"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In the aftermath of the Bush Administration I propose the following alteration:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Empire for which it stands, one kingdom under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for those who submit to the infringements on privacy and acquiesce to undeclared foreign wars."
In advance of the Obama Administration, I propose one further amended version:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Brotherhood of America, and to the Empire in decline for which it stands, one communal entity under a central state, with liberty for none and economic justice for the unproductive."
Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit. But I'm not, really.
People can achieve self-actualization not through the accumulation of wealth, not through the achievement of status, not by earning a living wage, not by having health coverage, but by the unending pursuit of their Personal Legends. People can only pursue their personal legends when unhindered by force and unhindered by fraud. Government should exist to prevent these evils, not be a perpetrator of them. Yet every day federal agencies in the executive branch are perpetrators of force and our Central Bank is a perpetrator of fraud.
Through taxes, excessive regulation, and with the looming prospect of an Obama presidency, even more taxes and regulations are ahead, the Government limits and inhibits the American Dream every day by confiscating people's productivity to finance a bloated federal bureaucracy and massive transfer payments to our retirees. The Bush administration has further enhanced federal power by demagoguing the War on Terror to pass such blows to freedom as the Patriot Act. We have, wholesale, tossed privacy rights out the window--and with a Socialist about to become President, that loss of privacy will be transformed into a further loss of property.
On the fraud side, the Federal Reserve cranks up the electronic printing presses every day and gigs the American people with the hidden tax of inflation. With our banking sector teetering on the edge of a precipitous collapse, we are told that everything is OK--the Fed will save us. But they will only provide the illusion of salvation. All the while we wonder why milk is so expensive, and why the dollar is at record lows against foreign currencies.
This of course is not the only fraud perpetrated by the federal government. For one, nobody wants to talk about (much less deal with) the complete insolvency of Medicare and Social Security, which we are promised will be there (even though the facts clearly do not support such assertions). We were defrauded about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We have been defrauded about the threats of so-called man-caused "Global Warming" while being asked to "invest" in green energy (like ethanol, which is starving the Third World and sucking our water reservoirs dry).
The government wants to pacify us by writing us all checks. Like the Soviet Union pacified its oppressed population with new washing machines and nylons, the American government seems to be so divorced from an honest ethic that whatever it takes to make people think they are helping is all that really needs to be done. Dealing with our problems, after all, requires a message that isn't nearly as happy or optimistic as Obama's hope-change-future triage. And who wants to be told that we have to cut back or face fiscal destruction?
In Rudyard Kipling's poem "The Gods of the Copybook Headings," the "Gods of the Marketplace" represent what is popular, where the Gods of the Copybook Headings represent wisdom and reality. I quote this poem frequently. It is by far the most wisdom-filled piece of verse I have ever read. I know it by heart. Here is the poem. It sums up my case against Obama and the rest of the status quo in the US government (which by the way, he is just more of the same). I will keep quoting it over and over until things change or it is too late:
As I pass through my incarnations, in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Marketplace.
Peering through reverent fingers, I watch them flourish and fall,
But the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us, and they showed us each in turn,
That water would certainly wet us, and fire would certainly burn.
But we found them lacking in uplift, vision and breadth of mind,
So we left them to teach the gorillas and we followed the march of Mankind.
We moved as the spirit listed, they never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Marketplace.
But they aways caught up with our progress, and presently word would come,
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the hopes that our world was built on, they were utterly out of touch:
They denied that the moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that wishes were horses, they denied that pigs had wings,
So we followed the Gods of the Market who promised these wonderful things.
When the Cambrian Measures were forming, we were promised perpetual peace,
They swore if we gave up our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed they sold us, and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, said "stick to the devil you know."
In the first Feminian Sandstones, we were promised the fuller life,
Which started by loving our neighbor, and ended by loving his wife,
Til our women had no more children, and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said "The wages of sin is death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch, we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selective Peter to pay for collective Paul.
And though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said "if you don't work, you'll die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled, and began to believe it was true,
That all is not gold that glitters, and two and two make four,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more:
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of man,
There are only four things certain since social progress began:
That the dog returns to his vomit, and the sow returns to her mire,
And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire.
