sherlockzen
  • Home
  • About
  • Admin
  • Register
  • Login
  • Contact

sherlockzen

  • Home
  • About
  • Admin
  • Register
  • Login
  • Contact
Monthly Archives

October 2008

MysteriesPolitics

John McCain’s Fatal Flaw

by Dr. Mark Dillof October 29, 2008October 12, 2018
written by Dr. Mark Dillof
John McCain’s Fatal Flaw
  • Tweet

“Virtue would not go to such lengths if vanity did not keep her company.”
~François de la Rochefoucauld

Would you rather be right? Or would you rather be president? Senator McCain would rather be right. There is no doubt that he is a person of high ethical standards. But here is a terrible irony: as the ancient Greeks warned, an excess of virtue can become a vice. Being too insistent that she was right led to Antigone’s downfall, as it can for anyone. A virtue becomes a vice when self-knowledge — which leads to moderation — is lacking. This fault might be called “ethical hubris,” the blinding egotistical pride about doing what one deems to be the right thing, no matter what the circumstances. Alas, it is Senator McCain’s fatal flaw.

The term “ethical hubris,” may seem like an oxymoron, for morality would appear to be the opposite of egotism. But a person can become puffed-up about anything. Hubris, in all its varieties, is terribly blinding and is bound to have tragic consequences. Unfortunately, the fatal flaws of kings and presidents — and senators too — can have tragic consequences for an entire nation. It is likely to result in McCain losing the election. And it may lead to the transformation of America, under the leadership of his opponent, Senator Obama, from “the land of the free and the brave” into a socialist disaster.

McCain’s ethical hubris appeared early on in the election. Some of his supporters created a TV commercial about Senator Obama’s notorious racist and anti-American pastor, the Reverend Wright. Out of a sense of honor and propriety, McCain insisted that these commercials no longer be shown. McCain saw himself as too noble-minded to engage in negative campaigning. McCain’s hubris blinded him to the obvious: the negative commercials were, contrary to McCain’s opinion, entirely appropriate. After all, the character of Reverend Wright, Obama’s pastor for twenty years, bared upon both Obama’s character and his worldview.

Furthermore, McCain has failed to realize that it is not his campaign. An entire nation has an enormous stake in his winning. It is his job to win, and the job of other people to help him to win. They nominated him to be a candidate, not to act as the Republican Party’s pope. The consequences of McCain’ s poor decision are very serious. Running the ads about the Reverend Wright might have given McCain the momentum to win the election, just as the Swift Boat ads were instrumental in President Bush winning against Senator Kerry.

McCain’s ethical hubris also prevented him from stating a simple truth about Obama: he is a socialist. Indeed, early on in the campaign, McCain was asked if Obama was a socialist. He lamely answered: “I don’t know.” On a later occasion, he stated that Obama’s wish to redistribute wealth is one of the tenets of socialism. But he would not do what he really needed to do: accuse Obama, in front of the millions of people who viewed the debate, of being a socialist. Doing so would have been beneath McCain’s gentlemanly, senatorial dignity. In failing to deliver the decisive blow — out of his blindly egotistical sense of personal pride — he let America down.

There have been other instances as well. In response to the financial crisis, McCain initially canceled his debate with Obama, to return to the Senate, to work on the bailout deal. Perhaps McCain saw himself as being virtuous, but he ended up getting himself into a chaotic mess beyond his control. Consequently, many people saw him as feckless and foolish. Here, again, McCain considered it more important to save the world than to keep his mind focused on winning the election.
Senator McCain is at it again. There is a grave danger that the Democrats will obtain the needed votes to obtain a filibuster-proof supermajority. Then they will be able to pass any and all sorts of leftwing legislation, and appoint very liberal justices to the Supreme Court. Thus every election counts. But Senator McCain is now insisting that Senator Ted Stevens, from Alaska — who has been convicted by a federal grand jury of ethical violations — resign. But doing so would mean that the Democrats come one vote closer to obtaining a supermajority.

Party loyalty has never been important to McCain. He views it as beneath his dignity. After all, as he has reiterated in the debates, he is a uniter, a nonpartisan; he prides himself on reaching across the aisles to the Democrats. But when President Reagan ran for office, he didn’t need to reach across the aisles. Instead, waves of Democrats reached across the aisle to vote for him. He even won New York in the electoral college.

