Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Hybrid View

  1. #1 The Decline and Fall of the American Empire 
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    4,994
    Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

    ------------------------

    The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted. As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off his own 2008 total. (Note: this was written the day after the election. The final results indicate that Romney exceeded McCain’s total by less than one million votes, while Obama received almost four million votes fewer than he did in 2008 – the first time in history that a president won a second term with fewer votes than he scored in his first victory. RSP)

    But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

    Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.

    That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should be permanently retired.

    Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.

    The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

    Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)

    The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

    It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

    That suggests the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that, as Winston Churchill stated so tartly, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Voters – a clear majority – are easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. Said another way, too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. How could Obama get away with such rants to squealing sign-wavers? See Churchill, above.

    During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words were never spoken.

    Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico (even if they came from Cuba or Honduras), and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone. How could he do and say all these things ? See Churchill, above.

    One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar deficits. “Taxing the rich” does not yield even 10% of what is required and does not solve any discernible problem – so what is the answer, i.e., an intelligent answer?

    Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

    Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises, and by talking as the adult and not the adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups. The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American life.

    It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

    A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure.

    The mass media’s complicity in Obama’s re-election cannot be denied. One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously – during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was “terror” (a lie that Romney fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the canard about the video. (This snippet of a “60 Minutes” interview was not revealed - until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as was the media’s disregard of any scandal or story that could have jeopardized the Obama re-election.

    One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey, for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.

    For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As Obama has committed himself to abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will succeed in obstructing Iran’s plans.

    <snip>

    The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama, America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent. The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

    <snip>

    If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days, it will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    4,994
    Ody might explain some of the direct Jewish references but, that aside, the entire post is right on and states it clearly, including the stupidity of the stay-at-homers. The only point in which I disagree with the good Rabbi is the 2007 date. The sharper decline began more about the time Bubba got the office but it had been in evidence for several years.

    I had to snip to meet the 15000 character limit - no other reason.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days, it will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Administrator SaintLouieWoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sarasota Florida
    Posts
    40,464
    Thank you for this very thoughtful post. It's right on in the evaluation of the American electorate. It sickens me to think of how low our country has descended. I still can't understand the decisions of the Jewish voters. The American fighters being transferred to Egypt is beyond my comprehension. They surely might be used against Israel, our supposed ally. I keep saying that I can't understand how Obama won again, but realize the Rabbi is right in his evaluation. It's beyond sad that so many Americans have so little patriotism and only think of their immediate gain and don't think of the future for themselves or their children or grandchildren.
    http://http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/SarasotaRepub/83069bcc.png

    " To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."

    "
    A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    "If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."

    Sadly, I think that we can all agree with this. Also, I think that we can all agree that the New America will not be an improvement.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
    "If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."

    Sadly, I think that we can all agree with this. Also, I think that we can all agree that the New America will not be an improvement.
    Nope, your right. Apparently the people we now elect in both partys agree America needs to be brought down a notch or 2... or 3. I dont see ANY opposition in this quest. We are now subjects... to be imposed upon whatever our 'betters', the political class decides is best on our behalf.

    Oh boy, cant wait to re-elect these clowns, can you?
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
    ...........I think that we can all agree that the New America will not be an improvement.
    We can agree on that, but only we conservatives will see it that way. Those who receive free phones, food stamps, medicaid, WIC, undeserved disability and so forth will see it differently. And there are now more of them than there are us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,778


    Wonderful catch Retread.

    Thanks for posting it. I went to the site, read and digested every single word ... and tried to print it out to add to my ever growing folder of paper printouts of important articles to keep.

    The blinking thing was going to print out 114 pages!

    So ... here I am taking a break from copying and pasteing the entire article!

    ~ ABC
    American By Choice ~ 1980
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Retread View Post
    Ody might explain some of the direct Jewish references but, that aside, the entire post is right on and states it clearly, including the stupidity of the stay-at-homers. The only point in which I disagree with the good Rabbi is the 2007 date. The sharper decline began more about the time Bubba got the office but it had been in evidence for several years.

    I had to snip to meet the 15000 character limit - no other reason.
    All the freebies are also avaliable under republican presidents so why would this be a deciding factor? As with most conservative arguments this makes little sense. And when you break down the ominous 47% they are made up of retirees, military, students, low middle income families, and the disadvantaged. At best Obama spit this group which leaves the middle and upper income as the ones who put him in office so the question begged for conservatives is why they've lost control of this group which should be their bread and butter. Unless republicans can answer this they have no chance in future elections...that is unless their gerrymandering works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    .................At best Obama spit this group which leaves the middle and upper income as the ones who put him in office so the question................
    Meh. Come on. No one is stupid enough to buy that statement.

    Obama got 59 million votes, which represents 20% of the population.

    "Middle and upper income". What a hoot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    Meh. Come on. No one is stupid enough to buy that statement.

    Obama got 59 million votes, which represents 20% of the population.

    "Middle and upper income". What a hoot!
    That only means that no one votes not that my statement is false. Obama carrried every high income state out there. The poor voted for Romney not Obama...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •