Carter Country, continued
“People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels”. Which is precisely why I never got rid of my Pierre Cardin Bar Mitzvah suit and platform shoes. Because who knows, right?
Funny thing is, I remember back in 2007 — during the time of the dapper pant crease, the “intellectualism” of an Ivy League presidency, and all the bullshit about Obama’s supposed post-partisan, post-racial pragmatism — noting that, to anyone who dared peek beyond the Manchurian candidate facade and the postmodern construction of “Barack Obama” from the remains of a once perpetually-stoned Marxist sympathizer named Barry who, when he attended classes, wrote doggerel poetry and papers on Reagan’s failed domestic and military policies (before the wall fell, and the Soviet Union crumbled; oops!), they’d see Obama for what he truly was: Jimmy Carter with a tan and a plan. And it didn’t take any special insight on my part, either. Obama, through historical clips, could have his actual agenda reconstructed: he wanted to see electricity costs soar, saw the Constitution as a flawed document, believed in wealth redistribution, and had been schooled by those whose major tactical discussion was about how best to promote their Marxist agenda: openly, or using the sub rosa techniques of infiltration and a deconstruction and repurposing of the rhetoric of liberty to promote a radical egalitarianism that at base is totalitarian and, in a strict sense, anti-American.
Carter, who while he turned out to be a dismal failure, a foreign policy nightmare, and an economically illiterate anti-Semite, was at least an earnest failure, nightmare, and economically illiterate Zionist hater. Obama has and always will be an arrogant puppet who doesn’t realize he’s been dancing on others’ strings since his early days in Chicago when Bill Ayers saw in the young mau-mauer of flak catchers what some of Obama’s Democrat comrades described as a “clean and articulate” “magic negro,” a potential wedge figure whom they could insert into the American cultural consciousness — taking advantage of a racial guilt that educational theorists like Ayers himself had helped promote and nurture — to drive the “historic” and transcendent figure of racial healing and “progress” into a movement candidate, a symbol, an empty canvas onto which people of good will might map their own Hopes and wishes for Change.
When I made this observation back in Obama’s early run, that is, when I observed that he was a more intentional wreck to our system than the Georgia peanut king, who to my knowledge wasn’t an Alinsky adept nor a student of Cloward-Piven or Cooper Union Marxist political strategizing, and that as a result he was a more malign and controlled Jimmy Carter with a conspicuous black half, the immediate reaction was that I was, of course, racist.
Similarly, when I questioned — as an hypothetical, and taking for argument’s sake at face value research done suggesting that Bill Ayers had at least partially authored one of Obama’s “autobiographies” — whether the “Barack Obama” who had been built through narrative was anything like the historical and actual figure of Barack Obama who was now our President, I was met with all manner of leftist academic recriminations and sophistic arguments (hi, SEK!), coupled naturally to suggestions that my academic exercise had at its base more malign motives: that as a student of literary theory who had spent years studying the ideas of layers of narrative and narrative constructs juxtaposed against authorialism, I wasn’t interested in that in this case, but rather only cared about trying to suggest a black man couldn’t write his own book, and that I was using my training to disguise my real intimations, and so my real reason for writing the post: I was a racist.
And yet here we are nearly 7-years later, and, having first been despised for being “unhelpful” to a GOP who was telling us to measure our words so as not to be taken out of context (that is, that we mustn’t express our beliefs or values, or make known our concerns, in language that could be used to suggest we might not simply disagree with Obama’s policies, but rather, that he wasn’t at all the good man — or even the “Barack Obama” we’d been sold), I now find myself in the position of watching as others have taken up the charge of “exposing” Obama, including those like Peggy Noonan and a host of other wannabe cosmopolitan Republicans who at the time desired nothing more than to be seen as gracious and racially tolerant and accommodating, if not exuberant over the color of a President, regardless of whether or not he had every intention of “fundamentally transforming” the US.
It’s amusing. And a bit disheartening.
But here we are.
The GOP is built on eating its own. And by that I mean its political machinery is living in the left’s rhetorical paradigm, is controlled by it, and is more concerned about is produced public image — as created by a mainstream press who, while still powerful, fewer and fewer Americans find disinterested or objective — to the point that it would rather support Democrats than its own base.
Worse, I believe many in the GOP have come to like the system of cronyism and spoils and power and insularity that come with Big Government statism, and so have “evolved” while in DC, to the point where calling them RINOs is no longer sufficient. Many of these people are Mondale Democrats — except that even Mondale didn’t support amnesty.
