If the loons answer I expect "nefarious Bush and Cheney", "evil capitalism", "wicked big business' and my all time favorite "you, you big stupid you!"
Read my conservative friends and try not to be depressed.
This man nails it. Every
American who cares about their
future should read this article and plan accordingly . .
Please take a moment to digest this provocative article
Steven Pruzansky. He is the spiritual leader of
Congregation Bnai Yeshurun
in Teaneck, New Jersey. It is far and away
the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of
how our nation is
changing. The article appeared in The Israel
National News, and is
directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews
vote as Democrats. The
Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.
We Are Not
The most charitable way of explaining the election
results of 2012 is that
Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent
President and for a
divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock,
incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of
fewer people voted.
But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to
facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will
prevail among the
chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of
the effects of
Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he
lose because he ran
a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the
Republicans could have
chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama
benefited from a
slight uptick in the economy due to the business
Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious
reasons. Romney lost
because the conservative virtues - the traditional
American virtues – of
liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private
aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or
animate a majority
of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is
compete against free stuff.
Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss
the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's
America is one in
which free stuff is given away: the adults among
the 47,000,000 on food stamps
clearly recognized for whom they
should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions;
those who -
courtesy of Obama - receive two full years
of unemployment benefits
(which, of course, both disincentivizes looking
for work and also
motivates people to work off the books while
collecting their windfall)
surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the
revelation of the
secretly-recorded video in which Romney
acknowledged the difficulty of
winning an election in which "47% of the
start off against him because they pay no taxes and
just receive money -
"free stuff" - from the government".
Almost half of the population has no skin in the
game - they
don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or
creating jobs, nor do
they care that the money for their free stuff is
being borrowed from
their children and from the Chinese. They just
want the free stuff
that comes their way at someone else's expense. In
the end, that 47%
leaves very little margin for error for any Republican,
and does not
bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate
winning against such
overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In
people vote for a Congress who will not raise
their taxes, and for a
President who will give them free stuff, never mind who
has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the
inescapable conclusion that the
electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it
does not pay
to be an informed voter, because most other voters -
clear majority – are unintelligent and easily
swayed by emotion and
raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that
many people vote with their hearts and not their
heads. That is why
Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or
even defend his
first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt
Romney as a
rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a
cliff, when he is not
just snatching away their cancer medication, while
starving the poor
and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out
Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every
thinking person!" Stevenson
called back: "That's not enough, madam, we
Truer words were never spoken.
Obama could get away with saying that "Romney
wants the rich to play
by a different set of rules" - without ever
defining what those
different rules were; with saying that the
"rich should pay
their fair share" - without ever defining what a
share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor,
elderly and sick
to "fend for themselves" - without even
all these government programs are going bankrupt, their
insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to
blacks that a Romney
victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim
to women that their
abortions and birth control would be taken away. He
could appeal to
Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and
shipped to Mexico
and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the
immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of
relationship between governments and unions - in which
politicians ply the
unions with public money, in exchange for which
the unions provide
the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the
more money and the unions provide more votes,
etc., even though the
money is gone.
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed
- that whites will
soon be a minority in America (they're already
a minority in
California) and that the new immigrants to the US
are primarily from
the Third World and do not share the traditional
American values that
attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It
is a different
world, and a different America. Obama is part of
America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That
is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising
works, invective sells,
and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never
engaged in such
diatribes points to his essential goodness as a
"negative ads" were simple facts, never
personal abuse - facts
about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss
of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of
leadership, etc. As
a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not
devil's bargain of making
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and
Ryan - people of
substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the
shallow populism and
platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the
politics of envy – of
class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such
but to individual
groups, and cobbling together a winning majority
from these minority
groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his
record and his vision
of America, in which free stuff seduces voters - it is
hard to envision
any change in the future.
The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to
a European-socialist economy -
those very economies that are collapsing today in
Europe - is paved.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch
Democrats, the results
demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah.
Almost 70% voted for
a president widely perceived by Israelis and most
committed Jews as
hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama's
future at America 's
expense and at Israel 's expense - in
effect, preferring Obama to
Netanyahu by a wide margin.
A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances,
it is inconceivable that the US will take any
aggressive action against Iran and
will more likely thwart any
Israeli initiative. The US will preach
the importance of negotiations up until the
production of the first
Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world
must learn to live
with this new reality.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews.