And as soon as this is accomplished and the brave new world begins,
When all men are paid for existing, and no man must pay for his sins;
As surely as water will wet us, as surely as fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Imperial Presidency
Robert Nisbet, known for being "the only conservative sociologist" wrote that "If necessity is the mother of all invention, war is the mother of all necessity." As true as it is in science it is even more true in the politics. Throughout the 20th Century, and now into the 21st Century, the presidents of the United States have utilized economic unrest and war to enhance the power of the presidency. Although this is not new (look at the massive usurpation of power by President Lincoln during the Civil War), it has been particularly pronounced and dishearteningly permanent in the 20th Century and beyond.
Before we go further, I need to make a couple of points. I am not a Conservative, in the modern sense. Neither am I a Liberal, or even a Libertarian. I don't even consider myself a "Classical Liberal." I have come to firmly reject ideological labels as belying the complexities of political questions. I believe in Responsible Liberty and Responsible Government. The People should not abuse their liberty, and the Government should not abuse its power. It is my view that the eternal struggle in politics is between these two extremities. Perhaps my political philosophy could be boiled down to two quotations:
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." --George Orwell
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net." --John Adams
And so we see how we have gotten to the point where we are today, bringing me to the topic at-hand: the rise and ill effects of the Imperial Presidency.
I cannot possibly discuss this topic without being reminded of the account of Israel demanding that the aging Old Testament prophet and judge Samuel appoint them a king to reign over them. The following is the story from Chapter 8 of the first book of Samuel:
Wilson was the foreshadowing of FDR. A temporary glimpse into the full power a President could muster, both in terms of usurped power and in terms of influence. It should not surprise us that it was during World War I that Wilson was able to make these strides. The Great Depression and World War II brought with them (after a brief hiatus during the inter-war period) even more unprecedented usurpations of power by the federal government, concentrated in the executive branch. Thus began the great emasculation of the People's House, and Congress in general. Rather than the Executive being the moderating influence on the agenda of the Congress, the Congress has become nothing more than the President's privy council, occasionally changing hands to stop the agenda of the President.
Clearly unintended (though not unanticipated) by the Founders, who gave Congress Article 1 of the Constitution to show forth the primacy of the branch of government closest to the people, the President was supposed to be the Head of State, oversee the implementation of the laws passed by Congress, and occasionally veto harmful statutes and excessive spending bills that could result from the excessive influence of "faction" in the Congress.
Instead, what we have today is a Presidency that defines the national agenda, draws up the Budget and submits it to Congress (when clearly this was intended to be the other way around), a President who is in in many cases the only political figure the average figure can even name. The President now has the de facto authority to wage undeclared wars, and invade the privacy of the average American in the name of "national security." We seem to look to the President to "fix" the economy when times are bad, to make sure income is distributed "fairly" and to punish evil corporations who are the cause of all of our individual financial woes.
The problems inherent in the imperial presidency will not pass with the change of the individual in the White House. Nay, I fear President Obama will yield the powers of the imperial presidency in new and destructive ways. And that is the problem with the concentration of power. New people merely find new uses (and abuses) for it. Indeed, the concentration of power into the hands of a single individual gives rise to a most dangerous phenomenon: messianic candidates. It is rather easy for somebody to promise deliverance from bondage at the hands of Pharaoh. It is another thing for them to part the Red Sea and make good on the promise. I would probably put more trust in Senator Obama's capacity to part the Red Sea, though, than to unite the ever fractious American population around a decidedly socialist--and bordering on Marxist agenda.
It is clear that Senator Obama likes the imperial presidency--you don't hear him promising a reduction of Government's influence over the average person, but rather a different kind of influence. This might unify a segment of the populous, but that is a unity that is more likely to be toxic than healing. Workers' revolts in the Third World are a unity of sorts, but the unity is against a common foe, rather than in favor of a common purpose. We are treading every so dangerously close to the same kind of unity if we buy into the well-veiled class warfare rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He waxes eloquent about the greatness of America, in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did. He is appealing to the latent patriotic sentiments of the left wing of America who have spent so long being unpatriotic because they felt that patriotism was being abused to prosecute an unjust war. Now that same last refuge of the scoundrel is being utilized to prosecute an unjust war against prosperity, success, and entrepreneurship with the promise of crushing tax increases, massive government spending (and crowding-out), and more entitlement programs than you could even imagine.
