Despite the images being sent out of Iran by brave bloggers and twitterers, all we heard from the White House was administration mouthpiece Robert Gibbs mumbling about the possible injustices done towards women in Iran.
Wow, women being abused in Iran, I wonder how deep undercover the C.I.A. went to find out that nugget of information.
Why can't Obama just support freedom, whereever it springs to life? It costs him nothing and could mean so much. It's getting so bad that noodle-spined Senator Lindsey Graham actually came out of his hidey hole to call the Presidents response timid and weak while French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel are now the front line defenders of democracy and freedom in the world.
Just to repeat, Lindsey Graham(!), amongst others, called the President a coward and France and Germany are now the torchbearers of Western belief.
What an awesome new world this is turning into.
Many pundits have seen this as a sign of weakness, Obama taking no position. On the contrary, by taking a vow of silence, Obama is stating clearly that he wants no such revolution to take place in Iran. You don't need to say anything to maintain the status quo.
Why Obama would want to keep a dictator in power is directly tied to ideology and arrogance. Evidence of this can be seen in all parts of his presidency.
In Iran they are openly running towards nuclear weapons while threatening Israel, blaming the U.S. for their troubles and telling the U.N. to go screw in blatant defiance of the Security Council.
Despite this, Obama is continuously pandering to Iran while lecturing the Brits, Germans, Jews, etc. about their role in world troubles. The first reason for this is simply that Obama doesn't believe in a unipolar world led by the United States. He would prefer a multipolar world led by intergovernmental organizations like the UN, NATO and the World Bank. Talking the U.S. and its allies down is a good first step for this. The second reason is pure arrogance. All the tactics Obama is trying with Iran have been tried before by the U.S. and Europe and have failed miserably. The only difference now is that Obama believes his force of will and empathy can overcome the divide where others have failed. The end result is going to be a revolution that gets crushed and Iran having nuclear missiles well within range of Israel. Try dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah backed by nukes, see how far down the roadmap to peace you get then.
The same pattern is in play in North Korea. Despite years of deals, sanctions, six-party talks and flat out bribery, North Korea now has nukes and is threatening to launch a test missile in the direction of Hawaii on the 4th of July, just to make a point. The response? Increasing the sanctions that have failed for over a decade and more talks/UN action. This strategy is based on a foundation of delusion that Kim Jong Il can be reasoned with, so long as Obama is the one doing the talking. At this point, North Korea has nothing left to sanction or penalize. Nuclear war might actually help the country. If a few million people were killed that's just that many fewer mouths to feed for the Commies. Even if a North Korean nuke couldn't make it all the way to Alaska or Hawaii, the currently technology is about 500 miles short, we do still have appx. 30,000 troops in South Korea, a fleet of ships patrolling the area and staunch ally Japan all in harms way facing devastation.
This liberal belief in dialogue and institutions to solve the worlds issues is mostly a failure even when spearheaded by normally arrogant politicians but with Obama being deluded by his own belief in his powers of persuasion the world is even more susceptible to tyranny. All the other would be crackpot dictators have stood up and taken notice of this as well, whenever Obama gives a speech ripping the U.S. and its allies and praises the very people threatening us, he may think it's opening the avenues for compromise but other leaders see what it truly is; weak, naive and an opportunity.
This arrogance is also taking shape domestically.
All of the massive spending plans enacted as part of stimulus plan, the banks being nationalized, the auto industry being nationalized, more regulation, higher taxes,
healthcare etc. have all been thrown into the works at breakneck speed.
What do all these various plans have in common? None of them work. None of them have ever worked.
History shows us what happens when countries bury themselves under an exponentially growing mountain of debt. We can see the results in Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, all the large socialist democracies in the EU, Vietnam, etc. In every instance, the cost of the bureaucracy becomes so big that it can no longer be sustained. Services get cut, inflation runs wild and joblessness and criminality rise.
All those other examples have decayed at varying speeds depending on the commitment to government expansion but they all do decay in time. The best you could say about any aspect of the socialist agenda is that it can do things as well as a free market capitalism. This may be rare but theoretically possible. Not better mind you, just even.
Knowing that railroading all these social programs in to existence won't actually help the situation the United States is in, why is Obama forcing the issue instead of using the tried and true method, used by liberals and conservatives, of long term tax cuts and stable government spending? This method increases the expectation of economic stability which encourages people to become economically active which creates growth and ends recessions.
Again the reason is twofold.
First, Obama is as liberal as they come. Leaving the fate of the country in the hands of the people simply isn't his way. The Keynesian belief that government spending, fast and furious, is what creates wealth is as true to liberals as gravity.
In addition to that, it's also a power grab. Liberals like the feeling of the government being in control of vast chunks of day-to-day life. Enacting these programs, especially healthcare, give the government control over a tremendous amount of the countries GDP. If socialized healthcare passes, the government will control over half the nations GDP and that bring a lot of power and influence with it.
The biggest reason is that Obama believes that socialist-democracies can work in the United States is because he thinks he can will it to happen. All of the past examples of complete failure don't matter and the models of success that have been used successfully for years don't matter. The only deterrent to this is the next election which is why there is such an urgency to get them all done now. Obama doesn't want to be derailed by a petty election.
Unfortunately for Obama, this kind of naive hubris always ends in disaster. In four short months one of the most historic presidents of all time has seen his approval ratings plunge into the 50's, support for his programs even lower, the most weak kneed moderate opposition is calling him a coward while members of his own party are starting to grumble and quietly distance themselves from him to maintain their own positions with their constituents. The only questions is how bad it will get before he scales back or if he even knows how to scale back. It won't be a question of intelligence but of pride. You don't get to be President by being stupid but you do get through the ranks of Chicago politics without being a cold, backstabbing, never say die son of a bitch.
President Bush held many of the same traits even if they were to different ends. When he left office he did so passing massive spending bills, bailing out business and just about turning his back on the core beliefs that got him elected twice and led him through some dark times. It's unclear if Obama has that kind of defeat in him. Should he lose the 2010 mid terms does he moderate or does he go to the mattresses?
Only time will tell but until then we all get live this Greek tragedy with him, every step, every embarrassment and every nuke of the way.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment