Varieties of ambition: why do Obama and Hillary want to be President?
It’s Pennsylvania primary day, an appropriate moment to meditate on whatever would make a person want to enter this particular fray. Who would wish to campaign so long and so hard for a prize that represents one of the most burdensome—and powerful—offices on the face of the earth?
I submit that anyone who wakes up one morning and decides it would be a fine thing to run for President must have an oversized ego and ambition to match. It’s hard to see how it could be otherwise, and this is true of candidates from either party. However, self-confidence and drive are not really such bad characteristics for a President to have, as long as they don’t shade into hubris, and as long as there are solid accomplishments as their foundation.
Hillary and Obama present interesting (and contrasting) special cases of this general proposition. The phrase “wakes up one morning” doesn’t seem to apply to Hillary Clinton—or if it does, that morning occurred a very long time ago. She’s seems to have been thinking about this run for most of her adult life. Both Clintons are perceived as being motivated mostly by the drive for power. We accept it as part of their character and we either like it, don’t like it, or like them in spite of it.
But what about Obama? “Ambitious” and “power-mad” aren’t words ordinarily used to describe him. But it’s hard to escape the idea that they would be highly appropriate. Obama’s charm—a quality Hillary singularly lacks—plus a purposefully ironic and slightly self-deprecating detachment whereby he mocks his own hype while simultaneously and slyly encouraging it, act as effective smokescreens to hide the ambition that must be a good part of what drives him, as well.
Otherwise, it’s hard to understand why Obama thought this year was the year he just had to run. It’s not as though his policy differences with Hillary Clinton are great enough to have caused him to think he was needed in order to supply an alternative in that regard. And he’s so young that in the natural course of events he would appear to have years ahead of him in which he might still run as a relatively young man (unlike McCain, or even Hillary, for which it probably is now or never), time in which he could be gaining important experience that would help him in performing the job.
But if Hillary’s been running almost forever, so has Obama. He no sooner entered the Senate than he began to rev up for the campaign. Obama’s motivation might be that he thinks the time is ripe to make the historic leap to electing the first African-American President, and that he’s the best man to accomplish that feat. But it’s hard to see why this couldn’t wait till four or eight years from now, especially since his running in 2008 stands in the way of another possible historic first, a woman President.
Hillary has been criticized for putting personal ambition above the good of the Party by refusing to give up the fight at this point. But would any self-respecting politician do differently, given the extreme closeness of the battle—perhaps the closest primary race in history, as I said in last night’s podcast? The entreaties that Hillary fall on her sword for Party unity ring hollow to me, and I’m not so sure they’d be asked of anyone else in a similar position.
Aside from this drive to make history by being first, what else is going on with these two? Hillary is the more ordinary politician in that respect. Famous for being a policy wonk like her husband, she emphasizes her agenda of specific proposals. Whether she’s pushing them because she actually believes in the principles behind them, or whether she’s merely suggesting what she thinks people want to hear is anyone’s guess. But policy—with Hillary as leader—is the centerpiece of her vision for America.
Obama has his proposals, too. But you won’t hear him talking about them much, and he doesn’t seem all that interested in them. He’s the master of the inspirational generality. His mission, according to his wife, is nothing more or less than our salvation:
That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.
This is not just ambition, it’s dangerous hubris. It’s a trait Obama has in common with demagogues, an attitude far more frightening than Hillary’s ambitious pragmatism.
It’s not as though there’s anything in Obama’s life story that would indicate an ability to fix souls, other than his own conviction that yes, he can. And is soul-fixing really the job of a politician, or even a statesman (if there are any of those left)? I would have thought it was the function of the ministry, or perhaps just a personal issue between an individual and the deity.
As Caroline Glick points out in a piece in today’s Real Clear Politics:
It is hard to see why a leader who wants power because she likes power is less reasonable than a president who thinks he has a right to demand that the American people follow his lead and fix their souls in the name of unity. In the former case, opposition to the leader is a policy dispute. In the latter case, it is apostasy.
This fits in very well with what I’ve personally experienced since leaving the liberal fold. For many, differences of opinion are evidence of a deficiency of heart and soul rather than mere disagreements. In this respect, Hillary Clinton is less “liberal” than Obama, and more tolerant of other opinions.
The danger of Obama and so many of his followers is that they are true believers who wish us all to dance together in a circle of their design. To describe what this means, I can do no better than to offer a quote from one of my favorite works of literature, Milan Kundera’s Book of Laughter and Forgetting:
Circle dancing is magic. It speaks to us through the millennia from the depths of human memory. Madame Raphael had cut the picture out of the magazine and would stare at it and dream. She too longed to dance in a ring. All her life she had looked for a group of people she could hold hands with and dance with in a ring. First she looked for them in the Methodist Church (her father was a religious fanatic), then in the Communist Party, then among the Trotskyites, then in the anti-abortion movement (A child has a right to life!), then in the pro-abortion movement (A woman has a right to her body!); she looked for them among the Marxists, the psychoanalysts, and the structuralists; she looked for them in Lenin, Zen Buddhism, Mao Tse-tung, yogis, the nouveau roman, Brechtian theater, the theater of panic; and finally she hoped she could at least become one with her students, which meant she always forced them to think and say exactly what she thought and said, and together they formed a single body and a single soul, a single ring and a single dance.
The genius of Obama is that he appeals to this desire in human nature while at the same time he speaks of championing diversity, accommodation, and compromise. And that people believe he can accomplish it all.
I wonder if, 50 years ago – when we still had the moral confidence to be proud to be Americans – we could all dance in the circle of being Americans together?
Barack is rallying to the dance those who are more proud of their liberal ideology than of their American citizenship. This strength is also a weakness. Voters who are proud of America wonder:
Does Barack share our conviction? Is he only proud when liberal policies are in place? Or, is he always proud of America – even when his policies are defeated? Is he a liberal first? Or an American first?
The Constitution will always need defending. It is the nature of a document whose only defense is intellectual consensus. Also, America will always need defending from enemies. In the dark moments in which one must reach deepest into their guts, heart, principles, and values … in those moments: will Barack be most committed to defending America, or most committed to defending liberal ideals?
