[From the current administration] we end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.
The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.
The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts.
The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.
The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates ”” moderate-conservative, in my case ”” are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.
“Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.” On the contrary he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. To think otherwise was self deception.
Oh please. “The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.”
What planet has Mr. Brooks, an otherwise thoughtful and intelligent man, been living on? Who bore the costs of the previous administration’s excursions into wonderland? And what administration did more to centralize power and manipulate the Constitution than the one preceding Mr. Obama? Obama’s policy on charitable giving is wrong-headed. And there are other problems. But hearing the rich and privileged whining about “class resentments” gets more than a bit tiresome, especially when the rest of us have been subjected to their peculiar brand of “trickle-down economics”, known among those who have been trickled upon as “pissing on the poor”.
RE: “Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”
What a laugh. A well-read, highly informed man is now pretending that he had no idea, no none at all. Silliness.
RE: “But hearing the rich and privileged whining about “class resentments†gets more than a bit tiresome . . . ”
Never gets tiring to me to hear about the power of the State taking away money from earners and productive people who make jobs and companies for folks like me. And yep — I ain’t rich and privileged, and most likely never will be. I want to hear it from [i]everybody[/i], too — not merely the rich and privileged, but folks like me who are scrapping it out in the marketplace and not doing so well. It’s a travesty for a bloated State to steal people’s money and redistribute it beyond the boundaries of the Constitutional mandate, through the power of brute force, not to mention that the State entering into arenas denied it by the Constitution is also fraudulent and lacking in integrity. The State’s power is no longer limited by the Constitution — despite the fact that our elected leaders purport to swear to uphold it.
The only thing I don’t think we should hear whining about is folks like David Brooks claiming that they just had no idea that Obama was a socialist. He knew — he just didn’t care at the time he was getting to pull the lever for an “African-American.”
RE: “Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s über-partisan budget.”
Heh heh.
Not gonna happen. Conservatives like me are responding exactly as I had hoped from Obama’s being exactly who he is.
And I love this line that is so revealing in its hypocricy and naivete: “We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs.”
No Mr. Brooks — you support a State that limits choices and supply for consumers so that the State has to pay less money in its government “health care [sic] system.”
[i]And what administration did more to centralize power and manipulate the Constitution than the one preceding Mr. Obama?[/i]
How about, just for starters and quickly off the top of my head:
Jackson — who ignored Supreme Court decisions, fomented Texas independence to grab it away from Mexico, and used the US Army to seize Cherokee lands for his brother’s development business.
Lincoln — who suspended most civil liberties (including [i]habeas[/i]), closed a number of opposition newspapers, and had the army arrest and hold without trial something like 13,000 political opponents.
Benjamin Harrison — the most influential president you’ve never heard of, who ignored the enumerated powers and oversaw a significant expansion of the [i]federal[/i] government into private life.
FDR — seizing citizens’ gold was just the beginning, internment, attempted court-packing, massive government intrusion into private contracts, and plenty of other things.
LBJ — Tonkin fabrication, FBI harassment of King, Malcolm, and plenty of others
Carter — creation of the federal Department of Education, when that is clearly and uniquely a function of States. Department of Energy.
Some of these are clearly more heinous than others, but to claim that Bush “centralized power” and “manipulated the Constitution” more than any other president — or even significantly — betrays either an astounding lack of historical perspective … or willful partisan blindness.
“The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people.”
That is a blatant LIE. The cap and trade carbon tax will substantially raise the electric bills of everyone as the tax will be passed on to consumers. If you think your electric bill has been high in the past…with a Michigan veteran of WWII freezing to death in his home this past winter…wait until the Obamanation’s new tax hits!
Folks struggling to pay their electric bills now will be unable to pay them next winter. Without a significant change in the “safety net” for low income folks and the elderly, I believe that we will see suffering and death because of this new tax. Will America experience what France’s elderly population suffered in the summer of 2003 where 15,000, because the price of electricity will make airconditioning prohibitively expensive?
[i]the rest of us have been subjected to their peculiar brand of “trickle-down economicsâ€, known among those who have been trickled upon as “pissing on the poorâ€. [/i]
What utter nonsense. Those people are my [i]customers.[/i] By far the best way to “spread the wealth around” is to have a product or service somebody wants to pay for.
