Obama is President

[aequalsa]

It's one thing to call someone a socialist, it's another to say they have socialistic ideas and point to some examples.

Hitler wasn't racist. He simply held racist views. Ayn Rand was not a capitalist. She simply only held Capitalist views. The pope isn't catholic, he only holds some catholic views. Charles Manson wasn't crazy, he just had some crazy notions which he accepted.

It's against my better judgment to engage you, Mammon, since you make it obvious that you view words as rhetorical devices and not abstractions connected to real things. Which is exactly the problem you have in your political notions. When Obama says he wants socialized medicine or mandatory service, he means it. This won't be like Clintons presidency with a republican congress. The right wing will have difficulty even maintaining a filibuster in the senate with the current numbers. So his plans are real with a strong capacity of being passed.

So when he nationalizes healthcare, what that means is that for the rest of your life, and any children or grandchildren you have they will take a minimum of an additional 20% of your income and be waiting 3 years for a surgery to save them from an ailment that will kill you in 6 months.Bear in mind they already take 40%. I assume by your views you haven't had to work to pay your own rent(it's an assumption, so if you are entirely self sufficient feel free to correct me) But to put this in perspective for you, the median income in the US is $32k. If you are lucky, after taxes your take home is $22K. Pay $800 rent and you are down to $12K. Car payments but you at $7. Insurance for it at $6K. Electricity at $4.5k. Water at $4000. Cell phone brings you down $3000. If you are responsible and thrifty you put $100 a month away for retirement since a social security bankruptcy is a given in less then 40 years. So now you are left with 1800 for food and the occasional trip to the movies. Now bare in mind this is median. 50% of people make less then this amount. So think real hard about where that 20% alone is gonna come from. I promise you with absolute certainty and 20/20 vision of the future, it will not come only or even primarily from those making over $250,000/year. That kind of money buys good accountants.

So now lets consider the likely affects of a few of his other ideas.

When he mandates "service," for example, everyone will spend the two most formative years of their adult lives learning to live for society and not themselves. Will most people be happier that way? Will they achieve more knowing their life is not their own? Will they be more likely to support capitalism and freedom after those additional years of deliberate indoctrination?

Or when he eliminates our primary sources of power(coal and gas), it means you electric bill will more then double. $150/month to say $300 a month.

You see, words mean things. You try to define socialism out of existence by implying that in order to be one, you must accept 100% state control of every aspect of peoples lives, otherwise they "just happen to hold a few socialistic ideas." Stalin didn't even do that. But the reality is that by accepting socialistic ideas, more then 150 million people were murdered and starved in in less then 100 years. And if you don't think that it could happen here then you need to study a little more history and see how quickly things can change when the right philosophical views are accepted.

[KendallJ]

So now lets consider the likely affects of a few of his other ideas.

When he mandates "service,"...

Or when he eliminates our primary sources of power(coal and gas),...

You see, words mean things.

Yes, words do mean things. I'm not here to defend Mammon, for I don't have much respect for his argumentation; however, as you say, words mean something.

It is true that these are the implications of his ideas put into practice. However, Obama, in his capacity as Executive as President, does not do these things.

He cannot mandate service, nor can he eliminate our primary sources of power. The Legislative does these things.

In this manner, it is faulty to simply take his espoused ideas, put them into practice, and then blame him as a manner of comparing one to the other. Will he be a willing supporter of this legislation? sure. But then McCain agreed in principle with Cap & Trade as well as National Service ("Country First!" anyone?) so it's no expectation that on these counts McCain would have, in his capacity as Executive, behaved any differently. The fault will be the Legislatives, entirely. This is the mistake people are making by taking his espoused ideas as enacted law. We're not there yet, and it's gonna be tougher to get there than people think.

That may not be Mammon's point. God knows what his points are exactly. But it sure is mine.

[aequalsa]

Yes, words do mean things. I'm not here to defend Mammon, for I don't have much respect for his argumentation; however, as you say, words mean something.

It is true that these are the implications of his ideas put into practice. However, Obama, in his capacity as Executive as President, does not do these things.

He cannot mandate service, nor can he eliminate our primary sources of power. The Legislative does these things.

