I've yet to discern if this sort of garbage--this particular heap, courtesy National Review--is an authentic conviction among the right-wing commentariat or is designed only to agitate the primitive base:
Obama is trying to shape a new kind of electorate ["African Americans, Hispanics, women, and young people"], creating a long-term Democratic majority that would allow him and his successors to stop catering to the center and finally govern decisively from the left....
Obama and his advisors never abandoned their quest to shape a permanent leftist majority.
You know, because Obama's entire political history suggests one of uncompromising radicalism, right?
NR's editorial refuses to even acknowledge reality, let alone engage it. Virtually all of Obama's short-term Democratic-majority victories were grounded in pragmatic, centrist politics--ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, a tax-cut-mitigated stimulus package, even the auto bailout came at the president's insistence that "the car business" wasn't for him.
Ah, but that's the past, some say. What might the future hold? NR doesn't say, not in the least; it simply peppers its piece with vague allusions to leftist politics, a "leftist majority" and "leftist Obamaism"--Bolshevik bogeymen all.
For the right, the Stalinist Obama is always lurking just around the next corner. True, he's governed for four years as a pragmatic centrist, meaning an FDR-style conservative progressive. But like the NRA's warning that Obama's resistance to federal gun control only means a fierce commitment to much more of it, the right's commentariat wants us--or merely the primitive, paranoid base--to know that years and years of Obama's moderation are but vivid signposts to a scalding, far-leftist hell.