The Sky Is Falling, and other possibilities

America is now Communerica. Obamacare is Communist dictatorship in the making and will surely result in a system as bad as Canada's. That, combined with practically welcoming Red China into our front door through economic dependence, spells Communist revolution on our doorstep as we speak! And Obama's appointees are all sleeper revolutionaries awaiting the command from their leader to socialize everything from health care to job assignment to matchmaking...

OK, so I see the value in questioning the government and making sure it stays well in check so as to not accumulate more power/control/authority than any government should. I agree with the concept of small government. I think it should only step in where necessary, and those instances should be rare. But despite trying to keep discussion light-hearted and even-keeled, it's getting rather difficult to keep my lunch down when I hear almost panicky-sounding, sky-is-falling cries of imminent Communist revolution every time anyone with any Socialist connections or leftwing ideals is appointed to the Obama administration, or when a public option for health care is discussed. We elected, if you recall ("we" collectively, not you or I individually) a rather Democrat-dominated government. That balance may be swayed with the next elections to keep them in check.

But do you freak out when a red-blooded Republican appoints rightwing cabinet members or administrators with ties to people and groups with staunchly socially authoritarian viewpoints, or do you call it a monkey acting like a monkey? I mean, they're probably much more likely to have known, been friends with, and worked with black-hating, Mormon-hating, or theocratic people, but that doesn't mean they're all about religious authoritarian, racist government that's in bed with big oil and wants to keep the poor poor. Does it? Maybe it does.

I have a few Socialist or Socialist-leaning friends, some of whom I respect as completely good and intelligent people. But what I'm learning from folks like Glen Beck is that I have to shun them and wholly discredit their views if I am ever to hold a cabinet-level position. And if I were to become president (yeah, fat chance and a goal NOT on my top 10 list), I couldn't appoint someone I know to be a fair-thinking, moderate, humble person (who may happen to support Socialist ideals) to a high-level office because those Socialists are trying to take over.

No, I'm not talking about Van Jones. He concerned me, too. And yes, I recognize that revolution becomes more likely when someone brings in an unprecedented number of ideologically aligned people, so don't give me that cocked-head, "oh that's precious that you're such a wide-eyed optimist" look and the "you're young and naive" rhetoric as if I just don't recognize potential danger before us and have been duped by classic, charismatic "change" rhetoric revolutionaries have used throughout history.

I knew the possibility of shiftiness when I voted for this guy. I knew "change" comes at a cost and can't be magically produced from nothing and that his ability to pay for his promises was questionable. I knew he was too new on the scene to know for sure whether he could deliver. I knew he was a more-left-than-usual candidate who had some radical friends and colleagues. I knew we ran a risk of electing a government which was likely all-too-willing to "save" the people in a time of economic desperation. I knew young people would be attracted to his youth, energy, and pretty words without thinking them through to conclusion. I knew the potential for too much change too fast was there. I voted for him anyway. I understand the adage "Looks like a duck, walks like a duck..." but I also believe that most good things have a counterfeit, and the existence of a hundred counterfeits doesn't devalue the real McCoy, and I betted on him being at least mostly the real deal and figured I'd keep an eye on him and find out. When I say "the real deal", I don't mean an authentic savior of the nation and arbiter of all that is good and just. I mean someone who is rational, will try to keep his promises, has the country's best interest at heart, wants progress more than power, respects and embraces the nation's foundational values and ideals, and will in fact shake things up even to a slightly uncomfortable degree (because change is ALWAYS uncomfortable to people who are used to the same ol' system) to such an extent that creative problem-solving and real effort are sparked into action.

I think that last part was one of the biggest reasons I voted for him and one of the hardest to describe to people. There were other reasons, foreign policy and social issues among them (supposed scandalous positions on abortion aside), for electing him. I found his expressed thought processes refreshingly rational and articulated in a way that subtly reflected global and multicultural awareness in a way I'd heard from no other candidate, except perhaps Giuliani, oddly enough. I wanted to see someone really different in office who would not only try to fulfill his or her promises but who would also be so new and challenging that the very capable folks in Congress would either be roused into action by motivation of having a fresh new leader or would be awakened to the reality that they need to stop entrenching into stale foxholes and get their butts in gear if they're going to challenge this kind of charisma and prove that their ideals are best. Ironically (if Beck is correct), I suspect you could possibly say a big motivation of mine to vote for Obama was borne of good old fashioned free market competition ideals.

It involved taking a risk partially for the sake of giving someone in politics a chance to do what they said. I knew it was a risk, especially since I was very aware that the same phenomenon I was hoping would happen could also potentially open the door to out-of-control change if the people of the U.S. didn't keep themselves and their government in check. Big gamble to take, and admittedly a touch "idealistic". I also recognized that Obama could easily take advantage of undecided voters like me by appealing to that idealistic trust in the citizens of the U.S. by winning with our help and then pushing the country so far towards Socialism that by the passage of four years, the momentum could be unstoppable before we realized our trust in the people of the nation, now uninspired drones suckling on government's ample teat, was overly hopeful. Big gamble indeed. But it seemed better than the alternative, despite McCain winning me over quite a bit over the course of the campaign (I was genuinely torn).

Many conservative commentators gave him about two weeks before declaring his phoniness and duplicity. Hardly convincing to any rational observer, as far as I'm concerned, so most of them discredited themselves really fast in my book. I knew who had a bias and who I should pretty much tune out as a career naysayer. Others were more moderated at first and waited. Some have since come out with guns a-blazing, seemingly convinced they're the heroes on the forefront of a preventive war against Communist takeover. Hey, if they're right, they're guardians of our nation. I'm just skeptical. Others are questioning but still holding back outright accusations. These are the ones who most have my ear, I'd say. Perhaps just because I think like them, so I unfairly give them more credit.

And perhaps I unfairly think those who sound like Glen Beck are jumping on a bandwagon rather than thinking rationally. If they're right, then I'm a danger, overly complacent with my "watch closely and wait" attitude while nearly irreversible damage is being done behind the scenes in the White House because most of the nation is duped. If they're right, they can point a finger and say "I told you so" if it makes them feel better. But I still don't know if I'm convinced the most effective way to stop a quiet revolution is to exaggerate, quote out of context, stop the dems at every turn, and constantly decry every measure as Communism in the making. If the threat is real, such tactics shouldn't be needed to convince those who respond to rationale. After all, emotional appeals don't "mean"...well, anything.

I hope Obama lives up to my hopes, but if he doesn't, I'm not going to convince myself he did. What kind of pride would that be to sacrifice the good of the country to my own need to have been "right" about someone? I'm pretty used to being disappointed by people. I hope that doesn't mean I'll stop giving them things to disappoint me over, though. We do need hope, and we also need to acknowledge when hope is not rewarded because, paradoxically, refusal to admit unmerited hope is the death of true hope. Someone might dupe me, but I like to think I'm not so stubborn as to refuse to see what's in front of me out of pride while my home crumbles around me.

Long story short, please try not to label me as a leftwing co-conspirator when I feel ill hearing about how the sky is falling every day.