In this manner, it is faulty to simply take his espoused ideas, put them into practice, and then blame him as a manner of comparing one to the other. Will he be a willing supporter of this legislation? sure. But then McCain agreed in principle with Cap & Trade as well as National Service ("Country First!" anyone?) so it's no expectation that on these counts McCain would have, in his capacity as Executive, behaved any differently. The fault will be the Legislatives, entirely. This is the mistake people are making by taking his espoused ideas as enacted law. We're not there yet, and it's gonna be tougher to get there than people think.

That may not be Mammon's point. God knows what his points are exactly. But it sure is mine.

I understand that he alone is not responsible, for what he promotes and I do not disagree that McCain's views, enacted, would be more than marginally better. I do disagree with you, in that he, as an extremely popular president with dems, and with a significant majority of his own party in power, will find it very difficult to do great harm in the long term. I see this as identical in most respects to the election of FDR...the economic circumstances, the anti capitalist sentiment, a charismatic "Orator" in office with his own party set to dominate the political scene.

I further disagree that things will be bad consistently for the next 8 years causing the public to blame this leftist ideology. I have high confidence that the economy will, in fact, recover temporarily through cash infusions and we will be defending capitalism as we try to explain that BHO didn't "get us out of the depression," for the next 50 years. This same thing happened with clinton as he "got us out of the recession" and "made the economy great for 8 years."

I do not view McCain as a noble defender of capitalism or a panacea in any sense other then he doesn't consciously, specifically oppose rights on conceptual grounds(as far as I have heard him say) and more importantly, his lack of emotional popularity and a more powerful opposition majority would have hobbled him at least as well as it did Clinton.

[KendallJ]

I do disagree with you, in that he, as an extremely popular president with dems, and with a significant majority of his own party in power, will find it very difficult to do great harm in the long term. I see this as identical in most respects to the election of FDR...the economic circumstances, the anti capitalist sentiment, a charismatic "Orator" in office with his own party set to dominate the political scene.

I further disagree that things will be bad consistently for the next 8 years causing the public to blame this leftist ideology. I have high confidence that the economy will, in fact, recover temporarily through cash infusions and we will be defending capitalism as we try to explain that BHO didn't "get us out of the depression," for the next 50 years. This same thing happened with clinton as he "got us out of the recession" and "made the economy great for 8 years."

Thanks for that. I see two disagreements although I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with since I didn't make those specific claims.

Those predictions I could debate and give you senarios that make them look otherwise, both of which would depend on factors other than his espoused ideas. And in fact, you talk of the danger of Obama modeating his actions (Clinton-style) so as to make leftist ideology palatable, which of course is the exact opposite of most of the fear mongering that's going on here about what his ideas will actually do.

A lot depends on what you see as the fundamental cuase of his win, and where the country is intellectually today vs. 1932. I don't think the 32 analogy holds. Our economic understanding is better than 30's era Keynesianism. The country intellectually is NOT in the far left position it was in in the early part of the 20th century. I think the 2 more probable outcomes are "Carter" or "Clinton", where in one case he does go far left, and in doing so generates his own downfall. This in part is due to the state of the economy left by the Bush administration. Obama is hog tied six ways from Sunday to really implement anything radical without pushing the economy over the edge in short order and incurring it's direct wrath. The other option is probably more likely, but it makes no sense to the "Obama is a neo-Marxist" crowd. It's the "Obama is such a neo-Marxist, that he will moderate himself and govern from the center-left so as to make leftist ideology palatable" crowd. HUH? One can't have their cake and eat it too. Either he is a neo-Marxist, and he's going to act that way. Or he isn't and he doesn't. The case where he is, and he doesn't, is just a species of the 2nd.

[aequalsa]

Thanks for that. I see two disagreements although I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with since I didn't make those specific claims.

Those predictions I could debate and give you senarios that make them look otherwise, both of which would depend on factors other than his espoused ideas. And in fact, you talk of the danger of Obama modeating his actions (Clinton-style) so as to make leftist ideology palatable, which of course is the exact opposite of most of the fear mongering that's going on here about what his ideas will actually do.

