The President could learn a lot from Spider-Man

"With great power comes great responsibility."
The one word I didn't hear during President Obama's address last night announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq was "Freedom."  It's a word his predecessor used often both as a conceptual elemental human aspiration and as a symbolic understanding of America's place in the world.
Whether we should have gone to war in Iraq is a legitimate discussion.  Whether the United States ought to involve itself in world issues in general is also a legitimate discussion.  Many people believe we have no business "meddling" in others' affairs.  They might prefer a sort of isolationism as foreign policy.  Others believe that as the only remaining true superpower in the world America has a duty and obligation to protect its interests and the interests of other nations and peoples.  Many believe we have an obligation to spread the concepts of freedom and liberty throughout the world.  Again, these are all discussions open for reasoned, civil debate.
The reality, however, is that America remains the only true power in the world.  As such, in the sage words of Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility."  Much like the reluctant comic book superhero, America's great power is intrinsically coupled with great responsibility.
President Obama's speech seemed unengaged and disinterested.  He spoke of Iraq in a manner that, frankly, cast it as little more than a distraction.  Instead he simply said it is time to "turn the page" on a chapter of our history, not recognizing the enormity of a task nearly completed yet which remains tenuous.
From the National Review Online:

For now, we have transformed Iraq from a hostile, terrorist-supporting dictatorship destabilizing the region into a ramshackle democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. To get Iraq to this point, in January 2007 President Bush had to order tens of thousands of additional troops into a failing war, in the teeth of gale-force opposition from the political establishment, public opinion, and the balance of the military brass. To capitalize on the opportunity we have bought in Iraq with blood and treasure, President Obama has to do something much easier: resist a strategically witless urge to turn his back on Iraq as being merely the site of "Bush’s war."
The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing.
...In its failure to credit explicitly Bush’s surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama’s domestic priorities (“we must tackle . . . challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform”), it was shameless.

At first glance it would seem that President Obama doesn't understand the great responsibilities placed into his hands as President of the United States, leader of the free world and shepherd of Freedom on earth.  He campaigned on a single-minded promise to end the war in Iraq.  He reminded us that he kept his promise. 
But the story is not over.  The stakes are still high and Iraq is still important, not only for its citizens but for the region as a whole.
What happens if Iraq devolves?  The current forces which remain are called support troops or transitional forces or some such relabelling that may or may not appease the anti-war left or isolationist libertarians.  Do we send troops back to fight some more?
Which post-conflict model does the President intend to emulate?  The Vietnam pullout which led to the slaughter of millions?  Or the peace-keeping presence of American military in South Korea?  We still have military bases in Germany and Japan as well.
Finally, just how will we deal with a belligerent nuclear Iran, Iraq's neighbor?
It is clear that President Obama's most animating interest is his leftist social domestic agenda.  He implied now that we have washed our hands of the Iraq problem, we owe it to those who fought and died to support his economic agenda.  How patriotic.
The President does not seem fond of America's position of power in the world and the sense of America's responsibility to protect the idea of individual freedom.  As a leftist he likely sees it as unfair that other countries are not as strong, or as prosperous, or as safe.  The inequality of superiority likely bothers him greatly.  Perhaps that's why he seems to always feel he needs to make apologies overseas.
So perhaps it is more likely that he does recognize America's position in the world, and he doesn't like it and would prefer to ignore or even minimize it.
Remember what happened when Peter Parker neglected his opportunity and responsibility to stop the bad guy?  He lost his uncle.  If America, the Shining City on a Hill, does not protect people and stop bad guys, who will?  And what will the world lose?

The New American Caste System

Casting the current political divide in terms of a new caste system crystallizes the visceral, instinctive outbreak of opposition toward the Obama administration's policies and the current ruling class in Washington, D.C.  The sort of aristocratic arrogance of our leaders is open and obvious; the Tea Party movement and this past weekend's apolitical Restoring Honor rally, hosted by Glenn Beck and attended by an estimated 500,000 patriots, are examples of the elemental American inclination to resist oppressive governance.
This article is required reading:
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