One can only guess at the answer. One can say: C’mon! Once Barack gets into office, he will recognize the greatness of the nation he represents, and he will recognize his solemn duty to that nation. You can’t seriously believe any different.
And I do not seriously believe any different. I’m guessing that holding the office will move Barack to discharge his solemn duty to the nation.
But, with McCain, I do not have to guess. I know McCain will always put America first. Further – McCain is not rallying voters who identify themselves as “ideology first, and America maybe” . McCain is rallying voters to the circle dance of “Yay America.”
I can’t help but wonder whether Obama keeps trying to escape to a higher level of power because he can’t face his limited success in the place he is.
Well, there are — sorry to be a bit crude — circle dances and circle jerks.
Then there are the jerks that lead them.
I don’t think Obama wants to join in the circle of the circle dance. He is compelled to be in the center, the ring master.
“I’m guessing that holding the office will move Barack to discharge his solemn duty to the nation.”
I don’t know, g, I don’t get that feeling at all. Obama seems too tied to Marxism to consider this country great.
When I was in high school, I participated in a program run by the American Legion called “Boys’ State”, which was a mock state government staffed by young men who were juniors in high school from across my state. I distinctly remember arriving at the institution where the program was held and seeing one fellow get off the bus that brought him–and immediately set to shaking hands and saying “I’m Joe Blow and I’m running for Governor” (which was the highest office one could aspire to at Boys’ State). He was charming and pleasant to those whose votes he needed, and won the governorship, but in person, he was cold, ruthless, calculating and altogether a reprehensible soul. He had a cadre of goons that would wander about the grounds intimidating those who were on the fence.
Obama reminds me of that young man.
She really said ‘fix our souls’? Amazing! She’s really feeding off the uncertain times we are going through. Might be a good tactic but I think most of us will be put off by such high-flown rhetoric.
This is going to go completely Godwin, but I’m saying it anyway.
Obama fits a rather scary profile: a smart, ambitious, alienated outsider, leading a mass movement. Sound familiar? Like maybe a seminarian from Georgia or an artist from Linz?
I’m not kidding. The Democrats have taken on just about all the characteristics of a mass movement that Eric Hoffer cites in his book The True Believer, and now they’ve found their messianic leader.
Said messianic leader has virtually no connection to the society and culture of the nation he seeks to lead. He’s an outsider, full of alienation and imagined grievances, willing to mold himself to fit the expectations of his followers.
Obama doesn’t want to be President, he wants to lead a revolution. He wants to be Maximum Leader. He wants to transform our society — for our own good!
Run.
I wrote on the topic of “image” in the Bardot thread, and I don’t want to repeat here. It seems to me image is the principal problem of the campaign. Who are these people? They wander around trying on this personna or that, whatever identity the occasion seems to call for, very little of which fits their particular histories. The racist mentored Obama is going to bring us all together in Wright’s church wearing six guns, and Hillary is a rustic with dialect one minute, big nurturing sister the next, and a little later, Marjorie Main brandishing a skillet and staying the course. Whatever you want us to be.
What if we don’t think our souls need fixing? OK, maybe a little Turtle Wax, but fixing? Nah.
I’ve heard it said before that the best person to be President is someone who doesn’t want the job.
All motivations are selfish on some level (even if it is just “I like it when others are happy”). I think most people understand that on an intuitive level–we are more likely to trust someone when we see a selfish motivation on their part, and are less trusting when they say that it is for our own good.
For Clinton, I think most people see her selfish motivation as a combination of validation and control. For McCain, I think we can probably agree that it is some variation of “if you want something done right, do it yourself.” What is it for Obama?
i hope that post doesnt hiccup… sorry if it does… i dont know why… apologies if it hiccups.
it says i have duplicat post, but nothing shows up except this… sigh. i will try again later… sorry folks i dont mean to mess up the flow…
What is it for Obama?
the post explained it in more detail but i will sum it up here and hope it gets posted.
obama is what they call a red diaper baby.
. People that come from no place, with little experience, and few real connections but birth, no history, are placed.
His whole career has been plotted by a higher force telling him where to go and pretty much what to do. Its orchestration, he is rising on nothing, and no one is asking that question. But let’s see, Ayers, Wright, Dad, Mom, Step dad, uncles. He was surrounded by people that had an agenda to create a human being for the part.
Hilary is a wannabee, and Obama is a “red diaper baby”.
From http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg12.html
The Red Diaper babies, as they were later called, were a pivotal factor in the now-receding Sixties. As Radosh shows, he and his friends grew up in an insular, self-protective, and besieged culture in which everything was politicized and one’s life choices had to do with finding the best way of assisting the triumph of communism in the United States.
——————————-
It is the best part of the book that Radosh knew all the commies — the real, honest-to-Joe Stalinists — and lets us in on their cultic secrets. Radosh names names. Most of these people are still left of center.
——————————-
By 1955, Radosh was ready for college, and chose the University of Wisconsin, the only school with a chapter of the Labor Youth League (yes, a front), of which he was already a member. There he studied under such historians as Merrill Jensen, an old-line Beardian, and George Mosse, a Europeanist and socialist. More importantly, he fell in with the emerging Wisconsin School of revisionist historians presided over by William Appleman Williams, a Midwesterner who was more Beardian than Marxist. This began Radosh’s transition from the Old Left CP to the New Left.
——————————-
Radosh was also becoming acquainted with the editors of Ramparts, the hard Left glossy monthly of the period, and further revising his views. What is most interesting is Radosh’s claim that he and his confreres were knowingly dishonest in their political and campus activism. At this remove, that seems a fair reading of the Sixties. One can only hope that their writings took place on a more Platonic plane. There is much entertaining material here about the lunatic subdivisions of the New Left — SDS, PLO, and the lot.
Obama is cut from that very same cloth. All one has to do is track his lineage and then know which organizations actually stood for what, and which organizations were fronts.