A lot depends on what you see as the fundamental cuase of his win, and where the country is intellectually today vs. 1932. I don't think the 32 analogy holds. Our economic understanding is better than 30's era Keynesianism. The country intellectually is NOT in the far left position it was in in the early part of the 20th century. I think the 2 more probable outcomes are "Carter" or "Clinton", where in one case he does go far left, and in doing so generates his own downfall. This in part is due to the state of the economy left by the Bush administration. Obama is hog tied six ways from Sunday to really implement anything radical without pushing the economy over the edge in short order and incurring it's direct wrath. The other option is probably more likely, but it makes no sense to the "Obama is a neo-Marxist" crowd. It's the "Obama is such a neo-Marxist, that he will moderate himself and govern from the center-left so as to make leftist ideology palatable" crowd. HUH? One can't have their cake and eat it too. Either he is a neo-Marxist, and he's going to act that way. Or he isn't and he doesn't. The case where he is, and he doesn't, is just a species of the 2nd.

While I'd enjoy believing that you are correct about this, I don't think it's the case. I apologize if i was unclear before, but I took you to be saying that it was unlikely that he would be able to accomplish his goals, so I was attempting to paint a brief over view of why I think it would be likely and explain why I don't think that his failures will benefit the cause of capitalism in the long run. Part of that was me explaining my opposition to what i saw as the only rational justification for supporting him.

So to explain in other words, my observations have been that when they pass these socialist plans whether they be income tax, social security, or Bush's free drug plan, they start innocuously enough with few if any immediate ramifications. They are then, never discontinued or limited and continue to expand. We all wake up a generation later and wonder how they got there and view them as impossible to get rid of. So I view him as having extreme Marxist views which I believe that he will successfully execute, and once they cause our complete enslavement or an economic meltdown the population will blame the next sitting president for not requiring enough regulation. I short, I believe the effects will be horrible, but not immediately. So "he is and he will" but we won't notice for 10 or 15 years.

I see him as much more like FDR then Clinton or Carter. Most importantly, he has a democratic congress. In personality, he is extremely well liked. People seem to remember Clinton as having been popular but I assume that's just media whitewash since he was elected with like 40% of the popular vote, if I remember correctly.

Regarding where we are philosophically, I believe that we are much further to the left then we were in the 40's. If we were having this discussion in 1994 I would have agreed with you, but the ease with which bush passed his drug plan, the general aversion to privatizing social security, and the election of a man who admittedly opposes rights theory leads me to believe otherwise.

I'd be interested to hear the scenarios which you can envision that would make it seem otherwise.

[~Sophia~]

I short, I believe the effects will be horrible, but not immediately. So "he is and he will" but we won't notice for 10 or 15 years.

I agree. You could probably find many other examples, but one which immediately comes to mind is the story with CRA. The CRA was passed in 1977 under Carter. It was reformed/strengthen in 1993 under Clinton. Housing market crash started in 2005 (Bush) - financial crisis in 2008 (Bush). The overall blame was accredited to not enough regulation.

-------

I am especially worried about the impact of his environmental policies and his attempts (through huge funding for "youth service programs" and others) at ethical corruption. When men have become dependent on government handouts or believe that they are dependent (to succeed) they are unlikely to argue for/accept ideas of independence/self-reliance. This is a moral war (and Obama is aware of that given his selfishness comments) and he is going to make spreading Objectivism much harder.

[~Sophia~]

He cannot mandate service ...

He does not have to. He will make it very attractive while pumping leftist ideas into the culture (and he is going to use your money to do it). Participation will lead to job, educational, and career opportunities, and ideologically it will give people something to believe in - a revolutionary mission to "purify/change the nation." Michelle Obama: "Obama will ask you to serve. He won't allow you to stay uninformed/uninvolved". What was the chant again? Yes, we will? or was it Yes we can?

He does understand the power of ideas very well.

Edited November 8, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[aequalsa]

He does not have to. He will make it very attractive while pumping leftist ideas into the culture (and he is going to use your money to do it). Participation will lead to job, educational, and career opportunities, and ideologically it will give people something to believe in - a revolutionary mission to "purify/change the nation." Michelle Obama: "Obama will ask you to serve. He won't allow you to stay uninformed/uninvolved". What was the chant again? Yes, we will? or was it Yes we can?

He does understand the power of ideas very well.

