I’d like to elaborate a on a great point brought up by The Professor. In an Iowa campaign speech Obama said “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.” Obama’s “change we need” campaign slogan was as inescapable as it was vague. In a brilliant Wall Street Journal article Fouad Ajami discussed how Obama’s personality and promises were ambiguous enough as to allow any member of his adoring crowd to project their own individual needs and expectations upon him, knowing their own personal version of him would fulfill their every heart’s desire. Comparing Obama’s crowds to the ones Ajami has spent much of his career documenting in the Middle East, he says “A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession — its imagination.”

Obama’s promise of “change” is vague in the same way. Can anyone identify exactly what it means? It obviously means many different things to many different people. To Obama, (at least for the past year), the primary definition of change is “Not Bush.” By that same token, anyone elected would represent change, so Obama spent the campaign comparing McCain to Bush, and it worked. McCain seemed to have not even noticed the comparison until midway into the third debate.

But for the voter, it meant something on an emotional level. Things are not “going well” now, so change is needed. War is universally bad and we only do it to kill innocent people, but Obama will change that. Bush gets some of his words mixed up on TV and therefore is a complete idiot, but Obama will change that. The environment is being destroyed and bunnies are being driven from their homes on a daily basis, but Obama will change that. Evil greedy Wall Street people are stealing money from my paycheck daily to provide padding for the seats of their golden sofas, and Obama will change that. Only rich, old, white men are involved in our government, so Obama will definitely change that. Washington DC has probably never even seen a black guy before he came into town. Above all, Obama understands me where Bush never could, so that’ll be a change too. All of this gives me hope. Hyperbole? I wish.

Now the happy feelings are starting to fade, the tears of joy have dried up, and we are looking face to face with reality. Change has come, and so far, Obama has evidently completely forgotten his own talking points. I have heard pundits and lay-people on both sides say “it’s not fair to criticize him yet, he’s not even into office!” To which I say: excuse me, I was under the impression that change is coming. That gave me hope. I was led to believe that change and hope radiated from every pore of Obama’s being. The words “change and hope” accounted for 87% of his speeches for the past year. So I expect change from minute one. Aren’t I entitled to it? I don’t believe change comes a week, a month, a year, or even a 2nd term after he is elected, I think it began on Nov. 4th.

So where’s America’s change so far? He’s well into his most important pre-inauguration step, setting up his teams. Unfortunately for the “change and hope” crowd, nearly every member of his cabinet shows that despite a year’s worth of saying the contrary, he is indeed planning on “playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and [will be] expecting a different result.” Let’s step back a few months, to his first pick, VP. Who does he pick? Joe Biden, the most insider of insiders, a guy who has never held a single non-government job in his life. Biden has been in the Senate for 30+ years, since Nixon was in office. Nice one there. Rahm Emanuel? Greg Craig? Clinton hacks. Tom Daschle? Hillary Clinton? Are you kidding me? Every single one, a complete and total government/Washington insider, through and through. None of them have brought any kind of noteworthy (read: beneficial) change to our country so far, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get there this time, right? Perhaps my favorite appointment was that he has decided to keep Robert Gates on as Sec. of Defense. The only issue I heard mentioned about it on the news today was how incredible is it that Obama’s keeping a Republican on staff. Which is completely missing the point- why is the agent of change, who has been talking about Bush’s “failed war strategies” and “failed foreign policy” choosing to keep Bush’s Sec. of Defense? Wouldn’t that imply that Obama thinks Gates is doing a good job? But I thought the definition of “change” was “not Bush?”

If I were an Obama fan I’d be pretty confused right now. You know that cliché, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results? Apparently Obama thought it was a prescription for how to pick his cabinet members. Now that’s change I can believe in! Or not.

