Obama's Coalition of the Enraged
The president and his allies are wooing various groups of angry and disaffected minorities. These, along with unhappy entitlement dependents, are to constitute most of the voters Obama seeks to lure into granting him another term, during which he hopes to complete his promise to "fundamentally transform" America.
In an ironic reversal of the emphases of Madison's Federalist Paper #10, in which that great thinker carefully outlined the dangers of factionalism and pressed for the need for stability of the Republic of the United States, Obama and his supporters are seeking to achieve electoral hegemony by playing to minorities and supporting factionalism.
Anger, rather than hope, is to be the glue which keeps the disparate minorities together.
In turn, the rage of minorities against fellow Americans is to be the president's means to re-election. The result, should Obama be re-elected, will be a new class order characterized by the tyranny of minority rule.
The encouragement and incitements offered to the enraged have been numerous.
Among the factors is the White House's telling silence concerning the New Black Panthers' bounty on George Zimmerman, shooter of Trayvon Martin. More silence has greeted the Panthers' threats to wage war. Unless wiser heads prevail, Trayvon Martin, whose early death is truly and grievously lamentable, may become the Panthers' equivalent to Horst Wessel.
The president's own comment -- "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" -- could be interpreted not as genuine sympathy for Trayvon's family, but as outrageous pandering for black votes. His comments and calculated silences also could serve as the matches that ignite race warfare. The president may literally be playing with fire. Anyone who recalls the 1960s will remember the conflagrations in cities like Los Angeles. Huge sections of the city were torched or trashed beyond recognition by enraged blacks protesting the arrest of Marquette Frye, 1965s near-equivalent of today's Trayvon Martin.
Meanwhile, the administration's incessant attacks against the "rich" continue unabated. Such are the unserious proclivities of our president that he puts forth the absurd "Buffett rule" -- which would rake in approximately 31 billion dollars over the next eleven years -- as a legitimate remedy for our economic ills, among which is a seven-trillion-dollar national debt. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the real purpose of the so-called "Buffett Rule" is to gather votes from the less well-off by inflaming their resentment of wealthier citizens.
The demonization of conservative women, as witnessed by the recent salvo against Ann Romney by Hilary Rosen, indicates an attempt to divide women into two camps: the liberals vs. the conservatives -- with the hope that independents will join liberals in voting for Obama. This is to say nothing of the attempts to tar the Republican Party as anti-woman by declaring that it is trying to keep women from obtaining birth control.
The war against Arizona and other states' attempts to secure borders, as continued undiminished as the Obama camp, could be a ploy to anger Hispanics enough to cause their stampede to the election booths.
The recent ominous attack against the Supreme Court indicates the administration's utter contempt for the constitutionally established balance of power. A seed of doubt as to the Court's integrity has been sown in the minds of millions who may have been persuaded that the Court doesn't care about the average citizen, but Obama does. Ergo, more votes for him and his odious agenda.
All the above are worrying indicators that the president's aim is to create a coalition of the disaffected and the angry while marginalizing the majority and bypassing constitutionally established institutions.
The president and his allies fail to see that there is a huge distinction between righteous indignation and raw rage. Righteous indignation is a struggle against genuine injustices. Such a struggle was the driving force behind the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s.
Who among those who lived during those decades then can forget the signature injustices that characterized racial apartheid in America? Who can forget the separate drinking fountains, the back door entrances, the segregated lunch counters and schools? Who can forget the intransigence of racists like Bull Conner and George Wallace of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" infamy? Who can erase the memory of the 1963 KKK church bombing and the deaths of four innocent little girls? Who still remembers the fire hoses turned on innocent protestors?
We should never forget.
But there is a big difference between righteous indignation and ginned-up rage that divides classes and races in order that votes are garnered and wealth redistributed. The first is salutary, absolutely necessary, and transformative of society, as it speaks to universal rights as human beings standing as equals before God and mankind.
But what we see being incited in recent incidents, including the Trayvon Martin incident, is ginned-up rage that bears little or no resemblance to righteous indignation. On the contrary, it is tantamount to malicious pandering to anger. It smells like an attempt to divide Americans and garner votes from the disaffected and enraged. It looks like duplicitous behavior designed to foster war among American classes and ethnicities.
Leaders of the new faux race rage, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson among them, are like old soldiers who had their little hour but want to continue strutting their stuff on a tiny stage. The background sets are faded imitations of the truly great civil rights battles of the past.
In contrast to the current administration's and race warfare-mongers' agenda of anger expressed in class and ethnic warfare, conservatives of every stripe must offer not only blunt analyses of what this administration is up to, but also a plan of real hope -- not hype.
A good beginning would be to heed Madison's advice to promote a "well constructed Union" which controls by the constitutionally appointed and balanced means of government institutions "the violence of faction" while ensuring that minorities retain their full rights and privileges as citizens.
Real "hope and change" cannot possibly be engendered by rage characterized by class warfare. Unbridled rage always results in destruction of societal order and human happiness. Peaceful change based on righteous indignation and the desire to reform existing institutions and to soften class rigidities that prevent upward mobility has far more potential to create and sustain a stable, orderly, and happy society.
If we are to be friends of our own country as Madison was, we must resist with all that is within us the anger of factionalism and any "instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils" in order that this great land not perish from the face of the earth by means of division, strife and anger.
Fay Voshell may be reached at email@example.com. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.