Panic of the Progressives


“The past is never dead,” William Faulkner said, “it’s not even past.” The progressives’ fury over Obama’s meltdown in last week’s debate, and their desperate efforts to get him reelected by any means possible, have to be understood in the context of the long history of the left’s attempt to impose its ideology on the United States. Though successful at capturing the universities, schools, popular culture, and most churches, the left still lusts for the presidency, where the real power lies to change America in line with their ideology. Yet for the last four decades, the left has seen what appears to be victory slip from its grasp, as their presidential standard-bearer either lost the election or betrayed their ideals once in office.

Start in 1972. The left successfully hijacked the Democratic party and imposed its ideological aims on the party’s platform: creeping socialism, dirigiste economic policy, radical egalitarianism, income redistribution, a balkanizing identity politics, institutionalized assaults on traditional morality and religion, and a foreign policy predicated on the global malignity and oppressive policies of the United States. Unfortunately for the left, America wasn’t ready for such a radical transformation, and George McGovern lost to Richard Nixon by 23 points. Yet within a year, the media-hyped Watergate scandal mortally wounded Nixon, who was replaced by the ineffectual Gerald Ford.

Then in 1975, the anti-war left was seemingly vindicated by the collapse of South Vietnam in the face of a massive invasion by the North Vietnamese with the support of the Soviets and the Chinese. The truth, of course, was very different. The U.S. had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting the South off from air support and foreign aid. Yet the perception fostered by the sympathetic media was that the left had been right: America had fought an unjust, neo-imperialist war against a nationalist movement supported by a majority of the Vietnamese, a war disguised as resistance to communist aggression. Believing the endemic corruption and tyranny of America had been made manifest both domestically and abroad, the left was sure its chance had come to finish the work started in 1972.

Enter Jimmy Carter in 1976, a one-term governor of Georgia with scant national experience. Yet Carter was the perfect Trojan horse: a Southern evangelical Christian who could appeal to traditional conservative constituencies. Once in office, however, Carter’s presidency was marked equally by incompetence and leftish ideology, his policies predicated on American retreat and weakness. This tone of apology and retreat was obvious in his inaugural speech, where he admitted America’s “recent mistakes,” suggested we should not “dwell on remembered glory,” and sighed that “even our great nations has its recognized limits” and can “simply do our best.”

A few months later, he announced that America was now free of the “inordinate fear of communism,” and so he would put the promotion of human rights at the center of foreign policy, and push for a “freeze on further modernization and production of weapons and a continuing, substantial reduction of strategic nuclear weapons as well.” Hence Carter pursued moralizing internationalism, pushed for disarmament, and emasculated the CIA. A few years later came the famous “malaise” speech, in which Carter gloomily identified “a fundamental threat to American democracy,” what he called “a crisis of confidence . . . that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.” And of course, the major causes of this “crisis” were the two American original sins: “the agony of Vietnam” and the dishonoring of the presidency by the “shock of Watergate.”

The consequences of Carter’s foreign policy of self-loathing and retreat quickly became obvious during his presidency, as the Soviet Union and its satellites went on a geopolitical rampage, and cutbacks in U.S. weapons development were met with a Soviet military buildup. Worse yet in the long run, our steady ally in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was abandoned to the tender mercies of the jihadist Ayatollah Khomeini. Soon followed the storming of our embassy and the taking of American hostages, 52 of whom were held for 444 days. Carter’s groveling outreach to the mullahs in Iran––including a secret letter delivered by leftist former Attorney General Ramsay Clark that yearned for good relations “based upon equality, mutual respect, and friendship”––followed by a poorly planned and half-hearted rescue attempt that killed 8 American soldiers, whose charred remains were gleefully poked with canes by Iranian mullahs, convinced Americans once again that progressive policies damaged America’s security and interests. Nor were they ready to embrace the self-loathing and guilt that underlay those policies.