I’m happy for all of our opinion leaders who have gained prestige and wealth in new media as a result of their having spent a decade pointing out Democrat hypocrisy. But by failing to see that the GOP was in league with the Democrats — and marginalizing as kooks, Hobbits, and “purists” those who did — they are complicit in where we today find ourselves.
Their latest turn, as the winds blow, toward an anti-establishment bent, is yet another pose, and I take it with a grain of salt. We are, as a country, far worse off than we were since Reagan reversed Carterism. And yet the GOP answer to this, at least on the party machinery level, is to import cheap labor for big business and its liberal fascist relationship with government, and to fight those of us who advocate for smaller, limited government and a return to constitutionalism that, by itself, would militate against the kind of anti-foundationalist administering of law that we now see becoming the accepted norm.
Those who have stood to protect Boehner and McConnell — through every “deal” and with every reprimand to conservatives that we have to choose our battles, and can’t possibly win while we’re in the minority (except when the House brings pro-amnesty legislation, that is: at which point, 1/2 of 1/3 doesn’t seem to much matter anymore) — are party cheerleaders. They fancy themselves pragmatists because calling yourself a pragmatist they believe denotes a kind of reasoned, rational, realist attitude toward governance. Much like in earlier years (and it’s making a comeback) calling oneself a “centrist” was supposed to show you were above the political fray.
But the truth is, these are convenient dodges. By adopting the “pragmatist” pose, every capitulation is presented as a move on a 3-D chessboard, a strategic maneuver in a long-term game.
One that, at present, has us enjoying higher taxes, socialized healthcare, the government takeover of industry, 17 Trillion in fiscal operating debt, and about 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, with decreased employment, increased entitlements we can’t afford, and a host of new client state groups who rely on the government for their positioning within the system of preferential legal and social treatment.
Which, call me crazy, but that looks to me like a big fucking pragmatic failure.
The latest rejiggered employment numbers, dismal as they are, are merely yawned at. And we’re told that the importation of low-skill, illiterate labor into an already depressed labor force — one in which an increase in the minimum wage is being pushed as a civil right — is somehow a net economic boon to the country.
It isn’t. It can’t be. And no kind of Paul Ryan math can ever make it so.
Instead, it will restructure the very nature of our civil society; it will change demographics permanently; and it will assure the Democrats electoral victories, while keeping the GOP — happy with their cut of big government now that “the era of Reagan is over” — flush with both campaign money from big business, and — they believe — money to support their perpetual “fight” against the Democrats and their agenda. To which the GOP was an accomplice, often willingly, behind closed doors, and without the consent of the governed.
This is where we are. And where we will stay so long as the mouthpieces for a cease to internecine fighting in the Party are able to shame conservatives / classical liberals / constitutionalists into trusting the savvy career politicians who “know the system” and not wrecking the “brand” that will, soon enough, bring the new GOP to power.
2014 could see a landslide victory for Republicans. If it does, it will be because many Democrats reject the New Leftism that has overtaken their party, and the TEA Party comes out in force, just as it did in 2010. GOP establishment types are hoping for just that and I believe see it on the horizon (even as the do their level best to fuck it up). And this is why they are so keen on keeping the “center-rightist” and “pro business” candidates viable in primaries, and defeating those outsiders who don’t see in DC a taxpayer pot of gold from which to sup, nor a ruling kingdom on a swamp that is entitled to keep increasing its own power and influence by way of constitutional dodges, be it by handing off power to bureaucratic agencies of their own creation whom the courts say they can then not control, nor by engaging in social engineering experiments, right along with the Democrats, that they seem to think they can simply manage more efficiently.
They will then claim a mandate, and Rovean “compassionate conservatism” will once again ascend — and once again lead, down the road, to a resurgence of progressivism not compromised by icky social conservative planks in the party platform.
And they will be wrong, yet again. Or rather, they will know the mandate is a phony one, but they won’t care: it doesn’t matter to them who puts them into power. It only matters that either they have power or people like them have power. And conservatives, as we’ve seen since 2010, are less like them then are Democrats.
Statism is ascendent at the federal level. It needs to be defeating locally, and then that torch carried up to DC, where the gaseous effluvium seeping out of the two-sided faces of helmet-headed politicians will combust, and we can start again from scratch.
— Is my two cents. Feel free to add your own.