Most people don’t know any of this history, only those who are self interested and go out and seek it and read it and remember names end up piecing things together from that point. most, like Radosh, read something, or start to see where its really going, and then realize what they are a part of. If they have consciences, then they are like Radosh, if they are sociopathic, they get renewed and go forward.
No one is questioning the pedigree. And the left is so dippy that they really WANT COMMUNISM.
I am not kidding…
Here is a PERFECT example from reason tv
http://reason.tv/video/show/394.html
Technically, thanks to Stalinism, they are living in a different world in which the history of their world, is the false one.
Another example of why is here: http://www.wethepeople.gov/newsroom/amnesia.html
An American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) report released September 16 found that none of the nation’s top 50 colleges and universities require students to study American history and only 10% require students to study history at all.
My favorite is the percentage of Americans that think the words of Karl Marx is in the constitution.
Does the Constitution include the following statement about the proper role of government: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”?
But heck, I am just an opinionated cuss… what do I know
gsomething:
“McCain is not rallying voters who identify themselves as “ideology first, and America maybe”
Not all ideologies are equal. In my opinion neoconservatism is putting America first, and I wish the “Maverick” could see it the same way.
Please read this wiki article about the Ghost Dance, Neo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance
At the core of the movement was the prophet of peace Jack Wilson, known as Wovoka among the Paiute, who prophesied a peaceful end to white American expansion while preaching messages of clean living, an honest life, and cross-cultural cooperation. Perhaps the best known facet of the Ghost Dance movement is the role it reportedly played in instigating the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890, which resulted in the deaths of at least 153 Lakota Sioux.[1] The Sioux variation on the Ghost Dance tended towards millenarianism, an innovation which distinguished the Sioux interpretation from Jack Wilson’s original teachings.
History tends to repeat itself if only because humans love doing certain kind of things over and over again.
“His mission, according to his wife, is nothing more or less than our salvation”
I think that what happened is that Barack Obama had so many people telling him how wonderful he was that he started to believe it. He believed his own propaganda, or more accurately, the propaganda put out by his adoring fans.
This and his own messianic vision, and he just got caught up in the moment.
Artfldgr wrote “obama is what they call a red diaper baby”
Actually the term refers to people who’s parents were communists. To the best of my knowledge his parent’s were not.
Obama’s mother, Stanely , was in fact a communist.
and if this http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html is true.. then dad was too.
oh, but if you search for the two together, you get a lot of noise making the thing seem ridiculous.. jewish communist, plot… which i am not saying… no plot anymore than cathlic parents try to raise their kid catholic… though if you didnt want people to consider it realistically, isnt it nice for them to flood the waves with really bizare conspiratorial versions.
my main point is that if his family has a certain set of beliefs, and his life is surounded by that, his church is founded by it, maybe he might be symapthetic?
Barack’s parents had socialist sympathies and beliefs. During high school days in Hawaii, Barack’s surrogate father/trusted male advisor: the talented poet Frank Marshall Davis, was an open supporter of communism.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
It seems to me that Obama is a part of the group in this country who believe our government is oppressive because it doesn’t do everything in its power to make everything/everybody equal.
Their other belief is that regulated capitalism is corrupt because some people get rich and some are poor. They believe, in spite of all the glaring examples to the contrary, that communism will create their vision of equality of income and outcome for everyone.
When asked about the failures of communism in the USSR, China, and Cuba they aver that it just hasn’t been done right. It is their dream that Obama is the man to lead them to that promised land. That he can, somehow, get it right. It is his dream as well.
Why do they aspire to be POTUS? It’s obvious that for the Clintons it’s a game, to be the ultimate power couple, and live forever in the history books.
Why Obama now? He was chosen early on by the king makers, he is the dhims very own manchurian candidate…
I think it’s an error to view Obama as a Marxist or a socialist, or even as a leftist at all. My impression is that he is actually quite apoltical and could just as easily have been a Republican as a Democrat, if that had suited his purposes (or those of his handlers). If he were not so stuck in the 1980s–not the 1960s, as some imagine–he probably would indeed have presented himself as a Republican. I think that the analysis of Trimegistus is generally correct, but the emphasis should be not on Obama himself but rather on just whose Manchurian creature he is. And on that question it is very interesting to speculate. Whoever the puppetmasters may be, they understood, probably some years ago, that their best route would be via the (perceived) Left, given the lack of critical thinking from that quarter, its abundance of youth, and the all but automatic allocation of a certain percentage of the electorate (votes–or “votes,” since even those cast with sincerity on the part of African Americans and crypto-racist guilty white affluent liberals–being the chosen coin of the subservise realm in question). I write this as a lifelong Democrat well attuned to the passions and hypocrisies of my faction. As for Obama, yes, he is a dangerous demagogue, all the more so for his lack of a cohesive self. We should believe that Obama’s fascist ideologue wife means exactly what she says about her husband’s intention to “fix” our “souls,” and we should all fear the enforcement of that program at the hands of his vacuous and overstimulated adolescent mob. I will vote for John McCain if Obama is my party’s nominee.
P.S. Sorry, lost track of a clause in my comment (must be that liberal soft-headedness):
votes—or “votes,” since even those cast with sincerity on the part of African Americans and crypto-racist guilty white affluent liberals are in service of a quasi-covert operation—being the chosen coin of the subservise realm in question)
“C’mon! Once Barack gets into office, he will recognize the greatness of the nation he represents, and he will recognize his solemn duty to that nation. You can’t seriously believe any different.”
I’m curious as to why you pretty much agree with this – what is different once he takes office that will cause this?
It would be a shift in his basic core principles for this to occur, it hasn’t changed in that direction at all (in fact, slid the other way) from his election to the senate. In fact as far as I can see his election would simply be confirmation of his identity as a near messiah and the publics want of him to fix their outrage/bitterness.
Since the thread has already been Goodwin’d I would point out that many thought having Hitler lead their country would somehow magically change him. While I don’t remotely think that Obama will be Hitler policy wise the idea that being elected to the highest office in the land will somehow magically change the individual to what you want instead of what he is has pretty much never worked out (and in the case of people who are *really* bad for the country it pretty much always ends up as a disaster).