That patriotism consists of the confiscation of the assets of productive Americans is merely the other side of that dubious coin whose opposite number claims that patriotism consists in the destruction of privacy rights and the torture of individuals thought to have knowledge of terrorist plots. Both are a repudiation of human dignity and equality, and both are equally repugnant to the Constitutional system America is supposedly predicated upon.
In the days when I was a Socially Conservative Republican, my liberal friends used to argue that "you can't legislate morality." Yet as I hear the arguments of Senator Obama, there is a strikingly moral tenor when he talks about his platform of Robin Hood economics. It is apparently immoral for companies to make profits. Although I would argue that true justice exists when all people have their basic needs met, I believe that it is the responsibility of every individual to make their own contribution to justice than to impose justice through the ballot box. Indeed, if all of the individuals spending their time and energy campaigning for Leftwing candidates instead spent their time starting a business and amassing a fortune that they could dole out to those who they perceived were in need, then we would have a much fairer and more just society.
But instead, these supposed proponents of social justice clamor for a messiah who will by the stroke of the pen cause everything to be better. This is not only naive, but also very dangerous. During the entirety of the Bush administration, my Republican friends chastised me for being "soft on terror" because I opposed many of the invasions of privacy rights (like the Patriot Act), the power of the President with respect to undeclared wars, etc. But as I always replied "Just remember that although you think Bush wields these powers justly, you will not think so when a Democrat occupies the White House." And that is where we are today. Faced with the prospect of an ideological idealist whose principles are more aligned with Lenin than Lincoln, all of those who wanted to be tough on Islamic terror will be regretting the unintended consequences they wrought when we are presented with the awesome might of governmental terror.
The solution to this dire problem is not to elect the right President, but to diminish the President's usurped powers. The solution is that the People's House be more representative, more assertive, and take back the right to set the nation's agenda. This is what Madsion envisioned, and it is what makes us who we are. The 20th Century legacy of the Imperial President, if not supplanted by a resurgence of democracy, will undoubtedly be succeeded by an age of decline.
Before we go further, I need to make a couple of points. I am not a Conservative, in the modern sense. Neither am I a Liberal, or even a Libertarian. I don't even consider myself a "Classical Liberal." I have come to firmly reject ideological labels as belying the complexities of political questions. I believe in Responsible Liberty and Responsible Government. The People should not abuse their liberty, and the Government should not abuse its power. It is my view that the eternal struggle in politics is between these two extremities. Perhaps my political philosophy could be boiled down to two quotations:
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." --George Orwell
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net." --John Adams
And so we see how we have gotten to the point where we are today, bringing me to the topic at-hand: the rise and ill effects of the Imperial Presidency.
I cannot possibly discuss this topic without being reminded of the account of Israel demanding that the aging Old Testament prophet and judge Samuel appoint them a king to reign over them. The following is the story from Chapter 8 of the first book of Samuel:
When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.To the writer of the book of Samuel, he thought it was an atrocity for the King to require a tax of 10%. My how perspectives have changed. America has more or less followed this same path. The framers of the Constitution feared a King. Washington himself exercised self-restraint, turning down the opportunity of a third term because he did not believe America should become a monarchy. This unwritten rule of honor perpetuated throughout the course of American history. It almost ended with Woodrow Wilson, but due to a massive stroke, he was physically unable to campaign for a third term. And it is going back to Wilson that we trace the origins of the Imperial Presidency.So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have."
But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Wilson was the foreshadowing of FDR. A temporary glimpse into the full power a President could muster, both in terms of usurped power and in terms of influence. It should not surprise us that it was during World War I that Wilson was able to make these strides. The Great Depression and World War II brought with them (after a brief hiatus during the inter-war period) even more unprecedented usurpations of power by the federal government, concentrated in the executive branch. Thus began the great emasculation of the People's House, and Congress in general. Rather than the Executive being the moderating influence on the agenda of the Congress, the Congress has become nothing more than the President's privy council, occasionally changing hands to stop the agenda of the President.
