Pointing the Finger

It is difficult some times to be a Ron Paul supporter. All the other supporters I have ever met are rather level headed and are attracted by the message of small-government and the restoration of constitutional principles. However, there does seem to be a small number of people magnified by hostile media that are ardent conspiracy theorists.

The other day I heard one on the radio while driving to work. He waited ninety minutes solely to chastise Sean Hannity for not exposing the Bohemian Grove. Of course Sean gave him a brief rebuke and hung up, furthering the aura of a "cover up" in his mind and the aura of lunacy in everyone else's'. The thought that this course of action, even if the theories are true, could make sense only in the mind of some disciple of David Icke or Lyndon LaRouche.

Of course, I don't bring this up as an issue in an of itself. I find it as a more extreme indication of a larger problem on the right. The problem, as I see it, is that conservatives get stuck in a hole of simply pointing out problems. We grumble a bit about taxes, bad mouth about this liberal or that, and use problems as talking points.

This is a dead end in and of itself, conspiracy theories are simply more inefficient as they spend their effort in outlining a far-fetched cause of the problem, without ever coming to a solution. A lesson that should be learned from the Democrats in the 2004 presidential elections(if you're not going to learn from conservative failures) is that complaining doesn't electrify the masses. The far left showed up in droves to vote for John fish-out-of-water Kerry and John Edwards the Poverty Pimp. Karl Rove managed to electrify and motivate the Republican base in many key rural areas and keep open arms to Democrats turned off by leftist vitriol.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't attack the left, I'm not even saying I would have voted for George Bush in 2004. What I am saying is that to win elections we have to maintain a set of principles and values, attack our opponents where they are weak, but above all we must outline a clear and distinctive plan of action. This is why people are attracted to Ron Paul in the first place.

Layers of the Left

It seems today that we face a nebulous opposition on the left. Many people identify themselves as liberal or "progressive" but it is increasingly difficult to pigeon hole them into a single, comprehensive ideology. Much of this, I believe, is rooted in the inherent nature of the left. They are a movement built on identity and policy much more than philosophy.
Their politics are based on collective issues, appealing to race and class rather than character and ideas. The left thrives on the collective paradigm and sees the world through this lens. Of course they see opponents of Affirmative Action as hateful bigots, in the collective paradigm one is either discriminatory for or against a race or class, everybody is a racist, it just depends on the method.
Thinking about this has put me in a collective mood, so I think I'll try to categorize the various groups within the left itself:

I believe at the very core of the leftist movement reside the Neo-Marxists. These are the jack boot commies. Something along the lines of Rosie O'donnell and the Weather Underground. There are two wings, the rich Hollywood types such as George Soros who use their millions to fund surrogate organizations, or militants such as the Symbionese Liberation Army. The Hollywood Marxists are idolized and praised by the media, but the militant members are treated with a more tacit approval. Despite the laissez-faire treatment by the media, the militant wing will typically be presented in a sympathetic way as in the case of Kathleen Soliah.

The Intelligentsia is the most influential group that passes the message from the Neo-Marxists to the rest. These are the University Professors and Information media. Something along the lines of the Berkeley Campus and New York Times. The methodology ranges from overbearing indoctrination to gentle slants in editorials. To be fair, the mild bias should not be seen as conspiratorial subterfuge, but simply someone writing from within their liberal paradigm.

It is tempting to put the Establishment Liberals in the inner layer, but at some point in time an Establishment Liberal has been under the tutelage of the Intelligentsia. These are your politicians of all shapes and sizes, from U.S Senators to politically correct school board members. Now it should be mentioned that an Intelligentsiac or Neo-Marxist can very well be apart of the establishment, the difference is that Establishment Liberals reach their positions through feeding their ego rather than championing an ideology.

Way out on the fringes of the movement stand the Identity Democrats. This ranges from union workers, young urban socialites, affirmative action recipients and senile segregationists. These are people who for some reason or another either have a repulsion from the Republican Party or stand to gain something from the Government dole. Often these people trust the Intelligentsia although they don't care that much about politics. Other times these people are simply cajoled guilt-tripped into supporting the party by establishment liberals.

An Ode to Margaret Anderson Kelliher

Praise to Naggy Maggy

that hefty battle axe
who found our budget lacking
and chose to raise the tax

Oh, House Speaker Maggy
We thank you for this fix
though you said we did not need to raise
the tax back in Oh six

Oh poor Miss Maggy
caught up in a spree
splurged and spent our suprlus
as if they grow on trees

She said she would use "caution"
and "fiscal moderation"
perhaps she thought the falling bridge
would provide exoneration.

She reached across the aisle
(to Rinos she now caters)
and with thirty silver pieces
bought six sickly traitors

An Ode to Naggy Maggy,
who fights hard for the poor
who judged our heavy burden
and decided to add more.

John Milton on Barack Obama

"All these and more came flocking, but with looks

Downcast and damp; yet such wherein appear'd
Obscure some glimpse of joy to have found their chief
Not in despair, to have found themselves not lost
In loss itself; which on his count'nance cast
Like doubtful hue: but he his wonted pride
Soon recollecting, with high words, that bore
Semblance of worth, not substance, gently rais'd
Their fainting courage, and dispell'd their fears
Then straight commands that at the warlike sound
of trumpets loud, and clarions, be uprear'd
His mighty standart: that proud honour claim'd
Azazel as his right, a cherub tall"

-John Milton, "Paradise Lost"

Now I'm not one of those people who thinks Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, but I do find it funny that John Milton envisions of Satan's oratory skills to be so similar to Obama's. The Cult of Obama does seem to be growing and it looks like he might just have the nomination in the bag. Messianic references seem to pop up here and there, even the likes of Oprah Winfrey call him "the one."*

We will have to see what happens come the general election. An aura of acceptance has been created by the media. Much has been made about his winning of Iowa, an overwhelmingly White state, and his almost unanimous support from Blacks is overwhelmingly downplayed. I suspect that the true statistic of value however is his voting record**. Barack Obama has the dubious claim to the crown of most liberal senator of 2007. So much for any talk of reaching across the aisle.

The acceptance of this man and the seeming downfall of Hillary Clinton, who modeled her campaign on reaching towards the middle from the start, tells me about the true extremism of the left. Granted, there is a split in the Democratic Party, but it seems that the neo-Marxists will subsume or cast out the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party (ironic that Hillary would represent that wing is it not?).

Barack Obama is oft criticized for lacking substance in his speeches. My take: He is speaking to a base that already knows what he means, and at the same time trying to coax the general populace with uplifting rhetoric and covert diction. The fact of the matter is that the actual substance of what he says is alarming at best.




*http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7281.html

**http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/