Thus followed the long, dark night of the progressive soul, Ronald Reagan’s two terms in the White House. Reagan’s success in turning around the economy and bringing down the Soviet Union convinced brighter progressives that the old leftist playbook had to be abandoned. If they wanted the presidency, they had at least to pretend to endorse more centrist policies, particularly when it came to foreign policy. After the interregnum of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, a tanking economy allowed once again a southern governor to come to the rescue. Even better, unlike the dour, self-righteous Jimmy Carter, the “New Democrat” baby-boomer Bill Clinton was “cool,” a draft-dodger, skirt-chaser, dope-smoker, and saxophone player. More important, he was a brilliant politician who could “feel your pain” and connect with voters much more intimately than the self-righteous scold Carter ever could. At the start of his term, Clinton seemed to deliver on the progressive agenda. He started work on creating government-run health care, the progressive Holy Grail, he improved the position of homosexuals in the military, he increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and he expanded entitlements such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. Then came the debacle of the midterm elections, when Republicans seized control of both houses of Congress.

Clinton responded, of course, by his now legendary “triangulation,” tacking to the right. At the start of his second term he announced, “The era of big government is over.” He committed a mortal sin for progressives: he cooperated with Republicans in reforming welfare, striking at the heart of progressive environmental determinism by recognizing the corruption of character that follows absolving individuals of personal responsibility. He signed off on legislation eliminating two provisions of the Glass-Steagall act, which had restricted banks from getting involved in securities, and he lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%. Clinton then crippled the remainder of his presidency with the humiliating scandal created by his juvenile hijinks with a White House intern, becoming only the second president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Once more, the left had been betrayed by its political great hope.

Yet waiting in the wings was Vice President Al Gore, a progressive true believer and prophet seemingly free of the character flaws that had compromised Clinton’s presidency. But the disputed 2000 election––stolen, progressives rationalized, by George Bush and the Supreme Court’s conservatives––brought to power another Republican, this one even more hateful than Ronald Reagan. Reagan, after all, was from an earlier generation who had missed out on getting his consciousness raised by the progressive take-over of the culture in the 60s. But George Bush was a baby-boomer, a privileged, partying frat-boy who, as the leftist myth has it, found Jesus and conservatism and parlayed his family connections to take control of the White House. But the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq, and the seeming revival of the anti-war movement, reanimated the old progressive myth from the ’60s, when the left stopped another “unjust” neo-imperialist war. Yet in 2004, the Democrats nominated John Kerry, one of the Senate’s most left-wing members, but an incompetent campaigner full of rich-liberal hauteur and utterly lacking in charisma. Once more, the progressives had to spend four more years in the political wilderness.

Then in 2008 the progressive messiah arrived. A left-wing Dr. Frankenstein could not have created a candidate more perfect than Barack Obama. He was nominally black, “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” as Joe Biden put it, lacking the frightening funk of a Jesse Jackson. He was Columbia and Harvard educated, and endowed with a photogenic family. More important, unlike Kerry or Carter, he possessed a seemingly Clintonesque ability to present political bromides and slogans with a winning smile. Best of all, he was staunchly progressive, his whole adult life before 2008 spent in the belly of the leftist beast: universities and Alinsky-inspired community organizing, with two-years’ worth of service in the U.S. Senate, where he was one of its most liberal members, railing against the 2006 “surge” in Iraq, which he called a “reckless escalation” redolent of Vietnam. Provided with the political Teflon created by white guilt and the yearning for racial and political reconciliation that he exploited in his speeches, and coddled by a protective media, Obama overcame the usually toxic effects of extreme liberalism on presidential candidates.

So the media went all-in for Obama, ignoring or dismissing the troubling details from his past like his grades in college, his incomplete health records, his friendship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, and his 20 years spent in his self-confessed “spiritual guide” Jeremiah Wright’s racist, anti-American church. Even his betrayal of progressive goals like closing down Guantanamo and quickly ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not damp the progressive ardor. He partially delivered on the leftist Holy Grail of nationalized health care, ramming through Obamacare with sleazy politicking the media studiously ignored. He went on the international “apology” tour, confessing America’s past sins and validating the old leftist indictment of America as a global villain. He dismissed American exceptionalism, and instead extolled the virtues of multi-lateral diplomacy and U.N. internationalism presumably scorned by his trigger-happy cowboy predecessor.  He also proscribed waterboarding, the most effective interrogation technique we had for extracting useful intelligence, but decried as “torture” by the left. He did ramp up drone attacks, another progressive mortal sin, but one ignored by the same media that meticulously documented every one of Bush’s alleged transgressions of international law. But this backsliding, along with other lapses such as maintaining rendition and other Bush-era policies like the Patriot Act, could all be forgiven, acceptable compromises necessary to win their standard-bearer another term, when without the pressure of reelection he could be more “flexible,” as he told the Russians. So when the reelection campaign started, the media shifted from their usual ideological bias to outright partisanship. They ignored or played down anything remotely damaging to Obama, from Joe Biden’s surreal gaffes to the attempt to cover up the disastrous mistakes that led to our ambassador being murdered in Benghazi, thus deflecting attention from Obama’s failed foreign policy.