A common fallacy on the Left is that the United States has never fought wars for humanitarian purposes, but rather only cynically goes to war when its national interests are at stake. This type of thinking results in “blood for oil” rhetoric that still has traction in many circles and is the primary complaint of those who wear Save Darfur t-shirts and blame the US for not stopping the genocide in Rwanda. Disregarding the question of whether or not it is ever prudent to go to war when it does not involve one’s national interests, the claim that the US has not is patently false. US History, particularly since World War II, presents countless examples:

The Iraq War/Persian Gulf War: If the US is as evil and manipulative as the Left seems to think, then why didn’t we just ally ourselves with Saddam? Why did we even have differing interests in the first place? After all, we were his allies in the 1980s when he was at war with Iran. Why wouldn’t we have simply allowed him to overrun Kuwait in 1990, benefiting handsomely from those actions? Because our foreign policy has never been as simple as pursuing the national interest.

Kosovo, et. al.: If our UN-backed foray into former Yugoslavia was not a humanitarian mission, than what is? Serbian Christians under Milosovic were exterminating Bosnian Muslims. Under Clinton, we bombed Milosovic into submission by targeting his energy resources in the middle of winter. Then UN/US troops were sent in to restore order. (Yes, this was not entirely a US affair, but the UN has never acted militarily without the United States. Do you really think the UN would’ve sent troops had the United States not been the primary actor?) But what does Yugoslavia have to do with US national interests? Nothing, but our foreign policy has never been as simple as pursuing the national interest.

Somalia: A small US force was sent in to stabilize the country and root out a few drug cartels. True, the horn of Africa is close to the world’s primary oil supply, but why not just let the country fall into disarray and deal with the victors like an 18th century European power would have done? Because our foreign policy has never been as simple as pursuing the national interest.

Vietnam/Korea: While the US entered these wars (the latter backed by the UN) in order to “contain communism,” how was it in the US interest to draw the line at Vietnam and Korea? They are not great powers. They have few natural resources. One could argue that they are in semi-strategic locations, but they are not geopolitical necessities where spending 13 years, billions of dollars, soft power reserves and hundreds of thousands of lives could make sense in light of the national interest. Even if the Domino Theory was proven true (which history proved otherwise), why not cede Indochina and Korea to Communism and draw the line at Japan or India, countries far more vital to US national security? Because our foreign policy has never been as simple as pursuing the national interest.

And this is only since World War II, arguably the only war in US history, other than the wars for independence (1776 and 1812) and the Spanish-American War (1898), that revolved around the national interest. I am not suggesting that the U.S. has only operated out of humanitarian motives. But to suggest that it has only acted out of selfish motives (to gain/secure territory, to gain/secure resources or to simply increase its power) is not true and vastly distorts the character of the United States. It is a myth perpetrated by those who believe:

A.) the United States is an imperialist nation that is the primary obstacle to world peace

B.) the United States is no more moral than any other state actor, the former Soviet Union included

C.) war is always wrong

D.) pursuing the national interest except when preserving the existence of the state is immoral

E.) A combination of A, B, C and/or D

If the United States believed in Realpolitik or Raison d’Etat, whatever is in the best interests of the state is moral, it surely would not operate in the manner it has/does. It would not have entered into conflicts in far off places for supremely moral objectives that have little impact on the national interest. It would not have limited its own power and freedom of action by creating an international body designed to oversee world affairs and eliminate the outbreak of war. It would not have attempted to “democratize” nations with large oil reserves, it would have either taken them over or simply dealt with whomever happened to be in power, regardless of his human rights record. Russia and China operate in this manner. For all their preening, the nations of Europe generally operate in this manner. The United States does not and never really has. We fight on principle, more often than not, to our own detriment.

Myth #1:  Huge voter turnout
The fact is we did have a large voter turnout in the 2008 presidential election just like we did for the 2004 election.  However, the turnout numbers were nearly identical to the 2004 election.  The estimate is that around 60.7 percent to 61.7 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots this year.  In 2004, that number was 60.6 percent.

Myth #2:  The media was not biased in favor of Obama
The Center for Media and Public Affairs conducted a survey to find out how the media covered both campaigns.  The results?  65% of news stories showed Obama in a positive light while only 31% of news stories showed McCain in a positive manner.