I have customers who make more in a week than I do in a year, and I don’t resent them — I try to take very good care of them. Their money does indeed trickle down to me, our employees, our suppliers (many of which are family businesses), our suppliers’ employees and so on.
The concept that somehow it’s better to tax away my wealthiest customers’ money and send it to Washington is just preposterous. The federal government is a system so inefficient that only 24% of all “anti-poverty” money actually gets to a poor person. The rest gets gobbled up by all the GS-9s and GS-12s running the show, or any of the six intermediate layers on the way to a poor person.
The alternative to “trickle down” is “slurp up” as more and more wealth disappears into bureaucracy. America [i]was[/i] the only significant nation in the world in which resources were not in a net migration to the national capital. In the last 15 years, however, we’ve got to a point where four of the five richest counties in America are those around DC.
That is not healthy, and it profoundly undermines America’s continued success and prosperity.
RE: “The concept that somehow it’s better to tax away my wealthiest customers’ money and send it to Washington is just preposterous.”
Not to socialists it isn’t. The State can better decide where people’s wealth should go. The State is intrinsically more moral than individuals who make the money.
“And what administration did more to centralize power and manipulate the Constitution than the one preceding Mr. Obama?” Add Woodrow Wilson to that list.
David Brooks wanted to believe Obama was moderate-left, so he and many others ignored Obama’s life story and life associations in favor of his campaign rhetoric. Even after the election, Obama was giving interviews in which he said he was going to be moderate on spending. What we’ve learned is you can’t go by what he says, but only by what he does. I expected him to be hard-left, and hoped for better after his election, but I’m not too surprised.
Three thoughts:
The article demonstrates the consequences of believing and acting out the expression, ‘the willing suspension of disbelief.’
The middle of the road is where one finds yellow stripes and small dead animals.
Elections have consequences.
[blockquote]Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. [/blockquote]
Limited by [i]what,[/i] Mr. Brooks? The whims of NY Times op-ed columnists? You thump the tub incessantly for federal pre-school programs, yet I see nowhere in the federal government’s charter for these. So I ask you: How are these limits set and where do your pet programs fit in them? Having ceded the principle, you now quibble over details. Pathetic.
Face it, that goofy chillbilly breeder from Alaska was spot-on about Barack Obama and you were, in the face of massive evidence that Obama’s a marxist, duped.
Iowahawk got you saps perfectly: [url=http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/10/as-a-conservative-i-must-say-i-do-quite-like-the-cut-of-this-obama-fellows-jib.html]As a Conservative, I Must Say I Do Quite Like the Cut of this Obama Fellow’s Jib[/url]
[blockquote]The middle of the road is where one finds yellow stripes and small dead animals.[/blockquote]
Which reminds me of the old bumper sticker, “You can’t hug your child with nuclear arms.” Homonyms make for quick metaphors, but better puns.
FWIW, in my lifetime I’ve seen plenty of small and large dead animals on the extreme edge of the road, also.
Excerpt:
[i]Just so, I have every confidence that Obama’s true conservative butterfly will emerge once in office, coaxed from its Maoist cocoon by conservatives like myself and Frum and Parker and Noonan — all of whom I am pleased to report are already under consideration for the Obama Administration State Dinner shortlist. Certainly there may be a tax increase or two, but isn’t that what estate attorneys and Cayman Island banks are for? Under a worst case scenario some of us may have to set up a lease-back depreciation arrangement on one or two of our vacation compounds, as Dad was forced to in the dark years of Carter. But I’m not worried. I’ve got a pretty good sense for character, and I’d be willing to bet my Weejuns that inside this Obama fellow lives the soul a rock-ribbed old money Brahmin. Ask yourself: could a seriously committed Marxist carry off a Brooks Brothers suit like that? I mean, other than Dad’s old commie nemesis and Harvard fencing club foe Alger Hiss.[/i]
RE: “Even after the election, Obama was giving interviews in which he said he was going to be moderate on spending.”
Right — and for a socialist — he [i]has[/i] been moderate! ; > )
Well, Barak Obama is exactly who I thought he was! A rabid socialist.
RE: “Right—and for a socialist—he has been moderate! ; > ) ”
I don’t think this is moderate, even for socialists. It’s whole-hog sausage.
[i]
Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.[/i]
Precisely because when Sean and Rush and Levin and others tried to warn you who he really WAS, you ignored them and denigrated them as “hate mongers” who “twisted his record” and told everyone to ‘ignore the little man behind the curtain’.
