The Benevolent Dictator Syndrome Of The American Left

Everyone grows up reading about dictators and the special cases of “benevolent dictators” and envisions themselves in this situation of power and influence. They envision ultimate power coupled with a good heart and compassion for others. If THEY were in charge, things would sure be different!

This is a wonderful escape from reality and can be healthy. You dream of the ultimate power to correct the ailments of today and ways to recreate it in the way you believe it should be. Everyone wants to be “right”, and the only way to really be right is to have ultimate power over right and wrong.

If they themselves lack the capacity to be benevolent dictators, the draw of someone with a similar vision is very attractive, as long as they seem to have the same ideological philosophy. That is also the trappings of the idealistic philosophy. Ultimate ideological power means that everyone that agrees with you is right, and should be accordingly rewarded. Those that oppose you are then, obviously, wrong, and deserve to be dealt with in the most dominating manner possible. There is no room in the world of the benevolent dictator for dissenting opinions, as there can only be one truth, one right and one vision. All other opinions are then seen as heresy against the benevolent dictator.

All dictators have been seen as “benevolent” to those of the same ideological philosophy. The problem is that it always gets out of hand due to it’s very subjective nature. The “in power” elitist view is that they have the control and power to humanely “assist” the “less fortunate”, as long as they maintain the proper philosophical ideology. The elitist does not have to sacrifice in the least, and they can feel so good about helping others using other people’s time and money. Their elitism in their ideological philosophy is so “right”, humane, and powerful that that alone is the most valuable virtue they possess. It may be the only real asset they believe they possess. But under a benevolent dictator with the same ideology, that is more than enough for them. There is no need to work for a better advantage. They become lazy and easily led.

How can these people live in a world where you must earn what you get and still subject themselves completely to a cause such as this? These people are living in a dream world, searching for the benevolent dictator Utopia. They want to believe so badly that they hold onto their vision even when faced with irrefutable proof that the emperor has no clothes. They believe that by sheer willpower, they can will the chosen benevolent dictator to the great heights they have elevate him to. In their dreamlike reality, that willpower has the ability to make the power of positive thought a reality. It is hard to really despise these people, because they really do mean well. They just happen to place mushy impossible dreams above reality. They simply “hope” for positive and perfect “change”. It is all so abstract, it cannot be presented adequately long term, but they have faith that it is real, true and correct.

They then see all opposition as evil. This is the only “evil” that they believe in. Their ideological philosophy (more of a theology actually) is the only true goodness and light. All other ideology and theology is simply wrong and misguided. They can tolerate other ideologies, as long as they don’t collide with their own. This is why they can tolerate Muslims, as well as other religions that do not impact them at this time. They envision that once the Muslims get to know them, they will understand the perfectness of their ideology and their ultimate power and authority. Muslims can be appeased the same way they do the GLBT, the feminists and the blacks. They believe these groups can, and will, be assimilated into the liberal benevolent dictator collective. After all, it has worked on all other aggrieved groups, leaving the liberal elitists as tolerant masters of the aggrieved on the liberal plantation. Let the commoners deal with the problems they create while the elites live isolated from these problems. They love their protected liberal compounds. That is why they so admire Castro, Chavez and the former Soviet Union.

That is also why they cannot tolerate conservatives and Republicans. That creates a clash of ideological philosophies. Since they are completely correct in every way, those that do not see or comprehend this are the enemy and must be destroyed or converted for their own good, and the good of the benevolent dictatorship. That also, by the way, solidifies their elitist status, which is of ultimate importance.

This is also why they can’t comprehend the arguments of those with a different philosophical ideology. They firmly believe that any person or group that opposes their ideology must be marginalized as quickly and firmly as possible. It doesn’t even matter how that is accomplished. Any means is justified by the end. Opponents deserve no quarter. That is why lies are so quickly believed and sent forward. That is also why when they are proved as lies, they just shrug and continue to believe whatever furthers their cause. They are dreamers, not thinkers. Reality only gets in their way. They think they know their opponents, not by honestly talking to them, but by talking amongst each other about what the opposition thinks.