Then came the debate. Without a friendly chorus to preach to and a cheerleading media to act as a filter, Obama was revealed to be what he had been all along: a mediocre mind, a terrible politician, and an arrogant narcissist who could only smirk and grimace as Mitt Romney took him apart.

At that point, 40 years of progressive frustration and betrayal erupted into hysterical rage. The possibility of Obama’s defeat and yet another repudiation of progressive ideology suddenly became more real. No amount of media spin, from Al Gore’s altitude sickness excuse to Bob Woodward’s made-up foreign policy “crisis,” could cover up the debacle of Obama’s performance. Like children who fear they might not get what they want, the media could only throw a tantrum and attack their messiah for revealing the feet of clay they had so desperately kept hidden.

Now the progressives are panicking. They can’t create a better candidate than Obama has been for smuggling progressive ideology under the guise of soothing centrism. And they can’t stand the thought of yet another competent Republican whose term will illustrate once again the real-world failures of progressive utopianism. What this history of 40 years of dashed hopes and abject failure tells us is that from now until election day, the desperate Dems and their media errand boys will use every dirty trick to defeat Romney and preserve their dream to “fundamentally transform America.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Paul

    Brilliant …..absolutely brilliant. Thank you Mr. Thornton

    • http://twitter.com/Jcdavidson37 @Jcdavidson37

      Can't find a better summary of the socialist movement than this one, Thank Bruce. If you were a Liberal, you'd win the Pulitzer prise.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    I half expected Obama to speak to the camera and say something like

    "I can't go on anymore. I resign immediately."

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Thank GOD they don't give Presidents tenure.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Who is dumber?

    Al Gore or Joe Biden?

    • pierce

      They both graduated from good Universities, so they can't be dumb, may be stupid , but not dumb.

    • Ray Burke

      They are both dangerous loose cannons !!! How about a tie?

    • BenZacharia

      "Who is dumber?
      Al Gore or Joe Biden? "

      Yes

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Joe Biden. Al Gore.

    A wimp and a blimp.

    • kafir4life

      Or a simp and a pimp.

  • cyntia curran

    Well, George Bush's problem he wanted the hispanic vote and turn off his based over allowing milions of low skill immirgants that had their kids on the free and reduce lunch programs to be legalzied. The left hated him over the war but they like his idea of legalization of Mexicans and Central Americans. Bush was not that right exceptt on Foreign policy. A liberal boy was George W Bush not a conservative. No conservative in thier right mind would try to legalized 12 million hispanics that had were on the dole more than anyother group in the US except blacks.

  • Banastre Tarleton

    Obama has built up enough momentum over the last 3 months to carry himself over the finish line …Romney HAD to win the debate to save his political life and caught Obama off guard with his aggressiveness ; Obama will be better prepared next time and will hold his own in the final 2 debates
    In retrospect it will become clear that the Romney debate victory is the ''high water mark '' of his otherwise poor campaign

    • Philip

      God forbid!

    • http://www.facebook.com/philip.schneider.986 Philip Schneider

      Mr. Thornton is correct about Obama but gives a startlingly wrong assessment of the media. The MEDIA IS IN THE TANK with Obama and is part and parcel of the liberal progressive democrat machine. Romney/Ryan and We the People not only have to beat Obama and the democrat machine, we have to find a way to NULLIFY their media too.
      `
      * * * * * * * * Obama G E T O U T ! ! !

    • Andy H.