Maybe if you listened then you wouldn’t be in such a state of disbelief now.
1) Brooks is no economist.
2) Obama was always clear about his priorities. None of this should be new. He’s a progressive, but a pragmatist. After beating McCain by 7.3%, and with a sky-high approval rate, he believes he has a mandate.
3) The idea that Obama is a socialist seems to be stated by people who don’t know much about socialism. Obama is an old school Keynesian and a new school libertarian paternalist. Nobody he’s appointed is a socialist. He may, however, believe that the market is clumsy in distributing some goods. Empirically, that seems true.
4) We have just seen the end of 30 years of radical conservatism. Our tanked economy is a consequence, where greed was rewarded, as well as a resentment toward those who have less.
5) For 20 of the last 28 years, those running the government believed that government was wrong; and to prove it, they mismanaged it. A competent government would give lie to the idea that governments always run things poorly. It was in the conservative’s self interest to ensure that the state was poorly run. Obama has to now clean the mess up.
The money is generally getting redistributed from one set of rich people to another set: the set that isn’t spending to another set that will spend.
Again, trickle down or trickle up are the same thing: spending. The difference is how fast it gets to the people. Right now most rich people aren’t spending. And that is why the government is stepping in.
I don’t think Obama’s much like a socialist. He’s a socialist in the same way Strom Thrumond was a moderate.
[i]I don’t think Obama’s much like a socialist.[/i]
Which is enough to cause me to know he is.
As usual, John, you’re delusional if you think this country has been run by “radical conservatives” for the last 30 years. “Radical conservatives”? Only in the view of a leftist, but then, your bias has been clear for a long time.
Can you imagine John squealing like a cheerleader about a guy who [i]wasn’t[/i] a socialist? “Libertarian paternalist.” I got a real belly laugh out of that one.
“I don’t think Obama’s much like a socialist.”
For once, I agree with JW.
Mr. Obama isn’t much like a socialist. He is much further to the left than mere socialism. His grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was a Mau Mau rebel in Kenya fighting in the 1950’s against the British – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/dec/03/obama-grandfather-maumau-torture. His father, for whom he was named, was a Communist – just read his published paper available at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html. His childhood mentor and father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, a communist – read Obama’s book for Obama’s own loving description of his relationship with Davis. His Administration’s ‘to do’ list is 99% straight out of the “Election 2008 – Help Make History – Turn Our Country Around” pamphlet from the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) website – http://www.cpusa.org/filemanager/download/89/2008.pdf. (The single point of the specifics in the CPUSA pamphlet for the 2008 Election in which the Obama Administration fails to match up exactly with CPUSA is the one regarding our military effort in Afghanistan. Obama has ordered an increase in our military presence there. CPUSA wants us out of Afghanistan militarily right now.)
All this makes his relationship with 1970’s domestic terrorist William Ayers a logical simpatico extension of his lineage and past associations. And his relationship with Fr. Michael Pfleger could reasonable be thought of as Obama’s attempt to reach out to someone much more conservative than he.
It is true. Mr. Obama and the majority leadership of Congress aren’t much like socialists at all. Its much worse than that.
Elections have consequences.
Yep – radical conservatives like Grover Norquist and Jack Abramoff. They’re pretty radical.
Jefferson – I take it you are familiar with behavioral economics? those are the people staffing Obama’s economics team.
My politics? I’m a skeptic and a pragmatist, and an anti-utopian. I think Henry George, Keynes, and Arthur Bentley described things right. I’m more of a distributivist than anything else.
dilbertnomore’s argument is based strictly on an ad hominem line of attack – or guilt by association. His father left him – why would Obama feel committed to communism? Seems more like a reason to reject it.
And if you read Obama’s memoirs, Obama often defined himself against his mentors, and not simply like them.
Yet Sam Webb, the head of the Communist Party in America, has recently come out with a [url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88380]glowing review of Obama and the move towards socialism in his regime[/url], and called for the silencing of any of his detractors. Oh, yeah, he defines himself against his mentors, but then they come out and support him? I don’t think he’s separated himself as much as some would like us to think.
[blockquote]The leader of the Communist Party USA claims that the Obama administration is “considering” a radical agenda which includes nationalising the US financial system, the Federal Reserve and even certain “problematic” private businesses
“An era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream. Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House,” Webb proclaimed.
