@ican711nm,
Ican and Okie, it seems Obama's domestic agenda has always been aimed at the overall goal of increased (if not total) governmental control of every aspect of American life. But if this view is accepted, the question still must be asked as to why he has, not only, pushed this agenda so hard, so soon, and on so many fronts but continues to do so (presently on Universal health care) despite the wishes of a majority of Americans and a decrease in personal popularity and his job approval ratings even to the point of total a disregard for his political future.
But there is also the puzzle (at least to some of us Americans) regarding an Obama foreign policy that subjects past American actions to harsh criticism, seeks to apologize for such, denies American exceptionalism, shows passivity towards those that mean us harm, and turns away from classical and newly acquired U.S. allies. Obama seemingly is campaigning for the title of "The Great Equalizer". To some these efforts seem a disconnect from the classic duties of the American Executive a la George Washington who sorely feels his guiding principle demands he protect Americans and guard the U.S. constitution at all costs.
Well, James W. Ceaser in an article in The Weekly Standard gives us a really interesting narrative that attempts to pull a lot of this policy dissonance into a common cord and assigns Obama a different title. This is almost 4 solid pages but if you invest some time you may find this interesting. The last 2 paragraphs:
Quote:"The same pressure to hew to the dictates of the new religion [of Humanity] is evident in the efforts of Obama’s intellectual supporters to save postpartisanship from the simple hoax that most now believe it to have been. Postpartisanship, we are told, never meant anything as mundane as dealing with the other party. It referred instead to working with those who embrace the consensus of the new era. It therefore explicitly excludes the bulk of the Republican party, which comprises those who cling stubbornly to their theology and metaphysics. Only those elements that have adapted or evolved qualify as potential postpartisan partners. The standard for inclusion is not an expression of popular will, but criteria supplied by the idea of progress. What has made many Americans increasingly suspicious of the office of leader of Humanity is their growing perception that it rests ultimately on contempt for the people.
The conflicting demands of the Religion of Humanity and the presidency of the United States have become most apparent in the administration’s approach to dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism. The Religion of Humanity, by its own reckoning, admits to facing challenges from two quarters: from those who have not yet fully entered the age of Positivism, which includes the terrorists, and from those who are part of the advanced world but who refuse to embrace it, which includes the likes of George W. Bush. In the present situation, these two groups are understood to have a symbiotic relationship. The existence of the terrorists is regrettable, not only because of the physical threat that they pose, but also because, by doing so, they risk strengthening the hand of those in the West who reject the Religion of Humanity. Supporters of the Religion of Humanity therefore believe they have good reason to deny or minimize the danger of terrorism in order to save the world from the even greater danger of the triumph of the retrograde forces. This is the dogmatic basis of political correctness, and Obama and his team have gone to considerable lengths by their policies and by their use of language to hide reality. But reality has a way of asserting itself, and it is becoming clearer by the day that being the leader of Humanity is incompatible with being the president of the United States. No man can serve two masters."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/roots-obama-worship
JM
