Click to Enlarge
This "unrealistically high" need for achievement is described perfectly by his Moon in Capricorn opposite 10th House Pluto. Moon in Capricorn implies a need (Moon) for achievement/high position (Capricorn). The opposition to Pluto in Capricorn’s House emphasises, empowers and neuroticises this need. This man really does need to be at the top, to the extent that even at the age of 72, when most of us have eased off and become free of that sort of drive, he remains desperately ambitious. Capricorn is a sign that only comes into its own with age, and to that extent I think we can trust that he really does want to do the job, and will have the energy to do so, assuming his health holds up. OK, there is probably a neurotic element, some sort of need for identity, but that just goes with the territory.
I think Sarah Palin was right to point out that Barack Obama has not sponsored any major legislation, yet has managed to publish a volume of memoirs. There is a hubris in that. As someone commented on one of my posts, Barack Obama’s decision to run for President - or at any rate a sense of a special, high destiny - probably took place when he was a child. This was also the case with the UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who was forced to admit to this recently in an interview. Meanwhile Boris Johnson, the new mayor of London, used to say when he was a kid that he wanted to be king of the world. It’s a bit shocking when you think about it that these people manage to fulfil their childhood fantasies, that we allow them to govern us.Bill Clinton pointed out that he was a year younger than Barack Obama when he became President, and that age therefore need not be a factor. It need not, but by that time Bill Clinton had been Governor of Arkansas for 12 years, and had also had the experience of being voted out of office early in his governorship. So he did have political experience, considerably more than Barack Obama. Will Barack Obama be an effective President or won’t he? We have no way of knowing, for he has not been properly tested. Note I am not saying he wouldn’t make a good President. My point is that at this stage we don’t know and can’t know.
This is no way to elect a President, and it is a sign of US political immaturity that the Democrat party is prepared to countenance such a candidate. This would never happen in say Russia or China. They must be laughing. Astrologically, we can see this in Sun square to Saturn in the US chart: a challenged (square) relationship between the leader (Sun) and the requisite experience and authority for the job (Saturn).
The same applies to Sarah Palin: her only major political position has been as Governor of Alaska for the last 2 years. Yet she will automatically become President should John McCain be elected and then die.
As I have pointed out before, would it occur to any of us to appoint a highly skilled professional like a brain surgeon through a popular vote, and to allow candidates to stand who were e.g. plumbers, but could speak in visionary terms about brain surgery? Such a course of action would be considered mad, literally so. Yet this is exactly what we do when appointing someone to run the country, an equally skilled and responsible job. And what difference to the outcome does your puny individual vote make? Absolutely none, yet we are brainwashed into believing that such a system gives us the people the power, we are the free world, unlike those poor people suffering under foreign dictatorships.
21 comments:
You add logic to the USA's political scene and it becomes even more scary!
I prefer the UK's method of choosing a government leader (PM), taking it out of the hands of the voters, and leaving it to those who know exactly what's needed and who has the goods.
Put the way you've outlined, it's pretty amazing that the USA has come as far as it has - some lucky picks and some disastrous ones, I suppose they balance each other.
Last one was a disaster - it's time for a lucky pick! ;-)
I think the UK method in theory works better, except...
The Labour party was forced to accept Gordon Brown as leader, because of the position of power he had acquired, and no-one dared oppose him if they wanted a political future.
As for Blair, they chose him because he was so electable, even though he had no experience of government, and by his own admission had to learn it as he went along.
I think we have to observe. Barack Obama has run a brilliant campaign, truly brilliant. His skill is evident and if applied to the US - this could produce great change for the better. Could. Anyway, I personally think that great leaders are actually born and that it might be a mistake to think that experience necessarily equates with good leadership.
Yes, brilliant campaign, gifted orator. But how effectively can he work within the political system? We don't know, and we need to know in order to vote responsibly for him.
I, for one, believe that we get exactly what we need at the exact time we need it. I'm sorry, but there is no way anyone can ever be groomed to be President of the US. GWB had everything, the pedigree, the schooling, the "experience". We all see how that turned out. Of course you wouldn't want someone inexperienced to perform brain surgery on you. Brain surgeons and Presidents are similar in that some are better than others. But brain surgery can also be practiced on a day to day basis and perfected. Not so for the presidency. We all know there are many different intelligences (emotional, musical, mathematical, etc.) and they all play a part in the role. I know we may seem crazy for wanting to elect Obama as president, and you may see it as unintelligent idol worship, that's fine. But the President is a symbol, and in no way is he some sort of king that makes all decisions on his own. Not just anyone with Obama's talents can be president. The needs (or as some may say, blindspots) of the nation will continue to dictate who rise to that position. Times change. No one questioned monarchs and their ability to lead, because it was a birthright. Regardless, people could not envision it being any other way than its always been. This is the perfect manifestation of the upcoming Saturn/Uranus opposition, no?
