[ About | Archive | Network | Latest | RSS/XML Feed]

Obama's Big Gamble

July 16, 2009 3:52 PM

In my opinion, Barack Hussein Obama is taking a huge calculated risk, a departure from the normal American political strategy of the past. Typically, politicians move slowly and avoid actions which might precipitously alienate millions of voters. It seems to me that the strategy of Obama and the Congressional Progressive Caucus is exactly the opposite: move as fast as possible and allow (or deliberately create) as much damage as possible. Why would Obama and the Congressional leadership even imagine that the could get away with this in a nation which is still primarily conservative and pro-liberty?

I have identified eight reasons:

1. You could fool enough of the people enough of the time. The gamble would depend on believing that fooling some of the people some of the time is sufficient to seize political power permanently. Barack Hussein Obama has few genuine skills, but one that he clearly has is the ability to deceive millions with the "historic Black President" canard, airhead celebrity star power, shifting rhetoric, and grandstanding. His hope is that by the time a critical mass of opponents gathers, it would be too late for them to undo the damage done and the power gained.

2. The voice of the people could be ignored without consequence. So advised by Hank Paulson, George W. Bush demonstrated an instance of this with his original TARP bailout. Both candidates Obama and McCain, in the face of significant majority opposition, including mass popular communication to elected representatives, defended TARP, and the disastrous bill was passed. The same process of ignoring the people was recently repeated with the House endorsement of "Cap and Trade."

3. In crisis, a nervous majority could look to the government for relief. A name for this phenomenon could be the "Katrina Syndrome." There are those, including Rush Limbaugh, who believe that Obama is destroying the US (and as a consequence, the world economy) on purpose. Others attribute the destruction to ignorance, naivete, and ideological pigheadedness. Either way, what Obama and the Congressional Progressive Caucus are counting on is that victims of this destruction, the unemployed and the financially ruined, will not have the political power to counteract the whimpering majority who supports yet more government power, more reckless spending, and more draconian legislation.

4. Bogus conservative rhetoric could fool a majority. "Progressives" do not call themselves Communists any more and they do not talk like Communists, except in private meetings with left-wing supporters. They talk as if they are conservatives. Yes, it's ludicrous to think of Barack Hussein Obama as a fiscally responsible Christian centrist, but there are millions who believe that he is exactly that, because he talks like one.

5. Democrats could escape blame for economic chaos. Obama constantly refers to the crisis that he "inherited" and the gullible, softened up by a steady six-year bombardment from the mainstream media about the evils of George W. Bush and his administration, are more comfortable blaming Bush and the GOP congress for their financial woes, because blaming an ex-president gives them hope that the new guy will make things better. For such faint-hearted folk, recognition that Obama is a threat to everyone's future is much too terrifying.

6. Republicans could be bought off. Unfortunately, recent history provides examples, or at the very least, a high index of suspicion about such corruption. Politicians who make such deals have excellent cover: they are simply exercising their best judgment on a policy issue. I believe an identifiable recent example is Rep. John M. McHugh R-NY who voted in favor of "Cap and Trade" and received a nomination from Obama as Secretary of the Army, a post in which he can influence hundreds of billions in lucrative military contracts. Can a connection between the vote and the reward be proven? Or is McHugh just an innocent chap who is worried about pollution, as his website suggests? Am I being too harsh and too cynical believing that Republicans were bought off for the Cap and Trade vote?

7. Republicans could be bogged down by bean-counting. GOP political strategists know that their traditional base, going back to Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and Nixon, is being outnumbered by hipsters, hippies, kids, Blacks, and Latinos. Fearful of being unable to get votes from any of these demographics, Republican strategists avoid any kind of bold action, especially criticism of Obama, who has been quite popular among all five of the groups just cited. As a consequence, Republican strategists enrage their real base: conservatives, patriots, libertarians, gun owners, practicing Catholics, evangelical Protestants, pro-Israel Jews, and more, guaranteeing themselves that their electoral prospects are not worth a hill of beans.

8. Blue Dogs could be considered expendable. Are "progressives" willing to sacrifce their own allies? Many conservative Democrats were elected in 2006 and 2008, giving the Democrat majority on Congress. These elected legislators may be thrown out of office by their constituents in 2010. Do Obama, Pelosi, and Reid care if the Blue Dogs are replaced by Obama-worshiping Republican bean-counters?

Even if all eight of these factors, or perhaps more, are operative in the political calculations of Obama and Company, a gamble is still a gamble. Obama might lose. Knowing what we know, we must make certain that Obama's loss happens, which would be America's gain.

[Keywords: impeach-them-all.org being gamble majority obama people political power ]