I've lately been enthralled by the fervor of BHO supporters. It seems, as many pundits and political commentators have observed; folks are displaying swooning and almost "cult-ish" commitment to the man and his message of "change," "hope," and the notion that government exists to provide the things people need and/or desperately want.
As a result, it occurs to me this election could become a referendum of sorts in terms of redefining government's proper role in our lives. Put another way, whether "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather, ask what you can do for your country" as articulated by JFK in 1960 remains the ideal, or if it will be replaced by the notion government is obligated, like a benevolent father, to give people things need but don't have. It must be said, this is indeed the normative paradigm in the world, with the heretofore notable exception of the United States.
Moreover, I'm struck by the notion so many of BHO's supporters are youthful and/or disadvantaged, thus this might explain why his message resonates so strongly with them.
To wit, because so many grew up fatherless and/or in want, with no practical alternative to getting the things they want or need other than hard work...and hard work is, well, hard, BHO represents that benevolent messianic figure who can immediately bridge the chasm between the "have nots" and the things they want.
Unconcerned with the practicalities, it seems to me at least, many believe BHO, like Santa, Christ, or Daddy Warbucks, will somehow make manifest the visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads.
What say the assembled lumaniti in this grand salon we call the SO?
Originally Posted by Mike Rich
