Political pundits often wonder why the United States seems to be falling apart at the seams. There are many reasons for the slow-motion implosion, but one of them relates a cultural celebration of men and women whose principal appeal among fans is that they have no shame.
When a famous individual with no shame becomes a partisan political hack, one might say a dark spark occurs within them and you get what appears to be a soulless ghoul. There is no low that a ghoul will not go to destroy his political enemies, even if the result is a pyrrhic victory.
Will Ferrell’s decision to shop around a dementia romp about former President Ronald Reagan is an excellent example of America’s cultural hatchet men.
“Having already famously portrayed former President George W. Bush in various comedy sketches, Will Ferrell is now setting his sights on another former commander in chief.
Sources tell Variety Ferrell is attached to star as President Ronald Reagan in the Black List script “Reagan.”
Penned by Mike Rosolio, the story begins at the start of the ex-president’s second term when he falls into dementia and an ambitious intern is tasked with convincing the commander in chief that he is an actor playing the president in a movie.
The script was so popular following its announcement on the Black List, an annual catalog of the top unproduced scripts in Hollywood, that a live read was recently done in March starring Lena Dunham and John Cho.”
Only to a sick soul does Alzheimer’s disease become an opportunity for knee-slapping good times at the local movie theater. Imagine the “fun” Mr. Ferrell could have if he found out Ronald Reagan was molested as a child or that a close friend of his died of cancer…
If you ever wondered why it seems increasingly harder for people to disagree without being disagreeable, then look no further than the anointed purveyors of cool within the entertainment industry — the Will Ferrells and Lena Dunhams of the world love to lather themselves up in the politics of personal destruction and then fling it around with drive and purpose. They claim to love America, but the reality is quite different. They lust for a world that is as sick and twisted as whatever it is inside them that makes dementia a launching pad for political attacks.
In March of 2010 I wondered why the kids who voted for President Obama thought his YouTube Diplomacy would sway the world’s worst dictators and despots. It’s now 2014, and the administration’s Twitter Diplomacy has exploded in its face. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was the one who lit the fuse with the instantly-mocked tweet: “The world stands #UnitedforUkraine. Let’s hope that the #Kremlin & @mfa_russia will live by the promise of the hashtag.”
While Russia fights for its cultural identity, the White House is fighting for “the promise of the hashtag.” One simply needs to flip through a history book to see how Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II dismantled the Soviet Union in order to realize that President Obama should have stuck to “organizing” Chicago (i.e., Chiraq).
Is it any wonder why the Kremlin won’t take calls from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel?
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has been unable to get Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on the phone amid escalating tension near the country’s shared border with Ukraine.
Mr. Shoigu announced Thursday that Russia planned to engage in a new series of military exercises near the Ukraine border. The military move, he said, is in response to ongoing NATO training exercises in Poland and the death of at least two pro-Russia insurgents in eastern Ukraine.
The White House is getting shellacked on the world stage, and Americans have no one to blame but themselves.
But back to the “promise of the hashtag.” Foreign Policy Magazine breaks it down for everyone to understand:
Late last month, Marie Harf, a deputy spokesperson at the State Department, took to the podium to announce a new social media campaign aimed at “mobilizing the international community in support of Ukraine.” The campaign, she explained, asks “the world to show their support for Ukraine on social media by using the hashtag … #UnitedForUkraine.” …
So far, speaking with “one voice” hasn’t done much to deter Russian aggression, even as part of a broader campaign to punish Moscow for its behavior. … U.S. officials and legislators have unanimously ruled out a military response to Russian aggression. So you’d be forgiven for considering the State Department’s social media campaign to be a somewhat Quixotic, ephemeral even, effort at building a response to Russia’s moves in Ukraine.
For anyone writing an early obituary of U.S. diplomatic efforts in Ukraine, here’s your headline: “The Promise of Hashtag.” The ease with which Russian diplomats have hijacked the banner under which sundry U.S. officials have been tweeting about Ukraine also speaks to the danger of using a slogan that essentially lacks content. What does it mean to be “united for Ukraine”? It certainly sounds good. Both words begin with a “u.” And who doesn’t like “unity”? But combing the two words with the preposition “for” doesn’t add a great deal of meaning.
Then there’s this: It’s no small irony that the Russian Foreign Ministry managed to express itself in more coherent English than the State Department’s chief spokesperson.
Here’s the key takeaway: “the danger of using a slogan that essentially lacks content.”
I’ve said before that the president was propelled to great heights by his talent for eloquently delivering soaring vagueness. The man who preached “hope and change” got people who get excited over “Obama cares” bumper stickers to vote for him twice, and guys like Vladimir Putin couldn’t be happier. The Russian Foreign Ministry speaks better English than the State Department because it knows exactly what it wants — and its willing to use force to get it.
