Does this administration fancy themselves heroes? That's how it appears they want to be perceived. And who could blame them really? Isn't that the way the main stream media portrays them? In most of the rhetoric we hear coming from this administration, especially lately, there is always an adversary to defend the nation from, including ourselves. In the healthcare debate, the insurance comapnies are the evil doers. In support of regulation for Wall Street, it's capitalism. In the climate change debate, it's CO2. In the media, it's the scary dissenting commentators at Fox News and talk radio. They've almost turned blaming the previous administration into an art form, for goodness sake. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
I'm not claiming this is anything new in politics. I'm sure there are plenty of examples to point to in history all the way back to the beginning of human existence. Humans are tribal by nature and the "Lord of the Flies" mentality is ingrained in our psyche. As educated as we are and as far as we've progressed as a species, we still see these basic instincts rule much of our emotions. We've developed constructive ways to play out our urges through sporting events and other forms of civilized competition. In that realm, good sportsmanship has become not only the norm, but expected behavior, especially from professional athletes who our youth look to as leaders. In the realm of ideological debate, we haven't regressed, we've just seen dissention turn main stream as we become increasingly polarized. New media has also upped the ante, so to speak. What strikes me as comical is the notion this administration wants to claim dissenting political commentary is a new phenonmemon and is all of the sudden a dangerous one that needs to be addressed and stamped out. It's also commical that they deign themselves to respond to rhetoric, which they first deem undeserving, ironically giving credence to the dissenting argument and the messenger of dissention.
A few other problems arise with this adminsistrations attempts to quash their political adversaries. Problem number one for this administration, (aside from the aforementioned failed premise of political dissention being spurned by Fox News/talk radio as dangerous to anything, except maybe their agenda) Alinsky style organizing doesn't work on free thinking individuals. Problem number two, the electorate isn't as dumbed down as they hoped, which is what they need for Alinsky's rules to succeed. Problem number three, the first ammendment, which in retrospect, I should've put as problem number one. But what are little problems like The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights to heroes? No mountain is too high to climb for heroes, right?
I'd say, we don't need another hero. What we need is a true leader. The one Barack Obama was foretoken to be, not the sniveling poor sport he has proven to be. Certainly we don't need the rank amature handlers who are running his ongoing campaign, or the ideological cheerleaders who don't seem to care who Obama is, but rather blindly support the ideology he represents and the package in which he serves it. (Yes, I am insinuating exaclty what you think I am)
I don't agree with Barack Obama's policies or ideology, but I'd be more apt to respect the man if he'd stand up for what he believed in and fought for those beliefs with sound ideological arguments, instead of point the finger, blamegame, us vs them, false heroical rhetoric. At least then I could see him as a leader, not an ideological hero, whom I would continue to choose not to follow.
In support of my own ideological leaders, I would ask they choose to do the same as I'm asking of opposing ideologues. Don't give me a foe to point the finger at and use as an escape goat. Give me sound ideological arguments and stand by your convictions. If you expect me to follow your lead, be a leader...I don't need another hero.