Why Obama Can (Unbelievably) Still Win

Well, what's been going on lately?  I've been very busy with school, but finals are next week so it should slow down soon.  I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do during the summer holiday; I'd like to take a Chinese language course, but the one offered by the university here is more expensive than I want to pay.  I might be able to get them to discount it some, but I don't know.  I may do some traveling, and I certainly want to do some reading and writing.  Regardless, I'm a little weary, so I'm looking forward to the break.

As amazing at it might seem, Barack Obama still has a very good chance of being re-elected President of the United States this year.  It really has very little to do with Mitt Romney, who actually is, so far, turning out to be a very level-headed and solid candidate.  It is simply a matter of demographics.  Obama and the Democrats have desperately been trying to get as many people as possible dependent upon government largesse, and then convince these people that the Republicans will steal their candy and leave them starving in the streets.  Almost 50% of Americans are receiving some kind of government assistance now and almost the same number pay no income tax.  Most of those piglets aren't going to turn away from the teat they suck on.

But there is something deeper involved here.  Self-government is, largely, a product of western European (basically English) Calvinism.  The most stable self-governing countries in the world, for the most part, were former British colonies.  Most other peoples simply have struggled with "self-government" because they have no history of it (the Japanese, Koreans, and non-communist Chinese are notable exceptions to this).  As the United States has become more heterogeneous--especially rising black and Hispanic populations--the natural tendency of those ethnic groups is to drift towards dependence.  Those two groups, especially, have no tradition of self-government, of independence, of making decisions on their own.  They've been told all of their history, by some absolutist ruler, what to do, and thus it is easier for them simply to allow government to take care of them, rather than take the risk, responsibility, and consequences that freedom offers.  This is not a racial argument, it is an historical one.  The Latin American countries, for 200 years, have struggled with self-government because they were colonies of an absolutist Spain.  Those Hispanics who are now gravitating to the United States have no idea how "self-government" works, so they lean on government.  The Europeans spent only enough time in Africa to screw that continent up, not teach them self-government.  America, of course, kept blacks subservient through slavery and Jim Crow laws--and liberals today want to continue that subservience--so they, too, look to government for support.  A recent study which indicated that the birth of minority babies now exceeds that of Caucasian babies is a godsend to Democrats and a death knoll for freedom in the United States.  What will happen in 20 years when all those people can vote?  How can the private sector survive without a massive re-education program, extolling the virtues of the family, church, hard work, and individual responsibility--all of which are diametrically opposed to the very principles of government?  And since the government controls the union-dominated education system, what are the chances of educational reform happening?

There is also the "heathen" factor.  Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  The whole need for government is based upon man's unwillingness to control himself, and the more wicked man becomes, the more government he requires.  This is not only history, it's common sense.  As the left continues its unrelenting attacks on Christianity and everything decent, moral, and virtuous, it is no surprise that government continues to grow.  It is exactly what the secular left wants!   And yet, they have the unmitigated gall to call it "progressive."   More wickedness is "progressive."  Well, it is to some people, and those people will vote for Obama.

Even Bill Clinton admitted that Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital was "sterling" and that he was a well-qualified candidate.  I never have especially liked Romney, but he is obviously far superior to the incredibly incompetent Obama.  But that doesn't matter.  In a democracy, superiority doesn't always win.  In fact, because democracy caters to mediocrity, "superiority" is often frowned upon.  Bottom line is, don't be surprised if Obama is re-elected.

In one sense, it's really amazing that anybody would still support Obama.  The job of President is way over his head, he was never qualified for the position in the first place, and thus it is absolutely no surprise that the country is floundering and directionless.  Recently, he said “The private sector is doing fine.  Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy, have to do with state and local government....cuts initiated by governors or mayors..."  How anybody could be that stupid is...well, no, I realize that people can, indeed, be that stupid.  He backed off the "private sector is doing fine" comment when everybody, including liberals, laughed at him.  But to say that the economy is weak because of cuts in state and local government budgets is buffoonery of the highest order.  But that is Barack Obama.  He has no talent, no acumen, and he never did.  He was a creation of media propaganda.  The masses are easy to lead around by the nose; Adolf Hitler is a perfect example of that.  He was democratically elected by the most educated people in the world at that time.  As I have said before, that Obama has been a failure is no surprise to anyone who knows the first thing about history and economics.  I knew he would fail before he ever got into office, simply because what he believes is wrong.

But then, I guess it depends on what you mean by "failure."  If more government power is considered "successful," then he has certainly been one of the most successful Presidents in American history.   But if freedom, self-government, virtue, righteousness, industry, morality, and decency are the standards and criteria, then Obama has been exactly what could have been expected, because he and the Democratic Party don't believe in any of those things.