Dear Democrats: If this administration can’t get socialism right, how will any administration, ever?

Obama haloGoing into the 2008 election, Democrats devoutly believed two things:  First, they believed that socialism could be made to work.  Second, they believed that Barack Obama has every quality necessary to effectuate American-style socialism.

Let’s examine both these beliefs a little further.  First, let’s talk about the belief that socialism can be made to work.  I’m sure all of you have had or seen this interaction:  A person of ordinary common sense with some understanding of world history and current events, says to the ardent Progressive or Democrat (henceforth “DemProg”), “Socialism has never worked in any society in which its been tried.”

In the old days, the DemProg would point to Europe as an example of successful socialism, and then you’d have to explain to them that this success was due in significant part to the fact that America took care of most of Europe’s defense costs, leaving it with more money to expend on socialist welfare programs.  Nowadays, of course, with Europe an economic basket case that’s scarily trending to Europe’s version of “conservativism” — i.e., hate-filled, race-based nationalism — Europe is gone as an example of socialism that works.

Back to that conversation between the sensible person and the DemProg:  When the sensible person points out that socialism has always failed, both socially and economically, the DemProg always responds with some variation of “It just hasn’t been done right.”  These variations range from noting that too many socialist revolutions have occurred in agrarian, not industrial, societies, so they couldn’t have the proper type of socialism that Marx envisioned (Russia, China, North Korea, etc.); to the problem with cults of personality (that would be North Korean socialism); to “it’s all America’s fault” (that’s Cuban socialism); it got taken over by right-wing fascists (both Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, both of which explicitly billed themselves as socialist” movements); to “damaging vestiges of imperialism” (that’s would cover most African socialism).

But in America, the DemProg says, if we could just elect the right politician, we wouldn’t have any of those problems.  In a country with America’s vast wealth, strong infrastructure, industrial and commercial base, absence of powerful enemies, and constitutional check on personality cults, we would finally do socialism right.

To do socialism right, of course, one would need the right kind of president, and a Congress that he could bend to his will.  In 2007/2008, we were promised that Obama would be these things and more.  First off, we were promised that Obama had the intelligence to get the job done.  Michael Beschloss, the highly respected presidential historian, in an interview with Don Imus, waxed rhapsodical about Obama:

Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably – he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.

Imus: That’s not what I asked you. I asked you what his IQ was.

Historian Michael Beschloss: You know that I don’t know and I’d have to find someone with more expertise …

Imus: You don’t know.

In fact, Michael, to this day, nobody knows what Obama’s IQ is, or even what his grades were.

David Brooks, who is the New York Times version of a Republican, assured worried conservatives (and even the occasional worried moderate Dem) that Obama fully understood the nature of governance, and would handle the reins of power with competence and aplomb:

“I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”


“Obama sees himself as a Burkean,” Brooks says. “He sees his view of the world as a view that understands complexity and the organic nature of change.”

Brooks was also incredibly relieved that Obama was an intellectual — you know, a smart guy who could hold his own with other Brooksian smart guys:

[A]fter the Bush years, Brooks seems relieved to have an intellectual in the White House again. “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” he explains. “Of recent presidents, Clinton could sort of talk like us, but Obama is definitely–you could see him as a New Republic writer. He can do the jurisprudence, he can do the political philosophy, and he can do the politics. I think he’s more talented than anyone in my lifetime. I mean, he is pretty dazzling when he walks into a room.

Someone who agreed with Brooks was Obama himself:

Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast and run his operation. When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning: “I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,” he said. “It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” Obama said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaign’s political director. “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told him. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”  [Quoted in Jody Kantor's, The Obamas, p. 66.]

It wasn’t just Obama’s dazzling (albeit unproven) intelligence — the kind that, in lesser mortals, is called being a good bullshit artist — that assured DemProgs that, this time, socialism would be done right.  It was also that Obama was magical — a word from the DemProg lexicon, not from mine:

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.”

David Ehrenstein, who proposed Obama as the “magic negro,” seems skeptical about Obama’s magic negro shtick. Nevertheless, he pointed out that white DemProgs were deeply under Obama’s spell:

He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.