That is why the news media was so surprised at the choice of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator McCain’s running mate. Her name was in the mix, but they felt she was simply too unacceptable to be sincerely considered because her ideology was so acutely “wrong”. They didn’t think that she would be acceptable to conservatives because they sincerely believed that conservatives think that all women should be at home fixing dinner and taking care of babies. That alone would make a woman totally unacceptable to conservatives. They were bitterly shocked that she was not only accepted by conservatives, but it actually energized them! They were caught so flatfooted and unprepared, that their knee jerk reactions to her only made them appear out of touch and vicious. But those that believe in benevolent dictators have a tendency to be vicious. That is part of the trappings. As they realize they may once again be proven wrong and out of touch, they bet more bitter. But they don’t have God and guns to cling to, all they have is their ideology.

Their pleasant dream of perfection is turning into a nightmare. There is some good that will come out of this. There will be a “surge” in liberal psychiatrists. Liberal psycho analysis positions will flourish! Jobs will be created!

They are like the child that dreams of finding a quarter on the sidewalk. The child holds that shiny new quarter so tight in their clinched fist, hoping against hope that when they awaken it will still be there. They are hoping for “change”, but when they awake, nothing has changed. That shiny quarter was just a pleasant dream. So much for “hope” and “change”. It all seemed so real while they were dreaming. Reality sure throws cold water on half baked dreams when you wake up.

From Wikipedia:

"The benevolent dictator"

The benevolent dictator is a more modern version of the classical “enlightened despot”, being an absolute ruler who exercises his or her political power for the benefit of the people rather than exclusively for his or her own benefit. Like many political classifications, this term suffers from its inherent subjectivity. Such leaders as Napoleon Bonaparte, Anwar Sadat, Kenneth Kaunda, Józef Pilsudski, Ion Antonescu, Miklós Horthy, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and Omar Torrijos have been characterized by their supporters as benevolent dictators. For example some of these people have been democratically elected e.g. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.^[4]

In Spanish, the word dictablanda is sometimes used for a dictatorship conserving some of the liberties and mechanisms of democracy. (The pun is that, in Spanish, dictadura is “dictatorship”, dura is “hard” and blanda is “soft”). Some examples includes Yugoslavia under Tito or Spain under Francisco Franco. This contrasts with democradura (literally “hard democracy”), characterized by full formal democracy alongside limitations on constitutional freedoms and human rights abuses, frequently within the context of a civil conflict or the existence of an insurgency. Governments in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela have at various times been considered régimes by different critics and opposition groups, not necessarily with an academic or political consensus about the application of the term emerging.

I will vote for John McCain. He is definitely the best man left. I am a military man, but many of his "centrist" views leave me cold. But he does put America first.

Here is my position on the Republican Party that is developing right before our eyes.

Many weak republicans have been caught up in the bright lights of media coverage and wanting to be all things to all people, leaving integrity behind. They are looked to by people looking for an advantage to be the instrument of change. Government is the solution, and they wield the government power. They all go to Washington to make their mark. Corruption is the prime mover in Washington. Scratching backs and all the good ole boy stuff. But mostly government needs to stay out of the way, as their solutions are usually for damaging than the existing problems.

Republicans have lost faith in their own party and the ideals they are supposed to stand for. I am a conservative, but don't actually consider myself a staunch Republican.

But the good part is that this boring party is getting a makeover. It is about time. RINOs disgust me. Democrats are even worse, but at least you know where they are coming from. You knew they were sleazy before they entered office, as they ran as Democrats.

In 2006 the Democrats ran as conservatives. Some of them even believed what they were saying. But the result was the same, the Democrats obtained control of congress. The Republicans proved they weren't up to the task and didn't have the vision to hold onto power. Without the vision of Newt, they were left playing the part of politicians. They got what they deserved the old fashioned way; they earned it! They lost their jobs and the majority. They deserved it, but America deserved better from them. Many thought that the reason for the collapse was not pandering well enough. They listened to the MSM and polls. There is precious little integrity in the MSM and polls. Who conducts the poll? Exactly who are they polling? Polls can be valuable, but integrity is what keeps one in Republican office. Conservatives demand results. "Nuance" works for democrats. They can do anything, as long as they can talk a good line. Not so for Republicans depending on the conservative vote. Republicans have to deliver.