There is no permanent
empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews
anywhere in the exile. The
American empire began to decline in 2007, and the
been exacerbated in the last five years. This election
only hastens that
Society is permeated with
sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has
lost its moorings and
its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the
givers, and that will only increase in years to come.
The "Occupy" riots across this country in
the last two years
were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years
of unrest sparked
by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who
want to seize
the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do
not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
If this election proves one thing, it is that
the Old America
is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not
The problems we face today are there
because the people who work for
a living are outnumbered by those who vote for
First off, it is not any longer than the "toast n'serve" propaganda and falsehood blue-elk routinely post.
Secondly it is a compelling TRUTH about post "W" America. Unless America reverses course, can ya spell DOOM.. Will history repeat itself, for America, following the path of dead great powers?
Finally, progs are working feverishly to send America to that historic scrap heap, sigh! How could a segment of "Americans" despise their heritage.
I can simplify this quite a bit. No need to read a long post. The majority of people who voted for Obama didn't just want free stuff. Many of them are out of work, poor and want opportunity. They heard Romney talking to his base and stupidly writing off 47% of the electorate because he knew, Romney, had nothing at all to offer them, that he, Romney, represents the status quo, that his history at Bain Capital was one of breaking up businesses and exporting jobs to China to take advantage of human slave labor and to drive down the cost of labor in the United States so that rich people here can have slave labor, too. At least Obama had enough common sense to lie to people about what his plans were.
Cam, that may be what they were sold and is likely what they bought, but you guys just continue to get it wrong. Capitalist want, need, require as many people as possible to do well. That's who buys the products, services etc.
All you sell is generalitional stagnation. Hopelessness and blame and of course excuses.
Yes, I agree about the decline but not when it started and why. The morals of the Country changed noticeably during the Vietnam War. NAFTA was another nail in the coffin of the average worker that thought he could graduate high school and go out and get a good job. To think most people that can't find work enjoy being on the dole for peanuts is ridiculous. People out of work today have worked for most of their lives and find their jobs eliminated or are just entering the job market and find the plant their daddy worked in is in Mexico.
What a rotten cynical shortsighted view of America this rabbi has. It's easy for those of us who have been fortunate to criticize those who haven't been or have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
bump for rob
"Yes, I agree about the decline but not when it started and why. The morals of the Country changed noticeably during the Vietnam War. NAFTA was another nail in the coffin of the average worker that thought he could graduate high school and go out and get a good job. To think most people that can't find work enjoy being on the dole for peanuts is ridiculous. People out of work today have worked for most of their lives and find their jobs eliminated or are just entering the job market and find the plant their daddy worked in is in Mexico.
What a rotten cynical shortsighted view of America this rabbi has. It's easy for those of us who have been fortunate to criticize those who haven't been or have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Since LBJ started the Great Society, we have spent 3 trillion dollars on it and welfare did not decline it increased. There is such a thing as welfare babies. The more babies you have the more welfare you collect.
Once people get on the public tit, they stay on it. An example of this is, unemployment goes down when unemployment benefits gives out. Why work when you can stay home, do nothing and get paid?
Once the takers out number the producers at some point the producers give up and join the takers.
I'm not saying stop welfare. There are people who genuinely need it, just make it not so easy to get on welfare. If you are able bodied, you work.
This says it all. Only wish W would not have been pinned down by war politics for 8 years. This relationship between voting and public funding is, in fact, a recipe for disaster. It is like the people are drowning together in a large ocean, all the while the "government" is there on a giant ship holding millions of life preservers that, after disbursed to those in the water,.. shrink over time. Many are trying to swim to the boat, others sink and drown, still others receive larger life preservers than their neighbors. They all need to swim, and they need to build their own little rafts, then yachts, then ocean liners. Then, they can take back the boat with revolving life preservers and give them to those who truly are not able to swim, not to those who simply do not want to swim.
Great find PC!
What continues to baffle me about this kind of thinking is that while "free stuff" might put a floor under some people, it also creates a ceiling. Their lives will likely never be any more, any better then what the free stuff provides since it also requires dependency - a form of servitude. This is true because the free stuff mindset dampens desire, stifles creativity and is self fulfilling - you don't believe that you can be anymore since it's other people's fault for your lot.
The true irony is that the "owners" of this caste don't live by those rules and enrich themselves by selling their pogrom. Look at the wealth of congress, of Sharpton and Jackson and plenty of others who's only platform is continuing to keep their constituents on the dole.