Do You Remember? — a pre-Praetorian On-line Debate


Please read at least the last few lines of this essay!

Do you remember? It was all the way back in early 2009. Barack Obama had just been sworn in as President of the United States and the left thought they had caught the right in a real “Ah-HAH!” moment.

Some talking head or other asked some Conservative or other — might have been Rush Limbaugh — if he wanted Obama to fail. The response was simple: Yes, the Conservative wanted Obama to fail in his efforts to transform the country.

The talking head, of course, immediately leaped to the conclusion that the Conservative dude had said something to the effect that he hoped that Obama — and therefore the country — would fail. The talking head assumed that Obama’s arrival in the Presidency meant: more jobs, end of the financial crisis, the arrival, and success, of “soft power” to our diplomacy, the end of racial strife, the end of crime, poverty, disease, rising seas and melting poles… In other words, unsupported by anything the Conservative had actually said, the air-headed talking head took it to — and beyond — the next level, and concluded that the Conservative wanted the country and the world to fail. The left said — as one entity — “See?!? See?!? These crazy right-wingers don’t want to work for the betterment of the country! They just want to prevent Obama from succeeding in putting our country back on track!”

Remember all that? I do.

The talking head forgot one thing: It’s entirely possible — and subsequent events militate heavily in this direction — that Obama wanted the country to fail, if that failure could be ascribed to the previous administration, and, therefore, the previous structure.

Remember how relentlessly everything was George W. Bush’s fault, no matter what it was, no matter how long after Bush had left office? I do.

There’s a reason for that. If  everything is George W. Bush’s fault — in other words, if all bad things can be tagged as having resulted from the previous administration and the previous structure and the previous way of doing things, then everything must change. Of course, the next logical step is — read it well: everything must change according to the desires, and will of the duly elected President of these United States. And, the sooner the better.

Sound familiar? “Fundamental change?” Sound a little — ok, a whole heckuva lot — like Barack Obama’s 2008 election slogan? Yes it does!

We on the right spent weeks trying to pound it into the left’s collective cement-filled noggin that we feared simply that Obama’s success — in enacting his agenda — would result in America’s failure, and that we didn’t want that. Hence we hoped that all Obama’s initiatives would fail in the Congress.

The left, of course, had publicly, loudly, constantly, vociferously, frothingly, operatically said exactly the same thing of George W. Bush an extremely short time before that. Then, you see, it was valid…but post-election 2008, that was no longer a legitimate feeling. Not only was it an illegitimate feeling, but it was prima facie proof of racism on the part of those who felt it!

Everyone in the country was duped by this transparently moronic reasoning, not least of all, the asker of the question, who thought he had neatly trapped the Conservative dude.

The asker’s error? Simple: there was not only one possible conclusion resulting from the response to his question. If the Conservative had responded, “Yes, I hope for Obama to fail, and as a result America succeeds wildly” that at least would have set the debate going in the right direction. Of course the left would have howled, “Racism!!! Racism!!!” but we could have shot right back, “No, we had exactly the same feeling upon the arrival of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as well.”(*1) The point: at least the debate would have begun with the premise that Conservatives have always been focused on: America’s success.

We on the right are appearing more and more prescient as the days pass, as the numbers of full-time employed fall, as the numbers of part-employed rise, as taxes, expenses, costs, fees, prices — as real burdens — grow and grow and grow. As work-force participation plummets to rock-bottom levels. In these days of gathering gloom it is scant relief to hearken back to those sunnier days when we only saw the killer clouds on the horizon. Yet, it is some relief.

With that preamble, years ago — 2009, in fact, I had an on-line debate with a nutcase leftist who blogs under the name of Madeline Kane — Mad Kane(*2).

Needless to say, the debate resulted very quickly in Mad Kane (*3) threatening — and following through — to censor me. This is the stock-in-trade of the left.

One of the posts, however that she allowed through — I suspect it was one of the last — was the following:

xPraetorius: You’re better at limericks than I, so this will be a prose response. Surely you — a lawyer — should be able to see through that silliness [the “Do you want Obama to fail” question]. It was pretty elementary.

A bunch of commentators ask the most obviously hostile, ambush, darned-if-you-do-darned-if-you-don’t, immature, ludicrous question possible (“So, you want him to fail, do ya? Huh? Huh? Huh?”), and you, an educated person, miss that? How did you not see even the remotest possibility that the “Yes, I want him to fail.” response could mean — did mean — “I want him to fail to enact his agenda, because such an agenda would be a disaster”?

Any president — with an aging hippie’s agenda crammed full of warmed over 60’s lefty horse manure — whose agenda then failed to make it through Congress, would be seen as a failure of a President. Or as an ineffective or inept President. Or some other kind of failure. But the country would be the better off for his having “failed.”

Historical examples abound. If Only Hitler had failed to get his agenda enacted! Or Stalin! Oh, the sugared words that Stalin used. Read the 1936 Soviet Constitution some day! Beautiful words about equality, freedom of worship, and of thought, and of speech. My favorite part of that Constitution? The abolition of the death penalty! If only someone could have made Stalin fail!

Anyone with any love for America at all, and an ounce of understanding of history and/or economics hoped and prayed for Obama to fail… to get his agenda through Congress.

The part that is really scary is that all the left — no exceptions — failed to admit to the possibility that the real meaning of “I want Obama to fail” concerned the enactment of Obama’s agenda. Talk about lock-step, mob mentality, sheep-like group think!

And it was not in the slightest difficult to understand this either. I heard any number of right-wing commentators explain it. That can only mean that many, many — the vast majority? All? — on the left lied about that question and its response. Or worse: they were too blinkered by ideological rigidity that they couldn’t even admit to any other possibility.