Obama’s fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he’s written in his two (count ‘em) books, or even what he’s actually said in those stem-winders. It’s the way he’s said it that counts the most. It’s his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is “articulate.” His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn’t called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn’t project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

Certainly, America thrilled when Obama, echoing this magical thinking, announced that his mere nomination as the DemProg candidate was a magical event:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

Naturally, DemProgs understood that the perfect socialist candidate — the correct race, the correct class, the correct education, the correct sky-high intelligence, the correct dash of magic and charisma — couldn’t be expected to do it alone. He needed a government that would work with him, not against him and, for the first two years of his administration, that’s what Obama got: he owned Congress, since both houses had Democrat majorities.

Obama’s election, therefore, provided the perfect conditions that socialism in America could be done right. It’s hard to imagine that the stars could ever again be so perfectly aligned. So what happened?

The economy is stagnant and, many say, gearing up for another full recession by 2016.

The DemProg dream bill — the Affordable Care Act — is getting eviscerated step by step, not by the Republicans, but by the White House and its agencies (with new IRS rules being just the latest example). Aside from that, it continued to be hated by all but the true believers, and the latter are mad at Obama for his ineffectual executive actions, starting with the exchange’s disastrous debut.

Overseas, not only is the world heading into 1930s chaos, complete with renewed European nationalism augmented by oil-funded Islamism, world leaders and their citizens are hating America just as much as ever, if not more than ever.

As an aside, race relations are also worse than they’ve been in years.

At this point, you’re compelled to ask your hypothetical DemProg, “Now what?” In answer to that question, I suspect that DemProgs will continue to claim that socialism can work but, once again, will defend Obama’s failures by saying that it just wasn’t done right.

When you counter by pointing to the optimal conditions the DemProgs had — the perfect, brilliant, magical candidate — DemProgs will claim one of two things: Either that Obama failed them, which casts doubt on DemProgs’ ability ever to select the right candidate; or they’ll claim that he was foiled by Republicans and by Charles and David Koch. If the latter is the case, of course, they’ve conceded that, in America, even the DemProgs’ best isn’t good enough, which is an implicit admission that, in America, socialism will never be done right because it can never be done right.

Let’s therefore end the socialist experiment, and get back to a vigorous free-market, individual-centered form of governance, tempered by a strong Judeo-Christian sense of right and wrong; the responsibility to be good stewards for our planet; and love for our fellow man. This last doesn’t mean we have to celebrate everybody all the time. Instead, at the government level, it should result in policies that leave people alone to flourish, that do not favor one group of people against another, and that intercede only when certain individuals are being unduly harassed by government or by groups of people that have tried to put themselves beyond government’s reach.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. says

    Sociopaths and other talented individuals can affect the accent of the people they are talking to. Thus it uses light hypnosis to create a bond. That’s why it matters more how a person says something than what they actually say. Most people are more affected by voice tones than they are by the words themselves, and Hussein’s public speeches aren’t how he speaks to individuals in his targeting field.
    A simple recording of how Hussein talked to American veteran families in private and how Hussein talks to Californians about bitter clingers should easily check the differences.

    • says

      It is a skill that can be learned but like everything else some are more talented than others. Master salesmen are master salesmen because they have learned how to identify personality types and sell using techniques geared to the very same personality type. People want to see a reflection of themselves.  Obama reflected a black candidate sure about the superiority of white european ideas (namely socialism) and knew how to modulate the message (although he had help.  Campaign strategists like David Axelrod have been  studying how to do so for decades).
      It is also important to master body language. Probably one of the few skills Obama actually has and probably it is innate. Everyone can cover up but there is that split second that can give you away to the trained eye. I’m sure Obama is a master at scanning crowds and then telling everyone what they want to hear.
      The media is a lot easier. They just line up like hookers and scream to Obama I’m your bitch. I’m your bitch.

  2. SADIE says

    The Great White Hope and Change of Color was served up to indiscriminate dinners, who couldn’t tell the difference between a béchamel and Beschloss sauce. Progs eager to dine on what was served, no one questioned the ingredients.
    The lesson: Never go to the supermarket hungry and never vote on an empty stomach.