Is it just me or is anyone else just sick and tired of this presidential election hoopla. Presidents don't 'run' countries, the senate, assemblies, parties and legislature do.
Presidents are elected officials and public servants not monarchs. The do what they're told to do. How could anyone think otherwise. You're not voting for a person, but for their political party and a particular presentational style.
Those who didn't fancy a hatchet faced Hillary staring down at them from CNN for 4 years, supported a winsome Obama who has basically the exact same policies. Why? because the party decides the policies not the candidate.
If you want a different set of policies you vote Republican and can hope to get gungho geriatric war hero McCain and his huntin', shootin', prolife (surely there's a contradiction there somewhere) gal sidekick Palin to drool over.
Oh and I thought it was quite clever (or maybe desperate) of McCain to go for presidential pinup material in his VP choice. And the sexy ramboesque half naked pic? Well it worked for Putin...
See, you're making the same mistake that Plato made when he compared being a political leader to being the captain of a ship. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC JOB THAT A PRESIDENT DOES. You cannot be an expert in it - because there is no expertise to it. There is no handbook that goes along with it, no degree in it, nothing about being a representative for a long time that is liable to help you with it.
The only reason that anyone listens to a word they say is because they are seen as 'legitimate' - they have passed the (relatively random) electoral tests that ensure they are accepted by the group identity as somehow 'representative' and are prepared to act with an air of authority. No group identity, no president. The only reason Cheney has turned the Vice President's position into such a powerful one is because he clearly knows what he is doing (even if it's evil) while Bush initially (and possibly still) didn't have a clue.
One of the reasons astrology and politics go together so well is because they are good at revealing group dynamics and the identities that go with that. Your analyses of this election are great from that perspective - they reveal the underlying archetypes and facets of personalities, but they cannot help when it comes to issues, which are the meat of politics.
As things stand, astrology helps to show some of the latent character inside an individual, but it CANNOT reveal the individual - I am Sun Square Saturn, similar to Slobodan Milosovic, and yet clearly as far as mass murder is concerned, my record is sorely lacking. For you to deign someone 'ready' or 'right' to be president is deeply misguided on two counts - that there is such a state, and that a person can be it (and astrology show it).
It is the mad system that uses individuals to decide things in the name of the identities of groups that is mistaken. That is why I am studying Political Theory - one day we will ALL make collective decisions and these crazy beauty contests can cease to be. I just hope we can survive till then (and yes I do mean it - global warming, terrorism and ecosystem collapse etc.)
Why do you Hate Obama so much?
I don't, I just think he's a kid who wants power.
If you're President, you need to be able to get legislation through, or nothing can change. I don't agree with McCain's policies, but he knows how to get them through Congress. Obama hasn't that experience, so though I agree with some of his ideas, will he be able to get them through Congress? We just don't know.
It's like you set out to say one ridiculous thing per paragraph when you sat down to write this blog.
Excuse me but "Obama will be assassinated because he is black" is just too much.
I think everyone can agree that any person running for the President of the US can be considered "a kid who wants power." We've come to terms with that here in America. We also know, like most democracies, that the ability to elect someone is a good way to change the dynamic of a country. One thing the Obama campaign has done is completely energized the democratic base, along with the entire electorate. That is something that hasn't happened in a while. The number of people donating, registering to vote, organizing themselves for this election is simply extraordinary. How do you explain that? You chalk it up to someone or something that is making them take action. For many of us here, every moment we take to stop and question this monumental shift happening in our collective, instantly becomes an afterthought. Take a chance on a great candidate who's views I agree with? Why the hell not? Why care about how well he can get legislation through congress, when everything else he has done shows how well he can work within organizations. Isn't that ability transferrable? I'm assuming Obama wouldn't forget how to work well with people if he were elected president.
