The other day, I heard a brilliant analysis of Obama by Rush Limbaugh. He was pointing out that the reason he is reduced to such a stuttering [jerk] (to quote Tommy DeVito) when off the teleprompter, is that he is a deeply divided person, either consciously or unconsciously (and undoubtedly both, in my opinion). He is the polar opposite of, say, Ronald Reagan, who always knew what he thought and could answer any question, for it was simply a matter of returning to first principles and applying them to the problem. Very scientific, if you will.Really long-time readers of the blog know that we love One Cosmos. Most of what he writes goes over our heads, but every once in awhile he types out some political stuff and it's usually gold just like this selection. We recommend you give him a read.
But one of the intrinsic problems in being a liberal is that you can never reveal your first principles, because if you explicitly articulate them, people will be repelled at what a contemptuous and supercilious [idiot] you are. Therefore, you must always couch them in terms of "compassion," or "helping the little guy," or "healing the planet," or "unity," or some other such blather. So in that regard, Obama is dealing with a more general problem that is intrinsic to liberalism, which is How to Fool the Idiots. One must be very cautious, because even the idiots are only so stupid. Thus Obama's constant verbal ticks: "uh, uh, uh, let me, uh, say this, uh, uh, I've been completely, uh, consistent about this, blah blah blah."
Being that liberalism is the political embodiment of multiplicity (or of an oppressive "bad unity" to try to heal it), it should not be surprising that its adherents are so intrinsically inconsistent. It's not so much that they are dishonest, but that the whole ideology is dishonest -- it is a lie from the ground up. Which is also why, the worse your character (or the less your intelligence), the better you will fare as a liberal politician, because you will be able to lie with great ease and even fool yourself.
Anyway, in Rush's analysis, he was pointing out that Obama is running several campaigns simultaneously, and that it is obviously a struggle for him to keep them all straight in his head, thus the great difficulty in being consistent and giving straight answers. Because of this, he is always one gaffe away from a major meltdown. For example, he's running one campaign for blacks, but an entirely different one for whites. (I won't even review the whole list, because it would take too much time, and I've already made my point.)
*Over-the-top-performance, no real skill or experience.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
5 comments:
Thanks for your writings. I haven't read such a narrow-minded view in a long time. While I trend toward the conservative, I'm quite amused at your classic debate tactic of "kill the messenger." You are not alone. Many conservatives (their label, not mine) would rather demean, belittle and slander those to the left of them (even if only slightly left) rather than examine the issues and determine whether there is validity in some of the points that are being raised in this political contest. Anytime Rush Limbaugh is quoted as having a "brilliant analysis" I worry. Limbaugh is a masterful at the ancient Greek technique of "kill the messenger." So why don't we debate the message once in a while, instead of slandering the messenger?
P.S. I'm a Republican, if you're interested in labels.
P.P.S. I can hardly wait until you respond and "kill" this messenger.
Occasionalpiece, I think you are missing the point of Rush's (and, since they've cited it -- One Cosmos', and Lybbert's) analysis. They are not slandering the messenger. Their whole point is that liberalism is the problem, and anyone (e.g., Obama) who puts himself in a position of promoting and defending liberalism, is forced to not be straightforward about what will actually happen should liberal policies be enacted. They do not do this because they are evil, conniving people necessarily, but because they know that they and their message would be rejected if they bluntly revealed what liberalism will actually bring to pass. So they truly do believe in liberalism, believe in the idealism of what a socialized system would look like, believe in the "citizen of the world" mindset, they really think it'll be great, but they know the blunt realities of it (high taxes, high gas prices if you refuse to increase supply, income redistribution, signing Kyoto, closing Guantanamo and giving Constitutional rights to terrorists, you name it...) are not attractive to most people. So they are conflicted. You've got to "sell" it to the different groups based on what parts of it might appeal to each group.
Of course all politicians of all ideologies do this to a certain extent, but liberals have an especially hard time because their political philosophy is so bereft of solutions that actually work. (Look historically, and at economic facts. For example, does raising taxes on oil companies really lower gas prices?) Stating this is not "killing the messenger." It is pointing out the inherent weakness in the ideology of liberalism and the rhetorical gymnastics that its adherents are forced into. Liberalism is a failed philosophy-- again, look historically everywhere it has been tried. If you read closely you'll see that Liberalism, not Barack Obama, is the target of Rush's analysis.
Kelly: "They are not slandering the messenger"
This post: "people will be repelled at what a contemptuous and supercilious [idiot] you are"
Yeah, that's not slandering.
Kelly, do some research. Your dichotomous view of the world in which there are two camps, liberal and conservative, and in which the ideas of the left have failed and ideas of the right have triumphed is shockingly ignorant of fact and economic empirics. The vast majority of economists right now are seriously examining the assumptions of your laissez-faire mindset and the fact that it has failed over and over and over again. What is needed is moderation, pragmatism, and some input from experts instead of ideologues. Most conservatives are surprised to learn that there are few, if any, economists (none of them reputable) who support their ideas about supply-side economics and 100% government noninvolvement.
Occasionalpiece, give it up. This blog went down the toilet ages ago. OL&L is not interested in finding truth or solutions; it is interested in demonizing anyone to the left of it (which is just about everyone) and pretending the world is something it's not. OL&L lacks the training, knowledge, and integrity to sufficiently analyze issues for itself, so instead it simply chooses positions based on what its heroes Rush and Hannity tell it, then ignores or belittles the vast body of evidence to the contrary. We could call it the Guitar Hero* of blogs.
*Over-the-top-performance, no real skill or experience.
A little timid to post under your real name, pendulum?
Sorry, not my comment. Reading through your recent posts, it seems that several people who once commented (B|W, etc) no longer do. While it's true that I'm not too impressed with the dogmatic style of your blog, it's obvious that I'm not alone. I actually haven't been reading you stuff lately, until you "hijacked" buruboi's latest.
We removed the link because we wanted our links to lead to places with informed, honest analysis. Since your posts are mostly parroting the usual conservative talking heads, we didn't see the need to be redundant.
Post a Comment