  3. Charles Martel says

    I think Ymarsakar’s point about people more often being swayed by tone than content is correct. I’ve read some anthropologists who have remarked that speakers of Italian and Arabic are more likely to fixate on the musicality and mellifluousness of their own language rather than what somebody is saying in it.
    That also seems to be the case among many black Americans—how, rather than what, determines the right or wrong of an argument. (Way back in the day, I used to love watching Jesse Jackson, Jr. orate. Then one day I actually listened to what that Jew-hating racketeer was saying and woke up from my fascination.)
    The same thing holds for feminists and low-info voters. When you have fobbed off the task of using logic and rationality, both to make and to analyze arguments, onto privileged white cisgendered males, you’ve relieved yourself of any intellectual responsibility. Then it becomes easy to believe in a Light Bearer who will stop the rise of the oceans and pay for your sex aids. 

  4. jj says

    This is the part I always find astonishing about these blinkered idiots:  (quoting you):  “In a country with America’s vast wealth, strong infrastructure, industrial and commercial base…”  Now, where the hell do you think those things came from, you goddam DemProg fool?

  5. says
    The Left often has this delusion that they are polymaths, or rather that they know a lot of things, they obey leaders that know a lot of things, and that makes them superior to us.
    One problem, they aren’t polymaths and their leaders are closer to buffoonish clownish retards than polymaths.
    This Renaissance ideal differed slightly from the “polymath” in that it involved more than just intellectual advancement. Historically (roughly 1450–1600) it represented a person who endeavored to “develop his capacities as fully as possible” (Britannica, “Renaissance Man”) both mentally and physically, and, as Castiglione suggests, without “affectation”
    This was expressed in the term “Renaissance man” which is often applied to the gifted people of that age who sought to develop their abilities in all areas of accomplishment: intellectual, artistic, social and physical.
    Hussein could only ever be qualified on the third, social, aspect. What intellectual, artistic, or physical pursuits does Hussein excel at? One might as well ask the same thing of the entire Democrat party.
    I mentioned before that I considered Renaissance values and Ancient Greek values to require elements of both intellect and physical ability, not merely what modern society considers specialized nerd knowledge or intellectual prowess. A genius back then could be physically or intellectually gifted, or both gifts could be had. Chomsky, of the Left, has done work in linguistics to use language to control thought (a form of mind control). Thus what we learn from our native language and the experiences, emotional and developmental, that arrive as a result of our early days where we have yet to form a strong individual self or firewalls against corrupting foreign influences, plays a huge part on what we are and how we behave as well as what we believe. So a person may think Hussein is the smartest man in the room because when the person was a kid, the smartest man in the room looked and sounded like Hussein. These are ancient and long settled triggers. It’s how people speak differently in the presence of their parents, than they do against their siblings or friends or business associates. It’s not merely cultural familiarity and conditioning.
    Without the learning of a second language, there’s no easy way to bypass (other than through hypnotic regressive memory therapy and that’s just another form of mind rape if your psycho is a Leftist) certain acquired inhibitions and impressions from one’s youth. Rather than the common sense thinking that one has to be smart to become fluent in more than 1 or 3 languages, I use the reverse or obverse. By learning different languages when one is young or old, one can manually manipulate and micromanage memories and concepts to such a degree that it improves intelligence, thus becoming smarter.

  6. sabawa says

    Sad state of affairs (I’m not talking about B. Clinton), when empty words, soaring B.S., orated sweet-nothings, and a killer smile pass for know-how.   Will his winsome delivery ever finally reveal what a mess of a human being he really is?


  1. Watcher’s Council submissions

    The Noisy Room – The Menace of Russia and China – A Strategic Alliance Of Our Enemies The Independent Sentinel – Obama Seizes 500,000 acres of New Mexico Land for Drug Cartels and GoatsSimply Jews – Kill the kike, save…

  2. Watcher’s Council winners

    *First place with 4 votes! – Bookworm Room – Dear Democrats: If this administration can’t get socialism right, how will any administration, ever? Second place with 3 2/3 votes –The Right Planet – Y’All Gonna Make Me Lose My Mind…

Leave a Reply