      Are you confident enough about your prediction to put money up to bet? My bet is that his autistic performance in the debate has given Obama ulcers that are gnawing away at his innards eating up his self-confidence. He is intelligent enough to realize that the guttersnipes who have been running his campaign and feeding him infantile lines to insult Romney are not working and that he has no substance on which to run, aside from his attempts to demonize Romney and lure the Communist out in unemployed Americans. My bet is that the next time he confronts a smiling, personable, civilized Romney in debate, he will fall apart altogether and will begin to stutter. If Romney takes off his gloves – which he should but probably won't because he is too much of a gentleman – and hits Obama with Rev. Wright and his romance with Islam, with Operation Fast & Furious and his support for the Arab Spring that led to the killing of the ambassador, Obama may have a coronary on the spot.

      • Banastre Tarleton

        Well go on over to INTRADE , you can triple your money in 1 month ….I actually do have 4 k on Obama and it does seem like a safe wager ….INTRADE is OBAMA 64%…Romney 36% and that is a far more accurate prediction than any so called'' poll ''

    • Kalman42

      And Obama might yet win another Nobel price to push him over the top! For debating skills ? For total lack of substance?

  • Banastre Tarleton

    Everything that Thornton writes here is true , but Obama is STILL GOING TO WIN …we conservatives are outnumbered by a coalition of ethnic identity politics , goverment entitlements and many voters , mostly women and young folks, who have been seduced by the fawning media and Liberal Hollwood's view of Obama
    America can survive Obama , who is really just a self deluded fool acting out the role of ''President '' in a made for TV movie , but can America survive the coalition of fools who elected him and seem destined to do it again ?

    Barry Dunham stars in ''MR PRESIDENT '' as the one and only .''Barak Hussein Obama ''…winner of 7 academy awards

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Obama can win if Voter Fraud is used.

      Voter ID benefits honest people. The DNC is against Voter ID because the DNC can't win on Obamas record. A record of failed policies and lies.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      When Obama delivers another deer in the headlights debate, it's all over for his campaign.

  • Philip

    Yes, a pleasure to read. It’s what they have in their hearts. Pity. They would be better off if America stayed America, the whole world would, but they can’t see it.

  • Pam Dale

    Great article! Thanks for wrapping it up all so concisely.

  • sononthe_beach

    An awesome article, and really one of the best I have ever read. Never stop writing!

  • cruiser navy 67

    Reality has finally hit the Left, people do not want Communism/Marxist rule as was thought. The puppet strings have been cut, the puppet is dead.

    • garyhope

      I hope you're right Cruiser.

  • Mach1Duck

    I cannot say who will win this coming election; but, I can without reservation say that Obama is a bully with a bus. He cannot take criticism. All Romeny has to do is attack Obama's character and performance, Obama will fold. He can dish it out but cannot take it. We saw this with Joe the Plumer. The remaining debates will show the true cololrs of both men.

  • popseal

    This history should be taught in every classroom in America. At 67 years old and a Vietnam vet' (two tours), I can assert the accuracy of every word. I look for a flood of faux good news generated around the world by Obama's elitist support among MSM, Bilderbergs, and Davos Summit reptiles. The loss of their SOCK PUPPET IN THE WHITE HOUSE and his replacement by anybody close to an ethical capitalist would be a body blow for the ages against their anti America, 'one world/nation' movement.

  • marios

    Great honest analysis. Socialism failed in each and every country but leftists still trying imposing on us that horror regime. Why? Socialism means dictatorship and Power for ever. Leftists/progressive humanity effort against prosper South Rhodesia which fed half of Africa transform that country to Zimbabwe (new name of that formerly country) with Mugabe president. Now it is one of the poorest country in Africa with unemployment rate 90% , criminal rate over imagination and their black population dream about return white Government to survive them. Too late. The same very likely can be with our great country if BHO reelection. G-d help us and Mitt Romney!

  • Schlomotion

    Mr. Thornton, I don't know how you managed to excise William Faulkner from Progressivism when his Nobel Prize speech is oozing with progressive goodwill and he was heralded by revolutionary intellectual writers from South America in the 1950s. You swerve from the literary to the political to the historical like a drunk driver. I don't think President Obama is Progressive at all. This theory that he is only cleaning up the mess of the Republicans doesn't ring true to me, also, that excuse absolves him of making any progress, doesn't it? He need only be perceved to be marginally better than his competitors. That's not Progressivism. that's not blazing a new path. He is no Theodore Roosevelt.

