It’s not what Russian Premier Khrushchev said over sixty year ago that matters as much as what led him to say it. Way back on June 19th, 1962, the Russian leader stated in part, “The United States will eventually fly the Red Flag…the American people will hoist it themselves.” Back in the day, this was viewed as humorous. Today, after reading summaries of last week’s Iowa caucus, humor has left town!
Briefly, our inability to marginally separate our reflections from this emerging political season hinders any possibility for objectivity without an emotional or political attachment. It’s as if we are rafting on a rain-swollen river without any paddles. Events sweep our attention, obliterate our thoughts and invade our solitude.
As we embark into these nine months leading up to our Presidential decisions, already an ominous telltale from yesteryear reappeared. This eerie recall presents a view, which, while many refuse to consider, will have to be confronted eventually.
Within the Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the Iowa caucus results, a piece detailing the future of Sander/Clinton in New Hampshire.
It should be said that this two person contest is between two differently shaded horses from the same farm. While one is more open and defiant, the other attempts to mask her socialism. This might be hard to grasp, within these fast flowing torrents of news clips and poll figures, yet isn’t this its exact purpose? Still, if America is meant to have a productive and orderly existence, a changing perspective is in order.
Back to my reading, a “Bernie” [score]Bernard Sanders[/score] strategist Tad Devine, is quoted, “We’ve done we what came to do, which is establish him as a serious candidate.” Given his self acclaimed socialist beliefs, along with his professed intentions to demolish capitalism as we know it, Mr. Devine’s point is too clear; the candidacy of Sen. Sanders sets a precedent for establishing and accepting future Presidential candidates with similar ideological vents. Socialism has arrived and attained its final acceptance.
Thus, our Presidential integrity along with our American Constitutional Republic has been marginalized. Some would point to freedom of speech, but saner individuals would recognize the overall intent of an eventual political takeover and likewise, a remake of our Constitutional framework.
However, this Wall Street piece contained more. For me, the icing on the cake was, “Still, he inspired voters who said they were attracted to his…promise of a ‘political revolution.’”
Similar to Obama’s organizing support throughout the campus circuit, might we raise a thought to the origins for such revolutionary fascinations? Certainly, older Americans who have experienced both trial and success in the American way of life are not so bewildered. Also, it is a well known fact that the young are, and always will be, an impressionable lot.
At this point, with political unrest being institutionalized throughout academia, could it be that Khrushchev realized this youthful vulnerability sixty years ago? After all, something had to influence an international leader other than just “wishing and hoping.”
I shudder because a similar variation to Khrushchev’s boasting has so easily attracted the ears and minds of our youngest generation. At what point does a college education become a liability? This self destructive attitude, which eventually will trample free thought, speech and expression, is inherently dangerous and is antithetical to our national well being. Yet, this mentality has not only been permitted to prosper on campuses, it has been endorsed throughout the majority of college classrooms.
In retrospect, Presidential standards greatly dipped when electing one who dodged our Nation’s draft during a time of need. Today, it seems astounding that his wife, a former Senator, who also possesses a dubious record as Secretary of State, has the gall to actually become a Presidential candidate.
With all her outstanding and unsettled email questions, in addition to an ongoing Congressional investigation into Benghazi, this Clinton candidacy makes a mockery of the entire election process from the standpoint of honesty, integrity, respect and worthiness.
In sync with this apathetic approach, we are lectured about how the need for producing voter identification would be too harsh a demand. Is anything still relevant? What is so harsh, within our daily lives, when circumstances demand identification? Have we lost all sense of citizenship?
Sixty years ago, a despised communist leader predicted our country’s downfall to communism. Today, college unrest has mushroomed into adoring throngs of socialist minded students being attracted to the possibility of a “political revolution.” Mix in this leniency concerning qualifications of office and viola, Khrushchev was ahead of his time.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com