Clearly unintended (though not unanticipated) by the Founders, who gave Congress Article 1 of the Constitution to show forth the primacy of the branch of government closest to the people, the President was supposed to be the Head of State, oversee the implementation of the laws passed by Congress, and occasionally veto harmful statutes and excessive spending bills that could result from the excessive influence of "faction" in the Congress.
Instead, what we have today is a Presidency that defines the national agenda, draws up the Budget and submits it to Congress (when clearly this was intended to be the other way around), a President who is in in many cases the only political figure the average figure can even name. The President now has the de facto authority to wage undeclared wars, and invade the privacy of the average American in the name of "national security." We seem to look to the President to "fix" the economy when times are bad, to make sure income is distributed "fairly" and to punish evil corporations who are the cause of all of our individual financial woes.
The problems inherent in the imperial presidency will not pass with the change of the individual in the White House. Nay, I fear President Obama will yield the powers of the imperial presidency in new and destructive ways. And that is the problem with the concentration of power. New people merely find new uses (and abuses) for it. Indeed, the concentration of power into the hands of a single individual gives rise to a most dangerous phenomenon: messianic candidates. It is rather easy for somebody to promise deliverance from bondage at the hands of Pharaoh. It is another thing for them to part the Red Sea and make good on the promise. I would probably put more trust in Senator Obama's capacity to part the Red Sea, though, than to unite the ever fractious American population around a decidedly socialist--and bordering on Marxist agenda.
It is clear that Senator Obama likes the imperial presidency--you don't hear him promising a reduction of Government's influence over the average person, but rather a different kind of influence. This might unify a segment of the populous, but that is a unity that is more likely to be toxic than healing. Workers' revolts in the Third World are a unity of sorts, but the unity is against a common foe, rather than in favor of a common purpose. We are treading every so dangerously close to the same kind of unity if we buy into the well-veiled class warfare rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He waxes eloquent about the greatness of America, in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did. He is appealing to the latent patriotic sentiments of the left wing of America who have spent so long being unpatriotic because they felt that patriotism was being abused to prosecute an unjust war. Now that same last refuge of the scoundrel is being utilized to prosecute an unjust war against prosperity, success, and entrepreneurship with the promise of crushing tax increases, massive government spending (and crowding-out), and more entitlement programs than you could even imagine.
That patriotism consists of the confiscation of the assets of productive Americans is merely the other side of that dubious coin whose opposite number claims that patriotism consists in the destruction of privacy rights and the torture of individuals thought to have knowledge of terrorist plots. Both are a repudiation of human dignity and equality, and both are equally repugnant to the Constitutional system America is supposedly predicated upon.
In the days when I was a Socially Conservative Republican, my liberal friends used to argue that "you can't legislate morality." Yet as I hear the arguments of Senator Obama, there is a strikingly moral tenor when he talks about his platform of Robin Hood economics. It is apparently immoral for companies to make profits. Although I would argue that true justice exists when all people have their basic needs met, I believe that it is the responsibility of every individual to make their own contribution to justice than to impose justice through the ballot box. Indeed, if all of the individuals spending their time and energy campaigning for Leftwing candidates instead spent their time starting a business and amassing a fortune that they could dole out to those who they perceived were in need, then we would have a much fairer and more just society.
But instead, these supposed proponents of social justice clamor for a messiah who will by the stroke of the pen cause everything to be better. This is not only naive, but also very dangerous. During the entirety of the Bush administration, my Republican friends chastised me for being "soft on terror" because I opposed many of the invasions of privacy rights (like the Patriot Act), the power of the President with respect to undeclared wars, etc. But as I always replied "Just remember that although you think Bush wields these powers justly, you will not think so when a Democrat occupies the White House." And that is where we are today. Faced with the prospect of an ideological idealist whose principles are more aligned with Lenin than Lincoln, all of those who wanted to be tough on Islamic terror will be regretting the unintended consequences they wrought when we are presented with the awesome might of governmental terror.
