The propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, aka the "mainstream media," is pretty well announcing next year's election as already over, with President Obama a sure winner. A recent AP poll showed Obama's approval rating at 60%, which is utterly ridiculous. The fine line to that poll was that 46% of the people who were asked identified themselves as Democrats, while only 29% said they were Republicans. I wonder what Obama's approval rating would be if those numbers were switched. Somewhere near (or far below) the 48% that Rasmussen's poll (a professional poller) has him.
That's really irrelevant. The election isn't for another year and a half, which is an eternity in politics. Yet, the media is already suggesting a fait accompli, Obama is unbeatable. The idea is that if it's hopeless for the Republicans, the people who support that party will either stay home, or join the winning team. You can expect the media to hammer this theme (Obama is unbeatable) relentlessy and ruthlessly over the next 18 months in their desperate attempt to get him re-elected. As the Nazis taught us, repeat a lie often and loud enough and most people will begin to believe it.
The question is, is he unbeatable? No, of course not, but his defeat isn't assured, either, and it will not be too many years before candidates of Obama's ilk will virtually be unbeatable on the national stage. It is simply a matter of history, folks, and especially the history of democracies, where mediocrity eventually reigns. Empires grow and then they collapse--morally, socially, economically, and in other ways. Sometimes those empires disappear completely from existence (e.g., Assyria, Babylon), sometimes they simply degenerate into third rate insignificance, a shell of their former greatness (e.g., France, Great Britain). What it takes for a peoples to become great they must continue to do. When they stop doing it, they begin their inevitable decline and fall.
The United States started its serious decline in the 1960s, when it lost its moral compass and "intellectuals" began a serious attack on the traditions and unified beliefs upon which the country had been established and built. (Future historians might argue for an earlier beginning, and I'm tempted to.) The pre-60s America was an America of individualism, a morality solidly based on Judeo-Christian values, and an American exceptionalism that was unique, almost to world history. The country was far from perfect, of course, and made many mistakes in its history; imperfect, sinful human beings will always commit grievous errors. Still, there were enough of the qualities (frugality, morality, industry) to build and grow a mighty country. These are values which are rarely exalted today, and when people are not taught something, they will not know it. The last generation of "intellectuals" and politicians has been busy criticizing and undermining America's historical values and it has taken its toll.
More and more, an immoral, dependent, lazy populace has grown and replaced the stouter virtues of the past. Not every American has degenerated, of course; we speak of the decline of empires, and that implies gradualism, not immediacy. But Barack Obama and the Democratic Party has made its living over the last 50 years by appealing to that '60s generation of rising untraditional, unexceptional American ideals. More and more people reject the traditional and opt for the "progressive," which, of course, is not progressive at all, but the very opposite. Rather than individual virtue and industry--people taking care of themselves--there is a growing dependence upon government, something the Democratic Party exists for and without which, wouldn't exist any longer. Dependence means power for those who crave it, control over others. Vain, narcissistic politicians want that power, and a vain, narcisstic media wants to share it with them. Attack moral law, insist it doesn't exist, and people will, morally, fall into such a rank condition that there only hope is dependence, which is simply another word for slavery. Then, call such dependence "progressive"--lie like the Nazis--and people will be shamed if they don't go along with it. Who wants to be "unprogressive"? Hollywood, of course, pitches in with its ceaseless outpouring of immoral rot and attacks on the virtues of the past--virtues Hollywood portrays as the Southern "hick" and the bigoted clergyman. Folks, this is a classic, textbook example of decline and fall, and it won't be stopped.
Are there enough Americans left who believe in hard work and moral virtue to defeat Barack Obama? Yes, there are, but their numbers are decreasing and they will eventually be in the minority, if they aren't already. The left will cower them, probably violently as they always have, and the United States will slowly, but inevitably, descend into oblivion or, more likely, insignificance. A fractured, "multicultural" society, almost by definition, doesn't have the strength that comes from unity to ward off the rising, hungry mouths elsewhere that will do those things necessary to bring increase and success. Something must unite a people; what is it that unites America today besides geographical boundaries? The continued might and power of America is nowhere eternally decreed. Decline and fall can happen in the United States just as it has elsewhere. And that decline and fall is evident to those with the eyes to see. The election of people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, not to mention Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk, are full evidence of the gradual regression of a once-great country.
Our Founding Fathers were great historians who knew the lessons of the past. That's why they were able to establish a country on principles that made America great and have kept it so for over 200 years. But today we are living off the moral capital of those previous generations, and that moral capital is almost gone. Two quotes from Benjamin Franklin as I close: "When the people discover they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that will herald the doom of the Republic." Republics--especially democratic Republics--must have a moral, hard-working, economically independent people. Dependency and a republic are opposites. Franklin also said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." What better description is there of the decline of the United States?