The people have spoken, the election is over, and we have a new president of the United States … Mr. Barack Obama, Junior Senator from Illinois. Having won 28 of the 50 States, Mr. Obama has been chosen as the leader of this country.
As one of “the people” states so well, it is difficult for some of us to forget the obvious and merely rejoice in an “historic” event . . . some of us would have preferred more substance.
“OBama’s eloquent, but empty rhetoric, reminiscent of cult leaders, duped the uninformed American voter into believing this charlatan was some sort of messiah. It’s a sad day for America when we elect to the office of president a man who, because of his past and present associations, would be denied the security clearance necessary to work for the U.S. government.” Comment by Brian comment-466690, November 5th, 2008 at 6:25 am
My opposition to Mr. Obama’s candidacy has been well documented for the past several months (http://mczwzthinks.blogspot.com) and may well come back to “haunt” me, as may the clearly stated opposition of many others in many other venues. The opposition has already been “warned” to restrict the number of commentaries deemed unsupportive of the new administration. There is already a concern by radio that certain talk radio stations’ FCC licenses may be in jeopardy under this new administration. (Newsmax)
There has been much talk since the election of “unifying,” and keeping the country together. Of course, to anyone who has followed American politics for any length of time, that is the refrain from both sides, after every Presidential election. The fact that Mr. Obama’s supporters have been speaking to this all day is neither original nor significant. It is merely politic.
Just as politic is the reporters’ swoon over Senator McCain’s graciousness in his concession speech. No one who has watched Senator McCain during even just the past few weeks would have expected less.
The talk about either reducing, not having, trying to avoid, or not acknowledging divisiveness is, to me, just plain silly.
There is always a division during elections; it’s the nature of the beast. Most often, after each election there is a time of gathering one’s self to start again after the efforts, stress, hopes, and concerns of the previous months’ exercise, no matter what the ending.
There is constant division throughout the populace, based on not only the human aspects of individuality but compounded, perhaps, by the myriad differences of the world, politics included. It is an extreme naïveté to expect that divisions will suddenly and automatically disappear just because votes have been cast, the choices have been broadcast, and it is supposedly “all done!” It does not happen that way. In general, we all just move along, deal with what the final results happen to be, and look forward to better times.
This time, however, it does appear to me that the divisions are deeper, broader, and more significant.
It is important to note that by no means did Mr. Obama win by a significant “landslide,” meaning that he does not have a limitless “mandate to rule.” The final numbers are extraordinarily significant in that they reflect that Mr. Obama may have won The Electoral College (349 - 161) by a significant margin, but the Popular Vote was won by a notably slight margin (62,177,241 – 55,181,428). It is not surprising that Mr. Obama would have won the Electoral College considering he has been campaigning for this position for much over 1 year and had established an incredible grass roots campaign political machine.
We must remember and question the methods utilized in the winning of the Electoral College. The “slick, smooth, 21st Century election machine” utilized by Mr. Obama certainly left much about which to be concerned. The documented fraud and intimidation tactics utilized to register voters especially should worry and concern all Americans.
Nonetheless, I rejoice that we have once again seen the beauty of the American system of government represented in the most important process of all: the smooth transition of power. This, above all, sets the American system of government apart from many others. There was no revolution, no coup d’état, no decapitations of the incumbents, merely the casting of ballots. (So far, it appears that there will be no demonstrations, lootings, or arson by the losing side.)
However, the results of this particular election clearly show that the majority, slim though it was, chose to allow itself to be duped to an extraordinary extent. The Americans who made this final decision will now have to live with the results of their choices. Unfortunately, all of us will be subject to those results, as well.
It has been reported that “new voters” were instrumental in deciding this issue. That leads us to an important reason for fear. The “young, new” voters who were so powerful were no doubt swayed by the “impressive rhetoric” of Mr. Obama, his style, glibness and his promises of “change.”
I suppose it will be perceived as immaterial to ask what I have never heard asked by anyone so far during the past year of Mr. Obama’s campaign...“change” what, “change” how? We will certainly start to find out fairly quickly, but there have been more than subtle hints all along.
We must return to the issues of character, experience, and associations. Mr. Obama’s experience as a “leader” is predicated on the fact that he is an “impressive orator,” that he presents well, and can “connect” with many people. In my view, those qualifications would make him an excellent candidate for membership in the Actors’ guild or as a motivational speaker, but hardly anything else. Now we are subject to the results of his so-called “experience.”
We should all have been extremely concerned of the basis of the “experience” he purported to have. Very, very few questioned the where, how, and what of that “experience.” Where did he get it? How did he earn it? What did he do to prove it? I would posit that the basis of his “experience” directly relates to his background and the philosophies that were pervasive in it.