The solution to this dire problem is not to elect the right President, but to diminish the President's usurped powers. The solution is that the People's House be more representative, more assertive, and take back the right to set the nation's agenda. This is what Madsion envisioned, and it is what makes us who we are. The 20th Century legacy of the Imperial President, if not supplanted by a resurgence of democracy, will undoubtedly be succeeded by an age of decline.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Looking for Change in All the Wrong Places
Since World War II, five Presidents were elected to bring change to the country and particularly to Washington: Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II. They all ran as some sort of an outsider. Washington is still the same; in fact, it's gotten worse. A lot worse. Now we have another change candidate promising us the moon--a different political culture in Washington, an end to all of our problems. "America, our time is now," is the vacuous call to action of Illinois Senator Barack Obama as the latest in a long history of failed reformers who have run for, and often won, the Presidency.
Yet we continue our long march to the fate of Rome and the British Empire. Our once hallowed halls of Congress are filled with charlatans and snake oil salesmen and in many cases good 'ol fashioned crooks. Our bureaucracy serves our people less and less while serving themselves more and more. That bureaucracy rivals that of the ancient civilizations, whose rulers padded his payrolls with minions to keep the masses in line. We face bankruptcy both individually and as a nation. And as we look to the East, we find not a savior, but two looming rivals in China and India.
The globe cannot ignore America, but we are no longer the steadfast father-figure of the world, helping the cause of justice, but rather the aging leader making disastrous mistakes in his senility, ignoring calls to step aside, and trying to just enjoy the little time he has left. Knowing that creditors can't call him in the grave, America keeps running up the credit card tab, and hoping it doesn't max out before he dies.
In the face of these problems we are now being asked by many of our peers to trust Sen. Barack Obama to save us. Now I have been pretty tough on Sen. Obama, and I think for good reason. I don't have anything against him personally--and in fact, I think he's probably quite well-intentioned. I loathe cliches, so I will spare my reader the line about the road to hell and good intentions, but cliches become overused because they are true.
The problem is not so much with Senator Obama himself, but with the people who support Senator Obama. I'm not sure I trust Ted Kennedy to lead the charge for reform in the Senate chamber. It's like running on the platform of reform when you're the incumbent.
But even if Senator Obama were the rogue, a veritable Jimmy Stewart character going to Washington naive and taking on the the special interests, I wouldn't give him much of a chance of success. I've read through his platform--the 64 page PDF document where he promises everything from ending special interest influence in politics to magically making America healthy to miraculously solving our economic woes while raising taxes and closing off trade with foreign nations. There's just one problem for Mr. Obama: if he gets elected, he will be pretty much alone. He'll be even more alone after the first 100 days.
Here's what will happen if he wins. All presidents like to lead with the sexy elements of the platform, and especially the elements they spent the most time talking about on the campaign. Now I've watched a lot of Obama speeches, I've listened to him in the debate, and when he isn't waxing poetic about hope and change and all of that empty nonsense, he's demanding we get out of Iraq, raise payroll taxes, eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and implement national health insurance.
If he doesn't immediately withdraw troops from Iraq (the only thing he can do without Congressional cooperation), his honeymoon will be immediately over with the radical left, which has comprised his earliest and most fervent supporters. If he does withdraw the troops immediately he will alienate at least 40% of the people who strongly oppose even a timetable for withdrawl, much less an immediate withdrawl. The reality is that the public is still radically split on the issue of the war, and he is doomed one way or the other on this issue within his first 100 days, either by acting or failing to act. I bet he does withdraw the troops. Jimmy Carter was our Dovish tragedy; Obama will be our Dovish farce.
On the issue of taxes, Obama stands to incite, perhaps for the first time in modern history, the worst class warfare we have seen. His position on payroll taxes and corporate income tax will not only offend, but economically crush middle and upper-middle income Americans--the small business owners who employ vast numbers of people in this country. Layoffs and downsizing will become even more commonplace as employers are unable to keep on those marginal employees . At that point, he will at least have lost every moderate Republican and many independents remaining after his move on Iraq.
Health Care Reform will subsequently languish in Congress and likely die a filibuster's death in the Senate, or more likely in committee. With Obama's supporters disheartened and deflated, and everybody else infuriated, the hot air that has filled his balloon so far will not lift anybody up, and it will be back to business as usual. Just as it was back to business as usually after unprecedented unity behind George W. Bush in 2001. The cold hard reality of Washington politics will dash the dreams of another generation of dreamers.
