Mystics, mystics, everywhere mystics

By all indications we're going through major changes in the US. It's not the first time I've witnessed major change. In the sixties and early seventies my mind was formed by rapid change.The murders of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were major shocks among many shocks and reality bending happenings: civil rights, hippies and free love, the Chicago 7 trials, Woodstock, Viet Nam, Kent State, the beat poetry, Watergate and Nixon's resignation -- there were a series of events and changes that led one to believe a revolution was taking place and no one knew where it was headed.

I was drawn into the Yippie movement by the absurd theatrics of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin out of an immature impulse toward freedom -- more a nihilist living to be nothing except what I was that day, than someone with a vision of the future based on a consistent philosophy. It was frightening and fun. Kent State seemed to mark an end, and all the pot smoking free loving hippies had grown into dying addicts or jaded drop outs or reformers within the system.

My drunken fling with nihilism left me washed out and rebuilding at 30 years of age. It took another ten years to make sense of it all and begin a budding interest in objectivity and libertarian thought. Reagan caused me to pay attention to politics, enough so to learn that government is not the answer and the answer lies in the spontaneous order created by free choices under a limited government that protects individual rights.

Since that time it has become clear that with the help of the media there's been a president-centric shift -- an obsession with viewing the chief execultive as the boss of the country. But what I have noticed in real life is the productive interactions that actually make things run. To simplify the whole process and move forward with a short article, the division I see is a battle between a president-centric government attempt to design our economic and social lives (statism) and the spontaneous dynamism of the free market and all private concerns (capitalism).

Obama is the image of statism. I will make no judgement on the man himself in relation to character and such-- I don't view things that way. The ideas he expresses are enough for me to know he is a firm believer in big government and central control, and has a negative opinion of free markets, for the most part. He may very well be a sincere man who thinks he's been called to champion the poor and disenfranchised. But he's being used as an image for the statists ( I believe "statist" is a better term than liberal or leftist). There is a struggle for control in this country and the statists have effectively moved Republicans into the realm of Democrats, so that lines are being blurred, although Democrats are still using the image of Republicans as free market adherents to give their party distinction. It's all about image.

Obama has shown so far to be egotistical enough to assume the leadership role among statists. However, I have seen no substance from Obama. There is little substance in the statist ideology, but a much more substantial candidate could have swept the elections this year because people are afraid and Republicans, by going toward statism, have screwed the pooch sufficiently to be blamed for the whole damn mess. People still haven't clearly identified the combination of the two parties toward more and more government control that is wrecking our economy -- so, Obama may win.

I don't think it matters. But the way in which Obama's winning is cause for concern and calls for honesty. Obama is winning because the media is backing him and supporting the image. More and more people are realizing this and that's why the race is still close, but Obama should be sweeping every state with the support he has had. If a Republican had the baggage in the open (and it would be in the open) that Obama has hidden, it would be over for the Republican, but the baggage is hidden. There are enough influential statist leaning players in the US to support the image. It's all image.

There's nothing in Obama's experience to qualify him to be president of United States. His political and religious associations place him far, far outside the mainstream of America, but the image hides the negatives.

It's obvious that given his way, Obama will nationalize much of free enterprise. His way will be more of a facist control of industry to in effect render industry nationalized. This is the antithesis of what our country has stood for, but it's hidden behind the image. His compassion is a coerced compassion which takes from some to give to others. Politicians have been doing this for years, but Obama will perfect it and take it to extremes we haven't experienced -- if he has his way.

The problem with Obama is that he's too much the true mystic that Ayn Rand wrote about, dividing Republicans and Democrats into "mystics of spirit" and "mystics of muscle" -- It would be as if a Falwell-type could possibly be elected president, except Obama is from the other end of mysticism with the State as God. We all knew Clinton was a pragmatist and would do whatever to stay in power -- he was not on a mission from his god-form. The last true mystic we had in office was Carter but he didnt' have the following to do much but ruin the economy. We don't have to worry about a true mystic of spirit winning anytime soon, but we need to worry greatly about mystics of muscle gaining too much widespread acceptance. Like I said, this is not about this particular election, it's more about Obama types gaining credibility and a religious movement taking hold sacrificing freedom and bowing to the State.

I'll expound on this tomorrow if time allows.

Update on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 11:08PM by Mike Farmer

I've been busy at work and the little time I have to hurriedly write makes for clumsy sentences. I promise to do better tomorrow.