Much in the current news cycle is devoted to opinions about the election of Scott Brown from Massachusetts, and how he upset the applecart in the recent election.
I received a phone call from a caller who said, “Obama is making speeches that appear to be ‘backing up,'” which was predictable in the face of the defeat in Massachusetts. In the doctrine of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, it’s called dialectic materialism; a manner of speech, characteristic of a particular mindset. That is, a manner of expression, which appears quite logical, backing away from prior language, presenting a different tone.
The difference in Obama-speak, post the Brown win, was more evident in his tone and attitude, than in the substance of his words.
Much in the news media appears to be an attempt to present some earthshaking phenomenon, which has most of Washington running scared. I don’t think so. I suggest it’s hype of taking one step backwards to take two steps forward. The direction which the powers that-be in Washington are taking this country, has not changed. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The attention of the general populace is temporarily diverted, by dialectical materialism. It’s a strategy those in charge know so well and use so effectively.
Never was it so glaringly definitive, as President Obama appearing immediately in an interview and stating, “The same thing that swept Brown into office, swept me into office, the anger of the American people.”
He is defining the mood of the American people as being the same with himself. He’s attempting to convey, “Listen all you pickup truck drivers, we are in this together, and more alike than different.” An attempt to dispel the idea that the thinking and attitude of the American people is quite different from that of the movers and shakers in Washington.
The language and rhetoric is commensurate with the retorts from politicians last summer, when those appearing before the town-hall meetings insulted the attendees, who were trying to convey their disenchantment with Washingtonian double-talk, double-speak and rejecting the politicians’ actions of socialistic agenda.
It appears to me, the actions of the constituents in Massachusetts, was not one of anger, but a cool-headed resolve to act in a manner to change the dynamics of the direction.
Furthermore, I thought it was quite interesting and telling, in view of a lifetime push by Ted Kennedy to shove health care down the throats of the American people, that along comes an unknown who said, “I’m going to kill it,” and replaced him in the Senate seat.
Then President Obama taking that mandate, and equating it with his own win. Ludicrous, to say the least. How can one who has done everything in his power to force the health-care monstrosity into law, reasonably and rationally take a stance of “killing it” and address it as having a common denominator?
I suggest it was a ploy in the art of dialectic materialism. Taking what the constituents did, converting it to mean something entirely different to suit his scheme of things.
It all sounded so Pavlovian. Remember the Pavlovian theory about the trained rats, who defied their brainwashing when the floods came? And ran for their lives?
So it goes in the current crisis. The American people are not acting and re-acting out of anger, they are beginning to run for their lives and a return back to the principles upon which this nation was founded, by this little trickle in last week’s election. How far it’s going, and how widespread it may become is an unknown.
Again, I repeat what Lincoln said in his speech February 12, 1863: “The people are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
The people in Massachusetts, by their actions, attempted to overthrow the political machine, which has been “perverting the Constitution.” Whether or not this is going to have any meaningful impact, to return the powers back to the people, only time will tell. But what I do know, it appears to be an indictment of the direction those in Washington have taken this country.
The jury is still out, and unlike some who are predicting this is an indication of a landslide collapse of the “far left” takeover in Washington, much is left still undone to predict that. But a trickle is a beginning.
If we are not careful, there could be a romancing via the language, to stifle this beginning. There is still a lot of apathy and support for the “Nanny State” out there. And the crisis is still with us.
LET FREEDOM RING