But this is not a reason to lose hope. Rather, it is a reason to stop misplacing hope. Rather than looking for one man to bring about change, and rather than hoping that it will all happen in one fell swoop, those who truly want American politics to be fairer, more representative, and more responsive, must resolve to be an agent of change, and en masse reject the people who hold, and should hold, the real power in Washington: Congress.
The Republicans had their chance to change Washington, and they blew it. Now the Democrats are taking their turn, and it is a dismal failure (look at their record settingly low approval rating). If insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome, then the American voter is clinically crazy. Something has to change on Capitol Hill if there is to be change in our system. But don't look for it to come from Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy or John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
Yet we continue our long march to the fate of Rome and the British Empire. Our once hallowed halls of Congress are filled with charlatans and snake oil salesmen and in many cases good 'ol fashioned crooks. Our bureaucracy serves our people less and less while serving themselves more and more. That bureaucracy rivals that of the ancient civilizations, whose rulers padded his payrolls with minions to keep the masses in line. We face bankruptcy both individually and as a nation. And as we look to the East, we find not a savior, but two looming rivals in China and India.
The globe cannot ignore America, but we are no longer the steadfast father-figure of the world, helping the cause of justice, but rather the aging leader making disastrous mistakes in his senility, ignoring calls to step aside, and trying to just enjoy the little time he has left. Knowing that creditors can't call him in the grave, America keeps running up the credit card tab, and hoping it doesn't max out before he dies.
In the face of these problems we are now being asked by many of our peers to trust Sen. Barack Obama to save us. Now I have been pretty tough on Sen. Obama, and I think for good reason. I don't have anything against him personally--and in fact, I think he's probably quite well-intentioned. I loathe cliches, so I will spare my reader the line about the road to hell and good intentions, but cliches become overused because they are true.
The problem is not so much with Senator Obama himself, but with the people who support Senator Obama. I'm not sure I trust Ted Kennedy to lead the charge for reform in the Senate chamber. It's like running on the platform of reform when you're the incumbent.
But even if Senator Obama were the rogue, a veritable Jimmy Stewart character going to Washington naive and taking on the the special interests, I wouldn't give him much of a chance of success. I've read through his platform--the 64 page PDF document where he promises everything from ending special interest influence in politics to magically making America healthy to miraculously solving our economic woes while raising taxes and closing off trade with foreign nations. There's just one problem for Mr. Obama: if he gets elected, he will be pretty much alone. He'll be even more alone after the first 100 days.
Here's what will happen if he wins. All presidents like to lead with the sexy elements of the platform, and especially the elements they spent the most time talking about on the campaign. Now I've watched a lot of Obama speeches, I've listened to him in the debate, and when he isn't waxing poetic about hope and change and all of that empty nonsense, he's demanding we get out of Iraq, raise payroll taxes, eliminate the Bush tax cuts, and implement national health insurance.
If he doesn't immediately withdraw troops from Iraq (the only thing he can do without Congressional cooperation), his honeymoon will be immediately over with the radical left, which has comprised his earliest and most fervent supporters. If he does withdraw the troops immediately he will alienate at least 40% of the people who strongly oppose even a timetable for withdrawl, much less an immediate withdrawl. The reality is that the public is still radically split on the issue of the war, and he is doomed one way or the other on this issue within his first 100 days, either by acting or failing to act. I bet he does withdraw the troops. Jimmy Carter was our Dovish tragedy; Obama will be our Dovish farce.
On the issue of taxes, Obama stands to incite, perhaps for the first time in modern history, the worst class warfare we have seen. His position on payroll taxes and corporate income tax will not only offend, but economically crush middle and upper-middle income Americans--the small business owners who employ vast numbers of people in this country. Layoffs and downsizing will become even more commonplace as employers are unable to keep on those marginal employees . At that point, he will at least have lost every moderate Republican and many independents remaining after his move on Iraq.
