How could a government punish and therefore stop a large act of civil disobedience involving millions of people? I mean, Stalin and his like of course could manage it, China etc - but how would a democracy deal with such a thing? Could a democracy deal with such and thing? I'm just trying to imagine how things might play out should Obama and his maenads succeed in destroying the GOP as a nationally viable party, which is clearly part of what they're thinking - Washington would by default become a bastion of deluded left wingedness drowning in debt and inefficiency and conservative power would necessarily migrate to the states where like thinking right wing governors would increasingly work together to confront the rapacious social welfarism of the erstwhile capital. So, imagining a scenario like that - far fetched, sure, but not more or less impossible I think - if it played out that way, such dynamics would obviously be the precursor to a 'civil war' of some sort - not necessarily actual war, but some kind of strife and resistance - and so you might see, under the implied aegis of sympathetic states, large groups of citizens rejecting Washington's authority and accordingly engaging in mass civil disobedience, doing stuff like not paying taxes, so on and so forth
Yeah, far fetched - but, enabled by an indentured media and press, if the next president is a Democrat who decides to build on the damage Obama has wrought and in much the same way Obama wrought it - well, far fetched as it may seem, if such a thing happens you're gonna find yourself with a whole hell of a lot of people who no longer look upon America as a place where they belong, and then it becomes a question of what happens next. I mean, even if the next president is a Republican who also if we catch a break manages to be both a skilled and persuasive executive, even that person is going to have trouble governing this mess because an outraged, roiled right wing, fearful for the survival of the republic, will probably only be happy with or assuaged by something of a counter revolution if you will that purges the land of the malingering malaise of Obamaphilia, a sort of metaphorical or rhetorical reign of terror if you will.
I dunno - I just think that eight years of the divisiveness Obama has deliberately encouraged and sought out because it serves his political interests - and worse, as far as I'm concerned, eight years of the press and media being revealed for the corrupted left wing political tools that they are, which to me is the root of all that is going on here because Obama cannot play the divisiveness to his advantage without the willing participation of the media backing him up and accordingly also because I don't think a democracy can survive an environment where truly objective commentary and criticism are not only lost arts, they're scorned arts and 'reporting' necessarily devolves into nothing more than propaganda served up in the name of a specific ideology - way I see it eight years of this mess will have perched the country on the edge of something quite bad I think and whether or not we fall from that perch will depend on what follows Obama - Reagan may have saved us from Carter, but we only had four years of him, regardless of which, Obama is a whole other level of awfulness from Carter [which is in large part a reflection of the level of media bias under Obama compared to Carter, or, put another way, the level of adoration that liberal elite feels for Obama that they did not feel for Carter] - so you take eight years of Obama and tack on another four or eight years of someone driving forward the same agenda in the same divisive way - well, what seems far fetched now, is going to start to seem all too real I fear.
In short, the way I see it, the whole point of democracy is to mitigate extremes and force compromises through open, public debate - when extremes are controlling the process, something is wrong - Obama is an extremist who cleverly hides behind a facade of reasonableness and in turn his extreme [albeit incrementally so] agenda incites the extremist rancor on the right - extremes are controlling the process and that means something is wrong - that something is the media, the press, they're the enablers - these people act and have acted from the beginning as if Obama is a great president regardless of his performance as president simply because he's the first black president - ask yourself a simple question: if Condi Rice had been the first black president, would they have granted her the same indulgence? There ya go - it's not just that he's the first black president, it's that he can leverage that identity, with the help of sympathetic media, to push forward a specific agenda - that is not democracy, that is a form of fascism. I don't blame or fault Obama for being the thing he is, which is a liberal ideologue who wants to push the country irretrievably to the left - as a person with a fondness for Machiavelli I can in ways almost admire the guy - Dear Leader knows what his advantages are and he ruthlessly manipulates and exploits those advantages like the cunning politician he is - problem is in a democracy one of those advantages should not be the media and press which are the only things standing between an ignorant, low info electorate and tyranny - it's the liberal elite, shown forth most clearly through the various mediums of mass communication, that fell on their knees in blind adoration of the man in 2008, that is to blame here.
Disturbing thing is, I'm not sure there's a way to fix this problem - and now that Obama has demonstrated the way to perfectly exploit this incestuous matrix of media, press and identity politics, you're going to see the same playbook enacted when the Democrats put forth the first female presidential candidate and the first Hispanic candidate and then no doubt the first gay candidate - and there's no reason to expect the results will be any different from what we've seen with Obama - for the left, identity trumps competence.
[well, there is in fact a potential remedy of this situation - that would involve Republicans understanding the nature of the threat and addressing it in a suitable way - which to my mind would begin with not stigmatizing media savvy moderates like Christie and not manically lauding ideologically driven demagogues who have absolutely no chance of winning the presidency like Cruz - but of course we're seeing the exact opposite of that, so...]