The US saturn square sun manifests itself as a mistrust of authority figures. The electing of "unqualified" candidates is deliberate. It's putting people outside of the sitting authority structure in power. I believe the 70's transits of the Pluto/Uranus whammy thru Libra have made this tendency even stronger. The perception of "outsider" is something that Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GWB have in common regardless of party, or even reality. Obama and Palin have that aura about them and it's another reason why the interest is falling on those two and not the 2 career Senators.
Several of these comments say the US president doesn't really run anything anyway. As a US citizen who tries to watch this stuff carefully, I couldn't agree more.
Our last four presidents - Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush - have made all kinds of campaign promises and positioning statements and then become something quite different once they're actually in the Oval Office. And in a peculiar sameness, not one of them has done one thing that would in any way curtail the influence of the corporations, the financial establishment, or the military.
So, rather than rant on ad infinitum, I can only say it doesn't seem to make much difference what McCain or Palin or Obama or Biden say for the next 60 days. What will be interesting is who gets into the office and what happens from that point on ... whether it's one of Harvard's brightest law scholars, or a former POW 'maverick' who's now clinging to the Christian Right, or a moose-slaughtering 'hockey mom' from the north woods.
I agree that a leader is much more limited than we necessary realise in what they can do. Hence the UK TV comedy series of the 1980s 'Yes Minister', based on the struggle between a minister and his civil servants, who are there for the long-term and always prevail. As Margaret Thatcher said, that series was not satire, it was documentary!
That said, of course a President makes a difference, of course America took a different course due to Bush rather than Gore being elected in 2000, for example. Of course the UK took a different direction due to the Tories under Thatcher gaining power in 1979.
So neither is a President all-powerful, as their campaign promises wish us to believe; but nor are they entirely hemmed in by the status quo. And I think an effective President is able to work with that gap. And I think this probably applies to most countries, certainly the UK, where I come from.
I don't think an American president gets in by popular vote, and lately the shady computer people put in who they want. People in America want a leader who seems to be trustworthy. This would be Obama; but he is part of the Washington scene in some ways. At least he came up much like Clinton and used his own intelligence to get where he is. The would be vice-presidential woman who spent 6 years getting a "communications" degree is another matter entirely and frankly quite frightening to me.
I agree with jayhmmy. What do you think Bush's MO was? I'll tell you: To get daddy's respect. No doubt he believed starting a war and "winning it" would further accomplish that. What about Bill Clinton? Was he not always the chubby kid looking for approval and attention? Well, he sure got that on a grand scale, didn't he? I mean you can go as far back as you want and find what drives people to power is getting the approval they missed out on during childhood. I'm a little put off by your pat description of Obama, D. Yeah, the guy does have a yearning for respect, approval, influence (more than power) and even love - but so what? That doesn't necessarily make him a bad person or leader. I expect my president to be well reasoned, educated and interested in being a part of the world community. And I expect that person to be surrounded with the finest experts on policy both at home and abroad. I believe a Barack/Biden ticket will deliver this and more. McCain's choice of Palin makes me sick to the core. To risk her possibly being in command? All that says to me is he cares very little about our country
It is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party, a "mistake" made popular by George Bush.
Read about the importance of that small difference here:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg
Hi Dharmaruci- In answer to your question, how effective Obama will be at working for change within the system as it exists? Hey Pluto's first opposition is with Venus ruler of the US 10th house - in other words, the Government itself. So...there might be some big changes to the existing system coming up, don't you think? We met by the way, at the AA conference in York....Liz
Wow, what a great debate. My Pisces Virgo axis loves it. There is a lot of wisdom in DR's post here (his entire blog smacks of unaffected genius). I love that we're all passionately adding commentary here. The fact is that we have some pretty alarming aspects coming up near the election and who knows if an independent will upset the entire apple cart!!
Your big-breasted model may be a brain surgeon, but she definitely needed a plastic surgeon to get those implants in. I thought it was only infantile Americans born in a Cancer nation who were obsessed with breasts. It's so refreshing to visit Brazil and see everyone focused on buns for a change!
Your blog seems to be the only one reflecting my thoughts on the matter.
People who post as anonymous need to be aware that their opinon instantly means less. Money where mouth is etc..
Only dodgy bit was your big breast brain surgeon insert...I wondered if it was an ad for a minute. There are a whole bunch of feminist issues regarding this issue...not least women disfiguring themselves as a way of making decent money in a man's world. For working class women, their looks are their only capital. It's understandable and smart that they would use/enhance them to make money.
As for the jibe about Sarah Palin taking 6 years to get a communications degree...hasn't she got young children?
Post a Comment