A positively energized conservative base is the best way to keep Republicans in line. They have to see the value in standing on principle. That is the beauty that Sarah Palin brings to the table. She has fought corruption. She has embarrassed her own party when they got steeped in corruption, and they paid the price. I say "GO GIRL!" The ones that play the corrupt political games get called on it. That will be what drives the Republican Party back to where it needed to be. No excuses.

This is the energy she brings. Even McCain will have to watch his pandering to the liberal power brokers. That is a good thing. That can also be a good thing for party unity.

I believe the presidential election will have coat tails. As the rock star glitz fails, so will the varnish be rubbed off the Marxist Democrats. Common sense isn't confusing or "nuanced", it is called clarity. I see "nuance" being exposed as shallow elitism in this election. I believe the people will become disillusioned with the pandering of the Democratic Party and begin to see them for what they are. The DO NOT comprehend the working person as they incessantly tell everyone. They believe in elitist lawyers, union thug "organizers" and lobbyists for special interests. I think this election will shine light under the rock they hide under.

Sarah Palin provides the news media with an opportunity to rethink their positions. They will first experience much of the same savage exposure they dish out when they go after her. But then they will reevaluate their positions. Call it self preservation. It will be far easier to change their position on someone they haven't made a living off of attacking. Sarah Palin is a fresh face. They will dig in and pile on for a time, but they will then be exposed as political hacks. Only then will they begin to back off and feel an obligation to also use that same tenacity against Obama and the Democrats. Any light on Obama and the democrats will be explosive. There is so much there that they have been avoiding, that the dam will burst. That is why all the liberals, leftists and Marxists (I repeat myself) are so worried. Any scrutiny will be devastating. But that is what working so hard to scrutinize Palin will bring. I say bring it on!

This movement will even bring RINOs in line!

Will this happen? Only time will tell. But if you think positively, positive things can and do happen. It is called vision. If you don't believe good can happen, you prepare yourself for failure. Keep your eye on the prize. There will be bumps in the road. Things won't always look like you want them to at that particular moment, but if you see it in the larger context, and enough people work toward that vision, it will happen. The bumps are just part of the ride.

Food for thought.

The Sarah Palin VP Selection Gambit

After reading Charles Krauthammer’s stinging explanation of Sarah Palin’s selection in “Incumbents for Change”, I felt it needed a little clarification.

Krauthammer explains the decision as dangerous and risky and not worth the downside of the gambit. I respectfully disagree.

He states that Palin’s selection actually forfeits McCain’s most powerful argument against Obama. But this observation displays a lack of understanding of the changing presidential landscape. Krauthammer concedes that Obama’s star power has trumped his inexperience and leftist bent, but thinks that the voting public will be able to sort out the facts through the prism presented by the wildly left and pro Obama MSM. If the media arm of the Democratic Party, the MSM, has done such a good job of deflecting all critical issues about Obama, how does he plan to overcome that prior to the election? I guess he thinks that another old white male on the ticket would get the job done. Boring “truth” from nearly dead white men would overcome the high glitz of the rock star and the enabling MSM that have already gone way out on a limb and have no intention of backtracking. The Democrats have not only curb appeal and a blindly faithful base, they have their willing enablers in the MSM.

The Republicans could have run as they did with George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole. They could have put up a good fight and had the better ideas. They could also have lost and been able to grumble about the biased news and how America is shallow and more into American Idol than being deserving of our great nation. Or… they could do something about it and electrify America and win. America doesn’t want boring. The conservative message of a nation run by well meaning and knowledgeable old white men just doesn’t have forward looking appeal! America wants something to get excited about. Obama has offered the left that excitement. It is shallow and Marxist, but it provides excitement. McCain had the opportunity to provide the same guidance that has proved to be a failing strategy and lost with honor. But is losing really honorable? Wouldn’t it be wiser and better for America for the Republican ticket to actually win? Aren’t the stakes just too high to produce nothing but more of the same ending in the same result? The Democrats already have an effective blueprint for this from Bill Clinton. He defeated TWO verifiable war heroes, while he was a draft dodger with huge amounts of hypocritical baggage. But both heroes he defeated were old white men. He ran on “change” and a “new” vision, and won. The old white male heroes lost with dignity, but they still lost.

