The problem with bad situations is that people naively assume that there is an exact opposite situation which would be “good.”
For example, for the past 8 years, the US has been burdened with a bad president. However, many people, urged along by the Democrats, don’t see it like that. They see it as we ‘For the past 8 years, we have been burdened with a Republican president, and that is why things are bad.” People no longer even consider ideology or political theory, they just say to themselves “this guy sucked, so if we elect a Democrat, things will be great.”
Of course, when Billary was in office, the Republicans were quick to help people think “We have a Democrat as president, and things suck, so we must elect a Republican.”
People even ignore such things as whether a person is a good or bad president, regardless of party. They just know that to effect change, you just vote for the opposite. So, if the current president really sucks, you must vote for the other guy, who is sure to really blow. What IS the opposite of “orange.”
I guess this is human nature: laziness. Nobody wants to go to the trouble to find out WHY things are bad. Are things bad because the Republicans have been in the white house? No. Things are bad because our government is filled with the crooked, greedy, inept, and power-hungry. Tinpot dictators from both parties, who have no clue how the country is really supposed to work, as defined by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers warned of exactly this situation if the public failed to remain vigilant, watchful, and most of all, informed. If the government violates the Constitution, what does it matter if the leaders are member of “Party A” or “Party B?” The fact is that they are a loyal Party member. The end result is still the same.
Now we are in the middle of a “financial crisis.” We operate under what was supposed to be a “capitalist” economic system. Since the economy is in the gutter, many people are now suggesting that various forms of socialism are the answer. The problem is that our economy did not crash because it was capitalistic, it failed because of mismanagement, greed, corruption, lobbiests, and government intervention in the economy. What we have now is not “free market capitalism,” it is a variation of National Socialism (Fascism). But, since the media and the government call it by the name of “Capitalism,” so people now cry for what they think is “the opposite:” socialism.
Our government has strayed so far from The Constitution that it is difficult to even use that term to describe our current political situation. What then, of those who rightfully want to fix the problem? Since The Constitution is barely mentioned in any detail in today’s schools, there is an entire generation who doesn’t have a concept of what our country is supposed to be. They just see what it is now, and believe the government officials when they claim to “defend The Constitution.” Since these members of The People are unfamiliar with The Constitution, they don’t realize that the people in government are at least as clueless.
If a person believes that the government is properly constrained by The Constitution, and our current situation is the end result, what then will be that person’s goals when they attempt to “fix” the country? Will it be to restore The Constitution? Hardly – since they believe that The Constitution is still fully in affect. No, they will strive for something else, and can be persuaded that any particular “call for change” is the proper path.
The danger in this is, or should be, obvious. Certain societies in history have suffered under oppression and in their quest to fix the problem have ended up with horrible despots. Recent examples would be Germany rejecting Hindenburg, Russia rejecting the Tsar, China after WWII, etc. I’m reasonably certain that the end result in each of those countries is not what the citizens intended, but they were lead down that path by power-hungry people who ended up instituting totalitarian societies.
In every case, those who craved power created some easy scapegoat. Hitler picked the age-old target of the disaffected: Jews. The Communists in Russia picked the aristocracy and the rich.
Obama doesn’t say he is targeting “the rich,” but he claims he will be a champion of “the poor” and “middle class” which would seem to be the same thing as saying he is going to be against “the rich.”
Obama often referred to “rich,” “poor,” and “middle class in his speeches.” However, if you listened to his speeches, his idea of “middle class” included those who make $250,000 per year. Excuse me? I live in the midwest. If you make a quarter million dollars a year, you are not middle class. I guess if you are a professor at an Ivy League school and have a wife who is an executive in the health care industry, you might have odd ideas about the real world. So, if the opposite of “poor” is “rich,” how much money does one have to make to be considered “rich?” If he is going to look out for “the poor” and those who make $250,000 a year, who does that leave out in the cold?