What I saw today was what went on in the USSR (Russia) 30 years ago. The Boss's called the shots, and I decide that I did not want any part of them.
I voted for Obama during the Utah primary. I did so because I liked his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. I also liked that some of his supporters are arguing for improved political discourse. Obama's arguments against the 2003 invasion of Iraq fits closely with my beliefs at the time.
Obama and I differ on the troop surge, health care and education.
I think that the reform of the Democratic Party would do more for this country than another political win for the neocon infused Republican Party.
The problem is that I can't figure out if Obama is committed to quality discourse or if he is just making a pretense to intellectualism. If Obama was committed to quality discourse; there would be a large pile of ideas on the table, and we would be discussing those ideas. Instead we have all this propaganda on the table, a politically active contingent on the blogosphere trying to make people unhappy coupled with a nebulous call for an undefined change.
All we know at this point is that the nebulous change has socialized medicine, a serious reduction in the private ownership of cars, houses and a precipitous drop in our consumption of energy. People who the world consider rich will pay substantially more taxes (all Americans are considered rich). What we don't have on the table is an explanation of how all of this dramatic reduction in private property ownership will result in happiness.
Related to Ed Hale's allusion to Russia, I am also hesitant to support Obama because I've read too much Marxist literature. This nebulous call for change is far too reminiscent of Mao's Cultural Revolution.
The point I was trying to make in on the Crass Commercial site (which is still down) is that Marx never defined communism.
What Marx did was to create a system of discourse that made people discontent with their current state. He then held out Communism as a change that would make things better.
Marx gave a formula for inciting people to action, but did not provide a constructive form for their action. The action led to widespread misery.
Moa's cultural revolution was engineered affair where Moa incited youth militias to a cultural purging. The youth movement took to purging with a vengeance, and things got really bad.
There are some youthful elements of the blogosphere which are a bit gaga for Obama and a bit irrational in their exuberance.
Recent trends in American politics is that presidents have rushed to the center after their election. The Clintons supported free trade initiatives and did not expand government quite as much I expected. The Bush administration took a wide stance and supported every big government boondoggle and earmark thrown on the table. Bush and Company rushed leftward with a hope of buying a permanent Republican hegemony. Consequently, Bush expanded government more than any president since LBJ.
My guess is that Obama is just using Mao's political platform as a way to gain power, and will drop it after the election. While there are many professors who cling to Marxist Dialectics with the same fervor as the ingornant Pennsylvanians clings to their guns and religion, most people realize that Marxism failed worse than United States failed.
My hope is that the Obama campaign will move toward the center.
Of course, both Bill Clinton and GW Bush ran as centrists.
Obama is running as an agent of change. Obama will have a super majority along with complete control of the schools and mainstream media.
One would expect an agent of change with a super majority to become more partisan after the election.
America seems to work best with a split government. The thrashing from a Republican super majority to a democratic super majority could prove fatal.
In this regard, I applaud Ed Hale and Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. I hate that there is too much power in the president's hands. Anything that diminishes the power of the glorious leader is welcome.