Setting the table for the Party of No

Democrats have gotten very good at setting the rules of political engagement.  They have been allowed to frame every argument and set every agenda for every issue.
Let's take, for example, the argument over the health care reform bill, Obamacare.  Democrats came out firing with both barrels -- interesting since most leftists oppose the individual right to own firearms.  They set the terms of the discussion with the claim that "health care in America is broken."  Unfortunately, many Republicans and conservatives agreed.  "You're right, health care is broken, but our way to fix it is better."
Or, take for another example, recent legislation to extend unemployment "benefits."  The way I see it, there are no benefits inherent anywhere in being unemployed.  Again, Democrats said, "We need this."  Republicans said, "Yes we do.  But lets just do this and that.  We should probably make it 'deficit-neutral,' or at least give it that appearance."
It's a weak, weak argument.  It's the same argument the liberal and liberal-lite parties make all across Europe, and the reason they have not been an economic force in two hundred years and routinely face chronic high unemployment and ethnic groups that refuse to join the common culture.
The problem is this type of weak opposition reinforces an original premise which is wrong from the start.  It's awfully hard to counter an argument with agreement.
As a result Democrats have been able to push nearly every item of their socialist wish list with nary the meekest opposition from Republicans.  And, as a result, America is on the cusp of becoming a third-world banana republic dictatorship ruled by an elite class of "intelligentsia."
Think about this the next time you and your buddies crack open a 30-pack of Coors Light.  Your pal says, "Let's drink the whole case!"
But you don't think drinking an entire case of 30 cans of light beer is such a good idea.  You might say you "oppose" his idea.
"No, I don't think that's a good idea," you counter.  "Let's only drink most of the beer."
So you and your friend rock out and polish off 26 cans of beer, black out and awake weeks later on a Japanese whaling ship cleaning carcasses.
How's that for opposition?
Republicans need to embrace the concept of opposition.  They need to become obstinate.  "Party of No" ought to be badge of patriotic honor.  Conservatives have it right.  We know what works, and have mountains of empirical data to support it.  If we fight harder for our liberty maybe we'll be able to keep it.

Intellectual Dishonesty and Moral Equivalence

The furor over the Ground Zero Mosque is illustrative of the unbridgeable moral chasm between the left and the right.  The left tends to equivocate moral issues, rather than understand or accept the absolutism of morality that the right, especially the generally more religious right respects and embraces.  It is dishonest and intellectually dissonant.
Outspoken voices on the left are incorrectly and even antagonistically comparing the opposition to building the mosque to racism and bigotry.  It's the typical leftist deflective straw man.  Recent polling shows the majority of Americans support, understand and respect the concept of property rights and religious freedoms.  Yet the issue for those opposing the building of the mosque is purely an issue of propriety and sensitivity.  The gaping would left by terrorists who attacked in the name of Islam is still painful.  Opponents of the mosque are simply asking for compassion, for it to be built somewhere less confrontational.
But the left, long opposed to any semblance of religion in public life, and those who support the building of the mosque have inexplicably and suddenly found respect for religious freedom.  Is it because they are Muslim, rather than Christian?  A Greek Orthodox church was also destroyed in the attacks of 9/11.  Yet bureaucratic impediments have prevented it from being rebuilt for nine years.  The left always feels compelled to support its perceived victims of oppression.  Once again Muslims are, in the minds of leftist equalists, being persecuted by an intolerant America.
The left is taking an argument based on an unrelated principle and twisting it.  Recently prominent members of the media have made comparisons to Timothy McVeigh's supposed Christianity, equivocating opposition to the mosque to Catholic and Christian churches in proximity to the federal building that was bombed in Oklahoma City.  "What if people had asked for Christian churches to be moved away because Timothy McVeigh was Christian?" they ask.  Perplexingly, Christianity and Islam are equivalent in the mind of the leftist.  Never mind that Timothy McVeigh's purported Christianity was completely irrelevant to his actions, if he was even Christian to begin with.  His faith, or lack thereof, was not readily apparent, whereas Muslim extremist terrorists routinely and blatantly commit their acts of horror in the name of Islam.
Besides, according to the left, at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh was driven to his despicable actions by the words of radio talk show hosts.
The right generally understands the concept of absolutism.  It is an integral component of the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Right is right, and wrong is wrong.  Good is good, and evil is evil.  Law is law.  There's not a lot of wiggle room.  Consequently the moral relativism of the left is maddening.  The acts of horror committed by a crazy man are attributed to a supposed Christianity equal to a violent Muslim extremism and convenient to today's argument, equated to a completely unrelated situation.  Moral acrobatics worthy of Barnum and Bailey.

7 Millionaire Myths - Investopedia.com

"Tax cuts only for the wealthiest!" Such is President Obama and the Democrats' invective whenever the subject of the Bush tax cuts, or lowering taxes in general comes up. It's the same old game -- class warfare at its bloodiest. "The rich don't pay their fair share!" If 40% of the nation's entire tax burden is not their "fair share," then what is?

7 Millionaire Myths - Investopedia.com