Good question. Look around you at the people you know who support Obama. We know the inner-city welfare dependent thinks he's just great because he wants to give them "free" stuff. But what of the so-called middle or upper middle class folks who tout the "progressive" (read socialism or communism) program as the path to prosperity and fairness for all?
I'm not a researcher and I don't have access to all of these people, but I can certainly observe and listen to those I know personally, and those I know remotely through comments on blogs, websites, and Facebook. It's one of the reasons I pay more attention to comments on articles rather than the articles themselves.
In today's world of instant communication, people are extraordinarily willing to put out thoughts and feelings for public consumption that in the past would be considered private. They feel protected by some perceived fire-wall of anonymity freeing them to say the most astonishing things.
The folks I know personally tend to fall into two categories; the first consists of academics and those who hold public sector union type jobs, and the second consists of people who essentially failed at life, either financially or personally, and blame others for whatever they think they lack.
The first group tends to be corralled and cosseted in a ghetto of their own making. They remain apart from the real world, protected by their tenure, benefit packages, pensions, and unions. They tend to be intellectually incurious, mainly because they don't have to be, due to being surrounded by people who march in lock-step with them. For the academics, their demeanor is one of Gnostic smugness; "I have all the answers for the world's problems, and you don't." For public sector union types such as postal employees, they've had the life stomped out of them by the very system they claim to like.
I know of a retired teacher receiving a very healthy pension (now teaching part-time in another district) express confusion when she went to the social security office to find out how much she would be receiving, and was told "nothing." After all, she'd been working for a few years in her new district where she was paying social security. During the previous 30 or so years, she had opted out in favor of her pension. She really thought that a few years of paying a miniscule amount into social security entitled her to receive a check every month. Where did she think the money for what she thought she was owed was going to come from? This sort of thinking is no different than that of inner-city fourth generation welfare recipients.
The second group consists of the folks I like to call the "I'm a failure and it must the fault of someone else because I'm so smart that it couldn't possibly be my fault" group. They're the ones who, when a downturn in their economic outlook happens or a personal problem occurs, never stop to examine the reason and adjust their course. They immediately look for someone or something else to blame. We're witnessing this on a national scale with our current president. If someone does point out a different path for them to follow, they become angry and defensive. Such people have made the leap from blaming individuals all the way to blaming the entire "system." Capitalism and religion are failures; therefore, I failed and it's not fair.
Bruce McQuain's article today is a must read and should help to impress upon us the importance of this upcoming election. The time for game playing with those who wish us harm is over.
How important is this next election?
Allen West caused a bit of a stir the other day when he claimed that about 80 members of Congress were communists (my guess is he was speaking mostly of members of the liberal caucus). Democrats reacted predictably and the usual flurry of denials was seen. Even the Communist Party USA weighed in denying any members of Congress were members. The fact that none are members or carried on the CPUSA rolls doesn’t really make a convincing case.
However I’m not even going to go there.
But can anyone deny that there has been a rising drumbeat of leftist calls that would lead directly to a form of socialism if they had their way? Bill Ayers? Van Jones?
And while members of Congress may not officially be “communists”, can anyone deny that a good number of them would be more comfortable with a socialist form of government than the relatively free one we enjoy now? If so, explain Bernie Sanders. If so, explain most of the liberal caucus. If so, explain much of academia. READ THE REST
No comments:
Post a Comment