    And about the Vietnam War. Why the conspiracy theory? The US lost while it was winning. The US lost when it lost. There was corruption, tyranny, lying, so why make it out into a military retreat and a massive media conspiracy? Geopolitical analysts accept the fact that guerillas using asymmetrical warfare can defeat technologically superior forces. You alone seem to deny this, in contrast to the Pentagon, and in contrast to Brzezinski. It reminds me of people in the Deep South who are still trying to fight the battle against long hair for boys.

    I think you separate things that are not diametrically opposed. Carter was a great President, and the malaise speech was accurate. Reagan gave what people prefer: happiness and lies. However, Reagan was was a great President too and did break the Soviet Union. However, he had a great disdain for Congress and ran half of the government illegally. Did you also notice that the US is economically collapsing? Do you tell yourself that this is all Barack Obama's fault, or do you tell yourself that the US barely survived the Cold War, squandered the peace, got itself bogged down in Afghanistan too, and is apparently trying to duplicate the failures of the USSR? I say the latter.

    I don't think you can really stick Obama on the progressives as much as you would like to.

    • Ghostwriter

      Well,there is evidence that President Obama does believe in progressivism to a large extent. It also seems to be,Schlomotion,that you would prefer President Obama to Mitt Romney. You seem to like Jimmy Carter. Most Americans,don't. Many from that time remember the long gas lines and they don't want to go back to those days. You,however do.

      • Schlomotion

        Your use of "seems" stinks to high heaven. You are so obsessed with how people are perceived, even to the exclusion of facts. I never voted for Obama, and I don't plan to. I don't "seem to prefer Obama." I don't support either of these candidates. As for Carter, yes I do like him, and I am "from that time" and remember 1977-1981 very well.

        • Pontotoc Bill

          SchloMo, I am also "from that time" and remember Jimmy Carter quite well. As a president, Jimmy Carter was the most inept and incompetent politician I have seen, until Barack Obama.

          Your actual words do NOT support your diatribe. Your words do shaw a preference for Obama.

          • Schlomotion

            Well maybe my words can go vote for him while my hands write-in Ron Paul.

  • cyntia curran

    Well, the newly hispanics that Bush brought in made it possible for Obama to win in Florida. Hispanics that are legal or illegals with thieir children are more on welfare than whites as a percentage. Child welfare now in total numbers is hispanic. ROmeny needs not to listen to Marco Rubo or George W Bush.

  • Western Spirit

    How could Carter be both an Evangilical Christian and a progressive? He couldn't, so you have to look at his actions to decide the matter. Actions that prove beyond doubt that Carter was and is a Progressive and only a professed Christian without credentials providing proof of such a profession.

    What we do speaks much louder than mere words.

  • Peter B.

    Humpty O'Dumpty sat on the wall
    Humpty O'Dumpty had a great fall
    All the king's horses and all the king's men (incl the MSM)
    Are desperate to put O'Dumpty together again

    But expect that Mitt Romney may have something more to say about that before Nov. 6th

  • David Olds

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  • NMad

    Based on personal talks with liberals and conservatives(which is not a scientific process, but it's anecdotal), it seems to me that the biases in play are as follows: Liberals will vote for an incompetent liberal over a competent christianist. Conservatives will vote for an incompetent christianist and paternalist over a competent liberal. Ultimately it seems to come down to religion, and other closely related social outlook. the rest of this analysis (and your well written article) seems to miss the mark, and meander around analyzing secondary and tertiary observations.

  • amused

    What the heck is a "christianist " ? Hope you dot mean Romney , who is a member of a cult , yup Mormonism is a cult complete with a phony bible , redacting the original just like the muslims …how ironic . But that aside , you got it wrong , just like the author of this steaming pile of B.S. wrapped in conservative pipedreams . No one is furious , no one'melted down ". Romney's gone from roughly an 11% chance of winning to about a 22% chance . Yea he got a bump , but to assume that one debate will wrap up anything for Romney is ridiculous . Although on this blog reality takes a backseat to propaganda . The issues are still there , Romney is still Romney , Still no solutions just more les and half-truths that did not escape the notice of anyone relevant ….and that being the undecided votes . Everyone knows Romney stands for big buisness , tax cuts for the rich , cheap chinese labor , offshoring of jobs , revamping of medicare to vouchers , and is against organized labor . One Obama stumble will not erase thes hardfacts about Romney .