That's a good point as well. Already in the US, average pay for public sector jobs is higher then private for the first time in our history. You won't have to force it when people view it as a profitable route to take. They'll take the chains of public service gleefully.

That fact always reminds me of Rand's description in WTL regarding Bureaucrats eating Caviar and driving in limousines instead of the Capitalists. The stratification doesn't stop, it just changes directions. My guess is that it'll continue to accelerate as the public sector clamors for more and has more and more of the wealth to clamor with. The teacher's union is an excellent example of this in effect.

[gags]

It is true that these are the implications of his ideas put into practice. However, Obama, in his capacity as Executive as President, does not do these things.

He cannot mandate service, nor can he eliminate our primary sources of power. The Legislative does these things.

In this manner, it is faulty to simply take his espoused ideas, put them into practice, and then blame him as a manner of comparing one to the other. Will he be a willing supporter of this legislation? sure. But then McCain agreed in principle with Cap & Trade as well as National Service ("Country First!" anyone?) so it's no expectation that on these counts McCain would have, in his capacity as Executive, behaved any differently. The fault will be the Legislatives, entirely. This is the mistake people are making by taking his espoused ideas as enacted law. We're not there yet, and it's gonna be tougher to get there than people think.

Of course you're correct in saying that Obama can't do these things by himself. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in the Congress is going to push him toward accepting extreme left wing policies. Democrats like John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, et. al. have some pretty far-out views on a number of very important issues. I wonder if Obama has the spine to prevent these clowns from dragging the country into their leftist nightmare.

Here's a good opinion piece from the WSJ on some of the more prominent Congressional Dems and their plans for the future:

http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html

[fletch]

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in the Congress is going to push him toward accepting extreme left wing policies. Democrats like John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, et. al. have some pretty far-out views on a number of very important issues. I wonder if Obama has the spine to prevent these clowns from dragging the country into their leftist nightmare.

We see it as a nightmare, but there is no reason to believe that Obama does. You have to remember, he was the Senate's most liberal member. Had he lost the election, he would have voted right along with the likes of Conyers, Waxman, et. al., so there is no reason that I can see to believe that he will oppose them as president. I'm afraid that hoping, as some seem to want to do, that Obama will 'moderate' his views as president is wishful thinking. Congressional leftists wont have to pull him over the cliff, they will all just hold hands and jump together.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

There is also the presumption here that he realizes it would be harmful to the US to tax us to death and spend all the money on whatever the left wants. He most likely does not realize this. (Or worse, he may realize it and not care.) A leftist doesn't just mouth off about those things to buy votes and get elected, he *believes* it.

[KendallJ]

He does not have to. He will make it very attractive while pumping leftist ideas into the culture (and he is going to use your money to do it). Participation will lead to job, educational, and career opportunities, and ideologically it will give people something to believe in - a revolutionary mission to "purify/change the nation." Michelle Obama: "Obama will ask you to serve. He won't allow you to stay uninformed/uninvolved". What was the chant again? Yes, we will? or was it Yes we can?

This has been tried zillions of times. He doesn't have those opportunities himself. To make it effective, he actually has to get other people be incentivized to offer such. He might get a small amount of people to do so for a time, but he'd actually have to legislate "affimative action" for the volunteer corps. Hell look at the Peace Corps (Kennedy) or Americorps (Clinton). Who the hell thinks these lead to something?

I agree he will be pumping leftist ideas into the culture. But the ways in which people think he is going to hold sway over this country through his neo-Marxism is positively bizarre. And certainly to try to predict a priori from his espoused ideas.

Btw, to the extent he is successful it will be the religious ethos that allows it in the general population. Volunteerism as a duty is a fundamental tenent of most religious organizations.

[KendallJ]

Of course you're correct in saying that Obama can't do these things by himself. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in the Congress is going to push him toward accepting extreme left wing policies. Democrats like John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, et. al. have some pretty far-out views on a number of very important issues. I wonder if Obama has the spine to prevent these clowns from dragging the country into their leftist nightmare.

Here's a good opinion piece from the WSJ on some of the more prominent Congressional Dems and their plans for the future:

Gags, I completely agree with this assessment. The problem is that most poeple represent this as an issue of Obama's ideas, and his extreme dangerousness to the world. It is not the case to characterize it like this.

