On Tenterhooks

Two years ago, the American people made a terrible mistake.  Against common sense and a boatload of evidence they reelected president Obama.  The question is: Will they be as foolish tomorrow?  At the moment it is impossible to say.

During the last electoral cycle Bill Clinton assured the public that Obama had done as well as anyone could under the circumstances.  Indeed, the economy was allegedly poised to take off and Al Qaeda was on the run.  Any indications to the contrary were Republican spin.

In fact, a team of monkeys pounding typewriters and squealing into telephones could have done better.  Their uninformed choices would have been superior to Barack’s obstinately misguided ones.

Nor would these simians have been as narcissistic.  Our chief executive is not merely a bystander to events; he is a ceaselessly preening bystander.  Blessed with an enticing line of patter, it is usually dedicated to vindicating how wonderful he is.

Two years ago, Obama’s narcissism was on full display; nevertheless his spurious expressions of concern for the American people were taken at face value.  He cared about their welfare, whereas that vulture capitalist Mitt Romney surely did not.

Dishonesty has been a persistent theme of the Obama administration.  From the beginning he and his minions have lied about nearly everything.  Not just ObamaCare and foreign policy, but small matters, such as whether the president woke up each morning worrying about the strength of the economy, received duplicitous treatment.

Even now many Americans do not realize how treacherously they have been manipulated.  Nevertheless, the president recently let his approach to political gamesmanship slip out.  He endorsed mendacity out loud.  --But were people listening?

During several radio interviews, Obama explained that he was not distressed that Democratic senatorial candidates were disavowing their connections to him.  They were merely saying what they had to say to return to office.  Then, when they did, they would revert to their true colors and again vote with him.

Here was a president defending the expedience of telling lies.  Yet these were not statesmanlike lies.  Their goal was not to protect the nation’s interests.  These were selfish lies.  They were intended to further his interests.

Does this matter?  Are we so far gone that bald-faced lies are an acceptable way of doing business?  Liberals evidently think so.  They are beginning to blush a little, but they still believe that their objectives are so important that it is okay to guard them with a palisade of fabrications.

What about the rest of us?  What about ordinary voters?  Will the Democratic ground game succeed in bringing out sufficient numbers of morally challenged constituents to put them over the top?  I await the results on tenterhooks.

As for Georgia, David Purdue is not a wonderful candidate.  I was amazed that he bested Jack Kingston in the primaries.  A bit weasely, his shtick about being against Washington was thin gruel that did not demonstrate the soundness of his credentials.

Nonetheless Michelle Nunn’s credentials are even thinner.  She shares an honored name, but how does this prove she is senatorial timber?  Worse still, if she is elected, she will be a reliable vote for Obama and Harry Reid.  How will this help Georgians—or anyone else?

Too many recent elections have been decided by irrelevancies and misperceptions.  For democracy to work, people have to understand the issues and vote accordingly.  If they do not, they get what they deserve.

Moreover, a people who do not uphold crucial values eventually become rudderless.  They are vulnerable to corruption and incompetence.  Unfortunately, this is the brave new world we seem to have entered.

What I am waiting to find out is whether it will take a crisis of enormous proportions to shake us out of our lethargy.  How bad do things have to get before people conclude that enough is enough?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University