Tweet
Who Goes Obama?
American Thinker
Cindy Simpson
12/10/2012
Excerpt:
In 1941, Harpers Magazine published a fascinating article by writer Dorothy Thompson titled: "Who Goes Nazi?"
Seventy years later, we're asking the question: "Who goes Obama?"
(Before the reader is shocked that this article dares mention "Nazi" and "Obama" on the same page, don't worry -- there will be no comparison of Obama to Nazis here. I will only mention that both fascism and modern liberalism are, at heart, ideologies that fall at the statist end of the political spectrum. So bear with me a moment.)
In "Who Goes Nazi?" Ms. Thompson thoughtfully described and evaluated the personalities of each of the various attendees at a gathering at which she was a guest. She explained:
It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one's acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi... I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.
Like Thompson at her dinner party, the Obama campaign played a similar parlor game with the American electorate, as its strategists asked and then built a program around the question: "Who goes Obama?" Of course, any successful campaign endeavors to evaluate the personalities and motivations of potential supporters. In a recent American Thinker article, Zach Krajacic outlined the fact that Obama won because Democrats did a much better job than Republicans of "segmenting their market, targeting their potential buyers, and appealing to their emotions."
In the Obama playbook, "segmenting the market" essentially meant "community organizing." Although modern liberal philosophy is grounded in collectivism, progressives effectively mass their troops using division and agitation. The trick is maintaining voluntary cohesion and support, in a failing economy or security threats or disasters, among the various personalities in the parlor. (For example, imagine a dinner-party-scene where the Obama-phone lady was suddenly aware that Obama-money had run out, and she was seated next to Eddie Murphy when he just heard he would be hit with a 75% tax rate.) But camaraderie is never the ultimate goal of the host and his fellow bureaucrats at their utopian party anyway -- their intent is to create and forcefully implement one-size-fits-all collectivist policies for their guests.
Divisive conversation on "Fairness" and motivational phrases such as "We can't wait," "Vote for revenge," "You didn't build that," and "Punish your enemies" were addressed to those in the parlor whom the campaign already knew would answer "I do" to the question, "Who goes Obama?" A helpful mainstream media provided the venue, orchestrated the background music, and perfectly coordinated entertaining distractions.
However, there's much more at stake in political parlor games than simply formulating targeted marketing strategies. Ms. Thompson endeavored to ask not just who, but beyond and to the more important question: Why? What was it that made some people, at a deeper level, more susceptible to the allure of such an ideology? She answered:
Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.
Thompson explained her conclusion further:
Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work -- a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.
Those chilling words were written decades ago, yet they seem to describe much of today's society. For a real jolt, reread Thompson's article, replacing Nazi wherever it appears with "Obama-supporter." Besides being a very politically incorrect exercise, the uncomfortable parallels are inescapable: both statist ideologies, besides being led by riveting personalities, seem to appeal to childish minds -- many of them highly educated -- whose souls have been neglected.
.................................................. .
View the complete article at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...oes_obama.html
American Thinker
Cindy Simpson
12/10/2012
Excerpt:
In 1941, Harpers Magazine published a fascinating article by writer Dorothy Thompson titled: "Who Goes Nazi?"
Seventy years later, we're asking the question: "Who goes Obama?"
(Before the reader is shocked that this article dares mention "Nazi" and "Obama" on the same page, don't worry -- there will be no comparison of Obama to Nazis here. I will only mention that both fascism and modern liberalism are, at heart, ideologies that fall at the statist end of the political spectrum. So bear with me a moment.)
In "Who Goes Nazi?" Ms. Thompson thoughtfully described and evaluated the personalities of each of the various attendees at a gathering at which she was a guest. She explained:
It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one's acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi... I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.
Like Thompson at her dinner party, the Obama campaign played a similar parlor game with the American electorate, as its strategists asked and then built a program around the question: "Who goes Obama?" Of course, any successful campaign endeavors to evaluate the personalities and motivations of potential supporters. In a recent American Thinker article, Zach Krajacic outlined the fact that Obama won because Democrats did a much better job than Republicans of "segmenting their market, targeting their potential buyers, and appealing to their emotions."
In the Obama playbook, "segmenting the market" essentially meant "community organizing." Although modern liberal philosophy is grounded in collectivism, progressives effectively mass their troops using division and agitation. The trick is maintaining voluntary cohesion and support, in a failing economy or security threats or disasters, among the various personalities in the parlor. (For example, imagine a dinner-party-scene where the Obama-phone lady was suddenly aware that Obama-money had run out, and she was seated next to Eddie Murphy when he just heard he would be hit with a 75% tax rate.) But camaraderie is never the ultimate goal of the host and his fellow bureaucrats at their utopian party anyway -- their intent is to create and forcefully implement one-size-fits-all collectivist policies for their guests.
Divisive conversation on "Fairness" and motivational phrases such as "We can't wait," "Vote for revenge," "You didn't build that," and "Punish your enemies" were addressed to those in the parlor whom the campaign already knew would answer "I do" to the question, "Who goes Obama?" A helpful mainstream media provided the venue, orchestrated the background music, and perfectly coordinated entertaining distractions.
However, there's much more at stake in political parlor games than simply formulating targeted marketing strategies. Ms. Thompson endeavored to ask not just who, but beyond and to the more important question: Why? What was it that made some people, at a deeper level, more susceptible to the allure of such an ideology? She answered:
Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.
Thompson explained her conclusion further:
Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work -- a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.
Those chilling words were written decades ago, yet they seem to describe much of today's society. For a real jolt, reread Thompson's article, replacing Nazi wherever it appears with "Obama-supporter." Besides being a very politically incorrect exercise, the uncomfortable parallels are inescapable: both statist ideologies, besides being led by riveting personalities, seem to appeal to childish minds -- many of them highly educated -- whose souls have been neglected.
.................................................. .
View the complete article at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...oes_obama.html