Health Care Reform will subsequently languish in Congress and likely die a filibuster's death in the Senate, or more likely in committee. With Obama's supporters disheartened and deflated, and everybody else infuriated, the hot air that has filled his balloon so far will not lift anybody up, and it will be back to business as usual. Just as it was back to business as usually after unprecedented unity behind George W. Bush in 2001. The cold hard reality of Washington politics will dash the dreams of another generation of dreamers.
But this is not a reason to lose hope. Rather, it is a reason to stop misplacing hope. Rather than looking for one man to bring about change, and rather than hoping that it will all happen in one fell swoop, those who truly want American politics to be fairer, more representative, and more responsive, must resolve to be an agent of change, and en masse reject the people who hold, and should hold, the real power in Washington: Congress.
The Republicans had their chance to change Washington, and they blew it. Now the Democrats are taking their turn, and it is a dismal failure (look at their record settingly low approval rating). If insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome, then the American voter is clinically crazy. Something has to change on Capitol Hill if there is to be change in our system. But don't look for it to come from Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy or John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
A Lesson from Childhood: There is No Such Thing as Magic
Perhaps the average voter has been reading too much Harry Potter as of late. For some unknown reason I decided to give myself heartburn a few minutes ago by reading user comments to an online New York Times article about Maria Shriver's endorsement of Barack Obama. I shall repost a few of them so you get a flavor of why I have this wretched feeling of unease:
I am still awed and thunderstruck after watching the rally in Los Angeles on the UCLA campus I know so well. OBAMA is certainly destiny’s child — I saw him in Albuquerque two days ago and he had that anointed glow.
— Posted by lotario castillo
All I can say is that when she showed up, people were like “woah”.
— Posted by KD
That rally was AWSOME !!!
— Posted by Fast Eddie
An historical event today! California is on fire as is America. Incredible women and role models, all of them. I was moved to tears and feel hope for my daughters, America’s daughters.
— Posted by Jen, St. Paul, MN
Gosh. I hope this helps with the women voters in California ! Oprah, Caroline Kennedy - all those women governors from the middle of the country and senators who’ve endorsed Obama. If this doesn’t win some women voters, then I don’t think there’s anything left to do in this short amount of time.
I have seen anecdotal evidence from canvassing for Obama in the northeast for the last month that African American women are now overwhelmingly supporting Obama. I just got back from knocking on doors for Obama in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where I met African American women in their late 80s and 90s who had been torn between Clinton and Obama but have decided to vote for Obama. They told me that they wanted to be part of “history.” It brought tears to my eyes.
— Posted by Sally
What a fabulous election. At last someone we can vote for without holding our noses. Go Demos!!!
Go Obama!!!
— Posted by Anita Lefkort
One inspiring speaker after another, shown only on CSPAN as far as I can tell. Too bad, because their speeches were some of the best of the campaign (aside from those given by Obama himself).
Maria’s right, this is “a moment” for us all– a time in history when we can believe again in the American dream, transcend the partisan divide, and restore our image around the world.
Yes we can!
— Posted by Karen S
I was watching and the whole rally was powerful. When I saw Maria Shriver come in I knew Barack is going to be our next president.
“As California goes, so does the country” I believe that.
Barack in ‘08
— Posted by Bry
OK....enough of that. Everybody is so caught up in the inspirational aspects of the Obama campaign. "Destiny's child"? I'm sorry but it's starting to go a bit far--the Obamaniacs need to chill out and ask: Senator Obama, what do you actually believe? And what kind of policy are you going to implement to help remedy the most important fiscal issues facing this country? How are you going to help stave off the worst financial disaster in 100 years? Or perhaps more importantly...do you even realize we are facing the greatest monetary crisis in America's history?
I'm afraid we wouldn't really get any answers if Obama were put on the spot. We would get rhetoric about what's wrong with Washington and how American can have hope again. I personally have little hope in the face of a prospective President of the United States who relies on vapid rhetoric, his good looks, and his speaking skills to win a national election. I know that American likes glitz and glamor, but it has to be backed up with substance if we are to continue to have hope.