Of course, we cannot completely blame McCain if he loses. His opponent is, after all, a very skilled politician, indeed a ruthless demagogue, with far more funding than McCain. And then there is the very unfortunate fact that the economy has gone into a nose dive, leading people to blame the Republicans, and to want to vote them out of office. In one sense, then, it is to McCain’s credit that he has done as well as he has done. Furthermore, he has displayed both intelligence, courage, and boldness, in many instances, such as when he chose Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

But, there is no doubt that if McCain possessed a greater degree of self-knowledge he would now be at least tied in the presidential polls. Unfortunately, his tragic blindness may soon become America’s tragedy.

October 29, 2008October 12, 2018 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
MysteriesPoliticsThe Zeitgeist

The Secret to Defeating Demagogue Obama

by Dr. Mark Dillof October 23, 2008October 20, 2018
written by Dr. Mark Dillof
The Secret to Defeating Demagogue Obama
  • Tweet

(Getting political, as I am in this post, might mean that I alienate and lose half of my readers, which probably comes out to about four or five people. Oh well. I did, by the way, send a copy of this to the Republican National Committee. They haven’t gotten back to me about it. So, I think that at this point my essay has more intellectual than practical value, for the election will soon be over.)

“I promise you. We won’t just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we’re going to change the country and change the world.” — Senator Obama

Ordinary politicians make specific campaign promises. They pledge, for example, to repair a city’s infrastructure, to achieve victory in a war, to lower taxes, and to provide jobs. The charismatic demagogue, on the other hand, promises to transform the world.

Consider Senator Barak Obama’s slogan: “Change you can believe in.” For as long as he could, Obama remained vague, not stating what he meant by change. Left indeterminate, his slogan hooked into a fundamental human longing: the desire for a new life. There are a great many people who wish that a savior would emerge, someone able to transform their lives of quiet desperation into something new, hopeful, and glorious. Social, economic, and political changes cannot, of course, effectuate a personal transformation. Nor can they transform this “vale of tears,” into a utopian paradise. But a charismatic and cynical demagogue will exploit such fantasies.

Obama has neither the competence, nor the character, nor the moral compass to lead our nation. If he gets elected, the miasmic fog of socialism will envelop America. With less than two weeks till election time, it may very well be too late to do anything, but for what it’s worth, here is my further analysis and my remedy.

Obama’s Worldview

Over time, Senator Obama’s past has emerged. And despite his initial efforts to remain vague about what he means by “change,” his political views have also emerged. Senator McCain now has a target for his criticism: from Obama’s America-hating, racist pastor to his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, from his failure of judgment about the surge in Iraq to his foolish tax policy.

But for McCain’s criticisms to have any real force, they would have to be seen as manifestations of a single theme, translatable into a slogan. Only then, could his criticisms of Obama be graspable and intelligible. For example, the Republicans — focusing on Senator John Kerry’s voting record — reduced their many criticisms to a single word, “flip-flopper.” And Obama, suggesting that he was hip and that McCain wasn’t, said that “McCain just doesn’t get it.”

Is there a theme that can unify all that we know about Obama — from his political past to his current platform? We have been using the word “theme,” but what we are really looking for here is a worldview. The importance of this factor in defeating Obama is expressed by Tom DeLay:

“It hasn’t sunk in yet how radical Obama’s worldview is, because you can’t tie him down to a worldview,” DeLay says, “And I don’t know if anybody who works for McCain understands the whole notion of worldview. And what they ought to be going after is his worldview. Not how he feels about healthcare, or how he feels about energy — what is this man’s worldview?” (Interview with Ronald Kessler, Newsmax, October 2008. P. 48)

Through his past associations, his statements, his voting record and his platform, Obama’s worldview begins to emerge. Obama has simply reached into the trash bin of history, to recycle that failed nostrum known as socialism — the egalitarian redistribution of the fruits of our labors. Socialism involves a regression, from the ethos of individual initiative to that of a family, where all members must be provided for. As Marx put it, “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” Individualism challenges people to develop into responsible, hard-working adults. But the communitarianism, that Obama advocates, infantilizes them, stifling individual initiative.

Socialists are often driven by an even darker agenda. They are envious and resentful towards the more affluent members of society. Such feelings lead to a scapegoat mentality and to conflict. One does not need the fiery style of a Fidel Castro to foment class warfare. Obama does it in smooth and dulcet tones. Those who are bereft of historical knowledge — either because they are uneducated or congenitally obtuse — find such millennial hopes to be new and exciting. It always seems so, at the early stages of a Marxist revolution, before the other shoe drops.