  • pyeatte

    Maybe Obama can get Bill Clinton to stand-in for him, for the next two debates.

  • marios

    Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim. Any person born from Muslim father is Muslim till the last gasp according to Koran and Sharia law. If ht/she not converted to another religion but it is not the case. Rev. Write never confirm that he converted to Christianity and there is no corresponding record on it. By the way any Muslim converted consider as apostate and must be by Sharia law be annihilated. All Muslims in the world and sure, in US, voted for BHO. About Romney, he is great accomplished businessman, decent American patriot, the best Man who can survive our country and all of us.

  • marios

    MSM controlled by liberals/leftists created image of genius of "empty suite" leftists radical who hates America, hates whites, who accomplished nothing and was even deprived on lawyer license for fraud info. The same rotten corrupted MSM created negative image of great personality who was wonderful governor (state with big deficit transform in state with proficit), who survived Winter Salt City Olympics, etc. He is good Christian and the same vile MSM Mormons as cult. The same smear reputation had in history Protestantism, Adventists, etc. Overall non of Christians or any other religions openly proclaimed as Islamists "Islam will dominate in the world".

  • http://tarandfeathersusa.wordpress.com/ Iratus Vulgas

    Convinced of the media's over-hyped praise that's constantly heaped upon them, progressives march around in a never ending victory parade as if they've won something. Meanwhile, conservatives must fight uphill every day against the deceit,, mischaracterizations, and downright hatred of their principles. The Right has on-the-field experience dealing with their opposition, the Left has not. Progressives haven't yet gotten used to the kind of resistance they get from their conservative counterparts. Can there be any question which side is stronger?

  • amused

    When quizzed on his 5 trillion dollar tax cut , Romney denied that outright – LIE / He actually proposed a 4.3 trillion dollar tax cut , and offered no hint of WHO would Pay for it ,. WHAT would be cut , or WHO would be affected . Anyone with the intelligence enough to fact check Romney's claims and statements could easily glean what was B.S. and what wasn't .

  • mlcblog

    underlaid

  • mlcblog

    Nice article!!

  • burt

    Romney wins: 40/10 w/o DNC cheating
    30/20 with.
    —————————————————————-
    Hello, Prez. Romney! :)
    Hello, Vice Prez. Ryan!
    Hell with you, MSM urinalists!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/marvin.fox.526 Marvin Fox

    The Progressives/Socialists/Marxists/Democrats may be looking askance at B.O's debate performance, but the cement of their Marxist realities have not been sullied by a minor hatred for a momentary loss of Leftwing momentum. The entire crew of politically homely misfits will be producing the much needed voting machinations by every means possible for Obama's reelection.
    I am Voting for Romney and Ryan.
    Marvin Fox

  • cynthia curran

    That's not hard, it depends upon what you read in the bible, Amos was hard on the rich while Paul states you work. The bible can be use for book the left and right. Jim Wallis uses the old testement rule where the land want back to a tribal group every 50 years. Evangelical christians need to look at every in whole in the bible or church history. Thomas Aquanas was more pro property than Francis of Assi. So, there has always been a right/left christian divsion going back to the middle ages read Paul Johnson book the history of Christianity. Just being a christian is not enough to be a conservative you need to study the issues and study the past. This is explaining how Jimmy Carter came to a progressive. Martin Luther had to combat the Christian Left in the Peasant REvolt.

  • amused

    LOL….we'll see

  • WilliamJamesWard

    I consider that it is not all about Obama and his character but what has become of the
    character of the American people. Is duplicity, out and out lying as and acceptable
    standard, self adulation, delusional personal appraisal and of course dishonesty at
    the core of the soul, the left gives this to it's adherents as a modus perfectus. Obama
    can go fly a kite but what will we have for a future as it seems half of the apple is rotten.
    William

  • clarespark

    Here is yet another example of America as seen by Herman Melville in contrast to the post-colonialist Mafia in academe: http://clarespark.com/2009/09/06/the-hebraic-amer…. "Hebraic American Landscape: Sublime or Despotic"? Nice for Columbus Day. Before there were "Progressives" there were Americans who believed in political progress and that Americans would lead the way.