Myth #3:  Obama is a champion of change
Jim Geraghty has a rundown of some of the recent people that Obama has tapped to be advisers or Secretaries in his new administration.  Some of the people Obama has tapped either served in Bill Clinton’s administration or have been in politics forever:  Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschle, Greg Craig, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Peter Orszag, and more.

These individuals are prime examples of Washington and political insiders that seem to diverge from Obama’s pre-election rhetoric of: “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result” - Barack Obama, December 27, 2007.  So much for “change.”  I guess we’re just left with “hope.”

A Russian analyst has predicted that in addition to handing the reigns of the global economy to Russia and China, the United States will be so divided that it will actually break up into six states, separated as follows:

the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

While the economic aspect of this projection is probably more accurate than I would like to believe (although I don’t why China, a burgeoning economic powerhouse, would allow the Russian mafia state with no manufacturing or technological capability to be part of its global domination), regarding geopolitics, I think the Russian analyst is confusing US history with his own. While regionally divided on many social and economic issues (although in many ways the division is more urban/rural than east/west), the United States is not the Soviet Union.

The “stan” countries of the former USSR had absolutely nothing to do with Russia. They were simply colonized by the tsar and forced to speak his language. The first real chance they had to separate - when Russia was absolutely at its weakest point militarily - they ran. (And the running is not yet over as Chechnya has sought independence since 1991.) They became Soviets by brute force.

While cynics (and liberals) argue that the United States was colonized in a similar manner, its not as if there are smoldering pockets of natives around the country that are simply waiting for their chance to overthrow the state and return to their nomadic way of life. Whatever else it is, the United States was founded primarily on an idea. Nothing has shown that the regions of the country are no longer committed to the basics of that idea. While the US does have regional, social, religious and economic fault lines, it has always had these fault lines (that’s one reason why we have two houses of Congress). One could argue that these divisions are growing, but I do not believe they are growing to the extent that the central states, for example, will all of the sudden secede and form their own country. Despite our differences, the regions truly have too much in common and too much at stake to break apart. I have absolutely no doubt that, when tested, we’ll bind together.

At minimum it will not occur because the six-state arrangement would place Los Angeles and New York (the only two cities that liberal elites on either coast really care about) in different countries. That alone would cause riots in Hollywood.

Interesting commentary over at Powerline regarding whether or not Obama’s cabinet appointments, thus far give evidence of his intention to govern as a centrist. The main point:

It is fun to throw back at Obama certain of his quotes about bringing in new players, and it is even more fun to chide Obama’s less astute lefty supporters to the extent they complain about a “betrayal.” But it is quite premature to infer from the selection of Clintonists that the left gained little by working to elect Obama or that Obama will serve up a third Bill Clinton term.

My two cents: I believe that Obama will go as far left as the country will allow. While I believe he is a strange mix of leftist ideologue and pragmatic realistic, I believe first and foremost (like most politicians) that he is a popularity hound. Thus, I believe he will govern primarily based on opinion polls and approval ratings more than anything else. In that way I do think his term will appear like Clinton’s (unprincipled); however, I think there’s much more of a calling for a far-left agenda (anti-market, wealth redistribution, pacifism at all costs, environmentalism uber-alles) now, on the eve of Obama’s reign, than there ever was under Clinton in the “vacation from history” known as the 1990s.

Thomas Sowell has a new article up at National Review regarding the new American right: the right to win. It covers a nice smattering of issues all relating to the leftish notion that if someone isn’t happy, then somehow injustice has been done.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called “gay marriage,” which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.

It’s good stuff. The Liberal/Libertarian notion that “you can do anything you want until it begins to invade my rights” doesn’t really work in a reality where we all generally have to share the same streets (and neighborhoods and schools and land). At some point, in areas where people’s lives intersect, society as a whole must decide between what behaviors it believes are detrimental and those that it believes are beneficial to the common good.

