"This Wasn't Supposed to Happen!"

Call it another "d'oh!" moment. And to me, it recalls the reaction of the liberal establishment when the Internet became a favored medium for the exchange of ideas among conservatives. "Wait a minute -- that wasn't the idea! The Internet is modern, 'high tech', 'cutting edge' -- which means that it's the natural turf of liberals and 'idea people', not old-fashioned, traditionalist 'bigots' and 'haters'." And yet, there you are. The "blogosphere" is the natural home of conservatives because -- guess what -- they are a despised and discriminated-against minority. If they were "establishment", like the liberals, and had the mainstream media on their side, and most major magazines and newspapers, and publishing houses, and Hollywood, they wouldn't _need_ the Internet. Duh! The Internet is for those who _don't_ have all of those facilitators and privileges; it's for the disenfranchised who can't get their ideas and opinions out any other way. This is why, in the most general sense, the liberal establishment has decided that the Internet -- in its raw, unrestricted form -- may not be such a good idea after all. So they are looking for ways to "control" its content, the same way they are looking to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" for broadcast media, as well as certain ad hominem measures like the "Hush Rush" bill. (If Rush doesn't get his weight down pretty soon, there won't be any need to hush him -- he'll have hushed himself.)

So, now that the Internet has turned out to be one of the best friends conservatives (and conspiracy theorists as well -- not that those are mutually exclusive categories) have ever had, the liberals have a new complaint. No sooner do they provide "forums" in which people can express their points of view on things like health care, than people start to -- guess what -- express their points of view on things like health care. Wow -- didn't see that coming. I mean, the middle class, and the bulk of the working class, has been cowed and intimidated for so long, in the face of not only creeping but galloping socialism, that everyone assumed they had retired from the field and shut up permanently. But gosh -- just try and hold a "town hall meeting" these days -- they come out of the woodwork! And they don't just come to be told what is going to be done to them... they come to push back, to argue, to fight! To call names, even! Heavens! That was supposed to be a privilege restricted to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's rent-a-mobs -- and to liberal opinion columnists, broadcast commentators, and comedians (like there's a difference). So what they're objecting to is that large portions of the middle class have suddenly -- if you'll pardon the expression -- grown a pair of balls. And this was most definitely not supposed to happen -- not at this late date, when socialism is scaling the heights and about to emerge triumphant... not when a new millennium of "humanism" and "social justice" is about to dawn... not when those few atavistic reactionaries who cling to Bibles and guns are about to be purged from the body politic... not when the citizenry are finally convinced that they owe their welfare, and their very lives, to their betters in Washington, and that it is only right to bow down and worship their secular masters, crying "We are not worthy!" No -- what is happening in these town hall meetings is not only unexpected and shocking, it's downright, well, counter-revolutionary. Which means that it's anti-establishment, because the establishment represents revolution, i.e. the offensive side in the culture wars which has suddenly found itself in a position of near-absolute power. (The comparison to the Bolsheviks right after the Russian Revolution is striking.) And it's this, perhaps, that has awakened a few of the comatose middle class, to make one last stand before the "final solution" descends upon their heads. Yes, there have been threats before -- the New Deal, the Great Society, and so on... but there was always a feeling that, even if the centers of power shifted, and traditional values were threatened, the basics of the American way of life would not change drastically... or at least not enough to justify taking to the streets. This time around, it's different -- whether in fact or in perception I cannot tell at this point -- but it's the perception that counts in politics (as always), and the "birthers", the "tea partiers", and the town hall protesters, while not all cut from the exact same cloth, are nonetheless responding to a similar perception, namely that this time it's for real -- this time the liberals really are out to consolidate all of their gains over the years, and turn the United States into a people's republic, and crush the middle class and its values underfoot.