If you have any honesty whatsoever, you will at least admit that “hoping Obama fails” means hoping that his agenda fails to be enacted. And that “hoping Obama fails” means “hoping the country succeeds massively.”

If you need any further convincing, I might simply point you to all those many, many liberal Democrats who made it clear that they hoped that George W. Bush would succeed in all that he tried.

Oh…oops. There weren’t any. Nope. Not a one. And not a hint of suggestion in ANY media anywhere — even on the right — that their fervent, open, loudly trumpeted desire to make a President fail was in any way inappropriate. We all heard it, time and time again: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!”

The real truth from us conservatives whom you on the left so love to demonize: we hoped and prayed that Obama would understand, once he was President, that the policies he was advocating would be disastrous for the country. Not wanting that, we hoped, he would govern from the center, and maybe, just maybe, do this center-right country some good.

And succeed wildly as the country flourished. That was our real hope. It always has been for every president who has ever occupied the White House. Including President Obama.

But, as soon as he arrived in office, President Obama made it clear that he was moving even further to the left than anything in his campaign ever even remotely hinted. Of course we on the right wanted his agenda to fail to be enacted! Of course we on the right wanted president Obama to fail…to fail to enact the agenda about which he had proven so blatantly dishonest.

If you have any honesty whatsoever, you can disagree with me, but admit that my point of view is understandable; reasonable even. Not unpatriotic. Not racist. Not mean, cruel, petty, stupid, moronic, fascistic or any other of the vast repertoire of epithets in the leftist armory. Valid. And reasonable. And it’s even understandable how I — and millions of others — could hold that point of view. Reasonably. Thoughtfully. Even patriotically.

That was all there for you on the left to hear and see, if you were willing to perceive it. We all said it millions and millions of times. But you didn’t listen, and in your minds, painted us as racists, and haters, and idiotic, IQ-deprived nitwits. And you were wrong. Tragically, maliciously wrong.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if some honest leftist (I hope that’s not an oxymoron) had immediately condemned that pathetic question as a dishonest ambush question, not worthy of being posed by a serious journalist?

Let’s face it: the left would have waxed positively operatic in their condemnation of the question if someone had posed it in confronting a Democrat actively trying to prevent President Bush’s agenda from making it through Congress. The angry, indignant, how-dare-you denunciations would have positively rained down on the hapless reporter with the temerity to confront a Nancy Pelosi or a Barney Frank as they loudly proclaimed their goal of making George W. Bush fail.

Now, as a true conservative, I carry no brief for George W. Bush, but the truth should compel you to admit that your “side” treated Bush with way more contempt and hatred and scorn and opprobrium and vituperation and viciousness than that which you accuse Republicans of using against President Obama.

You were wrong…180 degrees wrong. Now, will you man up and admit it?

After that — of course! — “Mad Kane” censored all future replies from me. Coward! Like the vast majority of the left!

Also, needless to say, “Mad Kane” never admitted she was wrong. The left seem incapable of it. But she was wrong…tragically, sadly, very badly wrong. And the Great Obama Decline heads toward the Great Obama Depression. The economic numbers and the direction in which we are headed are both desperate. Graph out where these trends — along with demographic directions(*4) — and you see nothing good for all humanity in the near- mid- or long-term future.

That leaves only one option…for a later blog post.

— xPraetorius

NOTES:


(*1) – Previous Democrats (Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt…) are before the scope of this essay. The right’s relationship with them was more nuanced. The Democrats, beginning with the hard-left lurch of George McGovern began to put increasingly clearly extreme-leftists at the top of their tickets, making it easier to oppose them across the board, on nearly purely ideological grounds.

(*2) – No argument from me

(*3) – She is mad as a hatter. A true blind follower of the leftist-feminist-braindead-environmentalist-racialist agenda. Somehow, I enjoy from time to time taking on these idiots in debate. They always cry “Uncle!” or “Aunt!” with the usual: (1) You’re a racist, (2) you’re a sexist, (3), you’re a homophobe, (4) you’re a warmonger, (5) the catch-all: you’re a right-wing extremist. And (6) “You’re not worth debating (this is for their own self-esteem after we’ve roundly trounced them in debate), so I’m marking all your posts as spam.”

All leftists are cowards, who are absolutely terrified of defending their cockamamie ideas in a genuinely fair fight with other ideas.

I think I argue with these blockheads because I enjoy the challenge of seeing how long I can keep them in debate — before they realize they’re in over their heads, and bail out. Note: this does not represent any credit to me; just to the viability of my ideas and beliefs. If, all other things being equal, you have better bats, gloves and teammates, you are going to win the baseball game…if, that is, the other team doesn’t just up and leave, whining about cheating, or no fair or skewed playing fields… 🙂

(*4) Russia – birthrate way below replacement rate — basket case. Western Europe – birthrate way below replacement rate… basket case. China – demographic basket case:

…there’s another country in the rapidly aging camp too: China. By 2030 they’ll have a greater proportion of the elderly than the United States. This is one reason why I’m skeptical of alarmism about China’s imminent takeover of the world. I don’t doubt that China will continue to grow and flex its muscles, but in the long term they have a demographic time bomb to deal with that’s worse than ours, and they’ll have to tackle it as a considerably less wealthy country than us. [Editor’s note: “they’ll have to tackle it” What on earth does that mean?!? Can you hear the future echoes of millions and millions and millions and millions and millions — billions? — of dead people? If that simple phrase alone is not one to convert you to the “limited government” cause, then you are hopeless! 🙂 ] It doesn’t mean they’re doomed, but it does mean that their path to world domination has a few roadblocks in its way [emphasis added]

“A few roadblocks?” Ya freakin’ think?!? They’re in very serious trouble.

Advertisements

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s