Posted on 06/18/2009 3:38:48 AM PDT by Man50D
A failed presidency for Barack Obama could turn into liberalism's worst nightmare. Barely six months into his term, the 44th president has succeeded in generating the most widespread and serious discussion of secession since the Civil War. Despite what Newsweek's Evan Thomas may claim, Obama is not the "God" who will bring us together but the autocratic sponsor of an overbearing, oppressive leviathan from which a growing number of Americans are seeking refuge.
That refuge, according to author Paul Starobin, will come in the form of several regional republics that reflect the diverse character of Americans no longer bound in any meaningful way by our unrecognizable Federal government. In a riveting exploration of America 's coming breakup, Starobin writes in a recent Wall Street Journal article:
"Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society."
Starobin chronicles in fascinating detail the historical basis for America 's future balkanization. He provides a snapshot of today's most viable and vocal secessionist organizations. Starobin goes on to argue that the overbearing and stifling "Obama planners and their ilk" will probably be doomed to fail in a land replete with the Jeffersonian impulse of radical self-determination. Obama's extreme power grab, in other words, will cause a correspondingly extreme backlash:
"All of this adds up to a federal power grab that might make even FDR's New Dealers blush. But that's just the point: Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution."
By focusing most of his attention on how big unwieldy entities devolve into creative little ones, Starobin's analysis misses however the more direct personal role Barack Obama himself has played in fracturing America.
Back in March of last year for example New York Times columnist Roger Cohen told his audience he could "understand the rage" of Obama's former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Without missing a beat Cohen then concluded in his essay that the "clamoring now in the United States for a presidency that uplifts rather than demeans is a reflection of the intellectual desert of the Bush years."
Has Barack Obama's been an "uplifting" presidency? Mr. Obama knew full well that his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, dismissed the test results of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, entitled to promotion but denied because they were of the wrong race. Surely her decision is demeaning to both white males and to those who study diligently for exams. Did the black firefighters feel uplifted or demeaned when Sotomayor ruled in their favor? Was the New Haven firehouse more unified or more divided after Sotomayor's ruling? Was Obama's Sotomayor choice uplifting or demeaning?
Indeed, from the Sotomayor pick and anti-business rhetoric to the endless lecturing about America 's sins, Mr. Obama is starting to sound a lot like his former pastor. To be sure Obama is not as grating and shrill as Mr. Wright but closer to something more like Jeremiah-lite. In other words, Mr. Obama's strategy seems to be to convince Americans to drink his socialist tonic out of sheer guilt. I'm not sure what is so inspiring about all of this.
Maybe this is why Starobin claims to be witnessing a lot of neo-secessionist activity. Wouldn't a new American devolution however be a liberal's worst nightmare? Beyond the psychosis most liberals would have to endure at the thought of losing any kind of control, the prospect of vibrant, happy, and successful conservative republics in places like Texas, South Carolina or Utah would be an inescapable spotlight forever exposing the failure of liberal ideology in a Republic of California.
But this brings up another problem. When the framers of the American Constitution favored a multi-state solution to the problem of centralized tyranny they argued that an additional benefit would be that each state could become a unique laboratory displaying the policy successes and failures to its neighbors. If the Republic of Texas chooses a classics curriculum for its youngsters, celebrates the family and tradition in its media, encourages personal responsibility in lieu of a nanny state, rewards citizens on the basis of merit, is tough on criminals, sends its politicians home after brief excursions to the capitol, is business friendly and generally leaves its citizens alone, how are those controlling the politically liberal Republics like California going to react?
What most liberals fail to understand is that their leisurely dabbling in progressive politics and moral equivalency is made possible by the existence of accumulated conservative moral capital. Remove the conservative anchor and progressive societies become dangerously seasick. I guess the lesson here is that liberals need conservatives more than conservatives need liberals (although society needs them on occasion). There is much in progressive ideology that simply seeks to undermine -- a strange method of establishing an identity.
While reading "A Little History of the World" to my kids the other day I came across an interesting observation by the author, E.H. Gombrich:
"Because the Egyptians were so wise and so powerful their empire lasted for a very long time. Longer than any empire the world has ever known: nearly three thousand years. And they took just as much care of their corpses, when they preserved them from rotting away, in preserving all their ancient traditions over the centuries. Their priests made quite sure that no son did anything his father had not done before him. To them, everything old was sacred."
When Obama fails it will be because he's convinced enough Americans to tire, as he has, of what used to be known as "America." Imagine what would have happened in Egypt had their priests adopted "liberation theology" rather than the standard of their fathers. A mere footnote in the pages of history.
Please include Nebraska also! We are a red state and don’t want to be left with the liberal losers!
ping for later read
“He will appear to be a man of distinguished character, but will ultimately become “a king of fierce countenance” (Dan. 8:23). With imperious decree he will facilitate a one-world government, universal religion, and global socialism. Those who refuse his New World Order will inevitably be imprisoned or destroyed until at last he exalts himself “above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4).”
I wonder how you, or anyone else here, thinks it is going to be "removed." The problem is that a huge number of people here believe they are "entitled" and they are not going to go away until and unless food distribution stops here. (I'm not talking about distribution to soup kitchens. I'm talking about distribution period.) When things begin to break down the government will probably be the last distributor and they will continue for as long as possible to distribute to the entitled. It will be a crime to hoard food. The end won't be pretty.
ML/NJ
Two words: Term Limits. Why Franklin didn’t convince Jefferson and Madison of this is beyond me. I believe they just never dreamed of career politicians.
Aquabird,
you touched on some very interesting points.
I think his popularity is largely due to his cult of personality. As soon as the conservatives (note I didn’t say Republicans) figure out a way to market their platform I think they will be a winner. I remember back to being a college student and thinking that the last thing I wanted to be was a robot following the dictates of “the system”. To be conservative in this climate is to be a true rebel and that is how we have to market this movement. We do not want to be molded/ we are not lumps of clay!
That’s the whole point of globalism. We will have nowhere to go if they succeed.
Just do not surrender your guns, under any circumstances.
They represent the last battlefield for Americans.
The people in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia regretted doing it prior to being killed.
The South Shall Rise Again!
Because of SR media snowjobberol, vote fraud, and a dumbed-down electorate.
“several regional republics that reflect the diverse character of Americans”
Then the NWO will have achieved its goal of breaking up this great country, The United States. It will have divided and conquered.
Where’s that applauding audience when I need it?
BEST
RUN-ON
SENTENCE
EVER!
Drop all the entitlements, you get rid of a lot of “blue”.
Resist “progressive” nonsense, and you get rid of the rest of it.
The first group are the freeloaders, and the second group are the busybody control freaks.
Take away the ability to freeload, they’re gone.
Take away the ability to control and meddle, the second group’s gone.
Your word “organic” is great.
This comes from the constrained vision that millions of individuals acting in their own self interest guide the direction of society through the “invisible hand” (God’s plan).
The other side thinks that all change is dictated by a few elite humans in power positions.
I’m sure you’ve seen this quote, but it’s always worth a re-post:
“Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.”
Thanks
Boy is that ever a modern interpretation of Daniel and Thessalonians.
How?....By the ballot if possible....by the bullet if necessary...that’s how. There comes a time when those who believe in freedom are required to defend it...are you one of those or would you prefer the safety of slavery?
Paul (Saul) didn't get "tired" of persecuting Christians. It was a little more dramatic than that. Go read the book of Acts, Chapter 9.
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.