The reality is to hold popular sway he must moderate this effect. In addition, the liberal majority will get split apart for extreme issues because Dem's from moderate districts / states can go over the cliff with the leftists any more than Obama can. It is the nature of US politics. He sold the country on his ability to unify and to involve. If he fails to do that, and I hope he will, then the gloss will come off of his agenda so quickly it will make your head spin. There are plenty of WSJ opinion pieces to this effect.

Obama vs. Pelosi: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226099687...ss_opinion_main

Do What you Got Elected to Do: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226111349...ss_opinion_main

Swing voter don't want big govt.: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225933289...ss_opinion_main

Voters rebuke Republicans for economic failure: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225862446...ss_opinion_main

Here's Rahm Emanuel on the similarities between Clinton and Obama:

He said the similarities between Barack Obama and the last Democratic president matter more than the differences. "Both Barack and Bill Clinton have an incredible connection to the public," he said. "Both ran on a message of hope. Both ran against failed policies that let the country down prior to them being elected. I don't think the country is yearning for an ideological answer. If anything it's the opposite. They want real solutions to real problems. And if we do an ideological test, we will fail. Our challenge is to work to solve the actual problems that the country is facing, not work to satisfy any constituency or ideological wing of the party."

So, that's the White House Chief of staff speaking. Am I to discount this idea as well?

In addition, the fillibutster is still available, and for ultra- left issues it will darn straight get used.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226030731...ss_opinion_main

Please understand my view here. I'm neither arguing for Obama, nor am I arguing that some of these things can't happen. I think that many of the possiblities that people raise here are valid and possible, but not in anyway to the doomsday senarios that people want to predict. But lots of folks here were a priori arguing that a vote for Obama or abstention was a vote for a neo-marxist regime like we've never seen before. They were using it to call for votes for McCain under any circumstances. To argue that anyone who was abstaining was ignorant and evasive. Honestly, that much is scare mongering. I agree with everything people aresaying about the power of ideas. However, I am unconvinced of dire destruction of the nation in the next 4 years.

He most likely does not realize this. (Or worse, he may realize it and not care.) A leftist doesn't just mouth off about those things to buy votes and get elected, he *believes* it.

My point is that this is pure speculation. A priori predictions that he does NOT realize it are as of yet unfounded.

Clinton moderated.

FDR was not an ideologue. He was a pragmatist who did whatever his advisors told him would be good for the country. One could not have predicted a priori from his campaign ideas how things would turn out.

I'm not suggesting it's not possible. What evidence do you have that it is true? I think his selections for cabinet will be very telling. Do you know who he's going to select for Treasury? I sure don't. He didn't run on that. The ideas his chief of staff is spouting are already showing moderating effects.

Edited November 8, 2008 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

Regarding where we are philosophically, I believe that we are much further to the left then we were in the 40's. If we were having this discussion in 1994 I would have agreed with you, but the ease with which bush passed his drug plan, the general aversion to privatizing social security, and the election of a man who admittedly opposes rights theory leads me to believe otherwise.

I'd argue that those are all signs of the growing threat of the altruism of religion, as it has infiltrated the Republican party. That's not Marxism. It's is arguing for something that we should be concerned about, but that to view it as a phenomena of the left alone is to underestimate it, and to power it at the same time that you try to fight it (by advocating votes for the right).

I argued this same thing two years ago in the Peikoff debate.

One view says a vote for the right is a check against it. My view and the one I espoused 2 yrs ago says that you cannot view a vote for the right as a checking maneuver. That is why it is so dangerous. Its like a tug of war, and the cliff is to the side. Pulling harder and fear mongering the left as many here are doing is not effective in the right way. Not because I don't share your concern, but because it will be ineffective. The tension already set up in US politics will keep the tug from going too far one way (left or right) or the other. The bigger issues is you either have to reformulate the Rep party on the proper principles or you risk both going sideways off the cliff. No amount of Marxist fear mongering will accomplish that. You have to fight every bad idea of BOTH the left and the right.

