Election 2012. Mourning in America . . . for those who believe in the U.S. Constitution and American Tradition.
Master-puppeteer David Axelrod, a long-time socialist sympathizer and well-known crafter of vicious political attacks against those espousing capitalism and traditional American values, knew well his targeted market of fellow sympathizers . . . Negroes; Hispanics; “single moms”; those on the dole; naive, indoctrinated youth, primarily “of color” ; and self-styled, neo-liberal elitists. He had Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II (b. 1961) play particularly to those targeted, and play well Mr. Obama did while he launched a series of attacks against the opponent for being a successful businessman, which, in the past, Americans had believed to be a virtue.
Unlike their Republican opponent’s, their message never varied . . . redistribution of wealth from the makers to the takers. Mr. Axelrod’s challenge lay in getting his targeted audience to the polls. A highly organized effort with free assistance from labor-unions, especially “public service” ones, accomplished that feat.
In the end, the geographic mass of The USA, nevertheless, went Republican; had ownership of property been a requirement to vote, Mr. Obama never would have been even a passing thought, let alone become the president. In contrast, the demographic mass divided fairly evenly with the Democrats gaining a crucial edge, a reflection of voting patterns in the largest cities.
The Republican losers claim that Mr. Obama doesn’t have a mandate. So? In 2000, did Bush II? Consider that which he wrought during his eight years in office. No, Mr. Obama needs no further mandate. The power of the Office will prove sufficient.
Past presages present. The outcome of Election 2012 represents an inescapable consequence of past behaviors, beginning in 1932 with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s election. Despite campaigning on a balanced budget and accusing the incumbent, Herbert Clark Hoover (1874-1964), of leading the nation down the road to socialism, once elected, FDR imitated his predecessor by promoting intervention by Big Government. Subsequently, every presidential successor, verbal behavior notwithstanding, has imitated in action President Roosevelt. FDR has functioned as the model for the federal government usurping the power to direct not only the economy but the entire social structure via legislation and regulation, taxes, and subsidies . . . the U.S. Constitution be damned.
In 1965 came President Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908-1973). Under the direction of then-Senator “Teddy” Kennedy, a lopsided Democratic Congress, as later echoed in 2008, passed immigration-based legislation for “family-reunification”.(1) It opened the floodgates to a tidal wave of immigration, legal and illegal, mainly of people of non-European descent.
The majority of these new immigrants vote, legally and sometimes illegally, for candidates representing socialism through Big Government. Together with the increasing number of others made dependent upon governmental subsidies (e.g., food-stamps), by 2008, the Democrats had achieved a critical mass. As the demographers say, “It’s a numbers-game.” All the while, the Republicans fumbled and floundered like fish out of water.
Could the outcome of Election 2012 have been different? Possibly, had the Republicans nominated a credible, electable candidate.
Willard Mitt Romney (b. 1947) was not that candidate. From the start, Mr. Romney had the proverbial two-strikes against him. Firstly, he is a Mormon, a religion regarded by many as a bizarre cult . . . rightly or wrongly. Secondly, unlike President Ronald Wilson Reagan (1911-2004), he held no steadfast set of political principles, a trait projected vividly and frequently during the campaigns and captured in Mr. Obama’s rhetoric under the term, “Romnesia”, for the many, previous, conflicting positions.
Couldn’t the Republican establishment have found a more suitable alternative? Yes. Clearly, there were credible, electable alternatives, all of whom chose not to seek the nomination. Why? Were they simply waiting for a weak candidate to lose in 2012, so they could run in 2016?
For the answer, one might try, undoubtedly without success, to ask Mr. Karl Rove and members of his cabal. Perhaps, they were predicting an imminent, economic “crash”; thereby, preferring that a Republican not occupy The White House.
Is there any evidence to support such a theory? No, not directly. Indirectly, possibly. Other than during the first presidential debate, professional commentary referred to Mr. Romney’s political handlers as “idiots” running an incompetent campaign against a politically and personally vulnerable incumbent. The Republicans’ combination of a weak candidate and a weak campaign proved politically lethal . . . reminiscent of the their campaign of 1996 running an older, politically weak then-Senator Robert Joseph Dole (b. 1923) against a younger, more charming but also politically and personally vulnerable President William Jefferson Clinton (b. 1946).
What To Expect?
A fragmenting USA has been in decline since the election of President Johnson in 1964 . . . politically, economically, and socially. The current trend appears even more ominous with an accelerating descent towards an abyss of debt, degradation, desperation, deprivation, and despair.
Scientifically, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Based upon his past behavior, one reasonably might predict Mr. Obama to perpetuate the current trend if not accelerate it further, using it as an excuse to usurp increasing power from Congress while “packing” the judiciary with sympathetic fellow-lawyers as judges, the way that FDR threatened to do in 1937.
If an economic “crash” does occur, for what subsequent, political behavior might it become the antecedent? Might Mr. Obama use it (or Iranian retaliation against American interests following an Israeli attack) as an excuse to declare a “national emergency” in order to seize more power. Perhaps, total power? His rash of “executive orders”, thus far, suggests that he might.
