The Ecstasy Of Easy Choices
June 10, 2008
Obama The Trophy Wife, written by Elizabeth Scalia and published at Pajamas Media, is an insightful and somewhat startling look at the Democrat candidate for president candidate and our moth-to-the-flame-fascination with the inexperienced senator from Illinois.
A trophy wife, of course, is the younger, less shopworn, unlined, doe-eyed, and sometimes opportunistic woman some middle-aged men marry upon achieving the measure of worldly success that puts them in more “elite” company. Mixing with a “higher caliber” of people, such men know what they wish to present to the world: energy, a tuned-in trendiness, a certain sleekness of manner, and above all, youth! If they can’t quite project all of that with their comb-overs, their sagging jowls, and their reading glasses, why, a pretty young wife and pretty young children are just the accessories to help the illusion along.
Obama offers Democrats a national ‘makeover,’ painless, without surgery, without risk and without a recuperative period. Overnight, some Democrats believed that American beauty would be restored and that American beauty would sway men and women all over the world.
(That is not to say that some leftists want to make America the global whore, dressed up and servile however anyone likes. In the real world, it is the johns who pay for the services of the whore. In the world of many leftists, America must pay for the privilege of being that whore.)
What they don’t want to tell you is that they desperately want to be loved not for they are they are, but rather for who they look like. They don’t want to be looked at for their values but instead want to be worshiped for their willingness to please- and Hillary simply would not do.
Then they spotted — Obama! He was young, pretty, and had a pleasing voice. He looked good in jeans and had just a touch of edginess about him when he smoked. He seemed born to be looked at. Not much real experience in the hard political world — a few turns around the dance floor with glamorous-seeming men — but he appeared eager to learn, eager to get ahead, and because he stood for almost nothing, he would be easy to lead. He hadn’t accomplished much of note, but trophy wives don’t need thick resumes.
As a trophy wife, Obama would be content to let the Democrats pull out of Iraq; Hillary might actually suggest they stay. Obama would be able to sell the socialized health care Hillary couldn’t pull off. Most importantly, Obama would schmooze and photo-op with the elites for whose approval the Democrats so desperately yearned; Hillary was untrustworthy, there. She might snub Ahmadinejad and, like Bill Clinton before her, pledge to jump into a trench with a rifle to defend Israel. Obama would smile and look good while doing neither.
Obama makes it easy. Obama makes political and moral choices seem effortless, without agony and without consequence. The ecstasy of easy choices- that is the dream that is being foisted upon us, a fantasy too spectacular and too hypnotic to ignore.
The truth is, Obama is a trophy wife and more. He is the caring Olivia Walton, silent and long suffering mother of the Walton clan. Obama silently and with great dignity suffers from the all enveloping white racism on his Walton’s Mountain in the same way Olivia suffered from Tuberculosis. While everything may not always be perfect, there will always be a happy ending and a loving, united family on Walton’s Mountain.
Obama is the perfect candidate for a nation raised on television and who believes that intellectual pursuits can be sated by PBS. That expensive taxpayer funded outlet is a lot like Thanksgiving on skid row. Legions of ‘caring’ volunteers from the suburbs show up once a year to spoon out pudding and dressing to wretched forgotten souls, just so they can say they are better than most. Many of these people are fervent Obama supporters. They truly believe that one vote, like one meal, will change hard realities, both seen and unseen.
Scalia’s point is well taken. The ‘trophy wife’ analogy is representative of a culture that is throwing a tantrum. It’s all about instant gratification of all kinds. We want our cake and we want to eat as much of that cake as we want- and if we put on weight, well, we’re going to sue you and make cake illegal (That’s a lot like the Muslim sheikhs who demand all women (not just Muslim women) cover themselves from head to toe because men can’t control themselves- and women are no more than ‘uncovered meat’ who get what they deserve if they don’t tow the line. What happened to ‘uncovered’ women in banlieues in France for decades are an example of that kind of political expression)
Disagree with Obama and you are a racist. Campaign against Obama and you beat your wife and children.
The Obama Democrats would have you believe that politics is like factory beer when in fact, politics is ever evolving and refining. No one candidate, no one political party or political ideology will provide all the answers- and those who promise otherwise ought to raise more than a few eyebrows.
The differences between Francis Fukuyama and Marshall Berman best define the political divide of our time.
Fukuyama, the proponent of democracy, sees progressive politics in keeping and continuing to learn from our past. Berman, the unabashed socialist, believes that we must reject whatever preceded us and start from scratch, with little or no tolerance for ideas that deviate from socialist Utopia.
The Leftists today would have you reject everything that preceded their ascendancy. They want the trophy wife and care little for those whose ideas facilitated their rise. They openly admit their revulsion for those who blazed the trail and who now are in the way of their exercising their lustful desires for power and self gratification. For them, it is not enough that Hillary Clinton be rejected. She must be vilified and painted ugly as well.
In a blog post, Scalia remarked that
I find it interesting that – in my world – these people are entitled to their thoughts and opinions, and even to full respect for them, while in their worlds I am entitled to no thought or opinion that dissents from theirs, and I should not be allowed to speak – hell, I’m barely human to them. And they think they’re the liberals, eh? Not by any definition I ever learned.
There is a name for people who hold such views, but liberal is not it.
Newsflash, people, when you are making bigoted sweeping generalizations about Christians, when you’re incapable of moving beyond sneering snark and name-calling and you’re writing lines like
“you…[conservatives and Christians] are not human to me”
well…you’re not a liberal. You’re very, very far away from liberal thinking. And you should be afraid of where you’re permitting yourself to go, because it’s a bad, restricting, joyless and stagnant sort of place that has absolutely no connection to liberty or individuality. I wish better for you.
Of course, Elizabeth Scalia is really addressing a bigger issue. There are those for whom the self and their beliefs trample over the beliefs of others. Believe what we believe they say, or be ostracized by the community, expelled even. Hillary Clinton is walking proof of that. She had the audacity to challenge Barack Obama. Now she is paying for her sins.
Now, to be clear, we are not talking about the right to dissent or challenge. We are talking about ‘ultimatum politics,’ that new genre of expression that is the equivalent of playing ‘chicken’ on a highway. That of course is derived from ‘ultimatum agendas,’ the ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ idea that you must accept a particular agenda in it’s entirety, or you are the enemy.
Believing in Barack Obama or any other candidate for the right reasons is a wonderful thing. In free societies, leaders usually rise from adversity into greatness. Certainly America has had leaders that have emerged into greatness. Lincoln, Truman, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, to name few, came to prominence because of their record of achivements. That said, all the noble ideas and inspiring speeches in the world are not the same as a record of achievement.
Supporting Barack Obama or anyone else for the wrong reasons, no matter how attractive or appealing that candidate might be is a recipe for disaster that only serves to undermine free societies.
We live none of us to ourselves, and everything we do, even if we are not “thinking” about it, not acting consciously, has a ripple effect, it reaches out and touches other lives, sometimes imperceptibly. Nature uses everything…We think we’re going along in our own little spheres and that nothing we do matters…for good, or for evil…but it all matters…
Politics isn’t about one party or candidate winning over their opponents. In a free society, politics is about elevating society- and as Elizabeth Scalia points out, selecting leaders based on their ‘trophy wife’ qualifications actually demeans the process.