Posts
As mentioned in previous blogs this season, I have been openly critical of Mitt Romney and the Republicans not being able to muster more intellectual positions from which to take down a President I perceive as weak and inexperienced. Yet, for all the hyperbole, dodging positions and outright falsehoods in this race, I think it primarily comes down to one thing. ¨Nice guys finish last¨.
During the 3 Presidential debates, Romney started out so strong...really throwing Obama and the Dems for a loop with his aggressive but rational style, not letting up on the incumbent president for a minute. In the second debate, Obama used some of the same medicine in defense towards Romney, and finally in the 3rd debate he had Romney agreeing with just about every decision he had made the past four years. To me this was cowardice and bad strategy for the challenger. I had the feeling he was surrounded by advisers who were overly calculating and risk averse. Romney of course had come out with some significant guffaws during the campaign...but finishing up the campaign trying to be the ¨nicest guy¨ in the room truly backfired in my opinion. Most of us were looking for fire and passion behind real answers and truth. Instead we got someone trying to be the next ¨Reagan¨...and that just doesn't work anymore.
You see this play out constantly in every day life. In all arenas of competition, it takes warrior style effort and passion to win. In football, tennis, golf...most every sport demands total devotion and concentration on WINNING. There is no other acceptable outcome but to WIN.
I never felt that passion from Romney. I think he is truly a nice guy. He obviously has a nice big family and a supportive wife. He is RICH, which means he has won at some levels of the competition. Yet, I don`t think he had the fire or passion sufficient to defeat Obama and the socialist agenda of the Democratic party. He did not galvanize the average American to get behind his leadership.
I also think we have seen the death of the religious right controlling American politics. Personally I welcome this. I think average Americans have tired of combining appeals in religion and politics. It does not take a political position to decide what faith one believes in...and obviously people of ¨faith¨ do not necessarily make better political leaders. Just look at Jimmy Carter and George Bush. Both men of evangelical persuasions...yet in my book two of the weakest presidents of my lifetime. Nice guys even...well, at least Jimmy Carter is.
Nice guy Romney unfortunately no longer serves as the ¨poster image¨ of what an American, or American president, is. America in just a few short decades has homogenized its racial and cultural heritage to finally include men and women of all colors and religions. WASPish Americans can no longer assume their power or control over the American democratic process. Hispanics and Independents have now registered their displeasure with that status-quo that assumes a white anglo saxon protestant is the defacto elite of America. Even in the back-doors of power...that to me being the bankers and billionaires that pull the politicians strings...multi-ethnicity is in...the white-man in the white hat is out. The system is now more controlled by immigrant bankers and global corporate industrialists such as George Soros and Rupert Murdock. These are not religious or principled men of distinction. They are ruthless warriors with REAL money.
Today´s America no longer has tolerance of extremists or fundamentalists such as the religious right`s Pat Robertson or even Muslim extremists such as Louis Farrakan. Today`s generation of independent Americans are looking for real solutions not based on old school slogan-ism or drinking Koolaid at the political trough of either main party. The world at large is tired of waiting for ¨trickle down¨ economics. There are no more excuses for the richest nation on earth NOT to have some form of healthcare that covers all. Obamacare may not be perfect...but obviously enough people want it so they reelect its author. If anything, Obama may have been very shrewd to tie his name to such legislation...since a majority of Americans are under or non insured.
And should we be surprised that a supposed darling of Wall Street like Mitt Romney should be rejected in his bid to lead the Federal government? It was Obama who rightly or wrongly bailed out all the big boys of Wall Street in 2008. It was Obama who amazingly has continued many of the Bush era policies of ¨fighting the war on terror¨, extending and even adding provisions to the unconstitutional ¨Patriot Act¨, and allowing the FED a free hand to keep the currency printing press going without limits. It seems to me Obama became an unintended Republican in many of his actions. I even heard a news commentator call him more of a ¨moderate Republican than a Progessive Democrat¨ yesterday. Wow.
And of course, very few mainstream Americans were attracted to the image and honest medicine of my last remaining political hero, Congressman Ron Paul. I truly believe that if Romney had been able to swallow his pride, shun the moneyed brokers behind him of the super conservative set, and had taken on more of the truthful change that Ron Paul stood for...he would have won the election. But now we will never know.
What will be interesting to observe the next four years is how President Obama handles his power and his party. Will he create a legacy of real leadership, do away with his tendency to try and please everyone, and really take his power seriously? Does he truly have the people skills to work through the huge divides of Congress and the American people themselves to turn the economy around while still covering all his socialist agenda positions? I personally think he is going to have to ¨walk on water¨ in order to achieve that. For American´s sake, I hope he does.
Unfortunately, I tend to think we are going to have 4 more years of BIG government, increased regulations, government mandated redistribution via taxation...and less influence of the ¨white guys¨. Nice guys finish last...and while I don't think the ultra conservatives in business or the Republican party are really nice guys...I think you will now see some real ugliness raise its head in this divided nation. The next civil war will not be between North and South, Black and White. It is going to be the ¨Elite¨ against the growing masses of lower and middle class Americans...and nobody is going to be ¨nice¨ anymore. Atlas Shrugged...here we come.
3 comments:
Could not agree more with what you have said. I too stand behind Ron Paul and wish that somehow in all his years, he could have been president, but for 2016, i find it highly unlikely that he could run. Looking for a younger version him!!!
You assessment regarding the average American’s thoughts on combining appeals is not new. Today the idea is not to be religious or political; rather many politicians have become zealots on both fronts. Aristotle said, “A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.” The quote actually explains how government employs religion as a means of social control and is able to get a person’s consent toward that control No matter which religions group you encounter (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Tao, etc.) the control allows the government to impose the “social rule” against people’s will.
It is said that Politics makes strange bedfellows, and this has been true for centuries when it comes to religion and politics. In the recent U.S. election both candidates made references toward religion and God. My questions are What does God have to do with governments abilities and inabilities to stabilize the economy, taxation issue, or any social issues? A government that is presumptively ethical and moral is an idealistic view of the world and not reality. This begs the answer to other questions: Whose morals are right…or whose morals should be used to establish the never ending policies of government? The answer I come up with is for us to all personally to be responsible.
From the outside looking in, I am getting confused when I listen to Ron Paul and see what Obama has done. Ok, Obama stands for medical coverage for all and this indeed is a good thing. But did you know that the extremely conservative Bismarck under emperor William set the foundations to Germany's social security system? Making sure that a vast majority has a minimal social coverage is not so new and not necessarily the domain of "progressive" politicians. On the other hand Obama had promised to disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan and what has really happened? Has Obama done anything about the useless war on drugs, anything to eliminate this enormous waste of money and absorption of security forces? Did he never read the story of the prohibition of alcohol which produced the most ferocious gang wars and gangsters like Al Capone? And what happened after the prohibition ended? Have we finished killing half the population with alcohol? Doesn't look like this. And what did he do to lift the smoke curtain and investigate all the lies that Bush and his gang laid over 9-11? Is he afraid to find out that 9-11 was an inside job, that the three towers came down at free fall speed like in programmed demolitions? There is enough scientific information around to start a new and serious investigation that does not deny the explosive evidence. So why is it left to people like Ron Paul to talk about it?
I have never felt much sympathy for what I perceive of the US Republicans, but I admire this guy who is the very opposite of people like Bush, the liar and hypocrite. So sometimes I wonder how Dems support Obama's cowardess and what Ron Paul is doing among the Reps.
Post a Comment