The Redhunter

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism -- from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers -- have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points -- its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. -- to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us -- today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved -- for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.

The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

And it will be a different place for the worse.

I, too, have never seen anything like this Barack Obama phenomenon, and I've followed politics since 1976, when I watched the Republican National Convention with my parents. Just yesterday another Republican volunteer and myself were visiting one of our supporters to put up one of the large 4'x8' McCain-Palin signs, and the Obama people had a small office in the strip mall. We chanced to walk by it, looked inside, and sure enough, there was this large poster of Obama like this one that must have been 6 feet tall on one of the walls

I'm sorry, but there is just something weird about all this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we on the right don't get carried away sometimes too. We are absolutely in love with Ronald Reagan, and at times I think we take it too far. The Republican presidential candidates tried to "out Reagan" each other to the point of ridiculousness during some of the debates. The Heritage Foundation's "What would Reagan do" is a bit much. And much of the hard core McCain following (who are not to be confused with conservatives) is based in part on a semi-cult of personality.

But all of this pales in comparison to what you see with the Obama following.

I don't see conservatives with Obama wrist bracelets. No conservative has made his own presidential seal. No one teaches their children to sing songs to Obama, or does so themselves.

What worries me is what the hard-core Obama followers will do after the election if their candidate wins. Obama himself has called for "Universal Voluntary Public Service." Specifically, he said that

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Wikipedia puts the size of the U.S. military at 1,436,000 men and women, with an annual budget of $583 billion. Taking Obama at his word, he would create a national service force of equal size in personnel and funding. I can't imagine he'll get full funding for this, at least not immediately, but given that he'll cut the military to the bone I'd imagine he'd use the "savings" to fund his civilian "security force."

Will participation be voluntary? What will this force be used for? Michelle Obama has said that

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. . . . Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual -- uninvolved, uninformed."

I think that the public justification for any "civilian national security force" would be "social justice" or just to "reduce poverty," in reality it would be political. His activists would spend their time agitating for leftist political goals, all paid for on the public dime. Does anyone doubt that organizations like ACORN would be a recipient of this money?

The damage such an organization could do is tremendous. And it's another reason to work for the defeat of Barack Obama and his cultish followers.