Skip to comments.The 2012 election and the Obama/Romney divide
Posted on 09/24/2012 11:56:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In Bill Clintons 21st-century rendering of the American Dream presented at the 2012 Democratic Convention, prosperity comes by means of a nation of shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community. Thats the Democratic narrative.
Since the Civil Rights era, the essential question underlying Democratic Party governance has been the following: Is it the party of America and, by implication, that broad-based constituency we refer to as the middle class or is it the party of the disenfranchised?
The catastrophe of Barack Obamas administration is that he has forced the locus of the Democratic Party from the center to the far left. In doing so he has shifted the partys focus from the universal claims of a common American identity and pursuit of economic opportunity to multicultural grievances and identity politics. This perspective demands unending governmental resources funneled to the welfare state to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged without the prospect that either their lives will be significantly improved or that they will be weaned off assistance to become Americas leaders and innovators of the new economy.
The jobs stimulus program has failed. Should we fund another round, it too will fail because our economic ecosystem today is not that of the Great Depression. We are no longer a manufacturing economy that provides abundant opportunities for the unskilled and the semiskilled.
Those jobs have, for all intents and purposes, gone offshore never to return. Thus, reporters Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher suggest that Steve Jobs told the president last year in response to Obamas question of how to bring Apples manufacturing home Those jobs arent coming back.
The new marketplace is a global knowledge-driven economy requiring not only a college education but also increasingly technological know-how including computer science, engineering, and mathematics. Today, many Americans struggle to read and count. Over 50 percent of women under 30 now give birth to children outside of marriage. Who of these single mothers will have the time, resources, and commitment necessary to ensure that their children obtain the demanding educational and technological credentials necessary to compete in the new economy? The answer, painfully, is almost no one.
Nevertheless, in Obamaland the answer to all persistent social woes is governmental assistance. This despite the fact that the poverty level has remained essentially unchanged since Lyndon Johnsons War on Poverty and the current Obama administration (respectively, slightly below 15 percent and 15.1 percent).
The sad truth is that in our entitlement society today Americans increasingly believe that the government should meet all their essential needs while assuming that individual personal responsibility should be limited to discretionary consumer spending.
If Mitt Romney, Ann, their five sons, their wives, and their grandchildren seem, in Bill Clintons words, to inhabit an alternative universe, one must ask why? To many dysfunctional Americans living broken lives it must seem as if the Romney clan has been transported from the 1950s. To them, the Romney family evokes a Leave It to Beaver specter of hard-working (white) adults raising responsible children who live in a squeaky-clean suburban America. Be that as it may. Romneys family is filled with functional adults, all of whom are married, pursue meaningful careers, and nearly all are now raising children of their own. Romneys family instills the values of hard work and excellence with parents committed to ensuring that their children toe the mark. The result is family success, financial success, and, yes, American success.
As our nation struggles painfully to see whether it still has the fortitude, talent, and resolute commitment to remain a superpower committed not only to our continued prosperity but also our pursuit of democracy and freedom throughout the world, the question remains: Does the responsibility of living in America today rest with the government or us?
We have come to expect that the government meet many, if not all, our needs. The painful lesson of the 21st century suggests that these needs threaten to become infinite while the resources of government remain stubbornly finite. Our future success depends on reconciling our voracious appetites with our ethical responsibilities.
Except, of course, if you inhabit Obamaland where, in Mitt Romneys words, President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.
If youre convinced Obama will lead us to the Promised Land, vote for him. But before doing so, read Mitt Romneys book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Then, ask yourself whether its worth ending our 236 year-old experiment in American Exceptionalism in favor of multicultural grievances and identity politics.
Thats when youll know who deserves your vote.
Diana E. Sheets, Ph.D., is an iFoundry Fellow and Research Scholar at the University of Illinois. She writes literary criticism, political commentary, and fiction. Much of it can be read on her website, www.LiteraryGulag.com.
Don't even accept their terminology, as it is objectively wrong. Blacks, women, homosexuals and legal naturalized Hispanic and other immigrants are perfectly entitled to vote and have in no way been "disenfranchised".
“... it must seem as if the Romney clan has been transported from the 1950s. “
And Obama and the Democrats are conscious imitations of the Democrats of the 1960’s and 70’s. What has happened is that the Reagan revolution of 1980, which freed us from the Marxist tyranny of 60’s and 70’s, was renounced by the Republican Party and now it has been undone. This is not progress, it is regress. Communism is not dead; it is resurging, under slightly different names. Yesterday a story was posted in which an “Occupy” leader admitted that their goal is to replace capitalism with a Communist state. A center of communism is now called “Russia” instead of “the Soviet Union”, but the message is still the same. Today’s Democratic platform and Marxist rhetoric mirrors 1970’s Democrats one for one.
It is important to realize that much of the problem is within the Republican Party itself, the leftist wing composed of “ex”-Democrats which post-1996 renounced Reaganism and pursued the same goals as their fellow Democrats. Some of them speak with a Southern twang and call themselves “Born-again evangelical Christians” which fools many.
Since the formation of the Democratic Party in the 1830s, it has generally been the party of those Americans who for some reason or another see themselves as “outsiders.” That’s why its always been a coalition of otherwise incompatible groups. Southerners, workers, racial minorities, immigrants, environmentalists, feministss, etc. The only thing they have in common is their opposition to the other side.
Those opponents, first the Whigs and then the GOP, have for the most part been those who see themselves as or want to become “insiders.”
"The catastrophe of Barack Obamas administration is that he has forced the locus of the Democratic Party from the center to the far left."
It is to the point that I say to people, "the Soviet Union may have collapsed, but "Sovietism" lives on, in the U.S. "Democratic" party." They are not the party of "outsiders," but the party of parasites, bleeding this country dry with regulations, taxation, and bureaucracy. They use Bolshevik tactics (screaming "racism" for instance) to intimidate the rest of America. Their whole goal in life is the expansion of the parasitic class to the point of no return, with the Democrat party permanently in power.