The “vetting” process: In a very close presidential race, what is required in selecting a vice president in order to tip the scales in your favor?

Do you select a carbon copy of yourself? How will that attract anyone new in any significant numbers to make a difference? It will not. It may be comfortable and functional, but if you lose, what difference would it make?

Do you pick a “clean, good looking and articulate” black conservative man to balance your ticket and counter the “clean, good looking and articulate” ultra liberal running on the left? You may get a small increase in the black vote, but the black vote is firmly on the Democrat plantation. The attacks would be destructive, and the momentum from the base would be muted. It would be seen as politically pandering run amuck.

Do you pick a pro choice running mate to try and win over the pro choice crowd? The pro choice crowd is very vocal, but they are small and do not really speak for most of America. They are entrenched in the party of grievances already. This pick would entertain nothing more than a shrug from the pro choice crowd, and enflame the base against you. There would be nothing here to gain, but much to lose. This would be the same result for picking any liberal as his Vice President.

The dynamics on the ground point to a female as the choice for Vice President. There are many conservative women that are not vocal, but hold down a substantial voting block. It would energize this block that has always been taken for granted. It could also provide a home for liberal women that have been alienated by the ability of the “black” candidate to marginalize them. They can’t in good conscience vote for Obama, but would otherwise have no alternative than to just sit this election out. This is a great strategy not for just one election cycle, but for elections to come. Although they have no intention of remaining with the Republicans, loyalty is earned. Who is all talk, and who actually produces? This is entertainment and energy!

But which woman do you choose? Ah…more “vetting”!

There are some very good conservative women out there to choose from. I won’t go through a detailed list of them. I will instead break them down by groups.

Do you choose a true conservative, or a more socially liberal woman? John McCain is already pretty far into the social liberal mind set. So much so that he has often alienated his conservative base. This media darling, socially liberal maverick image appeals to a number of middle of the road types looking for “change”. To pick a socially liberal female running mate would be problematic for him. It would not appeal sufficiently to voters that would not otherwise vote for him and would alienate the conservative base. The selection MUST be a true conservative, but with the personality and passion to make a difference.

Do you select a black woman, white woman or another minority? This can be very tricky. It depends much more on the individual than anything else at this point. After all, it is about who will tip the scales by bringing the most additional voters to the presidential ticket, and who would best be able to play the supporting role for the President. So you shelve this part of the vetting process until, or if, it is even needed.

Do you select an older and much more mature woman or a young up and comer? Although this is very important, it is a pretty easy choice for primarily two good reasons.

First, the older and more mature and experienced conservative woman would have much more history to be attacked and exploited. Conservative women take a beating, and to succeed they must be extremely tough and not mind ruffling feathers. Not that that is bad, but it forfeits, as Charles Krauthammer points out, the advantages.

Second, the energy and excitement are important to the presidential election process. The party needs to be energized, but the target voters the Vice Presidential pick pulls to the ticket must also be energized. The more experienced the candidate, the more set her base will be. A younger and very popular candidate can bring broader energy to the ticket.

Experience is necessary, but ONLY in the context of what she brings to the table. What is her voter draw base? She must have popularity and proven achievement at bringing in voters and keeping them satisfied. Executive experience is important, but not mandatory. The candidate needs enough experience, but not so much that pitfalls over a long career can once again be dredged up. It is far better to have a fresh face where the work must be done to gain this information. Going over old worn out smears is not news, just rehash. The news media and the public needed someone fresh!

Once we get to this point in the vetting process, the governor from Alaska shines like a new penny. She meets all the conditions for an effective vice presidential candidate. All that is left is digging into problems she has, both the ones that have been made public as well as those that have not reached public scrutiny. There needs to be some things to find for the media as well as the public. That is part of the process and part of the fun and excitement! The objective is to manage them and use them to your benefit. That is why Sarah Palin is such a great choice!

