I believed in the promise of Obama, the notion that he would be different, his promise to be the most transparent president ever. I believed, even as others protested otherwise, that he was prepared for the task and would govern all people. It is clear to anyone who reads this (probably only me) that I was wrong, that the illusion was sufficient to hide the nature of the man. His idea of transparency has been to periodically take to social media to answer stupid questions and post videos of himself walking the dog just like ordinary folks. In truth his administration has been one of deception, manipulation, obfuscation, and corruption.
As revelations have shown over his terms - Edward Snowden as both evidence and an example - not only has spying on the American people continued and expanded, but the penalties for being a whistle-blower have become even more severe. After all of it, a picture of Obama emerges as an egotistical man who believes so strongly in the rectitude of his own ideology (adequately described by himself and his history as a community organizer), his own vision of the future, that anyone who does not hold that view is considered evil, is worthy of punishment, of belittling, of whatever consequences can be levied. As a consequence of that approach, the country has been greatly divided along many lines. He envisions this as a war and has, thus created one. As stridently as he avoids confrontation overseas, he seemingly relishes it at home. The most obvious examples of how the country might divide began to manifest as early as election night in 2008, when African-Americans celebrated in the streets, some proclaiming that the white folks would pay now that there was a black president. He eventually took on that role.
As a Bush critic, I always noted that he survived by telling Americans who to fear among their fellow citizens (for us or against us). To his credit this was never along racial lines and upon his election, I saw no whites in the street hailing the coming revenge on some other group (What I did see is some throwing eggs at his motorcade). Bush got his way on many issues by alluding to a cosmic fight between good and evil. Most often, evil was an outside influence, not within our borders. That part of this puzzle has changed with Obama.
Obama has made this into an art-form, but used it to foment change within our own borders. We no longer have disagreements that lead to discussion, we see a belittling, demonization, and delegitimization of disagreement. One might even characterize the response to dissent as "prissy" and "how dare you" (another attitude echoed by his followers). But what is even more troubling is the double-standard we see when it comes to public statements about dissent.
White cop, black youth. Quite frankly, kill or be killed. Ferguson, protests, riots, looting, arson. Rightly, the president and others note that not all protesters are violent, not all are looting and burning, so we cannot generalize to the whole group. Let's be clear, the group was black. That means nothing to me except when we compare it to the response to an all-white group of protesters.
So, when one lone psychopathic white boy commits a tragic heinous murder, a white boy who happened to wear or display a confederate flag (the US flag too, BTW), it means all displays of the flag and all who display the flag are racist in nature and probably potential killers. That flag means nothing to me. Next step, when a group of whites protest the (black) president by flying the confederate battle flag, it means they are racists. I already know the answer to this, but will ask it anyway - if our president was white and attempted to take away this symbol after the Charleston massacre, then the same group held the same protest, would it be racist [I know the liberals are saying yes because they have to]. Point is, their message is "You want this? Well, here it is, come and take it!" - no matter who you are. But it is convenient for the president and liberals to demonize any resistance to Obama and his ideas as racism because that invalidates the criticism in their eyes and the eyes of many Americans.
I will go out on a very long limb and predict something else that demonstrates this double standard. Although the evil that is Dylan Roof and what he did has been transferred to the shoulder of every southern white male gun owner, I will bet that the evil that is the Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez will not be laid upon Kuwaitis or Muslims (gun owners probably). And it should not be, but neither should it have been with Roof. Still, there is a vision of the world, an agenda designed to fit that vision and a narrative designed to fit that agenda. And that narrative needs to vilify some people and exonerate others to serve the agenda and vision. Therein lies the divisive nature of this administration. In order to continue to build the world its leader considers right and true - even if many Americans do not - he must create existential enemies of the disbelievers among his own populace, set them one against the other. Why are white killers devils and Muslim killers unfortunate? (Andrea Mitchell made sure to ask one of Abdulazeez's former classmates today if he had been into guns in school and if he had ever suffered discrimination, clearly trying to find something or someone to blame for his heinous act).
Sadly, Obama's followers revel in this and join him in it enthusiastically, much as some Bush followers did, but only as a prelude to the master. They seem to take great glee in the fact that they can now think of themselves as "in charge" and consider how to punish those they have seen as their overlords. Of course, if there were overlords who wronged people of color, female gender, or differing sexual orientations, we also have to generalize those "isms" to all white, male, heterosexuals. All deserve to be punished, oft-times if only for the sins of ancestors, sins they themselves may not have committed. Balance can only be sought in retribution (which breeds retribution).
What is missed by these people and their idols is the fact that when you make enemies of people to shun them, to bolster yourself within your group, they will, of necessity, have to consider you an enemy as well. So the cycle of retribution continues. Some liberals seem to take great pleasure in their sense that they have the upper hand, in the possibility that those they have objectified as objects of evil, of their hate, might be imprisoned, killed, subjected to other humiliation and, in a figurative sense, neutered and subjugated, made to heel. I have seen many comments on the grand, faceless, and anonymous world of social media where some have drooled at the prospect of exacting their "revenge" for all the slights they feel they have suffered - because it is always someone else's fault even when it is not.
There's a glitch with this that they do not seem able to process. That is, when you make enemies you become an enemy. Some folks don't heel. Those protesting Obama with Confederate battle flags - they are not necessarily racists, but they come from the oppositional stock that founded this country and seceded from the Union when they felt abused (perhaps read some history?). They do not like to be told what to do, that's why their historical ancestors fought a war of independence against the largest and best equipped army of its day. They are waving that flag, not because the president is black, but because he and his followers think that they can simply wipe away the rights that others cherish. waving that flag is their way of saying "This will not do. We will not comply. If you want respect, give respect." As I saw one commenter say, it may have been better if they had simply given him the finger, but either way they are saying "F*** you!". Guess what - it is their right, just as expressing your outrage is yours.
So they think they can take away people's thoughts and feelings by stripping them of symbols they do not like. They think that they are the only ones for whom those symbols have meaning. They think people will be cowed into submission by such harassment, by belittling, by bullying (its okay to bully if liberals do it). They think if they could somehow pass gun laws that mirror those in the countries they hold up as shining examples, Australia or Great Britain, by magically rewriting the constitution that the rest of populace will comply. Kind of like "Well, because we said so!" Perhaps they hope their "enemies" won't comply so they can watch Police and Military forces invade homes and take away flags, guns, ammunition, and their owners (I have seen some say this on social media). They think they are ready for a fight, for the bloodshed such an event might bring. They think that, somehow, they will be immune to it, that it will not have a wider effect. Yes, they actually believe this and are willing to court such chaos to prove themselves right. Such proof was never the point of this nation.
Yes, Liberal-land is indeed fairy land, a place where they envision their power as absolute, their wishes as commands and their fellows as willing to be subjugated to their demands.
I fear this does not end well.
No comments:
Post a Comment