Misinterpreting Obama and Green Revolution

Obama (AKA the Anointed One) will easily displease the far Left, meaning those people who always want the socialist/communist Utopia-cum-revolution yesterday (or sooner), who had been some among most of his supporters. The regular or mainstream Left will not be mostly disappointed and will easily stay, in fact, with him; this is because they are, in general, committed Fabian Socialists who know that both gradualism and the clever avoidance of using any collectivist labels are what most effectively advances the solid absorption of practical socialism in America.

Environmentalism as Radical Ideology

One will find this prognostication revealed, for instance, in the proposed Green Revolution to fight the fallacy of man-made global warming due to (natural) processes involving green-house gases (AKA methane and carbon dioxide, produced by man, cows, and other animals). The masses can be, thus, fairly well mobilized in a not only nationalist but worldwide cause for a form of terrene salvation.
What also helps him is that the supposed center of politics has significantly shifted to what would have been correctly recognized as part of the far Left syndrome of about a century ago; thus, it is logically quite easy for a collectivist to call himself a true centrist today without being thought at all a hypocrite; if, e.g., a 1950s conservative suddenly reappeared by a time warp, on the other hand, he would now denounce almost all of today’s conservatives as being just a bunch of socialists in their beliefs; for instance, Newt Gingrich, an extremely prominent conservative, publicly supports the Green Revolution.
The false perception will then be that Obama will govern from the supposed center-right when he will, in fact, be mainly on the Left in fundamental and concerted terms of the final direction or movement of his true ideological preferences. (And, no truly intelligent person, furthermore, is highly ignorant of this substantial reality.)

Welfare-Warfare State: Parallelisms

This will be dramatically seen, therefore, in his clever combining of a seeming moderation concerning the subject of (assumed opposition to) war with the continuing expansion of the social-welfare basis of the modern welfare economy, meaning the move toward greater collectivism, and regardless of any appearances to the contrary. Now, some interesting history, given below, would be very instructionally useful for the plain sake of illustrating a vital contention and notable cognate point.
Prince Otto von Bismarck, in the late 19th century, had critically realized that to have an effective, modern, warfare-potent State, it was also vitally necessary to develop and maintain a basic welfare State at the same time; there definitely exists a most practical and symbiotic relationship of mutualism between these two parts of the larger, modern nation-states. The social and economic interests of the masses, especially in terms of encouraging nationalism, had to be united integrally and popularly to the survival aspects of the regime itself; this is as to its assumed benevolence and humanitarianism, its often associated functionality and practicality.
Bismarck was no lover of socialism, of course; but, he still had greatly favored and helped put into effect the first, national, social-security system in Europe, meaning in Germany. He well realized, early on, the hard necessity of combining an effective warfare-welfare State for suitably maintaining a modernizing and industrializing nation in Europe and, moreover, for keeping an advanced posture in world affairs. Vast military establishments, he realized, could be reasonably kept along with allied public welfare efforts. This has important implications, of course, for current American politics as to the vast realities involved in the effort, by the Left, in forwarding collectivism by whatever successful means that are or can be, in practical terms, made available.
Obama, a cunning Machiavellian, will, thus, certainly continue the war in Afghanistan, though not really to militarily win it, as he gradually reduces the cognate effort in Iraq with no truly actual concern about losing there, if necessary. Many conservatives and neoconservatives, such as Michael Medved, do not, however, truly understand what’s going on; and, they have, therefore, highly praised Obama for making what they think are positive or good decisions. As easily known to US Rep. Ron Paul, one sees that interventionism, collectivism or Big Government, practiced at home balances rather well and logically with intentional interventionism, Statist activism, done abroad.
They actually do think that he will govern on the center-right or be, at least, a basic moderate; rather, the truth has been clearly elucidated above as to what is, in fact, really occurring; it’s not true moderation at all, therefore, to glide ever willfully toward the Left (with occasional aggressive thrusts in that same direction as various circumstances, from time to time, may allow).
The Anointed One, according to so many naïve and very childish observers and commentators, is supposedly being just pragmatic, reasonable, and so obviously “moderate” in his own general political approach, as was, of course, that other notable Machiavellian, Bismarck. There are known ways and means of consolidating power and using surface features of assumed moderation, nonetheless, to still reach toward genuinely radical goals, which are not, of course, necessarily always made to seem too radical; it’s similar to creating desired optical illusions in perspective, only done, as is perceived, through certain politically-minded skillful maneuvers, i.e., the art of politics.
Thus, Medved and many others are yet fooled quite readily, though they do think that they are highly sophisticated and greatly knowledgeable pundits and informed experts having vast reserves of wisdom on their side in any arguments. One questionably wonders, however, if these purported geniuses really are that profoundly ignorant of the aforementioned, exposed political reality, or are they merely pretending to be so very incredibly stupid?
This significantly pertains, especially, to the rather well-known realities of the modern welfare-warfare State. In many ways, moreover, there is substantial truth to the interesting , saying of Ralph Bourne that war is the health of the State, even one engaged in a Green Revolution (read: Socialist Revolution). It can be easily related to building up infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, etc., in America as a means of directing more attention to overall concern for the environment, during the process of the work to be done. This is not, therefore, at all inconsistent because the Green Revolution is, essentially speaking, the home of most socialists today; it is, thus, primarily dominated by the ideological Left.