Does her “lack of experience” really forfeit the charge against Obama? It actually magnetically draws comparisons to Obama’s lack of experience! Her experience actually trumps that of the Democratic Party nominee! What great fun! It gives everyone on both sides something to talk about, and your point is made! THAT is a positive! It actually provides a way out for the media invested in Obama’s success! To get the media to change their fortified position, you can’t do it head on with a club, even though they are transparently exposed. You have to provide them the opportunity to save face. Some will still fall on their swords, as that is how it is to be played out. But the rest will watch and learn. They MUST be provided a way out where they can save face, even though they don’t deserve it. Sarah Palin offers this!

John and Cindy McCain have adopted special needs children. That is a powerful point that must be presented. But how to present it without looking like attention grabbers? They have adopted these children because it was their choice, not for the publicity. But they still need to get that message out. How better to get this message out about the McCain children than have a Vice President candidate that has just given birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome? That is what you call a match! The door is swung wide open, and the McCain children gracefully become included in the conversation.

Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant. That has potential problems. But can the situation be managed to turn it into a positive? You bet. Nobody wants their daughter to have a child out of wedlock. We do our best to ensure this doesn’t happen so our children can have the best possible life and have children at a more acceptable time in their lives. But everyone either has experienced this problem or known someone close to them that has. Dealing with this difficult situation requires strength and commitment. Everyone wants to see it handled with style and grace. Everyone wants to see this resolved on the national stage of presidential politics. This is juicy and important. This creates divisions and controversy. But everyone wants to see it handled right. They want to see it through to the end. They want to see the joy and the heartbreak of it all as it happens. People are nosy. They also are looking for role models in this area. They want and need to see this accomplished. This has always been swept under the carpet and ignored. But how does America learn how to handle something this common and this important if it is always hidden? Politically this can be a real positive. The people are getting not only what they want because they are nosy, but they are getting something vitally important as well!

Even with Sarah Palin’s inexperience and difficulties with family life, her whole package is a real positive. It brings to the Republican presidential ticket youth, energy, resolve, commitment and something everyone will be drawn to. When you couple that with her 80+ positive rating, good looks, conservative values and ability to present both her own as well as John McCain’s strengths, and you have a winner. Let the whining on the left begin. Sarah Palin is ready, and so are conservatives. The movement has begun!

I see everyone jumping on the bandwagon criticizing Hillary, and rightly so. But they view this as if it was not just a staged event, and the Democrat candidates were actually being candid.

They don't see this as Hillary and the devious Democrats do. This was soft porn for the liberals.

What happened just before all of the fiascos during the Clinton White House years? They put the information out there early, using soft media, so they could address it on their own and not be called on it later, and it would be called "old news" that had been previously and satisfactorily "put to rest". That is the Democrat strategy this time as well.

Hillary (or possibly one of the other contenders)will be challenged by republicans. If the challenges are new, it is news. If those challenges had already been brought up and addressed, albeit in a "friendly" environment, it will be presented as "old news" and not worth following up.

It is my contention that these "attacks" were all staged, and the candidates knew it going in. They were all simply actors. Some, if not most, of the fawning MSM were actually willing participants.

This was more like studio wrestling than actual MMA. The blood was fake. The attacks and indignation were fake. This was strategically done, and accomplished with collusion. It was simply a scam.

They timidly attacked Hillary, preceded by or followed by complaints about the Bush administration. This was quite simply "soft ball".

Republicans challenge Hillary. The MSM, and the liberal plants that whisper in their ears, whine about the Republican "attacks" on Hillary, and it becomes "news", as if it was simply because of their hatred of Mr. Bill. Every challenge is met with skepticism.

But Hillary is running for Democrat nomination for president, and is the present frontrunner.

Republicans don't constantly "attack" Bill Clinton, because he isn't running. although Hillary, as co-president must take responsibility for her actions during that time and their record is fair game. But the MSM tirelessly work to give them cover. Any challenge of Hillary is met with skepticism and contempt.

But when the Democrats attack the Bush administration, all MSM heads nod in agreement, with no skepticism. Yet they see themselves as "unbiased". 

The Hollywood left must be proud. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. The candidates were all simply actors. There was no substance, and it was all just put on for show. Hollywood presents a lie as the truth. Now the MSM is doing the same for these presidential contender actors, or are they just pretenders?

I say it is time to do a reality check.