I was listening to the radio on my way to work the other day and they played a clip from a woman who was losing her house due to foreclosure.  The woman had chained herself to her house and stated on record that she did not want the bank to be able to take her home and hoped the politicians would “do their job” and help her to keep it.  Now, I feel bad that she and her husband are losing their house.  I understand that people are going through bad economic times.  However, since when is it the government’s “job” to protect us from our own decisions?  The problem is, this reliance on government for bailouts and handouts is not unique to individuals.

Recently the government passed a $700 billion bailout package.  $700 billion–our national annual budget is currently about $3 trillion.  Nearly a third of our national budget for a massive bailout of stupid financial decisions?  Also, the big news today is about the big three auto makers here in the United States lobbying Congress and the President to take action and come to their rescue.  They are requesting up to $25 billion in government aid to avoid a failing domestic auto industry.  I thought the United States won this ideological battle with the Soviet Union and other communist regimes–central planning and government ownership does not work. I guess someone forgot to tell our own citizens that we “won” this ideological battle.

However, with the election of Barack Obama we’re seeing a resurgence in demands for government help.  Not the Constitutional help we’re used to like national defense, but help from our own dumb choices.  When will people return to what made this country what it is today?  Taking responsibility and building their own future without an inefficient and soulless government there to redistribute assets and catch us when we fall. After all, there is always a price for government intervention. Always.

I voted for Proposition 8. I voted for Proposition 22 in 2000 to make marriage between a man and a woman. Please do not commit this atrocity of governmental bullying and overturn Proposition 8.

If you do, you show the utmost disrespect to the will of the people, to morality, to our country, and to yourselves. You will be nothing more than spoiled, out of touch ideologues forcing your values on your helpless constituency.

Interesting commentary with lots of poll data about why American Jews instinctively vote with the Left, despite the seemingly obvious danger in which that places the state of Israel. The key paragraph:

To the question, ‘Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons,’ 47% of Jews said they’d oppose America moving to save Israel from nuclear annihilation, 42% would support it, and 11% were unsure.

This is perhaps the clearest indication that a significant segment of the Jewish community either doesn’t give a damn about Israel or is delusional.

A few personal anecdotes (for whatever they’re worth):

I went to high school with many ethnic Jews (about 22% of my school in fact) and while many brought unleavened bread to lunch during passover week, most could not tell me what passover was all about. They knew the ethnic side of the story, at least the food part of the deal, as many, understandably, complained the entire week - but the ones I spoke to did not know its history. Being an evangelical Christian, I knew all about the lamb’s blood on the door post and the angel of death “passing over” these homes on the eve of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, but most thought I was crazy and just looked at me with blank stares as if to say: “Lamb’s blood? Whatever man, I just know I have to eat bad food during this week.” Some even commented that I was dead wrong. “Passover had nothing to do with that,” they said.

In graduate school I encountered a woman of Jewish heritage who told me that the only reason the United States protects the state of Israel is because the Christian fundamentalists in this country believe that Jesus Christ will return to the temple mount to usher in the end times (as if somehow Christ couldn’t descend from heaven, return to Israel, rebuild the temple, and establish his kingdom on earth without it being in the hands of the Jews or without the United States’ support). She seemed to believe that supporting the state of Israel equated to ushering in a Christ-centered end times, rather than simply supporting the Jewish state’s right to exist. As she didn’t believe in Christ, then she couldn’t support Israel. I found her reasoning rather puzzling. While she can certainly believe whatever she wants about the end times and Jesus Christ, she seemed to believe that the state of Israel was a Christian thing and should not be of Jewish concern.

I think most American Jews share this sentiment. They are ethnic Jews only. They eat unleavened bread, they don’t eat pork, they send their children to Hebrew school to learn the language, they throw bar/bat mitzvahs for their 13 year-olds, but they generally aren’t religious Jews and they largely, surprisingly, do not seem to care about the state of Israel. Or as the article stated, maybe they do care and it’s just not their top priority or they’re delusional.

A hero of mine, my all time favorite talk radio host (now turned documentary film maker), John Ziegler, has just posted footage from his upcoming film entitled “Media Malpractice… How Obama Got Elected.” The official webpage can be found here. Please check out this terrifying video/teaser/trailer.