Obama is fairly clear and consistent on what he is and who his friends are. You will note that he refuses to distance himself from his friends and ends up telling you just “don’t understand”, not that you are wrong in what the person said said or believed – just that you are at fault.
Sneaker: If you thnk Obama is really apolitical then can you explain to us why all the hard-core Far Left revolutionary slash communist slash academic folks are all backing him?
Why would these hard core radicals, who don’t compromise anything, support Obama if he wasnt’ on their side?
Obama
Endorsed by:
Louis Farakhan
Michael Moore
Jane Fonda
Hamas
If I missed anyone, let me know. I’d like to compile a list.
This thing about Obama being “apolitical” is ridiculous. Determined to be the most liberal voting Senator coupled with who he associates with, you cannot draw the conclusion that his politics is anything other than leftist.
Kenya’s Radical Islamic Jihadi trouble maker, Odinga
Bill Ayers
Bernardine Dohrn
The Black Panthers
As much fun as it is to psychoanalyze Obama and Clinton, I think it far more interesting to look at their supporters. What type of person would look at Obama, his record and his supporters and decide that he would unite the country? At first blush, you’d have to conclude they were a complete idiot. I think it more likely that they are extremely delusional.
Who could look at John Kerry’s actions regarding Vietnam and conclude that pro-military voters would embrace him? Only the stupid and the delusional.
Obama’s “bitter” comments gave insight into his thinking (using the term “thinking” loosely). But the reactions of his supporters were far more telling.
And what type of person can get excited about supporting Hillary? Look at her “record”. Listen to her speak. Look at the long list of dishonest, illegal and corrupt activities. Look at her marriage. Who could vote for all that?! For any office, much less president of the USA?!
It boggles the mind. Something’s not right about those folks.
While agreeing wholeheartedly with Trimegistus, I also entertain the suspicion that Obama may not intend or even desire to be POTUS. Achieving the nomination will be akin to getting academic tenure; he will be undisplaceable forevermore, like Chappaquidick Ted, or like Prof Houston Baker (ex-Duke, vicious villifier of the lacrosse team; thereafter recruited to Vanderbilt, a university that considers him a profound intellect, revelling in his blackness).
Stan: I agree with you. I don’t see how anyone can support Hillary, especially taking into account the criminality she was involved in when she was in the WHite House and before.
And the Obama supporters have to basically admit that they are dupes , able to be manipulated by a fraud who knows exactly the words they want to hear and so he says them.
@ Vince P: “If you thnk Obama is really apolitical then can you explain to us why all the hard-core Far Left revolutionary slash communist slash academic folks are all backing him? Why would these hard core radicals, who don’t compromise anything, support Obama if he wasnt’ on their side?”
Because they are sheep, because they Hate Hillary, and because a good many of them are also truly misogynists. (Indeed, there is nothing like the misogyny of some liberal white men.) If they were ever to examine Obama’s proposals carefully, they could never regard them as “progressive” by their lights (no matter how “Far Left” you yourself, from your own perspective, may deem those proposals to be). And the biggest reason for their support of Obama is a sentimental one–that with one vote they will expunge the sins of slavery from the national soul while giving The World (that is, France) a reputable (black) face as the Face of America.
I think we would all do well to beware of totalitarian mass movements on the right and on the left. Obama’s campaign (which the candidate himself calls a “movement”) is such a phenomenon, in incipient form. But it is not and is not intended to be a Communist or Leftist or Marxist movement; that’s just the language that is being used to seduce the hordes of the young (whose numbers and whose rage can be mobilized as an extralegal band of enforcers) and the muddle-headed middle-aged academics and elites. Its aims are fascist, and its goals are not progressive. Doesn’t history show that fascist movements often start out as idealistic youth movements? Just my two cents–and trying to answer your question, Vince.
Sneaker: Thanks for answering.
I”m not sure I agree with it, but that’s alright.
Fascism is socialist or collectivist government usually controlled by a dictator and which doesn’t permit dissent.
reply to strcpy:
1. I’m only guessing, and could be wrong.
2. I think, once a POTUS is in office, it would take a really cold-blooded narcissist/psychopath to not feel moved to help the people and the nation. Once a POTUS receives the daily threat reports, it’s hard not to be moved to give all for the nation. Once a POTUS sees the level of committment around them – staff, interns, Secret Service, Military, Depts. of Government, citizens depending on POTUS and wishing him/her the best – it’s hard not to be moved to give all.
3. I believe in the power of prayer. Many people, including me, would be praying for a President Obama to be led towards truth. Our prayers would make a difference.
Stan: What type of person would look at Obama, his record and his supporters and decide that he would unite the country? At first blush, you’d have to conclude they were a complete idiot. I think it more likely that they are extremely delusional.
You just described what a useful idiot is.
They are the shroom division of communism, keep em in the dark and blanket them with sh*t.
They LITERALLY are historically illiterate, and the victims of the saying that age and treachery outdoes youth and enthusiasm.
You are basically asking what kind of person, would give up freedom, productivity, self actualization, and ASK for totalitarian control?
The Misfits, the Outliers, the ones that the majority ignores, or doesn’t want to deal with. This is everyone on the fringe. They are mobilized to demand the same treatment regardless of their behaviors and actions. They see, or are told, that the success that the skilled, the meritorious, the able, is a right, and that these able people are designing the system to be unfair to these specific people.
Read George Kennans Long telegram that started the cold war, he tells you!!
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm
The Charge in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State
Soviet policy, as Department implies in its query under reference, is conducted on two planes: (1) official plane represented by actions undertaken officially in name of Soviet Government; and (2) subterranean plane of actions undertaken by agencies for which Soviet Government does not admit responsibility.
1. Inner central core of Communist Parties in other countries. While many of persons who compose this category may also appear and act in unrelated public capacities, they are in reality working closely together as an underground operating directorate of world communism, a concealed Comintern tightly coordinated and directed by Moscow. It is important to remember that this inner core is actually working on underground lines, despite legality of parties with which it is associated.