Russia is not interested in being an “also ran.” It has a rich and proud history, and it will fight to regain what it believes to be its rightful place on the world stage. Meanwhile, we have a president who laments the fact that the United States isn’t just one random voice among many on the world’s stage. He bristles as phrases like “American exceptionalism” and chooses, whenever possible, to drag the skeletons out of our closet for all the world to see.
One could almost forgive the man if his foreign policy was even remotely coherent. Instead, Americans get “reset” buttons (misspelled as “overcharge”) and Ashton Kutcher diplomacy.
Perhaps you, like me, were forcefully encouraged to see the new movie “Valentines Day” last weekend. In the course of diplomacy, perhaps you, too, said that it was a wonderful movie.
You will be fascinated, then, to discover that the movie’s star, Ashton Kutcher, has become a U.S. government diplomat. …
According to the LA Times, Kutcher is being sent by the State Department to Russia as part of a tech delegation that aims to use its bits to foster diplomacy with that particularly bearish, bullish part of the world. …
It seems that no special time has been set aside to discuss hacking, censorship or blogger imprisonment.
How did that work out for us, Mr. President? How much bang for the diplomatic buck did we get for sending Ashton Kutcher over to Russia to dicker around with the Russians and talk about how widgets and gadgets and Twitter hashtags are really, really awesome?
President Reagan can be summed up: “Tear down this wall.” President Obama: “Respect our hashtags — please?”
Compare and contrast Ronald Reagan’s handling of Communists with the Obama administration’s “reset” (i.e., “overcharge) diplomacy.
Shortly after President Obama began making the case for military action in Syria a few weeks ago my Facebook feed was again peppered with comments by the usual people making the usual pleas to work within the confines of the United Nations to find a way to settle the chemical weapons dispute. What has consistently escaped these friends since I joined Facebook during the Bush administration is that the composition of the United Nations almost always sets the stage for explosive endings to the most difficult diplomatic rows because free societies and fear societies have completely different visions for the world.
George W. Bush was a Texas rube and President Obama was the cosmopolitan cool guy who was going to win over the world with his wit and intelligence. Well, that didn’t work out. There are many things the president could have done over the past five years to make his life easier, but at the end of the day it’s hard to convince thugs and goons from police states to behave in ways that are not conducive to perpetuating their little fear-based fiefdoms.
Ronald Reagan understood this, which is probably why his presidential star continues to rise as time passes:
November 30, 1976:
If you thought the United Nations was a debating society more or less dedicated to peace keeping chores (at which it isn’t very successful) brace yourself. I’ll be right back.
Last June in Vancouver, British Columbia, (which is very nice in June — which is why they met there no doubt) the United Nations held a conference — title: “Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements.” They’ll sell you a copy of the report through their sales section in N.Y. for $10. Before you send off a check give a listen — maybe you’ll save $10.
The gist of their findings is a call for complete planning of all land, nation by nation. By coincidence no doubt, the program they recommend is virtually a restatement of Point 9 in the Communist Manifesto as written by Karl Marx in 1848.
Before they get down to the specific program the report expresses concern with unequal incomes, pollution and a number of other social ills as they perceive them. But then they get down to the business of the aforementioned Point9, “the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over country.” I thought that was what some of our environmentalists were objecting to and calling urban sprawl.
Well the conference took note of that last and warned against “uncontrolled urbanization.” It also was concerned with “rural backwardness” and “rural dispersion.” They want to use land planning to encourage “massive shifts in population into specifically designed habitats.”
Here is the principle as they announced it. “Every state” (that means nation) “has the right to take the necessary steps to maintain under public control the use, possession, disposal and reservation of land. Every state has the right to plan and regulate use of land, which is one of the most important resources, in such a way that the grow of population centers both urban and rural are based on a comprehensive land use plan.”
They use terms that may not frighten them but they sure scare me. For example, they describe federal land use planning as a basic step in setting up “the New International Ec. Order.”
Now this was a U.N. conference it’s true, but somehow bureaucracy has a kinship and a communications grapevine that crosses all borders. We already have a “new town” program by our own Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. There are some 15 cities involved, lured no doubt by federal funds. HUD as the department is called also has it’s own “habitat” division.
I know we don’t pay much attention to vote in the U.N. General Assembly but remember that grapevine communications system. When the jungle drums are pounded by one set of bureaucrats, another set is listening.
Congress will return in January and there will be land planning legislation introduced — re-introduced is the proper word because it was unfinished business when they went home. This time the various permanent employees of HUD and other agencies will appear before the Congressional committees with that U.N.report fresh in mind.
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. (Reagan: In His Own Hand, 164-165.)
Perhaps President Obama should have read more of Reagan’s diaries over the years and less of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” Ronald Reagan was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union; Alinsky was a community organizer who dedicated a book to Satan.