- Defining 'Centrist'

To Obama, all the demands of the Occupy Wall Street crowd… the free tuition, the loan forgiveness, the guaranteed 'free' stuff, the 'get those damned Jews out of America and shut down the banks' views are all perfectly reasonable. They’re on the extreme end, even to Obama. But to him they should all be considered as part of the great global attempt at reaching that Shangri-la of leftist morality… the consensus.

To him the Tea Party’s views seem equally extreme. The calls for a government that lives within its means and doesn't intrude unnecessarily in the lives of it's citizens seem at the far right end of the spectrum, but to him they should also to be considered. And by 'considered' what he really does is he takes the measure of these two, along with every other possible opinion in between, draws a line down the middle of it all, and stakes out his ground as a 'centrist'.

His is an amoral position. If we were deciding the age of sexual consent he would consider it vital to include the opinions of pedophiles equally with everyone else. And since they believe they age of consent should be 3, he would arrive at his view that it should actually be 10 ½ - the median point between the 18 of extremist religious 'zealots' and the 3 of pedophiles. This is how Obama manages his moral compass… by consensus. He would then argue that anyone who believes the age of consent should be higher than that to be an ‘extremist’.

For Obama and the left, raising taxes seems perfectly reasonable if some cut in spending is included as well. They call that 'compromising'. They don’t care about the downstream effects of those taxes. They don’t (or really even consider) if taking that money out of the private economy will make our economy less efficient, and result in less economic activity and fewer jobs. To them it’s all about consensus. They truly believe that so long as 51% of the people vote to cook and eat the remaining 49%, then it’s all perfectly moral to do so.

That’s why Obama and the DC press corps, and the rest of the liberal intelligentsia are so dumbfounded by the Tea Party. To the Tea party, empowering the government to tax and spend at their whim is a moral issue. It’s ‘wrong’ to allow it, as far as they’re concerned. And the Tea Party isn’t saying that it’s only wrong to tax its members that way, they believe it’s equally as wrong to tax liberal Democrats that way. To the Tea Party, liberty is a virtue for everyone. And the government should not be allowed to infringe upon it except where it absolutely must. I'm sure you can guess where the mainstream media is on this 'radical' view.

The TV media is now going on about how Obama tried to ‘play ball’ with the far right by proposing a grand bargain in his 'jobs bill' where he only taxed ‘the very rich’ (200K+) and spent only a percentage of what he really wanted to. “He tried that” they’re saying “and now he’s talking tough with the far right instead.” But the Tea Party never saw it that way. They saw it as him proposing something inherently immoral, and then claiming it was a compromise because it wasn’t as immoral as it could have been. “If that’s the best he can do” they say, “then we’d just as soon see him talk tough.”

The question of self government has always been a moral one. The question ‘Are we fit for self rule” is highly relevant, especially given Obama’s openly amoral stance. In a way, Americans can be forgiven for electing him the first time because the media so wildly distorted what he was about. But after three years of this, it’s no longer a secret to anyone anymore. We all now know that whatever else he may say, Obama is animated by far left principles where anything is OK so long as a majority says so.

And if knowing that, we still vote to reelect him, then I think it’s clear that we are no longer fit for self rule. It would mean that we are no longer a moral people. It will mean that America is no longer the home of liberty. And it will mean that we really are no better than the Occupy Wall Street crowd – crying into our government funded Latte’s, and demanding that it's only fair that ‘the rich’ give us even more things for free.