2. Rank and file of Communist Parties. Note distinction is drawn between those and persons defined in paragraph 1. This distinction has become much sharper in recent years. Whereas formerly foreign Communist Parties represented a curious (and from Moscow’s standpoint often inconvenient) mixture of conspiracy and legitimate activity, now the conspiratorial element has been neatly concentrated in inner circle and ordered underground, while rank and file–no longer even taken into confidence about realities of movement–are thrust forward as bona fide internal partisans of certain political tendencies within their respective countries, genuinely innocent of conspiratorial connection with foreign states. Only in certain countries where communists are numerically strong do they now regularly appear and act as a body. As a rule they are used to penetrate, and to influence or dominate, as case may be, other organizations less likely to be suspected of being tools of Soviet Government, with a view to accomplishing their purposes through [apparent omission] organizations, rather than by direct action as a separate political party.
3. A wide variety of national associations or bodies which can be dominated or influenced by such penetration. These include: labor unions, youth leagues, women’s organizations, racial societies, religious societies, social organizations, cultural groups, liberal magazines, publishing houses, etc.
4. International organizations which can be similarly penetrated through influence over various national components. Labor, youth and women’s organizations are prominent among them. Particular, almost vital importance is attached in this connection to international labor movement. In this, Moscow sees possibility of sidetracking western governments in world affairs and building up international lobby capable of compelling governments to take actions favorable to Soviet interests in various countries and of paralyzing actions disagreeable to USSR
5. Russian Orthodox Church, with its foreign branches, and through it the Eastern Orthodox Church in general.
A man group (illegals and fellow travelers), get into organizations, and then promote the ends without revealing the situation. they lie, trick, and play games so that people are all twisted up and confused and don’t know what to believe, then they side with the message they like.
However take a look at the list. It covers the biggest left groups assaulting the system and changing it today.
Feminists (womens groups), minorities, racial groups, religious groups, social organizations.
Guys, they changed history to social studies and no one noticed.
The classic conservatives, mccarthy, Reagan, the list goes on to literally hundreds futiliy trying to warn us.
Meanwhile communist based womens groups have the most power, followed by communist based black groups.
He even tells us what they are going to do.
And the cold war only slowed them down. when the false fall came, we opened up our doors, said friend, and they proceeded to accelerate the damage till now we are really near a collapse.
Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World
http://nysun.com/news/food-rationing-confronts-breadbasket-world
that’s west coast, east coast US… so many of the most important things are not even on the radar.
wait till you see whats going to happen may 1st… communist independence day, the same day the millions of immigrants wanting to be Americans, marched with their own national flags to express their desire to be Americans.
Well, red square is going to be lit up as in the past.
Here is what kennan says they will do, let me know if that jives with what we know.
It may be expected that component parts of this far-flung apparatus will be utilized in accordance with their individual suitability, as follows:
(a) To undermine general political and strategic potential of major western powers. Efforts will be made in such countries to disrupt national self confidence, to hamstring measures of national defense, to increase social and industrial unrest, to stimulate all forms of disunity. All persons with grievances, whether economic or racial, will be urged to spelt redress not in mediation and compromise, but in defiant violent struggle for destruction of other elements of society. Here poor will be set against rich, black against white, young against old, newcomers against established residents, etc.
(b) On unofficial plane particularly violent efforts will be made to weaken power and influence of Western Powers of [on] colonial backward, or dependent peoples. On this level, no holds will be barred. Mistakes and weaknesses of western colonial administration will be mercilessly exposed and exploited. Liberal opinion in Western countries will be mobilized to weaken colonial policies. Resentment among dependent peoples will be stimulated. And while latter are being encouraged to seek independence of Western Powers, Soviet dominated puppet political machines will be undergoing preparation to take over domestic power in respective colonial areas when independence is achieved.
(c) Where individual governments stand in path of Soviet purposes pressure will be brought for their removal from office. (poor Bhutto —artfl) This can happen where governments directly oppose Soviet foreign policy aims (Turkey, Iran), where they seal their territories off against Communist penetration (Switzerland, Portugal), or where they compete too strongly, like Labor Government in England, for moral domination among elements which it is important for Communists to dominate. (Sometimes, two of these elements are present in a single case. Then Communist opposition becomes particularly shrill and savage. [)]
(d) In foreign countries Communists will, as a rule, work toward destruction of all forms of personal independence, economic, political or moral. Their system can handle only individuals who have been brought into complete dependence on higher power. Thus, persons who are financially independent–such as individual businessmen, estate owners, successful farmers, artisans and all those who exercise local leadership or have local prestige, such as popular local clergymen or political figures, are anathema. It is not by chance that even in USSR local officials are kept constantly on move from one job to another, to prevent their taking root.
(e) Everything possible will be done to set major Western Powers against each other. Anti-British talk will be plugged among Americans, anti-American talk among British. Continentals, including Germans, will be taught to abhor both Anglo-Saxon powers. Where suspicions exist, they will be fanned; where not, ignited. No effort will be spared to discredit and combat all efforts which threaten to lead to any sort of unity or cohesion among other [apparent omission] from which Russia might be excluded. Thus, all forms of international organization not amenable to Communist penetration and control, whether it be the Catholic [apparent omission] international economic concerns, or the international fraternity of royalty and aristocracy, must expect to find themselves under fire from many, and often [apparent omission].
(f) In general, all Soviet efforts on unofficial international plane will be negative and destructive in character, designed to tear down sources of strength beyond reach of Soviet control. This is only in line with basic Soviet instinct that there can be no compromise with rival power and that constructive work can start only when Communist power is doming But behind all this will be applied insistent, unceasing pressure for penetration and command of key positions in administration and especially in police apparatus of foreign countries. The Soviet regime is a police regime par excellence, reared in the dim half world of Tsarist police intrigue, accustomed to think primarily in terms of police power. This should never be lost sight of in ganging Soviet motives.
And after the communists won and crushed McCarthy, the end result was a given as we no longer have the knowledge, the education, the history, or the wherewithal to oppose any of these changes and the end result.
@ Vince P: “Fascism is socialist or collectivist government usually controlled by a dictator and which doesn’t permit dissent.”
