The pre-emptive socialism of Obamanomics.

[andrea_f...@live.com]

Obama-ism isn't class warfare but classy welfare

Look at Obama's top donors and the people--other than blacks--that
supported him most: the white educated class. This is especially true
of the Jewish population, the most successful in America which voted
80% for Obama. Jews are not only overwhelmingly liberal but have
great influence in media, and they used their power to make Obama
president.
So, Obama-ism didn't happen because the unwashed masses smashed down
the gates of the rich. Rather, Obama-ism is socialism perpetrated by
some of the most successful and most educated people in America.
Sure, Obama got the bulk of the black vote, Hispanic vote, and some
blue collar white vote--as Democratic candidates tend to do. What's
striking is he pulled ahead because he got much of the upper-middle
class white vote--and Asian vote(another successful group in
America).

So, why would rich and successful people support Obama? (1) Fear.
The rich and successful are anxioius about the rising tide of envy and
resentment among Middle Americans. So, what is to be done? Buy off a
radical like Obama and make it seem as though America is now
controlled by someone who 'cares for the people'. If a black man is
president, there really must be Change upon the land. Rich people
have tried to buy off radicals before. Neither Mussolini nor Hitler
could have succeeded without the support of the rich; the Italian and
German bourgeoisie sensed that people were growing more restless, and
therefore, it would be a safer bet to have a 'man of the people' take
power--at least nominally--and dole out handouts to calm the unwashed
massesive. Hitler, you recall, calmed the people down with public
works and jobs. Of course, Hitler also outmanuevered the rich people
and brought destruction to Europe. But, Obama is firmly in the hands
of the rich who've bought and marketed him.
(2) Intellectual arrogance. The educated class sat through many
lectures in colleges and read many books written by leftists.
Education is a good thing, but intellectuals have a tendency to
mistake book learning with actual reality.
At any rate, they hold ideals at odds with reality and believe that
they must have more power through government to push their ideals or
ideology onto all the people.
(3) Sheer powerlust. There are many kinds of power but political power
is most addictive and potent. Rich people aren't satisfied with
economic well-being or power; they want political power,and bigger
government means more power in their hands; sure, they have to pay
higher taxes, but as they--or their children--will be running
government(Kennedies, Bushies, etc), they don't mind.
(4) Conscience. Rich white people have swallowed the religion of
political correctness and multiculturalism. But, almost all of them
know nothing of poor people. They live in highrise condos or in gated
communities away from the 'disenfranchised'. By making Obama president
and expanding government--which will be run by people of their social
status--in the name of helping 'the people', white liberals can feel
'progressive' and 'inclusive'.

We have to start accepting the reality that GOP is no longer the
party of the rich and successful. GOP is the party of Joe the
Plumbers. Democratic Party, for all its pandering to labor and
minorities, is also the party of urban, privileged, highly educated,
and very wealthy upper- and upper-middle class. It will become more
so since rich people send their kids to elite colleges, and guess who
runs those institutions? Also, kids raised in privilege want 'clean'
jobs or to follow 'noble' callings in life, and nothing is said to be
nobler in our democratic society than 'serving the people'. To serve
the people, you need political power. See how clever it is. Liberals
serve themselves by claiming to serve the people. Of course, one
could argue that a successful businessman creates jobs and
opportunities and so on, but he's said to work for 'profit' whereas
politicians and bureaucrats are said to work for the 'good of the
people'--with taxes taken from successful businesses of course.
Anyway, the point is socialism is a worse habit among the rich and
successful than among the poor. The poor didn't come up with the
ideology of socialism; rich educated people did. It's rich people
who've been using socialism to gain power for themselves in the name
of the people. And, many people fall for it because it sounds nice and
very Christian--help the poor, take care of needy, 'greed' is evil,
etc.

Obama-ism is not about the masses tearing down the rich. It's about
the rich buying off a radical to push their own agenda. Though Obama
acts like a proud black man, he's really just a puppet-boy of the
white liberal upper-class. You might call this pre-emptive
socialism. Old-style class warfare would be where the masses rise up
and tear down the system. In pre-emptive socialism, the rich people
buy off mass envy and resentment by propping up a symbolic radical
like Obama who will then do as the rich white liberals tell and guide
him. Obama knows nothing about economics, so he will fetch when Larry
Summers and Tim Geithner tell him to.
And, bigger government isn't necessarily anti-capitalist as far as the
liberal rich are concerned. More government spending means more
contracts for favored private companies. Just as Halliburton found the
Iraq War to be quite lucrative, many liberal leaning private companies
are bound to make 'obscene profits' from the Obama order.