Some Obama voters are still waiting for their share of the Nigerian oil minister's embezzled millions. Some of us knew a con from day one.

The number of leftists who genuinely believed his smooth-talking would have been insufficient to get him elected.

Let's not delude ourselves: the reason Obama was elected is because he's black. Race, pure and simple. Many whites voted for him to prove that they aren't racist. Essentially all blacks voted for him, because they definitely are racist.

After drawing early comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy all rolled into one, Obama has fallen so low that journalists wonder whether Jimmy Carter is not a more appropriate parallel.

After drawing? wait, what? don't you mean placing himself in that company, and having a compliant media and various others repeat that he's one of the best evah?

Look, Mr. Miller, didn't you get the memo? All of Emperor Teh Won's promises come with expiration dates. It isn't fair to hold him to those promises after the expiration date, you racist.

Isn't that what you and your cohorts in the media said about people who predicted that the man would fail, and fail miserably?

The thing is so under the control of lobbyists and the permanent bureaucracy that the power of the presidency is greatly reduced from what is advertised.

It is almost a modern pathology that we (well, maybe not Amy) believe some great central authority will rise up and make our lives better; no better than tribal people stroking a totem.

And to follow what a_random_guy said, there is a dynamic here where it is tacitly acknowledged that the presidency is so circumscribed that it is safe to put in a laughably inexperienced black guy and it won't matter too much; the thing is largely on autopilot.

"It is almost a modern pathology that we (well, maybe not Amy) believe some great central authority will rise up and make our lives better; no better than tribal people stroking a totem."

This brings up something I've been thinking about for a while, and I'd be really curious to hear Amy's take on it because I don't know that I've seen her write about it. My conjecture: Religion somehow fills an essential role in human psychology. People a long time ago identified this, and set about trying to channel that in a direction that would be as positive an influence as it could be made. The result was Judeo-Christianity, along with Buddhism and Confucianism.

But now Judeo-Christianity has been greatly weakened in America (and of course Buddhism and Confucianism never made much headway here). So the masses sought something to take its place. Marxists realized that and set themselves up as the new religion, making exaggerated promises of earthly rewards and playing on the baser instincts. The ancients knew that this or something like this would happen -- that's why they created the traditional religions in the first place. It was a way of channeling that psychological need in a way that was at least harmless most of the time, and sometimes positive. The Marxists of course have no such concern; they are fine with their religion being a negative influence as long as it fulfills their goals.

I've noted for some time that the statements of dedicated leftists are indistinguishable in tone and reasoning from those of religious fundementalists. I got to thinking about this again last weekend when I saw the latest leftists meme emerging on Facebook, and it is this: "Jimmy Carter was one of the greatest Presidents in American history." Of course, an hour spend studying 20th-century American would disabuse any rational person of this notion, so where it is coming from? I'll tell you: it's because comparisons of Obama to Carter have become so widespread. Unable to stop them, the leftists have found it necessary to protect their idol by rewriting history to make Carter a great President. That way, the comparisons don't cause conflict with their religious beliefs.

The world's two most rapidly growing religions right now are Islam and Marxism. What these systems have in common is that they both require mindless devotion from the believer, and explicitly punish those who dare to examine their beliefs. This is all happening because Judeo-Christianity got pushed out the Western culture. Those ancient Jews and Christians knew what they were doing, and we have emperiled ourselves by turning our backs on their works.

It may be true that a lot of people may be feeling "used" by Obama, but I cannot get any of my friends to admit that. They're all still full steam ahead, he-has-never-done-anything-wrong, he-accomplished-everything-he-set-out-to-do Obama supporters. Even when I bring up the discrepancies, they will not budge. I once shared the article linked on Amy's site about the former Democratic Congressional aide regretting her previous support for Obamacare because she couldn't find affordable insurance. My friend's response was, "She's not looking hard enough!"

Cousin Dave's question is a good one, and I hope Amy chimes in. My three cents worth:

First, people seek explanations for things they don't understand. Once upon a time, people didn't understand much of nature, and hence assumed sprites, elves and all sorts of creatures were behind the apparent capriciousness of it all.

As science has provided real explanations, the role of religion in explaining things has been reduced. We are now pretty much left with just the big bang, i.e., how did it all get started.

Second, people seek meaning in their lives. Everyone wants to feel important somehow. It is possible to develop your own meaning, but it sure is a lot simpler if someone hands it to you on a plate.

Moreover, it's quite the ego-kick if you think the creator of the universe cares about you personally.

Last but not least, fear of death. People are scared of the dark. It would be nice to have the reassurance that we, our unique selves, do not end when our bodies die. This ties in rather nicely with a study I once saw: The more scared a person was of death, the more likely they were to be religious (or vice versa; no way to really tell, and it doesn't matter).

