(Note: Tomorrow is my father's 107th birthday. And his father was born in 1869, and his father was born in 1833. Another generation back takes us to 1799, and the one before that takes us to the Revolution and what led up to it. I have ancestors who were more than a little involved in the doings of the day that led to the Revolution and who followed through to the establishment of the Constitutional republic we now find so nearly extinguished. I greet today's Independence Day with a heavy heart...)
Several things re: Obama and such
We're well into the full transition from Republic to Empire. The presidency has become a competitive monarchy (you could say "elective" but that would be something of a stretch, as elections really aren't what they appear to be) that the Bush crew has transformed into an autocracy. Neither of the major party candidates has any particular interest in changing those conditions. No, they would much rather use and expand those conditions to make further changes to consolidate the changes that have already been made.
There is no going back with either Barack or McCain; both see a future of Imperial Greatness. Going along with it is a fundamental of national political success. You cannot question it and become president. It's that simple.
Until recently, I thought Obama was doing what he thought he had to do to win the throne. Now I'm not so sure. His endless tacking to the right is not advisable -- and certainly not necessary -- if he truly wants to win in November. He's been moving closer and closer to McCain's positions, almost as if he is trying to take over those positions, and run as the Republican candidate. To say this is dissonant is to be charitable.
No, this is something else again. In the primaries, he ran to the right of Clinton on a number of issues, and he barely won enough delegates (pledged and super) to secure the nomination. Now he's moving way to the right, into nearly Republican territory, and he's apparently quite consciously and deliberately alienating the base that got him to where he is today. He apparently believes he does not need the support of his activist base any more.
And maybe he doesn't -- if he doesn't intend to win.
And that's what I have a deep suspicion is going on: he doesn't intend to win. Perhaps he never did, or perhaps something "changed" when he secured enough delegates to get the nomination. But his actions and behavior since then have been distinctly peculiar and widely and rightly (in my view) questioned and sometimes condemned. The spin and the excuses coming out of the Obama camp have been largely transparent.
We've all known candidates who stayed true to their principles in hard-fought campaigns and lost, or as the case may be, won. They made clear what they stood for and what they intended to do once they were in office. If they lost, they lost well; if they won, they did -- insofar as they could -- what they said they would. Candidates like this are found in all parties, and while we may not agree with them in every case, they tend to get our respect, for they at least are honest, even if they may be wrong. It is simply not true that all politicians are craven deceivers.
Well. We've got a situation with Obama where he seemed to somewhat less craven and deceptive that Clinton, and he certainly spoke in soaring and heartfelt terms about hope and possibility. He was able to put together one of the most successful internet and ground campaigns in the history of Democratic politics, and he demonstrated that the Clinton "machine" was getting creaky and running out of gas.
And now we see a candidate who has all but turned his back on the very elements that got him the presumptive nomination. Quite a transformation.
And now we see, too, the glimmerings of a movement to take the nomination from him for his acts of betrayal. Surely he understands it could happen. The nomination is not decided until the convention. Is it what he wants to happen? Some of his actions really make me wonder.
More than anything, though, it should be obvious by now that whoever sits on the Throne intends to rule, not simply reign, and the quaint notions of a self governing constitutional republic set forth by the Founders are out of step with contemporary reality.
We're not at the edge of a cliff; we went over it a long time ago, and we are nearly at the bottom, almost completely reverted to pre-Revolutionary notions of governance by fiat and decree, with periodic "advice" from representatives of the People, advice to be followed or ignored as the spirit moves the King.
No comments:
Post a Comment