Why This Election Matters

Election Day is tomorrow. The people now have to choose between the silver-tongued demagogue and the moderate dressed in conservative clothes. Not an appealing choice to many, with some adding that it is not a choice at all but different shades of the same political redundancy. I, however, tend to agree with Senator Chuck Schumer and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's contention that this election (if it goes their way) will announce a "tectonic shift" in the ideology and policies emanating from Washington. I usually don't make it a habit of agreeing with these two, but I do so now from an entirely different perspective.
Barack Obama has succeeded in running a campaign on an obfuscated platform that is nothing less than the ruminations of failed socialist policies disguised as progressive liberalism. Promises of economic justice and equality is just the latest manifestation of Marx's 'redistribution of wealth' that has failed wherever and whenever it has been tried, the criticism delivered ceaselessly about Wall Street greed and corruption are thinly-veiled socialist attempts at humiliating our capitalist economy, his exhortations for racial and class justice are rumblings of a Marxist mind unhappy with the fetters cast upon it by a successful democracy, lamentations of our international unpopularity glosses over Obama's infatuation with the moral and economic bankruptcy of doomed European socialism and the irresolute co-opt of multinationalism, and his calls for a more activist judicial branch of government is the sort of Constitutionally-corrupting demagoguery spouted by the cynics of 'unregulated liberty'. His oratory flourishes are well delivered, but vacuous in content and intentionally deceptive. He is the quintessential snake-oil salesman, travelling from town to town peddling a placebo solution with such trumped-up passion and smooth oration, people flock to his cart to pay any price for the miracle medicine. And what a price they will pay.
As those eager for 'Change' hastily drink Obama's Socialist elixir, how many of them can say that they know enough about Obama to be reassured of his intentions and the validity of his product? Are those enamored with 'Change' and its' agent cognizant of the peddlers' past? Probably not. Our collective ignorance about Obama is the byproduct of intentional deception on the part of the candidate and a complicit media. How many people knew Obama's father, also named Barack, was a socialist economist for Kenya? The senior Obama wrote many articles praising the efficiency and justice of socialism, all the while dismissive of its' inherent weaknesses and the inevitable proclivities for totalitarian ends. Remember, Obama wrote a book entitled "Dreams From My Father". Former socialist and economist F A Hayek warned the West back in the 1940s that socialism was cut from the same cloth as communism and fascism, with all three leading to their logical and quintessential culmination: tyrannical dictatorships. Yet, here we are in the 21st Century, once again hynoptized by this destructive siren song.
How many of us are informed concerning Obama's rise to power? Are those voting for him tomorrow comfortable with a candidate that eschews the democratic process in favor of disqualifying rival candidates through legal technicalities, the airing of private personal tragedies, or the injection of outright fraud into the electoral format? Are those awaiting his 'Change' comfortable with someone who intends on returning us to the flawed economic reality of the 1970s (or worse)? How much do Obama's supporters or the Undecideds know of Barack's past associations? Would they be less likely to vote for him if they knew he had extensive relations with over a dozen socialists/anarachists, a domestic terrorist (Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dorne), a terrorist sympathizer and spokesman (Rashid Khalidi), black supremacists (Rev Wright and Louis Farrakhan), or a corrupt businessman with ties to Saddam Hussein (Tony Rezko)?
So, what is this 'Change' that Obama is selling? It is true that the Democrats' platform is a fundamental deviation from the Bush years, and many may applaud this as the sole raison d'etre for Obama's candidacy. Change for the sake of change is not, in itself, a judicious or virtuous use of a democractic process. This type of flawed thinking becomes especially troubling when the vehicle for change conceals or blurs his true intentions.
McCain has, rightfully I believe, made much of Obama's confession to Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber) that he intends to 'spread the wealth' as a necessitous task of a benevolent governing authority. Obama's campaign has tried to downplay this faux pas and even the Senator himself commented at a rally that McCain will next decry that sharing a sandwich with a friend in school is indicative of his communistic tendencies. Again, the alluring oration of a demagogue distorts the truth. Obama's ideology does not translate into sharing a sandwich with a friend, for that is an act of charity (a trait that Obama is surprisingly lacking in as evidenced by his petty contributions to charities and indifference to the plight of family members). To stick with this metaphor, an Obama presidency would result in figures of authority forcing those with lunch to supply those without or deemed inadequate with a large part of theirs. That IS communistic.
In an interview with Chicago Public Radio in, I believe, 1996, Obama reveals another of his true intentions when he relates how the one disappointment emerging from the era of the Civil Rights was the Supreme Courts inability to ignore the Constitution and proceed with a policy of social engineering. In this interview, Obama bemoans that the Constitution is a document made up of 'negative rights', meaning it enumerated what government could not do for a citizen. Obama's paraphrasing of the essential 'limitations of government' as negative rights is a clever bit of Orwellian subterfuge. What better way to unshackle the tyrannical proclivities of government than by convincing the public that their inalienable rights, as documented in our Constitution, are hinderances to creating true social justice. After all, equality of result (which is anathema to our Constitutional liberties) is what we all desire isn't it? Obama wants us to suspend reality and believe that only a sufficiently empowered government could accomplish this. We would be wise to remember what Reagan once stated: A government big enough to give you everything, is also big enough to take everything away.......and it usually does the latter.
The resentment Obama has for a shackeled government is also evident in his answer to all our social problems. Behind the crafty speeches, smooth demeanor, and reassuring tone, the retort he gives to all our social woes is basically the same: more government. Not since the days of FDRs New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society has the American people faced such a potential for a dramatic increase in government intrusion and a reduction to our liberties. The repudiation, by Obama, of our current economic realities combined with his insistence on a trillion dollar explosion in government spending is a recipe for disaster. This is the price tag of 'Change': rampant government spending financed by massive tax increases which will cause investors to flee this country like guests running from a burning hotel, a loss of real income, the weakening of the dollar, a slowdown in productivity, and the possibility of a real depression.
I have found that the best way to summarize Barack Obama is to paraphrase F A Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom". In it, Hayek says that socialism is, for all intents and purposes, the controlled planning of an economy and, thus, society. Socialists believe that a small cadre of experts are most efficient at interpreting the complexities of society and determining its' course. This, however, calls for more and more power on the part of the governing authority who quickly finds individual liberties are nothing but hinderances to the creation of an equitable communal construct. Slowly, inextricably, freedoms are done away with in the name of addressing some 'emergency' or inequality. Soon, the society finds itself in a perpetual state of crisis of inequity. The cries for a dictator go out, imperceptibly at first, but gaining in intensity. Than, the demagogue steps forward. Hayek defined the great social planner as a frustrated idealist who tramples all liberties to acquire what, in his mind is, but what can never be; heaven on earth. It is a tyranny predicated on good intentions, but a tyranny nonetheless. Hayek saw this progress towards tyranny as the inevitable result of democracies exchanging the vagaries of liberty for the socialist illusion of government provided security in all matters. It was a path to social destruction. This is what Obama campaigns on.
How is that for Change?