Yes. I said that the Obama “movement’s” aims are fascist, not that we’re already there. We must also be attuned to “postmodern” forms of fascism, which may diverge from the 20th-century model(s). We shall see.
@ gcotharn: “I think, once a POTUS is in office, it would take a really cold-blooded narcissist/psychopath to not feel moved to help the people and the nation.”
I didn’t particpate in this original exchange but would like to respond.
1. “. . . once a POTUS is in office”: Who put him there? Who are his handlers (puppetmasters)? To whom is he really accountable? What is the state of his psyche, and how is that related to his ascension to office (the “Manchurian candidate” question).
2. ” . . . it would take a really cold-blooded narcissist/psychopath . . .”: Precisely what gives me the creeps about Obama.
3. “. . . not feel moved to help the people and the nation”: Insert remark about what paves the road to Hell.
sneaker, show me one totalitarian mass movement on the right after the fall of feudal states and their absorption into socialist states… while limited government and minimal interference is on the right?
the despots you will name are not going to be on the right… ALL of them are on the left… the only ones that people say are on the right, is everything BUT communism. so you might want to say hitler is on the right, but nope, hitler was copying the soviets… stalin used him in hopes of wearing everyone down and then stepping in and taking what russia wanted… like they did at the end of wwii with japan
almost everyone on the left gets all thsi wrong, because it twists the signes around and causes people to run into burning buildings rather than out the exit.
its our nature… we will follow a sign that says exit to our death, but we will ignore an open way that doesnt have the sign.
your wrong about it not being a marxist movement, and a communist movement.
and fascism is the transition between free market small government and totalitarian communism.
its the grey in between the black and the white..
once socialism is taken up by the capitalist system, its dirty…
the question is how dirty does it get.
and it gets totalitarian dirty for one reason.
the force that is there to settle disputes is the same force that has a dispute.
so once they start giving out freebies, they want to not give them out to the unintended. however, who do they run to when someone cheats them? to themselves.
so cut the system down pragmaticall, progressivly, and so its much faster just to have any move against the state be a move against the state and punishable.
this is why they are putting up baby rubbers on poles and fire hydrants in england.
the minute its their money paying for health, and not yours, they then say they own you. and that they can control everyting about you or they wont pay.
my family, several generations came from different versions of those systems. most were killed in the gulags because they were teachers, and researchers.
i remember how hard it was to get my 84 year old great grandmother to come live with us. they wouldnt let her go!
here is another link to a more prose form of the long telegram…
The single document that best illustrated American anti-communism and general suspicion of Soviet aspirations, was George Kennan’s famous Long Telegram of 1946. The Long Telegram was perhaps the most cited and most influential statement of the early years of the Cold War.
George Kennan had been a American diplomat on the Soviet front, beginning his career as an observer of the aftermath of the Russian Civil War. He witnessed collectivization and the terror from close range and sent his telegram after another two years’ service in Moscow from 1944 to 1946 as chief of mission and Ambassador Averell Harriman’s consultant. In 1946, Kennan was 44 years old, fluent in the Russian language and its affairs, and decidedly anti-communist.
The essence of Kennan’s telegram was published in Foreign Affairs in 1947 as The Sources of Soviet Conduct and circulated everywhere. The article was signed by “X” although everyone in the know knew that authorship was Kennan’s. For Kennan, the Cold War gave the United States its historic opportunity to assume leadership of what would eventually be described as the “free world.”
* * * * *
THE SOURCES OF SOVIET CONDUCT
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html
2. I think, once a POTUS is in office, it would take a really cold-blooded narcissist/psychopath to not feel moved to help the people and the nation. Once a POTUS receives the daily threat reports, it’s hard not to be moved to give all for the nation. Once a POTUS sees the level of committment around them – staff, interns, Secret Service, Military, Depts. of Government, citizens depending on POTUS and wishing him/her the best – it’s hard not to be moved to give all.
This didn’t seem to stop Bill Clinton from getting blow jobs from an intern while talking on the phone with Congressmen discussing troop deploymnets to Bosnia.
Vince P: nice point
the argument above your point is the rationalization process that a normal person does when they cant imagine sociopathy.
most commonly people use it in their personal relationships… in fact, it makes things worse and easier for the sociopaths. the person starts to blame themselves, and then feels that if they make the kind of expressions that are in the point, then the person will see theri pain, their commitment and change.
well, when a sociopath sees what is described up their, they become more mgalomaniacle.. not less. they know they have found a home that will keep them warm, and let them exercise power to make pain without much chance of repercussions.
if done seripticiously,
a lone man commits murder, he goes to jail
a cop commits murder, he might not go to jail
a doctor commits murder, he is less likely to go
a politician starves thousands, he may lose office in a capitalist system
a politician starves millions aroudn the world with their polcies, in a socialist state, they will say they tried, their largess gets a big reward and an increase, they dont lose office, and in fact may end up a hero.
a politican kills 23 million of their own, they are heroes.
one man is a tragedy, a million a statistic
and on the issue of useful idiots.. kennans quote of Gibbon from the rise and fall of the roman empire is quite an eye opener
It is therefore no wonder that they had come to believe implicitly in the truth and soundness of the Marxist-Leninist teachings, so congenial to their own impulses and emotions. Their sincerity need not be impugned. This is a phenomenon as old as human nature itself. It is has never been more aptly described than by Edward Gibbon, who wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “From enthusiasm to imposture the step is perilous and slippery; the demon of Socrates affords a memorable instance of how a wise man may deceive himself, how a good man may deceive others, how the conscience may slumber in a mixed and middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud.” And it was with this set of conceptions that the members of the Bolshevik Party entered into power.
Reply to sneaker and vince p:
A. I don’t want Obama in office. I don’t trust him to have the same level of good judgment which Hillary would have, and I don’t trust Hillary to have the same level of good judgment which McCain would have.
B. To sneaker #1: the people would have put Obama in office. I think you effectively score a point due to this: Obama considers the people to be sheep. To sneaker #2: I trust Obama’s humanity. He seems a decent person. To sneaker #3: maybe, instead of “help” the people, I should’ve said: protect and conserve the nation.
