There is one ultimate comparison which applies well: Obama to ISIS, the Islamic State.
It really fits. The Islamic state are terrorists at heart, engulfed in an ideology that has no options. I wrote about it in “the struggle we must understand”. Obama is a radical ideologue at heart, whatever else anyone thinks he is. It is only a matter of understanding and knowing that. It’s a fool’s mission to try believing otherwise. He’ll prove you wrong; as ISIS will prove you wrong if you term them anything but evil and radical.
But that is not where it stops. The motive of operation for the terrorists is to provoke and attack anything not aligned with it, or anything that threatens it. That is the nature of the beast. That’s why preemption is the only strategy that can work against it.
With Obama he is all about challenging every other form of power. He believes in radicalism that attacks any of its enemies, by Alinsky tactics. It is pure radicalism. The ends justify any means. Ideology rules. He’s shown contempt for our Constitution and he shows contempt for America. He sees us as the problem and he and his cohorts as the answer. Perception is reality to them. They only need to project whatever they choose. (Islamists are creative at that too)
This is why we now have another problem. Our taking the Senate matters not to Obama. He’s as comfortable without it as with it. His radical means are no match for the process. He does not live under the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, it didn’t matter to him whether Republicans controlled congress. It didn’t matter before and doesn’t now.
In fact, we’ve seen how effective Harry and Nancy were in the minority already. He was looking to defy Congress before while he controlled half of it. Don’t you think he will defy it more having lost control? If he acted like a radical before, he has even more reason to act like a radical now. I think we get that. (whether legislators grasp that or not is a question)
With radical Islamists, they don’t care what percentage they are. Actually, the nature of radicalism is to be effective as one or a small group. They don’t have to win elections either, though they do know how to play the game of democracy. (Egypt) The other part is recruitment is not based on ethics or morality, it is just the opposite with radicalism and ideology. So they have no problem with recruitment, it sounds exciting to some.
Just as the message of progressives is a radical ideology, it sounds attractive to some people. It’s a perfect fit and lends itself to identity groups and academia.(group think)
With both types of radicals, percentage or majority do not matter, they are adept at acting in a small minority by design. (Weather Underground) They base their activism on constantly testing and pushing any boundaries. They use an incremental approach that is constantly probing. They apply tactics to subvert the process, challenge or disrupt it.
All that said, now we can see the problems inherent with Obama occupying one of three branches. Also other radicals within the system, think Lois Lerner, can be effective. They share ideology and don’t require orders or communications. Like terrorist cells, they act on their own or in concert. For Islamists, it is all about ideology. Radical is as radical does.
Clinton may have been a master politician, but Obama is a master of radicalism.
RightRing | Bullright