But it is true? I mean, is that really what Obama & Co. want to do, or is this just a case of "rumor, fear, and the madness of crowds" (to use the title of a classic book on mass hysteria)? What I say is, it's a bit of each, but no one with any sense can deny that the Obamaites have a very heavy-duty agenda which they wil pursue with all the more vigor, now that "capitalism" has failed miserably. Liberals over the years have made no secret of the fact that their fondest desire is to turn the U.S. into a socialist paradise -- or, failing that, a socialist hell -- but at least it would be socialist. The only thing that has changed, or morphed, is their strategy. During the Progressive Era, it was a pure form of socialism, which eventually fed into the New Deal. And whereas the Progressives, and the populists, tended to be anti-business, the New Dealers at least came up with a form of peaceful coexistence (and all the "war bucks" coming out of World War II helped, I'm sure). But at the same time, there was a strong undercurrent of what I will call "communist Puritanism" fostered by the Soviet Union and its slaves in the U.S. (including many New Dealers). For them, the American/populist/progressive version of socialism wasn't good enough, and neither was the New Deal (which was just a stepping stone to the real thing) -- the U.S. had to turn into a communist state under the boot of the Soviet Union in order to really be ideologically pure. And this point of view didn't really suffer any major setbacks until the Hitler-Stalin Pact... and even then, most of the faithful did not wander off the reservation. It really took the breakup of the Soviet Union to make all the die-hard communists in the U.S. feel like orphans and start looking around for new leadership. Bill Clinton was hardly the answer, because, as secular (and decadent) as he was, his politics (unlike his wife's) were really not all that radical. Plus, he was from the South, and if there's anything communists hate more than "capitalism", it's the American South. But then along comes Obama, whose biography is inspiring in a way seldom seen since Lenin rode the sealed train to the Finland Station. Yes! He is the new master! Castro can go ahead and retire... and leave Kim Jong-Il to his brandy and Westerns. Here is, truly the New Soviet Man -- and he could not be more ideal for the job. So the true believers have united, once again -- with great expressions of relief and gratitude -- around their new messiah. And, by the way, no one wants to admit that the form of socialism in question has quietly morphed from the leftish, New Deal type into a type that is, for all intents and purposes, fascist. But that is only a technicality, you see, because it "feels" like the heady days of the New Deal, except better, because it's now guaranteed to be home-grown.

But -- as always -- there are certain "reactionary elements", and -- as always -- they are mostly found within the ranks of the bourgeoisie. And now they're disrupting these "town meetings", which were supposed to be scripted to show only awe and adoration when it comes to Obama's health-care schemes. So the reaction -- because collectivists and totalitarians cannot, under any circustances, tolerate dissent, no matter how inconsequential -- is to push back against those who are pushing back -- to devalue, disrespect, and defame. So the MSM are sicced, like rottweilers, on the protesters... the "mental health" card is played... the "un-American" card is played (are they sure it doesn't still have McCarthy's and Nixon's DNA all over it?)... and, overall, there is a great flurry of indignation, outrage, and towering hypocrisy, but all designed to muzzle dissent and pave the way for every unanswered outrage against liberty that the Obamaites can come up with in the next 3 1/2 (at least) years. And through it all, all they can say (to themselves and each other) is "Why can't the U.S. be more like the Soviet Union under Stalin? He wouldn't have put up with all this nonsense." And sure enough, the weapons they are wielding in the defense of their programs are not unlike those used so skillfully by Uncle Joe -- including, as I've said, the "mental health" argument.

And as to the question, is all of this going to get worse before it gets better? -- it depends on one's point of view. I don't call Americans rising up in defense of their freedoms "things getting worse" -- even if it results in bloodshed. I would rather it be done in a peaceful manner, through the mechanisms of genuine democracy -- but I fear it is far too late for that, because the mechanisms of genuine democracy were sabotaged generations ago by the people who are now in charge. They have made a "revolution within the form", and are now attempting to consolidate it -- so they characterize the counter-revolution as a revolt (and as revolting) by the ignorant, reactionary middle class and duped members of the working class -- certainly not "real Americans" who are all anxious to sign on and to offer up the last of their freedoms in exchange for "security".