Authored by William Robert Barber
A large amount of multimedia effort is devoted to the squabbling between equally smart persons from divergent political perspectives. For the most part, the counter-parties all went to the best schools, were feed ample amounts of protein, loved by their parents, have a loving personal supportive family, and think of themselves as people doing the right thing. Many are licensed professionals, proprietors of Masters Degrees, PhD’s, and veterans boasting decade’s of real-life experience. Despite all such commonalities these propagators of differing ideologues ardently and often abruptly disagree on the most fundamental basis of political discourse.
How in the world could two graduates from world class educational institutions diametrically disagree on politics, societal issuers, cultural values, legal interpretive(s), and a long list of other important concerns? How does one find the truth of the matter if both sides of an issue are so balanced in credibility?
I think the answer starts to reveal itself upon defining the difference between one’s faithful belief and one’s reconciliation to believe.
A persuasion (one of many) in the forming on one’s political ideology is conditioned on the milieu of predeterminations; meaning determinations that are founded by a thesis or basis of a belief from a persuasive family member, respected peer, a teacher, and other such influences that are inclusive of one’s sphere.
For example, acolytes and apparatchik’s process inductively induced information via a guiding principle of devout belief. A belief is a faithful conviction of righteous certainty that does not necessarily require deductive analysis, logic, or fact. A belief is conjecture; a facile anecdote often emitting from a factoid void of evidence. A belief is a contrivance articulated as an irrefutably definitive. A belief can be as truthfully certain as magnetic north.
On the other hand, to believe requires the experience of a phenomenon of observation wherein the process of deductive analysis, logic, and fact induced by the measure of qualitative and quantitative is the required methodologies to achieve a conclusive believe.
To subject a closely held belief to the deductively applied rudiments necessary in order to establish to believe and reject a belief is as difficult as it is for Sisyphus to roll the boulder to the top of the mountain; asking Putin to restore western style democracy in Russia or for Syria’s magister to stop killing his own people.
Now cometh Obama, President of the United States, for this politician the differing of definition between belief and believe is irrelevant. What matters is winning the election. For this politician it is unimportant if one speech contradicts another. That misdirection, exaggeration, or outright lies are incorporated and intrinsic to his campaign’s release of information to the public. For the president it is perfectly fine to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to disregard. For President Obama winning this forthcoming election is an essential objective in the pursuit of one specific goal: To eradicate existentialism as a part of being an American so to impose an egalitarian entitlement state upon this nation’s culture wherein the liberal progressive theology of social justice replaces the heretofore tradition of, “a nation of laws not of men.”
The president is a political economic apostle of dirigisme or planification. He is a politician-protagonist obsessed by his image and character. A socialist of the French tradition; a man infatuated by the axiomatic power of his persuasion, a man who considers his reign as president the Pièce de résistance of political generalship.
In the election of 2008 President Obama beguiled the voters if reelected after almost four years of actual experience then indeed this nation has taken an abrupt left turn from its historical preference and will suffer the consequences of such a reelected Obama for a very long time. Anyway that’s a belief I can believe in…