Because the coming economic crisis, together with media hostility, will destroy the popularity of the party for a long time. Think about Republicans after Hoover. Of course, the coming crisis won't be comparable, but on the other hand the expectations of people have grown.
And why the crisis is unavoidable? Because in America the real economic activity have become unfashionable, and even actively obstructed by the government, and the profits were delivered instead by various financial Ponzi schemes. Even if the skillful operations of the government save the financial industry, merely the return to the necessary level of saving will ensure a rather serious recession.
Of course, "saving of the financial industry" will be accompanied by a tremendous amount of fraud. According to the principle that Republicans are not allowed to steal, it will blacken the name of the President presiding over it.
" just how much will it save? The Wall Street Journal, citing an independent tax analyst, estimates Wells Fargo could reap a tax savings of about $19.4 billion. To put that in perspective, the 0.1991 shares of its own stock Wells Fargo is offering Wachovia comes out to around $6.24 per share, or roughly $13.8 billion. Yes, Wells Fargo gets a $19.4 billion tax break for a company it’ll pay just under $14 billion for (if the deal closed today).
In other words, Wells Fargo didn’t pay anything for Wachovia: The IRS paid it more than $5 billion to take it. Who ever said you have to fear the taxman?
Well former treasury Undersecretary Robert Steel certainly has nothing to fear."
Why vote for Obama:
It was clear that American progressives were going to gain control over America and try to build their "perfect society". I personally didn't expect that to happen for at least 20 years. And with each passing year their influence, and the extent to which their ideas could be implemented, will grow.
Now Obama is clearly much too early. Moreover, he starts his rule at the beginning of a deep depression. This has two very beneficial aspects:
- it strongly limits his power to actually change society - it inflames his supporters, who will demand and get many changes in the economy.
As the result, instead of concentrating on the consolidation of his regime and social changes, Obama will reform the economy, lengthening and deepening the crisis. (He will also build international economic institutions which will be very useful in the further development of the Empire.)
During the first year of his rule we will see whether he will be reelected. I am virtually certain (and hope) that he will be - his program of changes in labour unions and financing community organisations shows that he will concentrate on basics. He will also undoubtly financially attack Republican-leaning media in order to create a virtual media monopoly.
Obama, and especially his supporters, are ideologues. They demand full support from the financial class, and will get it. There will be certainly a "Republicans for Obama" movement, but it will be so transparent that they will have no chance to remain in the Republican party.
Republican party will benefit from the final compromising of the free market absolutism. It will become clear for everyone (I mean, for every voter; true believers will continue to rant) that the "perfectly efficient market" is a beautiful idea somewhat similar to the "Communism" which the Communist Parties were building in USSR and vassal states for 50 years ("We are getting closer to the Communism with every day!"). Both would ensure perfect happines of humanity for ever - and both can never be realized on this imperfect Earth.
In addition, the total reshaping of the global financial and monetary system by Obama will undoubtly include features ensuring that only pro-Obama financial firms will survive. This will clear the Republican party of all representatives of Wall Street. The Democrats will become the undisputed party of Optimates - Sandlers, Soros etc will have many new colleagues.
Why I expect the Progressives (represented in the USA by Democrats) to finally lose?
Because they are fighting against reality. Their utopian demands require overthrowing the reality as such to realize. Of course, it is - in the long term - impossible. Reality reasserts itself, and utopians are destroyed.
The Progressives are both more intelligent and more ambitious than Marxists. They don't want to reconstruct economy, but the society as such. As social processes move much slower than the economic ones, the results will be inevitably delayed. That does not mean they will be any less painful - to the contrary.
They, contrary to the Marxists, who never managed to win a revolution in any Western country, prefer the salami tactics, never announcing their ultimate aims. In fact, I don't think that many of the "foot-workers" in the progress knows or would accept the ultimate aims - but they are the inevitable logical result of the changes. If you said A, you must say B.
"Right wing", conservative parties etc are wholly useless as opponents of the Progress. The only thing they can do is to slow it down. In fact, most of the conservatists are at heart as much Progressives as the left wing. They simply prefer the earlier stage of progress (Democracy Yes, vote for women Yes, divorce Yes, antiracism -Yes!!!, abortion- here the problems begin, women in the army???-another question, please; gay marriage - No! or perhaps?). They certainly don't wish to get rid of the Progress or even stop it altogether. See McCain and the Amnesty:
The strategy of slowing down can work - it worked in the case of communism, which imploded and was discarded before the Progressives managed to implement it in the West. But as I said, Marxists were rather unsubtle and announced their aims openly - which dismayed most of the electorate.
So, the current agenda of progress (which includes, but isn't limited to: radical ecology, antimilitarism, radical reshaping of the family, attempts to eliminate differences between sexes and differences in IQ between populations) must earlier or later come crashing down. The later this happens the greater will be the losses - and more radical the backlash.
The factors facilitiating the end of the Progres are the insanity of the Progressive aims, their devastating results and the fact that they tend to create revulsion in an unpreprared common man.
The factors benefitting the further progress are the fact that their aims are the logical development of the most glorious achievements of the West (eg good treatment of women is developed into feminism, and so on) and that they allow the intellectuals the necessary feeling of superiority over the hoi-polloi. Finally, as I said, the negative results of Progress emerge very slowly, so the people have ample time to become accustomed to them.
As the result of those factors I think that the Progress is far from ended. I guess that the natural beginning of the end of progress will not happen for the next 20-30 years. There is however one possibility which would stop or at least seriously slow it down, and allow America to weather it with relatively minor damages: If the Progressives will try to speed up the Progress too much, their aims will cause revulsion in unprepared electorate, and the downsides will become evident before the people will accustom themselves to them.
If Obama manages to win, he has a chance, as I said earlier, to recreate the Chicago machine on the national level- the coordination of financial industry, media and federal law enforcement. This can allow him to overwhelm the Republicans and gain for some time undisputed control over USA. In such a situation his radical backers would demand far-reaching reforms.
In addition, the economic policies which we can expect him to introduce - increasing taxes, increasing money supply, attempts at restarting the financial Ponzi system - will change the recession into a depression. The economic results of various social reforms, like benefits for Blacks, increasing Progressivism in education and the like, or the half-baked attempts to create a national health system, probably on the English or Canadian single payer model, certainly won't help.
Here is a good example of that way of thinking - a reform of health care as a means to gaining perpetual majority. An effective universal health care system is necessary, but any system designed with such a political goal in mind will be a morass. And Democrats will be bogged down in it for a long time.
Such a mixture of depression and political gangsterism would be remembered by the American electorate for a long time. This would be pretty efficacious in keeping the more radical progressive schemes from being attempted in reality