[The Wrath]

I haven't read this thread and am not responding to any particular post here, but this is just my 2 cents:

While I wasn't exactly pleased with the election, I wouldn't have been pleased no matter how it had turned out. My main consolation is that the Democrats will not have a supermajority. This is good for 2 reasons...firstly, because the Republicans will maintain the ability to roadblock any far-left legislation AND they will be able to block the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine. Whether they will have the spine to block the elimination of secret ballots for unionization remains to be seen. Since they didn't get a supermajority, Obama will have no choice but to move to the center if he wants to accomplish anything.

There are 2 things that I actually find encouraging:

1.) America was willing to elect a black (sort of) president. Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying he should have been elected because he is black. But I think the fact that he was elected shows how much progress we've made over the past 40 years. We are now the only Western country that can claim to be truly colorblind when it comes to electing leaders. I think this will do much to silence critics who view America as fundamentally racist and may pave the way for demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to finally fade into obscurity where they belong. So, rather than being glad that America actually elected a black president, I am glad that it has finally been proven to be possible. That may be a fine line, but the distinction makes sense to me.

2.) The Republicans have been thrown into an identity crisis. With the resounding defeats of the last 2 elections ('06 being the other one), the Republican Party has no choice but to redefine itself. After '06, they didn't really change anything. This time, they can't deny that the people have rejected their agenda. My hope is that they will rediscover their free market-oriented roots and marginalize the religious element. The fact that McCain got nearly half the popular vote without being a religious nut will hopefully help to eliminate the religious wing from the Republican party. My optimism is cautious, however, because there is little doubt that the economy had an enormous role in this election and, since we just elected a man who is pretty far left, I'm afraid that the Republicans might see this as their cue to move to the left, economically. We'll have to wait and see but, for now, I will remain cautiously optimistic that the Republican Party will turn itself into a party that I can actually support without feeling guilty.

[fletch]

Michelle Obama: "Obama will ask you to serve. He won't allow you to stay uninformed/uninvolved". What was the chant again? Yes, we will? or was it Yes we can?

If Obama is able to enact his mandatory voluntary service programs, I believe that chant will become "Yes you will." But I suspect that not much will come of it. If anything, the democrats will use such things as a means of consolidating their power. They might offer a tuition credit for students who volunteer in 'get out the vote' drives around election time. They would be billed as non-partisan, of course, but would focus exclusively on inner city neighborhoods where republican votes are cast solely on accident. Voter registration, knocking on doors, phone drives, even offering help in filling out ballots for the homeless, the illiterate, the blind, the comatose, and the newly deceased will net a person a semester or two of college on the house.

Edited November 8, 2008 by fletch

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think it does have to be kept in mind that no matter how radical a President is, at least so far, America is not a dictatorship via the Presidency. In this regard, I agree with Kendall that Obama will probably not be able to turn the United States into a socialist paradise overnight. But I think the Democrat Liberals are very good a long-range planning in the sense of usually passing anti-capitalist measures, and I think Obama may well be able to bankrupt the coal industry as he proposes to do. Other regulations will come up and I can't see a Democrat House and Senate not being able to pass these measures, as at least some Republicans will go along with them. Notice how the Republicans could have stopped the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the bail out) but didn't stand by their supposed free market principles.

One reason I voted the way I did was to maintain a balance of power between two very bad political parties, but McCain has basically vowed to continue to be an anti-partisan and help to push through measures that Obama wants. Look for these to be basic principle types of legislation being for altruism and for environmentalism. On those measures, Obama will get what he wants.

It's going to be a while before man's rights as envisioned by Ayn Rand can hold intellectual sway. Notice the Obama brought out the anti-virtue of selfishness in his campaign and the Republicans didn't have the balls to say that of course it is selfish to want to keep your own hard earned money and that this is good. The tend to all be collectivist and they all tend to think that it is up to the government to do something about the economy, which means targeted tax breaks for those industries doing what the Feds want them to do.

So, it won't be outright socialism, but it will move more in that direction under Obama and the Democratic House and Senate.

[Clawg]

I think it does have to be kept in mind that no matter how radical a President is, at least so far, America is not a dictatorship via the Presidency.

I agree, at least it isn't a dictatorship constitutionally or legally.

But in the end the president has as much power as the people want him to have. While members of congress can vote against the president it will make them less popular.