C. To Vince P: the classic reply is: how bad would Bill Clinton have been without having been moved by the committment of all around him? But, two things about Clinton…
First: his narcissism prevented him from fully seeing and experiencing the humanity of those around him. To Bill, the people were mere means to achieve ends. Their humanity was a distant rumor.
Second: the sexual conduct in the Oval Office was neither classy nor graceful, yet I hate to ever focus on it. I see it as more of a distraction than a huge terrible thing.
Impeachment was not about sexual conduct, nor should it have been. The sexual aspect was played up by Clinton’s allies in order to distract from the real charges of using the office in unethical ways.
Also, I don’t believe Clinton believed the sexual conduct – in and of itself … divorced from the extraneous illegal acts it spawned – distracted from his effectiveness as POTUS. Nor do I personally believe it did. Clinton was perfectly capable of having sex and running the nation. It was only the cover ups of the various sex acts which prompted him to commit illegal and unethical actions.
So, to recap:
Sex in Oval: Not classy, yet neither illegal nor unethical.
Coverups: illegal and unethical.
Let it be stressed again that subjectively these men probably did not seek absolutism for its own sake. They doubtless believed — and found it easy to believe — that they alone knew what was good for society and that they would accomplish that good once their power was secure and unchallengeable. But in seeking that security of their own rule they were prepared to recognize no restrictions, either of God or man, on the character of their methods. And until such time as that security might be achieved, they placed far down on their scale of operational priorities the comforts and happiness of the peoples entrusted to their care
they developed tactics and strategies to overthrow and gain power, they never developed how they were to treat the people. so the people got trampled on their way to change it all, and no one knew how to make it work. it cant work, but no one will believe it since like old christianity, it was talking about a heaven while sitting in a hell (of its own creation).
down to the present day this process of political consolidation has never been completed and the men in the Kremlin have continued to be predominantly absorbed with the struggle to secure and make absolute the power which they seized in November 1917. They have endeavored to secure it primarily against forces at home, within Soviet society itself. But they have also endeavored to secure it against the outside world. For ideology, as we have seen, taught them that the outside world was hostile and that it was their duty eventually to overthrow the political forces beyond their borders. Then powerful hands of Russian history and tradition reached up to sustain them in this feeling. Finally, their own aggressive intransigence with respect to the outside world began to find its own reaction; and they were soon forced, to use another Gibbonesque phrase, “to chastise the contumacy” which they themselves had provoked. It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.
the same decline into this horror is now going on again… they are now using their natural resources to build up for war again. there is no reason to build up for defense, they will never be as weak as they were a few years ago… and who would invade them? china? why?
no… they are still on the same constantly evolving program… its why fewer than 100 people pretty much OWN russia personally…
and here is why they started going after us
it lies in the nature of the mental world of the Soviet leaders, as well as in the character of their ideology, that no opposition to them can be officially recognized as having any merit or justification whatsoever. Such opposition can flow, in theory, only from the hostile and incorrigible forces of dying capitalism. As long as remnants of capitalism were officially recognized as existing in Russia, it was possible to place on them, as an internal element, part of the blame for the maintenance of a dictatorial form of society. But as these remnants were liquidated, little by little, this justification fell away, and when it was indicated officially that they had been finally destroyed, it disappeared altogether. And this fact created one of the most basic of the compulsions which came to act upon the Soviet regime: since capitalism no longer existed in Russia and since it could not be admitted that there could be serious or widespread opposition to the Kremlin springing spontaneously from the liberated masses under its authority, it became necessary to justify the retention of the dictatorship by stressing the menace of capitalism abroad.
This began at an early date. In 1924 Stalin specifically defended the retention of the “organs of suppression,” meaning, among others, the army and the secret police, on the ground that “as long as there is a capitalistic encirclement there will be danger of intervention with all the consequences that flow from that danger.” In accordance with that theory, and from that time on, all internal opposition forces in Russia have consistently been portrayed as the agents of foreign forces of reaction antagonistic to Soviet power.
anyone care to read the belicose staements of putin?
the maintenance of this pattern of Soviet power, namely, the pursuit of unlimited authority domestically, accompanied by the cultivation of the semi-myth of implacable foreign hostility, has gone far to shape the actual machinery of Soviet power as we know it today. Internal organs of administration which did not serve this purpose withered on the vine. Organs which did serve this purpose became vastly swollen. The security of Soviet power came to rest on the iron discipline of the Party, on the severity and ubiquity of the secret police, and on the uncompromising economic monopolism of the state. The “organs of suppression,” in which the Soviet leaders had sought security from rival forces, became in large measures the masters of those whom they were designed to serve. Today the major part of the structure of Soviet power is committed to the perfection of the dictatorship and to the maintenance of the concept of Russia as in a state of siege, with the enemy lowering beyond the walls. And the millions of human beings who form that part of the structure of power must defend at all costs this concept of Russia’s position, for without it they are themselves superfluous.
As things stand today, the rulers can no longer dream of parting with these organs of suppression. The quest for absolute power, pursued now for nearly three decades with a ruthlessness unparalleled (in scope at least) in modern times, has again produced internally, as it did externally, its own reaction. The excesses of the police apparatus have fanned the potential opposition to the regime into something far greater and more dangerous than it could have been before those excesses began.
But least of all can the rulers dispense with the fiction by which the maintenance of dictatorial power has been defended. For this fiction has been canonized in Soviet philosophy by the excesses already committed in its name; and it is now anchored in the Soviet structure of thought by bonds far greater than those of mere ideology.
in other words, so much has been put into the lie.. that now the lie is only a convenient means for the few to despotically take control, and the original concept that supposedly started it, is miles away…
they HAVE to keep promoting the lies, the falsehoods, the taking over of other places..
even now they celebrate stalin and lenin again..
and the state apparatus… didnt anyone else notice that the man who was head of the coupe, is now head of the party? heck if someone fomented a coupe in the US would they be a contender for president?
