Implicit in the title The Election of a Black President Has Meant Nothing is that America expected that racial tensions would be healed by the election and reelection Barrack Hussein Obama if only America gave a black man a chance to sit in the oval office.
Throughout the text of his elegy for hopes dashed, Dennis Prager demonstrates the fanciful notions long-peddled by the entrenched Republican hierarchy ("he's a nice man" said John McCain at the beginning of his campaign to defeat Obama)
The greatest hope most Americans -- including Republicans -- had when Barack Obama was elected president was that the election of a black person as the country's president would reduce, if not come close to eliminating, the racial tensions that have plagued America for generations.
Not stated by Mr. Prager, but seeping from the words in his essay, is that those expectations arose from a sense of a need to appease the angry charges, and prove them wrong, that America is racist today because she was racist in the past.
We know from countless events in history, but most tragically by the rise of the German Third Reich before WW II, that appeasement does not work. Indeed, we know that appeasement contributed mightily to Hitler escalating his demands due to the timidity he saw in the then leaders of other nations. So bad were their early dalliances that they came very close to providing him the time and resources to defeat them all. (Oh, by the way, be prepared to snicker at those who want to charge me with violation of Godwin's Law for the buffoons they are. I'm of the generation that was schooled to notice how Hitler (and Lenin and Mao) rose to power. Those buffoons are either useful idiots or fellow travelers, and you should add their names to your list.)
What is more alarming to me is that we have had similar dalliances going on within our country. Those who love the notion of a large omnipotent government -- what I mean when I repeatedly refer to Statism -- are now in the highest seats of power and influence now that many of the structural mechanisms, meant to check the centralization of unlimited power, have been defeated.
Throughout my life, and for decades before it, the Statist goals of the Progressives were incrementally advanced. Slowly. They mastered the art of the aggressive compromise so that their movement prevailed with "two steps forward, one step back" successes.
In my mind, their methodology of incrementally undermining all societal institutions that had been designed to keep governments small and in check has been about the only thing progressive about Progressives. Progressive rot.
I ask the questions:
How best for those in power and wishing for more to put a final nail in the Constitution that was intended by its ratifiers to be the obstacle to dictatorial rule?Before I answer, let me point to a recent Daniel Greenfield essay, Looking for Racism in America.
The author repeatedly makes good use of the phrase "grievance theater," a term whose earliest use so far points to Debra Burlingame in 2006. The headliners in that theater engage in victimoguery, a term created to distinguish it from common demagoguery.
"Grievance theater" is the latest form of older Leftist tools. It combines what was known as street theater and agitprop. An example was staged in my Congressional district back in 1994. Were I as experienced then as now, I would have come prepared with allies for employing relatively easy countermeasures. As always, it is my hope that my mistakes might help prepare you or your kids and save you from repeating them.
As is the case with all demagoguery, the aim of victimoguery is personal gain at the expense of however many victims are necessary. It is happy to get volunteers to play the part of victims, it is thrilled when that generates in even more copycats, and it could care less (and possibly even delighted) that the groups it claims to be protecting become even greater victims as a consequence of their machinations. As Mr. Greenfield puts it:
Grievance Theater isn’t about race, it’s not about slavery, police brutality or separate lunch counters. It’s about power and money.When victimogues win, the world is worsened.
My answer to the question above is very unpleasant. The final nail would come from unrest provoked by the very people in power who have sworn to uphold the laws of the land and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Although the declaration of marshal law and suspension of habeas corpus has happened here before, such a paradox where the very officials in charge of maintaining order overtly or covertly provoke unrest, that is where they've crossed the Rubicon. It signals their complete contempt for the constitution and the limits it imposes upon them.
Under cover of the victimogues demands for "social justice," (trumped up as white versus black, especially since George Zimmerman is himself part black in addition to being a member of another minority that the victimogues love to pretend they love) any mayhem, not even on a large scale (given the media's skill to make and influence in making every thing small big and everything big small) could provide DC with their Reichstag Fire.
Finally, given that the Senate GOP caved to the threats of Harry Reid abolishing the filibuster while I was composing this essay, it may appear that the title of this post would be particularly apt in its timing. However, given we know which members of the GOP senate (and their history) were most eager to accept Reid's aggressive compromise, an offer that bears all the earmarks of extortion ("Give us 5 of the 7 nominees or accept all 7"), then it would appear that they are merely spineless, or stupid or both. Enough of us thinking like that, it is no wonder they continue to betray our hopes. We are accepting excuses for weakness where something more sinister can easily be afoot. How many times can they be allowed such discretion?
I'm of the school that warns
"once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; thrice is incoming action."And these GOP members have done it so many times most of you call them RINOs. OMG already! For the sake of your nation and in honor of all the men who fought and died so that your life is so much better than your grandparents', come to agree that those senators live up to the label GuyS invented for them: SKUNCs. Statists Knowingly Undermining the Nation's Constitution.
In the case of the SKUNCs, they in complicity with Harry Reid, made it appear like appeasement since the SKUNCs are masters at what forms of extortion they can convince their base to swallow. And just like with appeasement, the next demands for more appeasement cannot be far away. At least the appearance of it.
Appeasement or stagecraft, it does not matter. Accepting either does not work. Is it not time we learn that is a fact of life and decide to deal with it?
Thus it behooves those who understand what I've laid out in this post to force the removal of all the SKUNCs one way or the other. Find and reveal their likely crookedness in other affairs and force their resignations. Demand that elections be held to recall them from their office perhaps. But they must be removed before Obama and/or Reid provide them another "aggressive compromise" for them to act like they simply cannot refuse the offer.