Random, interesting thoughts. Yes, people look for explanations for things they don't understand. I somewhat think that the "science has explained everything" explanation doesn't carry much water, since anti-rationalism has held sway over the American public since the '70s, and few people today have any education whatsoever in science or mathematics. So even though science has explained a lot of natural phenomonea that were once mysteries, that has no impact on the general public because they have either never heard those explanations, or they have rejected them out of hand. (Witnessing a bout of chemtrail silliness on Facebook recently reinforced this point for me.)

But yes, people seek meaning in their lives, and yes it's a lot simpler if it comes in a package. Christianity and Judaism provided this, but they made you work for it some. Marxism promises it to you on a silver platter, and the obligations aren't disclosed until you're already committed. There's something else too, I think. It's apparent to me, from my reading and from talking to older generations, that in past times Americans all thought of America as one vast project, one that they were all part of in however large or small a way. In the 19th century, the project was westward expansion, opening the frontiers, and growth. In the 20th century, the project was technological and social achievement, and the defense of Western civilization worldwide.

There is no project for the 21st century; our leaders almost universally preach that America is the problem rather than the solution, and that the best thing we can do is stay the hell out of the world's way. American achievement of any sort is widely denigrated. Even if one agrees with these sentiments, being marginalized is not a very satisfying way to live. Thus, all the wild enthusiasm eight years ago over "fundementally transforming America". It was a proposal for a new grand American project, one that everyone could feel like they were a part of. People who had the audacity to point out that no one knew what the project actually was, were and still are regarded as buzz-kills, even despite the fact that the project, whatever it was, has demonstrably been a failure. (Unless the project was actually to destroy America, in which case it has made a fair amount of progress.)

Let's see, concluding paragraph... oh yeah, the fear-of-death thing. Since Marxism can't promise you an afterlife, having rejected that concept, the only thing left to preserve one's identity after death is to leave a public legacy. Hence part of the fascination with celebrities and sports stars. Everybody wants to be a frickin' Kennedy. At least the Judeo-Christian concept of an afterlife was an egalitarian one.

Let's see, concluding paragraph... oh yeah, the fear-of-death thing. Since Marxism can't promise you an afterlife, having rejected that concept, the only thing left to preserve one's identity after death is to leave a public legacy. Hence part of the fascination with celebrities and sports stars. Everybody wants to be a frickin' Kennedy. At least the Judeo-Christian concept of an afterlife was an egalitarian one.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at October 13, 2014 10:34 AM

Yep.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilistically#undefined

> I cannot get any of my friends to
> admit that. They're all still full
> steam ahead, he-has-never-done-
> anything-wrong

Thanks for that! OK, let's talk about culture.

In the 80's and early 90's, there was a pattern of milquetoast male TV celebrities suddenly selling "albums" of "music." Specifically, Yanni and Tesh. Concerts were always staged as if people were there to listen, and budgets never seemed to be a problem... The works themselves were often busy, but always ruthlessly symmetrical and mundane.

The first notable thing said about these enterprises was that fat women loved them, forming the largest segment of the audience. (So to speak.) Not-That-There-Anything-Wrong-Wi…-etc.etc.etc.(!) Big girls should listen to whatever they want to hear. But it was an observation that made the phenomenon interesting… Much more interesting than the tunes themselves.

Then some smarter person shucked right down to the cob: This was music for people who don't like music.


I've often speculated here that in the years of Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton, America raised a generation which never felt a need to engage with politics in a serious way. (The stakes had seemed higher in the 70's, at least on the national level, with Nixon's evil and Carter's fumbling.) For twenty years, nobody had to care.

Then came 9/11, the wars and an economic collapse, and suddenly people (often in midlife) have decided to count on government and policy for all sorts of things that they themselves are not equipped to deal with, or perhaps even to think about with the proper humility.

And this is their President: Obama is a Chief Executive for people who don't like politics.

He knows better than to ask them to consider consequences, because he knows they're not up to it, and would be offended in any case. 'Sides, he himself, like his cohort on the Hill, knows nothing of consequences.

This is why I got cranked at commenter cpabroker under the nearby 'suicide bomber' post. He expects government to resolve matters of safety and privacy such that only bad guys are affected. His casual expectation has no irony. He means it.

The christian after life - for most of the 3500+sects, was everyone got in, even people like Hitler, and you spent eternity tell god how great he is.

Sounds worse than any description of hell I ever heard of

"The first notable thing said about these enterprises was that fat women loved them, forming the largest segment of the audience. (So to speak.) Not-That-There-Anything-Wrong-Wi…-etc.etc.etc.(!) Big girls should listen to whatever they want to hear. But it was an observation that made the phenomenon interesting… Much more interesting than the tunes themselves.

Then some smarter person shucked right down to the cob: This was music for people who don't like music."

Okay....but how come fat women don't like music?

Never said that. I've known quite a few who liked it a LOT... The good stuff, too.

The point is not fat women, the point is John Tesh Music. And Yanni tossing his girly hair around in a spotlight.

I don't think those women were responding to the modulated arpeggios. They were responding to other stimuli when they bought those tickets.