Only recently did McCain finally refer to Obama’s proposed policies as sharing some of the tenets of socialism. But McCain fell far short of doing what he should have done, simply calling Obama a socialist. After all, socialism is not just a theory of economics. It is a secular religion, in which the state is made into a god. The rage for equality is a spiritual disease that finds expression in all aspects of life.

Most socialists are, no doubt, well-meaning. But, like all individuals who harbor a utopian worldview, socialists have a proclivity for violent thoughts, words, and deeds. That is why, there invariably emerges from the ranks of socialists: totalitarians, nihilists, anti-Americans, racists, and antisemites.

What is the connection between socialism and violence? Like all utopians, the socialist — owing to a lack of inner development — has no patience for the give and take, the compromise and the imperfections, that are intrinsic to living in a democracy. When people, who harbor utopian ideas, encounter obstacles, out of frustration, they ferociously try to destroy — those obstacles. And so, it is their impatience that leads them to become violent revolutionaries.

This violence might involve using intimidation tactics to pressure banks into granting subprime loans (as in the case of Acorn), stuffing ballot boxes (also in the case of Acorn), castigating Jews, whites, and America (as in the case of Jeremiah Wright) or domestic terrorism (as in the case of Bill Ayers). It is no coincidence, then, that Obama the socialist surrounded himself with these and other vile individuals. The connection between socialism and violent hatred needs to be made clear to the American public, as does the connection between Obama and socialism.

Anxieties About Losing Autonomy

There are some very real fears connected with socialism, particularly among Americans. There is the fear that the government will legally steal one’s possessions. Furthermore, there is the fear that a socialistic government will do what socialistic governments tend to do: to curtail all of one’s other freedoms, from free speech to the right to bear arms. There is also the fear that it will destroy the moral fabric of America. Finally, there is the fear that our national sovereignty will be undermined.

But, as Freud noted, underlying fear is anxiety. We can flee from that which we fear, but not so with anxiety, for it is intangible. The anxiety at play here is the dread of losing one’s autonomy. It is powerful enough, at least among Americans, to trump Obama’s appeal to change.

How might that anxiety be exploited? In a different context, Apple Computer did so cleverly in their “1984” TV commercial introducing the Macintosh Computer. That commercial — in the science fiction genre — portrayed IBM as a totalitarian dystopia. The implication was that anyone who bought an IBM PC was a brainwashed conformist. Seen by millions of people during the Super Bowl, it was highly effective.

McCain could have run similar ads along that same theme. He might have had ads featuring a classroom of children raising their hand to offer various anti-American opinions, or a giant roomful of hypnotized people chanting “Obama! Obama! Obama!, or ads about America transformed into a gray and grim Eastern European nation. Then, as a photo of Obama appears on the screen the announcer could say: “Socialism: Change you can believe in.” There are infinite other possibilities. If the Republicans have failed deliver an effective message, in a creative manner, it is because they have not really understand their dangerous opponent.

October 23, 2008October 20, 2018 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest

Recent Posts

  • Waar Kan Je Een Aandeel Kopen | Beleggen met weinig geld
  • Investeren Vanuit Eenmanszaak – Directe investeringen met het buitenland
  • Snel Geld Verdienen Met Telefoon | Aandelen verkopen: conclusie?
  • Stiekem Geld Verdienen | 4 Geweldige boeken om te leren over beleggen
  • Beste Strategie Ing Beleggen – Aandelen kopen en verkopen: rendement?

Archives

  • March 2022
  • March 2020
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2013
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • March 2012
  • August 2011
  • April 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • October 2008
  • July 2008
  • May 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008

About Me

About Me

Mark Dillof has been a philosophical counselor for over twenty years. You can learn more about his work, by going to his other website, www.deeperquestions.com.

Keep in touch

Facebook Twitter

Recent Posts

  • New ">The Mystery of VapingNew 

    October 13, 2018
  • New ">The Mystery of a French Horn, in a Beatles’ SongNew 

    October 13, 2018
  • Waar Kan Je Een Aandeel Kopen | Beleggen met weinig geld

    March 14, 2020
  • Investeren Vanuit Eenmanszaak – Directe investeringen met het buitenland

    March 14, 2020
  • Snel Geld Verdienen Met Telefoon | Aandelen verkopen: conclusie?

    March 14, 2020

Dr. Dillof’s New Wonder Seminars

Starring America’s premier philosophical entertainer!Gain mind-boggling insights! Perfect for corporate retreats.

Purchase Dr. Dillof’s New Book.

Unravel The Mystery That Is You

The Dillof Institute

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Tumblr
  • RSS

Copyright © 2018, Mysteries in Broad Daylight.