The Obama Tragedy

What a tragic night for these USA! Even Obama himself admitted in his acceptance speech that the dreams of our country's forefathers lie dead and gutted, albeit with his usual lawyerly double-talk that allows his supporters to hear only what they will. At the risk of stretching an analogy too far, I must now anticipate that the meat of these dreams is now hanging, aging, readying itself to be tastier for the Democrats when they devour it next year with our first openly communist president in office.

I wish I could place my hope in revolt, in a secession from the union, or in an amputation from it of California, New Mexico, even Vermont. But it is not to be. This creeping influx of socialism has, like a cancer, managed to distribute itself throughout our cities and their ever-expanding suburbs, and it seems that no state can now be considered to present a safe refuge from the scourge of the liberals, as they get out their vote -- early and often -- by offering their vision of a welfare state and its gateway drugs, free money and free healthcare. No simple solution can escape the fact that all too many US voters no longer subscribe to the American ideals represented in the declaration of independence, in the bill of rights, in natural law, and in limited government. Let's not even complicate things with the matter of states' rights, with the notion that these federal elections are for a government which should not have its fingers in most of the places where they routinely poke and play. At first blush, it sure would be easy to contemplate voting being limited to landowners, adults over 25, taxpayers, citizens, or some combination of these. It would be nice to envisage a system where pinko states do not send their funds and personnel into nearby red states during the election run-up to thwart the true will of the other state. But none of these measures would likely pass: politicians will continue to pander to the majority of our citizens to whom the wealth can be redistributed; Massachusetts will continue to push its beliefs on and into New Hampshire, and few will notice with as much horror as they should the fact that the aged, failing liberal democrat and socialist countries of Western Europe are all thrilled with the choice of Barack. Once upon a time, such a warm welcome from this corner would have given serious pause for thought, if not a kiss of death.

And yet the talking heads are now discussing how so many people voted for the black guy because he is black. "Isn't it wonderful," they say, "how we have come full circle and elected someone whom only decades ago would not have been worthy to use the same water fountain?" They talk of people electing Barack Hussein Obama, a self-avowed Marxist, the most liberal of the US senators, and an advocate of increased taxes, multiplied and unfettered government spending and handouts (sorry, "rebates"), and friend of racist preachers, Black Panthers and other domestic terrorists -- and why? Because they thought his policies sound? Because he was less bad than his rival? No, they say, it's because he's black. If true -- if voters in exit polls truly said that was an influence upon their vote -- then surely these voters should have their right to vote struck out forever. It is incumbent upon the voter to be informed and to make an informed choice. Grudgingly, I accept and forbear that some people are so naive or so simple as to vote purely based on party lines. Why else could anyone bring themselves to vote for Shaheen or Lynch? But to vote based on skin color? If true, this would be unbelievable, intolerable, and would most assuredly smack of racism in and of itself. This is not a game of mini-golf, where one can throw a game to the gangly kid to make him fit in and feel good. This is the presidency of these United States. This should be serious stuff, not a coloring game. Hell, if Condy Rice and Orrin Hatch had been on a ticket together, I would have leapt to vote for it. If Thomas Sowell and Ron Paul were on a ticket together, I would have given up my job to go work for their campaign. But rest assured their races, sexes and religions would have had little to do with my vote.

Is it possible that his rival truly failed to appeal to the liberals? Hardly. He's never been a true advocate of small government or of conservatism. McCain is one of the most left wing Republicans, a true centrist and statist, someone who can barely stand to look at a problem without contemplating a big government solution and, moreover, a government solution that involves compromise, bipartisanship, regulation and complexity. He doesn't stand on tradition, require mandates to be funded, or pay heed to the constitution. He engenders more calls of RINO than an African water hole. With the exception of national defence, McCain looks just like a Democrat. And then Obama folded partway through the campaign and admitted he wouldn't be going around pulling troops out willy nilly either. So that should have nullified McCain's only possible negative to the pinkos.

And yet here we are. In a runoff between McCain's small "s" socialism and Obama's big "S" Socialism, it was inevitable that the US would come out the other side worse off. But I never truly believed, not for one moment, that the electorate would make such an appallingly bad decision, nor in such momentous numbers.

Enough. Time to go soak my head and await Obama's new New Deal.


P.S. I am always asked who the heck Thomas Sowell is. So let me save you the effort of googling... here's a recent and relevant post of his

P.P.S. It's nice when the mainstream media get something right...