  • Michael Canzano

    Thank you B.O. for the 16 Trillion dollar abyss of "Political Incorrectness".
    I still have to balance my check book.

  • stuart williamson

    The key element missing from this excellent run-down of the Democrats turning into the National Socialists, is leaving the impression that Obama had worked his way up through the party machine through customary exercise of political skills. His impassioned claims that "You didn't build that!" reflect the truth that he has never ben a leader – always a benefactor of those carried away by his physical apeal and his flamboyant delivery of socialist platitudes. His nomination for the Presidency was a set-up by the Chicago Alinsky neo-communists, who perceived that, by ignoring his shortcomings and completely stifling and destroying records of his weak background, they could build a vast marketing campaign based solely on his spell-bindinng, trickle-up-the-leg oratory. the Audacity of Hype! He was scammed into the White House and has remained merely the front-man, the puppet of the Chicago cabal, orchestrated by David Axelrod.

    Their problem – and they have always known this – is the great likelihood of a person of mediocre intellect and high arrogance, pursued by adoring worshippers and sycophants, supported by complicit press and broadcast propagandists, and giddy with the perks of of wealth and high office, becoming so self-inflated and convinced of his own superiority, that he would reject any wise counsel, rebel against any hint of criticism, do it "My Way", and blow their scam. They HAD to get him into a second term. They would never get such a chance again.

    Now their fears are coming to pass: being kept in his office and "doing his homework" is a :drag"; being told he should drop the campaign spell-binding for the debate and try to come across as more reasoned and Presidential. He wanted it to be like 2008 – soaring oratory and visions of rising seas and glorious future, not boring exchanges of economic or taxation issues. So he decided to show them that they were wrong, and just sulked and fumbled. And he certainly made his case! He doesn't dig debate – he goes for Gospel! Next time his staff will let him have his way, go into his cozy community-organizer campaign mode, and lose even bigger, albeit with the approval of his running dogs. Axelrod's big nightmare is about to come reality.

  • amused

    wishfull thinking abounds , the reality ? the potential votes Romney NEEDS to win , STILL have not any idea of what Romney's solutions are . my guess is that he will leave that to Ryan in the V.P. debates , and then he can disavow from those positions on friday morning . no one is buying vouchers over medicare , or tax cuts for the rich , which will be paid for by cutting essential progrms ,and by taxing the middle class. In addition , attempting to repeal Obama care of which parts of are already in effect and favored . Perceptions of "Romney's economics a taxation " are well known , and that percetion has not changed . So don't count your chickens before they 're hatched .

  • tagalog

    There's a strong tendency among Americans to help those in need and to root for the underdog. The Left made the most of this tendency to warp it into socialist/collectivist politics. They've been very successful because many people are susceptible to the idea that right-wingers believe that "you're on your own." That resounds. But Americans also have a lot of innate conservatism, so they know in a corner of their hearts that compassion for others isn't absent from the Right.

    The problem for the Left is that Americans tend not to be drawn to Leftist ideology. Leftist ideology is far too hard-hearted for most of us. Also the history of hard Left governments is repugnant to Americans.

    So the right hasn't lost its attraction for probably about 60% to 70% of Americans. But we also want to be sure we're not seen as racist, so the attraction of Obama for Americans on a racial basis continues and that's why the polls are so close to 50-50.

  • Roy M Carlisle

    Dear Bruce (may I call you Bruce?)
    Obviously you have not read Recarving Rushmore by Ivan Eland, PhD. It is a book that might provide some actual insight into your understanding of the Presidency and how it should be evaluated. Your assessment is unfortunately uninformed about more scholarly evidence about what has actually happened in the history of the Presidency, from Washington to Bush. No doubt there will always be partisan screeds about presidents like yours but as libertarian/free market/limited government as my own views are I would still like a more nuanced discussion about presidents and their policies. Thanks, Roy M Carlisle

  • Eliana

    Hi Jim,
    Bart forwarded to me this article. I wonder it it is a joke, a satire, or serious.
    I hope we have a chance to talk personally about it.

    Much love,
    Eliana