There was an important article published in the Wall Street Journal on October 30th by Fouad Ajami on the politics of crowds. It helps resolve a mystery about this election.

Basically, very little is known about our next president. Barack Obama is a first term senator who has spent the majority of that term campaigning for another office. Much of his background is not known for three

reasons: 1) he hasn't really done much, 2) he has been very careful not to leave a trail, and 3) the media has been uninterested in this past to a degree unknown in even modern journalism.

The media and Obama's supporters seem to be almost totally uninterested in any information that could even slightly be inferred to be negative.

I wrote jokingly that if he killed someone, the media would simply congratulate him on saving the planet, and it would make no difference to his supporters at all.

According to Ajami, this lack of interest fits nicely with what Obama was trying to do, and cuts to the core of why people back him. He wrote, "On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen.

Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish."

The psychology of the crowd is hope, excitement, and a feeling of group unity. Everyone is on the same page. Everyone believes the same.

Everyone believes they want the same thing. It is the euphoria of unity and the loss of self in the mindlessness of the mass.

It is the political version of doing "the wave" in a sports stadium but with the added endorphin rush of self-righteousness.

It is the merger of the American and African-American version of the Peron rally in Argentina, or the Hitler spectacular in the Third Reich.

The unity is false because it is based on each person projecting their own image of "the leader" onto one individual who, at the end, will have his own vision for America which cannot coincide with those of all his supporters.

What we do know of Obama, the people around him, and from occasional unscripted off-the-cuff comments, is this. He is a liberal, but, and this is important, not all liberals believe the same things.

Over a hundred years ago, liberalism branched into two camps based on the relative importance of liberty and equality. One branch, which is quite close to what we now call conservatism, believed that liberty was more important than equality.

The other maintained that equality was more important than liberty. The far left in this group believe that equality is more important than almost anything.

Given Obama's background, it is highly likely that he falls into the second group, and firmly to the left of most Americans in that group.

This has all kinds of implications and repercussions for an Obama presidency.

Is America a good country? No. It once had slaves and no amount of time can erase that evil. This is a sin for which the country must be punished and for which it must pay.

Can we say, for example, that the 50s were a good time for most Americans? No. Because some Americans were unequal, it was a dark and evil time.

Is an employer free to pay a market wage? No. Businesses must pay a "fair" wage, which is based on the concept of equality.

Is an organization free to hire the most qualified worker? No.

Organizations must hire "fairly," which is based on the concept of equality.

Can religions teach doctrines that might create inequality? Yes, but only if they wish to be branded as "hate groups" and denied tax breaks.

Who determines equality? As Thomas Sowell wrote years ago, the "anointed ones" make this determination.

The reason conservatives favor freedom over equality is elementary.

Equality is a fiction that can only be approximated by intense force, and those who favor force only favor it for others.

A tyrant can never legitimately promise freedom, but any tyrant can promise equality.

Am I wrong about Obama? Who knows? But that is the point, isn't it?