[~Sophia~]

I agree he will be pumping leftist ideas into the culture. But the ways in which people think he is going to hold sway over this country through his neo-Marxism is positively bizarre. And certainly to try to predict a priori from his espoused ideas.

He is planning on doing things which had been tried before and worked It does not happen overnight but he will start the wheels going in that direction of cultural change.

[~Sophia~]

But lots of folks here were a priori arguing that a vote for Obama or abstention was a vote for a neo-marxist regime like we've never seen before.

Can you point me out to that post because I don't recall anyone saying that.

I agree with everything people aresaying about the power of ideas. However, I am unconvinced of dire destruction of the nation in the next 4 years.

Understanding the power of ideas goes with an understanding that, if he delivers on his promisses, the cultural and political effects of his ideas will be much longer lasting than next 4 years. Long after he is gone.

He is not after a dictatorial regime (nobody here in Canada or Sweden is either) - he is after changing your cultural values.

[~Sophia~]

Hell look at the Peace Corps (Kennedy) or Americorps (Clinton). Who the hell thinks these lead to something?

His template is Public Allies.

I think there is no point to continue this discussion about what can happen. We just have to wait and see.

Edited November 8, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Understanding the power of ideas goes with an understanding that, if he delivers on his promises, the cultural and political effects of his ideas will be much longer lasting than next 4 years. Long after he is gone.

He is not after a dictatorial regime (nobody here in Canada or Sweden is either) - he is after changing your cultural values.

Right, and I haven't seen anything from Obama or the Democrats that leads me to think they are for individual rights. And he wants to make those cultural changes by force. He will enact his green policies against the coal industry with ideological righteousness, and he will force the volunteers on us by force in the sense that he will seek some sort of Federal funding for them. Just look at Acorn and the sway they had, when their policies were actually stalking and harassing, but because they were what the government wanted, not much was done about them shutting down businesses via protests or going to a bank manager's house to intimidate him.

Their evil won't be a gun held explicitly to your face, but the gun will be there in the form of new laws violating individual rights.

[EC]

He is not after a dictatorial regime (nobody here in Canada or Sweden is either) - he is after changing your cultural values.

I would say the fact that he was elected--or even a viable candidate to begin with--is proof that this change of cultural values is either already well underway or nearly complete. And that scares me. Every other collectivist country in the world is loudly cheering this collapse of America. That most people in this country and the world think his election is a good thing is also proof of how much more work we have to do and the degree that evil ideas have populated the whole world. I guess only time will tell whether or not the whole world's just going to hell.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Hopefully and with the right vigilance against such theft, what is happening to Argentina and Venezuela won't be happening any time soon, even with the Democrats ruling our economy. But these guys are total socialist and will nationalize anything in order to cover their incompetency.

On Oct. 21, Argentina’s government, led by Peronist President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her predecessor, Néstor Kirchner, announced their intention to expropriate $30 billion held by Argentine citizens in private pension funds (similar to 401(k) retirement savings accounts). The Kirchners need the money to refinance old bad debts so that they can borrow yet more money to keep the country afloat. The announcement rocked investor confidence in Argentina and sent the Buenos Aires stock market plunging.

We are getting there, what with the bail out coming at the price of our own government taking stock in those companies by force, but we've got a ways to go before anyone can do this sort of damage to the United States...I think. I mean, we do have checks and balances working in our government, and it would take a total corruption of the Constitution for any one government in the US to be able to do this; though in the middle of the last century, they did manage to confiscate all of the gold in America held in private hands. Makes one wonder.

[KendallJ]

Can you point me out to that post because I don't recall anyone saying that.

Among other places you simply need look at the start of this thread.

"onset of communism in America"

"4 yr experiment in socialism..."

"beginning of the end"

"when they are up to their knees in blood..."

"when the economy collapses"

The hyperbole regarding this guy is over the top.

Even AequalsA's post that garnered my response was stronger than the terms you're now framing in. "Nationalization of health care", "elimination of source of power (coal and gas)," "mandates service."

Now we're back to simply affecting cultural change in ways that will impact over the long term. This is different than the largest expansion of the Great Society (Bush's prescription drug plan) how exactly? Those types of change would have been just as likely with another administration.