Some theorize that Mr. Obama’s ultimate goal is to have destroyed “white America”. We might find a clue in his personal history. The theorists cite his uncertain origin; his early exposure to Mohammedan influence; his long-term, close association with a virulently anti-Caucasoid and anti-American church populated by Negroes; and his close association for many years with anarchistic, violent radicals such as William Charles Ayres. Mr. Obama himself never served in the military, never owned a business, and never even held a permanent job in the private sector. Yet, with these credentials, he became President Obama.
Are these theorists correct? Has the American electorate twice given power to an imposter, a total fraud . . . worse, an enemy of America as we’ve known it?(2)
Now, What To Do?
Were the authoress Ayn Rand still alive, she might quote the title of an old tune, “Do Nothin’ Till You Hear From Me.” Were we to hear, what might we hear?
To begin, she was of the opinion that a reversal of the socialistic trend in America would require the lights to be extinguished in New York City. Well, they just have been but as a direct consequence of meteorological events not political or economic ones. Whatever she might advise specifically, it surely would reflect her philosophical bent towards the American tradition of individual enterprise and responsibility . . . a philosophy the opposite of that of Messrs. Axelrod and Obama and of those who support them.
Some Americans now speak of revolution, a last resort under only the worst of circumstances. With the reëlection of Mr. Obama, has America reached that point? Hopefully, not yet.
Besides, who would lead such a revolution? Who would participate? Where is the organization? Wouldn’t the military oppose it with force?
In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that the most potent, peaceful force resisting an oppressive central government is to be found in the provincial governments.(3) To what extent could the individual states, so disposed, refuse to submit to federal dictates? Could doing so lead to actual secession, the Civil War notwithstanding? Possibly. Several states already are flouting federal laws regarding the use of marijuana. A majority of states now have movements dedicated to secession (See, for example, www.texasnationalist.com.).
Secession, however, seems almost as unlikely as revolution, at least for the moment. What alternative is more likely?
Be Ayn Rand correct, a reversal of current, socialistic trends will require a drastic change of context . . . most likely, an extremely severe, economic “crash”; the impending “fiscal cliff” will not constitute such a “crash” despite the howling of the media. Paradoxically, in such a context, undoubtedly there will be calls from the usual quarters for even more of the poison now killing the country . . . more governmental intervention, more governmental subsidies; i.e., more socialism. The well, however, will have run dry.
Only then might the takers and their sympathizers change their demands and their votes. Only then can a credible, traditionalistic leader reverse the trend . . . but, even then, how?
Resolution of the situation-in-question lies with re-instituting traditional, American values and changing the U.S. Constitution to remedy the defects unintentionally embedded by the Founding Fathers . . . but changing it through science. Yes, science; biobehavioral science, to be precise.
Science and technology have given mankind the alternative to life that, otherwise, truly would be poor, short, brutish, and nasty.(4) Essentially, every advantage that we enjoy today making life longer and more pleasant is a consequence of scientific endeavor. Yet, we adamantly refuse to apply the same, basic guidelines of scientific methodology to our own behavior, societally and personally. Those basic guidelines are specificity, objectivity, and accountability.
Had Mr. Romney been elected, given his past behavior, probably he only would have slowed the current, socialistic trend not reversed it. After all, Republicans characterize a decrease in the increase in debt as an actual decrease. Given Mr. Obama’s past behavior, likely he will accelerate the trend further.
The consequences will be inescapable. The only benefit of a “crash” might be a change towards a context favorable to fundamental reform; hopefully, a scientifically-based and scientifically-driven reform.
Should such a context emerge, typically people mistakenly will concentrate on The Who (the person) and, to a lesser extent, The What (the promises). They should be concentrating on The How; otherwise, we shall witness merely a rehash of the same mistakes that created the current trend in the first place or worse, proving once again that we humans learn nothing from history while dooming ourselves to repeat compulsively the same mistakes over and over and over until we self-annihilate.
Fortunately, there is a better way . . . a scientific way. Shall we take it (www.inescapableconsequences.com)?
1. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 proved to be one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 20th century, directly leading to the “multi-culturalism” of the 21st. Senator Edward Kennedy promised that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. In fact, he stated wrongly, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than one million. He also claimed wrongly that few would be from Asia. An argument can be made that the Senator and many of his supporters understood that the opposite of that which he promised would be the case; that they understood that most of the immigrants would be poor and uneducated; and that, once citizens, these immigrants would vote Democratic, as such groups tend to do. In essence, an argument can be made that, in the long term, Senator Kennedy and his Democratic allies were jeopardizing the entire Anglo-European heritage of America in exchange for votes to win elections.
2. Two, recent, cinematic releases, among other sources, allege that Mr. Obama isn’t who he claims to be. The first is 2016: Obama’s America and the second, Dreams From My Real Father. Taken together, be their allegations valid, we Americans are facing a frightening future.
3. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859). French statesman and author, most notably of Democracy in America.
4. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). English philosopher and author, most notably of The Leviathan.