There is no worse hope than a false hope, and that is what Obama represents: the false hope of a return to Camelot, the false hope of unity, the false hope of change. It is laughable to me that people are so enamored with this man. He is just another in a long line of charlatans who have tried to capture the nation's attention with a pretty speech.
There is no doubt America is in desperate need of an articulate and charismatic leader. Unfortunately Obama seems to be the person filling that void. Yet, he is not really a leader. He is not inspiring anybody on the Right to unity, and we can expect one of the most bitterly divided elections in America's history--yet again. The problem is that Obama wants to push his radical socialist, anti-market agenda by convincing half of the country to vote for him.
What we really need is a leader who can get the entire country behind a non-ideological pragmatic policy platform that is neither Left nor Right, but will move America in the direction of restoration. Sadly, there isn't one right now.
I am still awed and thunderstruck after watching the rally in Los Angeles on the UCLA campus I know so well. OBAMA is certainly destiny’s child — I saw him in Albuquerque two days ago and he had that anointed glow.
— Posted by lotario castillo
All I can say is that when she showed up, people were like “woah”.
— Posted by KD
That rally was AWSOME !!!
— Posted by Fast Eddie
An historical event today! California is on fire as is America. Incredible women and role models, all of them. I was moved to tears and feel hope for my daughters, America’s daughters.
— Posted by Jen, St. Paul, MN
Gosh. I hope this helps with the women voters in California ! Oprah, Caroline Kennedy - all those women governors from the middle of the country and senators who’ve endorsed Obama. If this doesn’t win some women voters, then I don’t think there’s anything left to do in this short amount of time.
I have seen anecdotal evidence from canvassing for Obama in the northeast for the last month that African American women are now overwhelmingly supporting Obama. I just got back from knocking on doors for Obama in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where I met African American women in their late 80s and 90s who had been torn between Clinton and Obama but have decided to vote for Obama. They told me that they wanted to be part of “history.” It brought tears to my eyes.
— Posted by Sally
What a fabulous election. At last someone we can vote for without holding our noses. Go Demos!!!
Go Obama!!!
— Posted by Anita Lefkort
One inspiring speaker after another, shown only on CSPAN as far as I can tell. Too bad, because their speeches were some of the best of the campaign (aside from those given by Obama himself).
Maria’s right, this is “a moment” for us all– a time in history when we can believe again in the American dream, transcend the partisan divide, and restore our image around the world.
Yes we can!
— Posted by Karen S
I was watching and the whole rally was powerful. When I saw Maria Shriver come in I knew Barack is going to be our next president.
“As California goes, so does the country” I believe that.
Barack in ‘08
— Posted by Bry
OK....enough of that. Everybody is so caught up in the inspirational aspects of the Obama campaign. "Destiny's child"? I'm sorry but it's starting to go a bit far--the Obamaniacs need to chill out and ask: Senator Obama, what do you actually believe? And what kind of policy are you going to implement to help remedy the most important fiscal issues facing this country? How are you going to help stave off the worst financial disaster in 100 years? Or perhaps more importantly...do you even realize we are facing the greatest monetary crisis in America's history?
I'm afraid we wouldn't really get any answers if Obama were put on the spot. We would get rhetoric about what's wrong with Washington and how American can have hope again. I personally have little hope in the face of a prospective President of the United States who relies on vapid rhetoric, his good looks, and his speaking skills to win a national election. I know that American likes glitz and glamor, but it has to be backed up with substance if we are to continue to have hope.
There is no worse hope than a false hope, and that is what Obama represents: the false hope of a return to Camelot, the false hope of unity, the false hope of change. It is laughable to me that people are so enamored with this man. He is just another in a long line of charlatans who have tried to capture the nation's attention with a pretty speech.
There is no doubt America is in desperate need of an articulate and charismatic leader. Unfortunately Obama seems to be the person filling that void. Yet, he is not really a leader. He is not inspiring anybody on the Right to unity, and we can expect one of the most bitterly divided elections in America's history--yet again. The problem is that Obama wants to push his radical socialist, anti-market agenda by convincing half of the country to vote for him.
What we really need is a leader who can get the entire country behind a non-ideological pragmatic policy platform that is neither Left nor Right, but will move America in the direction of restoration. Sadly, there isn't one right now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
