The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign. While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.
The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.
- Health care for all? Not necessarily. CONTROL of healthcare? Absolutely!
- Financial reform? Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector? Yup!
- Cap and Trade saving the planet? Not even close. Massive redistribution program? YES!
I could go on and on, but I think the point is made. If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.
But what of real hope? Here is the definition.
1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.
2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.
How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope? His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted. Unemployment has gone up. Debt has risen to unsustainable levels. People are losing their health coverage and doctors. Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him. Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation. Corruption has increased. If anything, actual hope has decreased. Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.
I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago. I believe it shows us what is happening. Excuse my paraphrase.
“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”
Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them. All phases in the life of the individual are controlled. Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation, and even diet, are all dictated by the state. How can hope exist in that environment? The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die. I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation. If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything? If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?
I would submit that this is the general intent. If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control. This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives. The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.
We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens. In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated. The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements. Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could. This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens. The protests were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).
The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom. The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth. The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom). When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom. It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative. The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations. Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.
Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live? The true answer to that is relatively simple. If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world. As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison. As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it. Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed. So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America. If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet. Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative. Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole. In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.
That’s what the “progressives” want.
Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.
In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)
You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God. And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one. People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them. They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise. Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return. The nanny god will have no other God before him. Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God. For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.
I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture. Things do look rather grim. Of course, that too, is a goal for the left. Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother. However, it doesn’t have to be that way. Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.
After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President. In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed. After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed. After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future. After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military. And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly. Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation. This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”
The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe. They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means. And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear. The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.
The rest, as they say, was history. As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism. They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation. With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state. Then, the states fell. It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan. The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.
So where does that leave us now? While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory. The real choice is with us. Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope? We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now. We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book. We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives. We need to be bold and confident. We are right. We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom, a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market. We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life. If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens. Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.