Communist leader blasts plans to remove Red Square ‘necropolis’
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080422/105609445.html
remember, they went nuts at latvia for moving a statue… so how much do you think that they are really going to move things… with a may 1st war parade like old times comming up. or thats what they say.
yesterday was lenins birthday…
The first of these concepts is that of the innate antagonism between capitalism and Socialism. We have seen how deeply that concept has become imbedded in foundations of Soviet power. It has profound implications for Russia’s conduct as a member of international society. It means that there can never be on Moscow’s side an sincere assumption of a community of aims between the Soviet Union and powers which are regarded as capitalist. It must inevitably be assumed in Moscow that the aims of the capitalist world are antagonistic to the Soviet regime, and therefore to the interests of the peoples it controls. If the Soviet government occasionally sets it signature to documents which would indicate the contrary, this is to regarded as a tactical maneuver permissible in dealing with the enemy (who is without honor) and should be taken in the spirit of caveat emptor. Basically, the antagonism remains. It is postulated. And from it flow many of the phenomena which we find disturbing in the Kremlin’s conduct of foreign policy: the secretiveness, the lack of frankness, the duplicity, the wary suspiciousness, and the basic unfriendliness of purpose. These phenomena are there to stay, for the foreseeable future. There can be variations of degree and of emphasis. When there is something the Russians want from us, one or the other of these features of their policy may be thrust temporarily into the background; and when that happens there will always be Americans who will leap forward with gleeful announcements that “the Russians have changed,” and some who will even try to take credit for having brought about such “changes.” But we should not be misled by tactical maneuvers. These characteristics of Soviet policy, like the postulate from which they flow, are basic to the internal nature of Soviet power, and will be with us, whether in the foreground or the background, until the internal nature of Soviet power is changed.
the internal nature has not changed yet…
The desire to lose the individuality in a great “Unity” is part of the Human Spirit.
The purpose of religion is to turn this into a Holy Spirit, oriented at being good, and doing good.
The goal of religions is to help people voluntarily and peacefully choose to be the people who choose, freely, to do good.
The choosing freely is actually more important, spiritually, than the doing good.
The corruption of “doing good” is force and violence. Everything gov’t does is based on force, and the threat of violence.
The problem of gov’t oriented neo-religions is the attempt to “do good”, and use gov’t force to make others do good.
Obama is a neo-fascist, but so is Hillary, without the charisma.
And America is great enough to survive either one — though the packing of the USSC with more commie-Liberal judges would mean another generation of culture/ abortion war, until we get to a more stable different laws in different states.
If McCain wins in Nov., it will be because the pro-life folk (some 26 mil voters for Bush in 2004) decided the same.
Obama offers no unity about abortion.
Hey, folks, could we please dispense with the “Hitler/Stalin Manchurian Candidate,” analogies, no matter how apt they may seem in the context of the points you are making? It all sounds to much like Bush Derangement Syndrome.
I too am disturbed by Obama and the creepy mob emotions he stirs among certain of the potential electorate. I consider him a fraud, for all intents and purposes, and I don’t like his wife at all. I also don’t want those who want to stop him to loose their cool.
Roderick…
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
here is a single paragraph…
PLEASE, everyone, anyone, let me know if it sounds like an exact description of dealing with the leftists.
Perfect discipline requires recognition of infallibility. Infallibility requires the observance of discipline. And the two go far to determine the behaviorism of the entire Leftist apparatus of power. But their effect cannot be understood unless a third factor be taken into account: namely, the fact that the leadership is at liberty to put forward for tactical purposes any particular thesis which it finds useful to the cause at any particular moment and to require the faithful and unquestioning acceptance of that thesis by the members of the movement as a whole. This means that truth is not a constant but is actually created, for all intents and purposes, by the Leftist leaders themselves. It may vary from week to week, from month to month. It is nothing absolute and immutable — nothing which flows from objective reality. It is only the most recent manifestation of the wisdom of those in whom the ultimate wisdom is supposed to reside, because they represent the logic of history. The accumulative effect of these factors is to give to the whole subordinate apparatus of Leftist power an unshakable stubbornness and steadfastness in its orientation. This orientation can be changed at will by the Leaders of the left, but by no other power. Once a given party line has been laid down on a given issue of current policy, the whole Leftist governmental machine, including the mechanism of diplomacy, moves inexorably along the prescribed path, like a persistent toy automobile wound up and headed in a given direction, stopping only when it meets with some unanswerable force. The individuals who are the components of this machine are unamenable to argument or reason, which comes to them from outside sources. Their whole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outside world. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only the “master’s voice.” And if they are to be called off from the purposes last dictated to them, it is the master who must call them off. Thus the a representative cannot hope that his words will make any impression on them. The most that he can hope is that they will be transmitted to those at the top, who are capable of changing the party line. But even those are not likely to be swayed by any normal logic in the words of the representative. Since there can be no appeal to common purposes, there can be no appeal to common mental approaches.
I’m glad I’m not the only one to think of the demagogue tag. In fact, the Obama rallies tend to remind me of the reaction to Hitler. I’m not drawing parallels here, just looking at crowd behavior.
If the sexual misconduct of Bill wasn’t such a big thing, then why was 10 year old reputed misconduct on the part of Bob Packwood enough to force him out of office?
I never thought I’d have a kind word to say about Hillary, but I’m glad she’s not a quitter. If I had to vote in a Democratic primary, I’d vote for her. She at least understands politics, which is something Obama doesn’t seem to get.
Teri,
Sen. Packwood resigned; Al Gore declared Pres. Clinton as one of the finest Presidents in history.
I skimmed through the Senate Resolution which preceded Sen. Packwood’s resignation:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/government/packwood2.html
At the very bottom are listed 5 allegations of Sen. Packwood soliciting bribes from lobbyists. I suspect these are the true sticks which were used to encourage Sen. Packwood to resign. The Senate Resolution also alleges Sen. Packwood tampered with evidence in a Senate investigation, and attempted to intimidate witnesses in same investigation.
The depth of research put into the Senate Resolution is amazing. They list 18 allegations of sexual misconduct which go back to 1969. Senate staff appear to do research more zealously than any special prosecutor(or perhaps merely w/o using the same standards of evidence and/or oversight).