has been that America would lose its wars, because in their perverse view America is the Great Satan, the imperial master of global capitalism; every black racist follower of Louis Farrakhan, who said recently that when Obama speaks you are “hearing the voice of the messiah”; every “anti-war” activist who wanted us to leave Saddam in power and then lose the war in Iraq; everyone who believes that America is the bad guy and that our enemies are justly aggrieved; every member of ACORN, the chief product of the anti-American Sixties left, which thinks nothing of conducting massive electoral fraud because it has massive contempt for the American way. Every one of these radical forces without exception and without defection is pulling for Barack Obama, along with al-Jazeera and Vladimir Putin and the religious fanatics of Hamas and the PLO. Have you asked yourself what it is that you think you know, that they don’t?
5 comments:
Erich
Flus are curable. Common colds are not.
Once we have an intense bout of flu with Obama, PCMC will potentially take a severe beating in coming elections. Also, terms last only 2 years, not 4 or 8 - like Clinton's liberal term was only 1992-1994.
nobody,
"Flus are curable. Common colds are not."
The best way to cure a flu is to get an inoculation that prevents the flu from happening in the first place. (Once a person has the flu, there's not much one can do (other than drink plenty of fluids, etc.) but just suffer through it, much like a cold.)
As to the term duration of US Presidents, I think you are confusing this with terms for US Senators, which are two years. American Presidents have been serving terms of four years from George Washington to the present (some elected to a second term of another four years -- only one serving more than two terms, FDR). See:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/LAW/article2sec1.php
Erich
As far as US presidents go, I'm not talking about their legal terms in office, but their practical terms - the period in which they are effective in driving their agenda. Like for Clinton, driving the Liberal agenda is something he could only do from 1992-1994; once his party lost majority in Congress, he had to come out with triangulation strategies - some of which were strongly opposed by Conservatives, but most of which had broad based support - like taxes on cigarettes.
Bush didn't start with a mandate, but he got one in 2002 and 2004, and so effectively, he had 6 years in office, before a democrat majority recaptured the place. These dynamics are what affect terms - presidents don't get much on their own, but need a simple house majority and a super-majority in the senate to really drive their agendas.
Obama could get that, but if he is as aggressive as Clinton was in 1992, he could lose Congress - the house, and maybe the super-majority in the Senate - in 2010. In which case, from then on, he'd have to compromise with Republicans should that happen. That's what I meant when I said his term would effectively be 2 years - sure, he'll remain president until 2012, but he'd be defanged if he loses a mid-term election.
P.S. US Senators have 6 year terms, while House members have 2 year terms. Usually, only 1/3 of Senate seats have elections, of which only a handful are in play. It's far harder to change a senate than change a house.
nobody,
I had a little brain seizure when I wrote "Senators"; I meant Representatives of the House.
As for the President, I don't think the word "term" is useful for your purposes (which I now understand), because it's already used for his official 4 year duration of office. Perhaps "de facto term" contrasted with "official term" or something.
De facto term is what I meant, and I agree that I should have explicitly said it, as I have elsewhere in the past.
I see McCain going down, and it's at least partly because of the way he's angered the Conservative base: in a way, he is somewhat analogous to the asymptotic analysts in the AIM, who has never shied of denouncing his own party, with the result that those who would have worked their hearts out to defeat the dems a la 2004 aren't going to do that this time for someone guaranteed to betray them. If McCain is going to reach out for the Dems, why not have the people - including GOP voters - do that directly as far as the presidential vote goes? Too bad they'd then also be voting down Palin
Post a Comment