Journal pudge's Journal: Obama Hates Dissent 6
Back before Obama even started publicly running for the presidency, I remember a speech he gave in which he said all Americans should put aside their disagreements and come together. I liked what he had to say, but I couldn't shake the feeling that by "come together" he meant "agree with me."
When he gave his State of the Union address, it was the same thing, but more obvious. He said he wanted us to put aside our "petty grievances" and have "unity of purpose," and that we should not have "conflict" or "discord" or "recriminations;" that if we believed, due to "worn-out dogmas," that our government is too big (and therefore, in our opinion, takes away too much of our liberty), then we are focusing on "childish things" and our "stale political arguments" no longer apply.
Translation: if you disagree with Obama, if you don't share his "purpose" or agenda -- even for principled reasons shared by most of the founders of this country -- then you are not part of us.
A lot of people didn't hear that subtext, or didn't want to. But it's proven to be more than just words. Obama has asked Americans to report people who disagree with his health care plan to the White House; he redefines "disagreement" as "spreading misinformation," of course, to make it sound good (not that misinformation doesn't exist, but it's on both sides, clearly; and further, the White House has no business being the arbiter of what is, and isn't, true).
He attacked the Tea Parties, which brought millions of Americans together in opposition to his plans, as merely astroturfing.
He later said in his health care reform speech he "will not waste time" with people who oppose his plans, instead choosing to question their motives as purely political.
He refused to do an interview with Fox News Channel only because of FNC's political leanings.
Now his two top advisors are saying that FNC is "not really news," which was said only to incite a culture war, drawing a divide between millions of Americans in a cynical attempt to throw his detractors overboard and to keep the Good Ship Obama afloat. He's already said he "will not waste time" with people who oppose his plan, so why not alienate them intentionally, if it will shore up his base? (And by the way, where's the rest of the media attacking Obama for attacking Fox? It used to be that the media took such attacks personally, even if not directed at themselves.)
If Bush had done any of these things, the left would have gone completely nuts over it. But when Obama does it, that's perfectly acceptable. Even desirable.
Bush caused division in this country by unapologetically pushing an agenda that much of the country disagreed with, even hated. Obama -- who is guilty of the same thing, of course -- is causing even more division in this country by actively pursuing it, in order to exploit it for political gains.
James Madison said in Federalist 10 that one of the "two methods of removing the causes of faction" is "by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." He adds, "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is
The only "unity of purpose" we can expect Americans to share is that of securing individual liberty, and maintaining the government that so secures it. Obama surely knows he cannot force everyone to have a "unity of purpose" in creating new and massive government programs; so, instead, he is pretending that if you don't share in that purpose -- an individual right which government is designed to protect -- then you are the enemy.
I submit that a President so disdainful of expressions of liberty is the problem, and not the people with such expressions, whatever they may be.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
well done (Score:1)
A lot of people didn't hear that subtext, or didn't want to.
How very true. I was mostly guilty of the latter -- intellectually of course I knew his basically "let's be nice" campaign platitudes really amounted to "let's agree with me". But, not knowing the guy, and giving him the benefit of the doubt at the time, I took them as merely that -- campaign platitudes. I didn't know at the time that he would actually pursue it as a course of action, and with a vengeance. All campaigners say things like that -- ho
Moo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more than that, though. It's not just about the fact of dissent: it's a hatred for the reasons why people dissent, why they have differences of opinion. More to come ...
Re: (Score:2)
The assault on Humana should be a clear indicator how this administration plans on handling descent. In fact, we seldom remember the small group of investors/stockholders who were muscled into accepting below market value for their shares in GM.
I think the statement about Fox may serve to help galvanize the left, but I also think its a not so subtle reminder to liberal media outlets that the usual satire at the presidents expense will not be tolerated (here's looking at you SNL). GE is tightly in bed with t
Noticed that (Score:2)
I've noticed that there seems to be a snotty sense of entitlement about his crew. David Axelrod in the WSJ today was basically warning the health insurance industry to stop running ads critical of the "reform" process. That just isn't helpful, you see, and we won't stand for that.
It was like "how dare you oppose what we're doing? Who gave you the right???"
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the mafia style warning that the White House has been giving to their media cronies too. "Dont follow Fox". I dont think it was so much an attack on Fox, but more of a shot across the bow that they had better start ignoring any criticism and keep pushing the talking points... or else.
I recently received a warning from my bank about some more legislation that is being passed that will restrict/reduce their ability to collect transaction fees from vendors. They came out and said clearly that 60% of th