Why did the educated classes once wear tight satin britches and powdered wigs, snort snuff and draw fake moles on their faces?
Answer: they wanted to appear intelligent.
Posted on 05/17/2009 5:56:29 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
First let me say - - it most certainly is an “obsession.”
At least, given the verbal assaults that come my way when I so much as raise a question about the President's policies, it most certainly seems like an "obsession" to me.
“Obsession,” by the way, is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.”
And doesn’t it seem that to you that many of our fellow Americans are “obsessed” with the “persistent idea” that our 44th President, Barack Obama, is something more than human? It may be sustained, or it may be short-lived - - or something in between. But for now, millions of Americans believe that there is no problem, neither personal nor global, that this President can’t “fix,” and his motivations in all things are the very definition of purity.
I tend to think that it’s three very important elements which, having been combined together all at the same time, have produced this current obsession. For one, many Americans are genuinely frightened by present economic conditions, and are unnerved about the prospects for their future. The idea that somebody greater than ourselves could take away our pain, remove all the obstacles in our path, and make sure that all our needs are met - - that idea is, apparently, very appealing to many Americans right now.
There is also President Obama’s phenomenal communicative abilities. Sure, many of us would prefer less “teleprompter” and more “candor.” Yet, when the President talks, he makes many Americans “feel” - - feel good about himself and his intentions, and feel bad about his specified objects of wrath (“rich executives,” “torturous interrogation tactics,” “greed on Wall Street,” “George W. Bush” - - you get the idea).
And then there is the stark reality that we live in an era of what I call “historical and Constitutional illiteracy.” Most Americans, I am convinced, know very little about world history or American history, and the lessons entailed therein. Likewise, I’m pretty certain that most Americans have no clue about the Constitutional limits on the powers of the government, and the idea that there should be any limits at all on the Executive Branch is unthinkable.
In many ways, it’s a sad state of affairs. Americans are scared and want their President to be an omniscient, omnipotent savior, and the man we elected knows with certainty that he is that savior. Yet it’s comforting to know that, in many ways, some of the founders of our nation understood human nature so remarkably well that they could have predicted a day when future generations would want not a President, but a messiah, and a day when a President fancied himself as such.
Such wisdom is yours for the reading in “The Federalist Papers,” that old compilation of some 85 newspaper editorials that argued for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, published in 1787 and 1788. While making the case for limiting the power of government, and establishing “checks and balances” between government’s various “departments,” James Madison eloquently wrote in “The Federalist Number 51:”
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government……”
It would seem that Madison the philosopher (who went on to become our Fourth President of the United States) was quite certain that those who govern will never be “angels” (he would probably also concur that a President will never amount to a messiah). Madison also seems to indicate that those who govern will naturally begin to think a bit too highly of themselves, and will have difficulty with ‘self-restraint.”
The good news, even in this brief passage of Madison’s writings, is that “the people” - - those of us who are “the governed” - - can still function as the force that prohibits government from spiraling out of control. Certainly, we are still “free enough” today to speak out, to allow our voices to be heard, and to freely exchange ideas about our country and its government - - even if those ideas are contrary to the edicts of a dead-certain Command-In-Chief.
The question is not “can we,” but “will we” function as that balancing force against a government that is spiraling out of control? Madison and the other founders set the course. Will we follow their lead?
It happends all the time. Sarah Palin touched a chord with social conservatives in the last election, and the adulation for her is far out of proportion to her achievments. Same with Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearings, in his dress uniform and short haircut - he became a powerful rallying symbol for the traditional right.
I don't get it. 0bama is a drone when he speaks. His cadence is dull, his inflections are contrived and his words are empty.
How much time do we have to defeat them before they close that last window of free speech?
Just as brevity is the soul of wit, most of lifes truth can be expressed in a few words of wisdom.
If people get scared and have no hope they will beg for a dictator, that’s how Germany got Hitler.
We’re a pretty sad lot if American’s are already at the point.
Just as brevity is the soul of wit, most of lifes truth can be expressed in a few words of wisdom.
If people get scared and have no hope they will beg for a dictator, that’s how Germany got Hitler.
We’re a pretty sad lot if American’s are already at the point.
Hussein is worshiped and sold as a product, a brand, a savior who will take care of your every need in life.
I think the way he speaks lulls his supporters into some sort of coma? Otherwise they’d be starting to notice that as each month goes by more and more people are losing their jobs.
Why did the educated classes once wear tight satin britches and powdered wigs, snort snuff and draw fake moles on their faces?
Answer: they wanted to appear intelligent.
Exactly. And we have a tendency to “turn on our own” when we don’t hear them. How many threads do you see where FReepers are attacking various GOP politicians for “being silent” on some issue, then you go and dig and find they did have a press conference and they did give news releases, only to have the MSM spike the story?
But his audience is really low in intelligence and has no idea what he is saying; they just like being in the majority.
“There is also President Obama’s phenomenal communicative abilities.”
I’ll never understand why people think he can speak. His words mean nothing and he reads from a screen. I can speak well too if you put the words right in front of my face.
No.
Next question...
Don’t be surprised if Obama didn’t get some acting lessons from some of his Hollywood supporters.
The admiration was for her standing up for conservative principles, in a time when few Republicans politicians will. And unlike O'Bambi, if she stopped following those principles, the right would stop admiring her. Pretty much like the right jumped on Bush and McCain for their amnesty stance, and for TARP.
O'Bambi can flip/flop all he wants and the godhead status remains.
bump
Nice try, shill. You were prompt, concise and aggressive. Problem is, while you'll get a gold star from Hillary, your argument falls short for your target audience. They see experience where the Rats deny any, because they see character development. But then, you have to deny it, otherwise what good would all of Hillary's schlepping around in State do her?
That is no accident. History was replaced by "Social Studies" which was invented by foundations and Deweyites to dumb down the population to pave the way for socialism. This was uncovered during the 1953 Reece Committee's investigation of tax-exempt foundations. "Social Studies" was invented to shape and mold public opinion to accept socialism. This actually happened and it's in the Congressional Record. The reason why most kids don't know any History is because they are not supposed to by design.
Norman Dodd, Research Director for the Reece Committee in the 1950s, led the investigation of this.Interview of Norman Dodd on the Reece Committee. In addition to Social Studies they also now used "multiculturalism" to confuse and brainwash students, softening them up for Fabian Socialism, now coming directly out of the White House. The students cheering for Obama don't even know what that is.
The tip off is always when an Obama Supporter begins with,
Obama SAYS. They dont pay attention to what he Does, just what he says and the two dont match.
He told the students at Notre Dame that we have to find common ground on abortion,I dont know hao to accomplish that except maybe to use King Solomons wisdom and cut the Baby in Half but I guess Obama would favor that approach,or in fact already has ,but the Pro life person is out of luck.
He also told them to not go to work on Wall Street ,or seek the Middle classness type of life but to seek out social work ,Like him and his wife I guess with the 100 dollar a pound Beef and the Caviar,well you get the Idea
I would add a fourth element: A sychophantic media. By withholding any criticism of the president and his ruling party, an adoring media promotes the messianic aura and populist imagery that discourages the electorate from engaging in any critical thinking about the current direction of far-reaching policies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.