The Consequences Of An Obama Second Term For The Future Of The West
Tomorrow I’ll be participating in a conference hosted by the American Freedom Alliance on the consequences of an Obama second term. Here’s the description:
The successful campaign of Barack Obama to win a second presidential term, offers many questions about the future of the West and of the civilization which has dominated world history for the past 600 years. Among those questions are issues of the future of Europe, the growth of the welfare state, the future of free trade and free enterprise and the economic strength of the West.
Also addressed will be some of the key area that AFA covers from radical environmentalism to global governance and the media.
You can find more information, including on how to listen in for free, here.
12 Comments to “The Consequences Of An Obama Second Term For The Future Of The West”
One important thing to remember is that 50% of America didn’t vote -for- Socialism. A lot of that was cultural revulsion to the Republicans’ stances on gay marriage and abortion. They basically handed the country over to Obama.
Here’s why the left is so ecstatic. They know Obama’s record was miserable and that he got hosed overall in the debates. They know he had every reason to lose and in the past would have lost in a landslide. But things appear to have changed. Such considerations no longer seem to matter enough to determine an election. The young voted overwhelmingly for Obama (just as the elderly voted overwhelmingly for Romney). Minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama (and the country isn’t getting any whiter).
The demographics Obama was most successful with are only growing, while the more Romney-supportive demographics are shrinking.
The left senses that this election was not about which candidate was better or ran a better campaign. It was about the new American culture. The left, due to its dominance in education, has won. Minorities have fallen for the left’s racial narrative hook, line, and sinker. The young have no critical acumen whatsoever and so vote for the guy who seems more “hip” or compassionate, the guy they can *feel* better about voting for (since they certainly don’t know anything about economics, political philosophy, or history—nor have the thinking skills to recognize and be put off by the left’s over-the-top sophistry and general offensiveness of character).
This election was truly a test of where American culture is. We got our answer. No way now that change comes the easy way. Its only chance (for generations if not centuries) will come when people are made to see the consequences of their irrationality, which many of us believe will happen soon. Reality’s a beast that can’t be tamed and America and the rest of the West will soon get what they deserve.
Dear “Anonymous,”
As a 19-year-old moderate Democrat who voted for Obama, I cannot seem to figure out why you call the left offensive and then go ahead and insult them. Frankly, I find some of your assumptions offensive. You say we have no knowledge of economics, political philosophy, or history and lack thinking skills. Really? I admit that I am not extremely well-versed in economics. However, I watch the news daily, subscribe to numerous weekly publications representing both sides of the political spectrum and have read many of Ayn Rand’s works. In terms of history, I have taken numerous history classes, enough to pass out of freshman US History in college.
Rather than insulting one side or the other, I wish that we could have civilized discussions about each other’s ideas, recognizing where they there is aggreement and politely disagreeing when there isn’t. Compromise and balance is what made our contry great and it is crucial to the future. Regardless of who is in office, what terrifies me most about the future of my country is the extreme polarization. More than anything, the two sides need to work together to maintain America’s greatness.
“Compromise and balance is what made our contry great and it is crucial to the future.”
This is intellectual dishonesty. You obviously dismiss objectivity in favor of conforming to whatever is popular at the time.
And taking a history class in college is an un-education; the distortions and outright lies you’ve learned can only be solved by reading legitimate history and not regurgitated nonsense processed through a film of skepticism.
And in regards to his comment “general offensiveness of character” he was implicitly referring to the Left’s antagonism toward American ideas, not advocating the view that we should mindlessly conform, as you have with your comment.
My assessment of the left represents my best effort to characterize them as they actually are. If that characterization amounts to an insult, so be it. I do not know what else there is to say.
History classes from a leftist-dominated educational establishment and mainstream news publications and shows unfortunately do not provide the sort of understanding required to see through the left’s worldview. What is required—in addition to a thorough reading and understanding of Atlas Shrugged—is a genuine understanding of economics—which you admit to not possessing—of actual history (rather than the myopic, slanted account you’ll get in your college courses) and of the political philosophy that produced the American system, especially what made the latter the revolutionary triumph that it was. A book I recommend in this connection is Isabel Paterson’s The God of the Machine.
That is great that you have read the works of Ayn Rand. IMO no greater thinker has ever lived, and you can do no better in your further studies than to continue to pursue an ever-deeper understanding of her thought.
You should not expect, and are not entitled to expect, people who hold my position to simply politely “recognize where there is agreement and politely disagree when there isn’t.” Your side insists on its right to use PHYSICAL FORCE against us, while we simply want you to leave us alone. That is not a matter of polite disagreement. You should appreciate the civility we have shown and understand that the arrangement is only due to us being outnumbered by such an enormous margin that self-defense is impractical. All we can do is try to change minds. I appreciate that you seem open to different ideas.
Nothing could be further from the truth than your statement that “compromise and balance is what made our country great.” Colonial America revolted against England to avoid paying a minor tax to finance a war that benefited the colonials! Why? Because of the PRINCIPLE of no taxation without representation. This country was created on a REFUSAL TO COMPROMISE ON A PRINCIPLE. In fact, what has made this country great has been its UNCOMPROMISING (though ever and ever less so) protection of the principle of individual rights (e.g., how the first amendment protects free speech as an absolute). This freed individuals to act on their judgment and unleash human reason on the world, fueling the biggest explosion of wealth and progress the world has ever known.
“Polarization” is not an evil. The worst situation is when everyone agrees on destructive ideas. This has been the case for a while now. Polarization, such as might happen when Objectivist and Socialist or Environmentalist ideas are being debated, can mean good ideas that have been ignored are actually getting a hearing. Polarization is a term designed to suppress fundamental opposition to one’s ideas. You must not take the bait and buy into the idea that it’s something to fear. It isn’t.
Dear RM,
You should study history more closely. Compromise on the issue of slavery in writing the Constitution is one of the major factors that led to the greatest bloodletting in American history, between 1861 and 1865. Compromise with our allies in the negotiations leading to the end of the First World War led to the rise of Nazi Germany. And so on, and so on.
In the fight for the preservation of Western classical liberal ideas - best expressed by Ayn Rand - I am willing to “compromise” in the same manner as Washington did at Yorktown. Or perhaps as Grant did at Vicksburg. Or as Reagan did with the Soviets at Reykjavik: liberty and laissez-faire win, collectivism and crony capitalism lose.
(P.S. I did vote, but NOT for Romney.)
I politely disagree.
The idea that compromise and balance is what made America great is one of the terrible distortions taught in college history classes. America was founded on the extreme polarization of individual freedom vs. tyranny. The Founders virtue was their willingness to fight for individual rights at all costs and NOT compromise on what they knew to be right. In cases where they did compromise, such as on the issue of slavery, it ended in disaster (a civil war with over 600,000 deaths).
The lesson of both history and logic is that compromising one’s principles is a vice. Extreme polarization in the cause of liberty is a virtue. Unfortunately, these truths are not being taught in government schools.
A republic, based upon the ideals of liberty and individual freedom, cannot exist without an educated and informed electorate. The re-election of Obama, and a left-leaning Senate, is proof that a majority of the citizens of this nation are un-informed, and unwilling to accept the responsibilities that are required of a truly free people. Of these responsibilities, the most important is intellectual honesty.
Since you seem to be a supporter of Romney, I don’t see any possible context in which you can be an advocate of intellectual honest. (Or for that matter, honesty of any kind).
Petitio Principii
Ad hominem attacks: lowering Ben McCall’s credibility since November 10, 2012 at 12:36 pm.
I’m closing comments on this post so everyone can cool down. This blog should not contain personal attacks.