Here is a sample of his views and goals, his own words. Since Mr. Obama has not been reticent to express his opinions, no one should be surprised at the results of his presidency.
Everyone of voting age should read these two books. Don't buy them; get them from the library before they are removed from the shelves.
From Dreams from My Father:
• 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
• 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
• 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
• 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
• 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
To me, the most telling quote is from The Audacity of Hope:
• 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Those are not the words of someone with the goal of “unifying” the country and our people.
Those are not the words of an individual with the sincere political goals of “representing all of us.”
One of Mr. Obama’s much repeated campaign “issues” was that he would “restore” the standing of the United States in the world by “working with” governments that have issues with the United States. Personally, since I do not consider it terribly important that other countries “like us,” I do not find it encouraging that Mr. Obama is so ready to appease so many other countries.
As an aside, I don't in the least think that our "prestige" has been destroyed in any way at all. It has been my experience to understand that the ones who are most the target of denigration are more often than not the ones who are considered to be of highest standing.
Mr. Obama’s naïveté glares very brightly with this premise. He obviously does not have any understanding of the thinking in “the world” regarding our country. If anyone could hate our country more than most of the countries in the world already do, I do not think they have yet been created (other than those who have diligently worked to destroy her from within the last 30+ years, of course).
I do not believe it to be a sincere naïveté in the vein of the Democrats who flocked around Robert Kennedy. I believe it to be extremely hypocritical on the part of Mr. Obama to have geared his rhetoric to such naïveté knowing how he came to be where he is today, knowing who his supporters are, and knowing what he had to promise them for their support.
Remember, an inkling of the types of promises he made was shown, again, from his own lips, when he spoke to a gathering of ‘community organizers’ and ACORN supporters: they would be “instrumental” in the formation of his cabinet were he elected president; they would all have a say and be part of the decision-making. Here again, nothing in his words reflects full inclusion of every American, but rather, a distinct preferential bent.
A very astute reporter, Michelle Malkin of Creators Syndicate, spoke about, and ran clips of those who support Mr. Obama most emphatically. Asked why they support him, the overwhelming response was that he “will make” the government “take care of” them and “give” them what they “need.” Ms. Malkin referred to a specific individual who was interviewed as an example of the “moocher” mentality that is now in the forefront.
This “revelation” should automatically lead all logical, thinking individuals to ask whatever happened to the rhetoric so neatly and smoothly expressed by another very well-known Democrat . . . “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
It is a widely acknowledged fact that our country is in the throes of extremely difficult financial and economic problems would lead most patriotic individuals to immediately ask what we the people can do to get us through the problems. I would think that the primary reaction would not be to run to the government with our hands out for more and more. I would think that we the people would demand a full, true, accurate, and clear explanation of the cause of the current problems – not to place “blame,” but to understand and put in place safeguards to avoid repeating the errors that brought us to this point.
Here again, another old adage comes to mind from George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If we do not clearly investigate and learn from the errors that brought us here we will inevitably repeat the very same mistakes and return to the very same results.
We cannot help every single person. We can only help people to help themselves. Many times over, history has shown that whenever government takes upon itself the goal to re-engineer society, the results fall very short of the goal and invariably have unintended consequences. We the People must take responsibility for ourselves, our choices, and the resulting consequences.
The ultimate reason for fear is that Mr. Obama himself has given a blueprint of what he appears to think the “change” actually is. This obviously did not penetrate into the psyche and brains of enough voters to preclude his election. This is a perfect example of the old adage, “be careful what you ask for . . . you may well get it.” The people have asked for “change,” and have placed at the head of this country the one they feel will achieve that “change” without investigating to any significant extent the true and exact specifics of that much touted “change.”
I find it incredibly hard to believe, though it is an opinion held by people I truly respect, that the “change” of Mr. Obama’s mantra merely refers to the color of the skin of the individual in charge of the country. If that is an accurate assumption, I truly fear, more than ever before. If that is an accurate assumption, it also shows that in spite of the claims of the liberal mentality, this country has not gone as far as the liberal mentality would wish to think as far as race and color are concerned. It appears that the color of the person’s skin is still a more overriding factor than anything else, even in a candidate for President of the United States. Some of those other more important factors, to me anyway, would be things like proven experience, first-hand knowledge of the world, and verifiable accomplishments.
I would have been the most ecstatic had the choice of candidates included an extremely qualified, proven, experienced individual who just happened to be black. But, maybe, I am the naïve one . . . maybe I expect too much pragmatism, logic, and sense.
As far as our future is concerned, hopefully, Mr. Obama will come to understand that a government is not a nanny; a government must meet its responsibilities as delineated in our Constitution — not in loose interpretations of — but, most importantly, is not responsible for creating problems for the entire country simply in order to please, appease, or recompense a small group.
Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved, November 5, 2008.