[i](Progressive change for a communist = a move towards socialism.)[/i]
He explained labor unions, which he said were instrumental in Obama’s election, must work to keep the White House in check by “exercis[ing] an enormous influence on the political process. Never before has a coalition with such breadth walked on the political stage of our country”[/blockquote]
For me, and any who love Democracy, that is scary stuff! Especially in reading how Obama’s policies are so much in line with Webb’s own agendas.
Oh, here’s [url=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8085/]the link to the full text of the speech[/url].
Sorry it took me a while to find it.
JE
[blockquote]Jefferson – I take it you are familiar with behavioral economics? those are the people staffing Obama’s economics team. [/blockquote]
And, from all appearances, being [url=http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/07/romer-obama-stimulus-oped-cx_dh_0107henderson.html]studiously ignored[/url] in favor of the political agenda.
John Wilkins, you neglected to refute the congruence between the Obama Administration – House/Senate Leadership Agenda and that of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA). Is it mere happenstance that they seem to have come up with nearly identical plans for our future? Even if mere happenstance, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck and flies like a duck and lays eggs like a duck and is very tasty when prepared as Peking Duck, isn’t it very, very likely to, indeed, be a duck?
So, which entity is attempting to disguise its true identity? Is the CPUSA trying to persuade us it is really just like the Democrat POTUS and the Democrat House/Senate leadership or is Obama et. al. really the CPUSA under Democrat skin?
I’m sure the CPUSA is just trying to appear to be more ‘mainstream’ and so lose all the nasty baggage from their decidedly checkered past. Right.
Elections do, indeed, have consequences.
John Wilkins, cat got your tongue?
I know you must have an excuse for Mr. Obama’s administration’s plans for all of us seeming to be about 99% the same as those of the Communist Party of the USA. Let’s hear it.
Or is there no explanation? I’m betting on that.
President Obama’s record in the United States Senate was more liberal than the Socialist U. S. Senator from Vermont. That was entirely consistent with his record as a member of the Illinois Senate. All this was out there in public for anybody to see.
Mr. Brooks, a respected political journalist, writes, “Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”
What did Mr. Brooks expect? That upon his election President Obama would repudiate everything he’s stood for (and against) his entire political career?
And since when is the Hamiltonian tradition “the moderate tradition?”
Pax, [url=http://pastorzip.blogspot.com]Pastor Zip[/url]
Dilbertnomore, I admit, I’m not that familiar with the communist party. And I would hesitate before calling Mr. Webb a credible witness. but it does seem to suit Worldnetdaily.
In my world, I would disbelieve the salutations of Mr. Webb. But I’m enjoying the fact that you seem to believe communists when it suits you.
Personally, I don’t understand the way “socialism” and “communism” are used on this blog, in any case. I’m neither. But I’m neither afraid of France or Sweden or Finland or other socialist countries.
[i]I don’t understand the way “socialism†and “communism†are used on this blog[/i]
Nor should you. Right-wing commenters use them opportunistically.
John Wilson and Irenaeus, having heard no refutation of my argument that the publicly announced platform of the Communist Party of the USA and the enacted and planned legislative initiatives of the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congressional Leadership are for all practical purposes the same, it seems you agree with me we have elected our first openly Communist/Socialist majority government.
John Wilson, BTW, nice to notice you know how to use the “ad hominem line of attack – or guilt by association” as well as accuse others of it. JW – “but it does seem to suit Worldnetdaily.”
“Dilbertnomore, I admit, I’m not that familiar with the communist party. And I would hesitate before calling Mr. Webb a credible witness.” Wow, that’s interesting. John Wilson isn’t that familiar with the “communist party” (sic), but certainly seems to be familiar enough to declare Webb, it’s rather obscure National Chairman, to be non-credible. John, either you know more that you say or you speak from ignorance. Which is it?
The fact remains, the Democrat Party leadership in place in our Presidency and Congress are enacting policies that are nearly identical to those the Communist Party of the USA was seeking in the run up to the 2008 elections. But Obama, et. al., couldn’t really run honestly could they? The American People just wouldn’t elect a President who spouted daily to the people saying:
“Firmly basing ourselves on Marxism-Leninism, we strive to apply theory to practice, with practice as the test of theory, by being the most consistent fighters for broad-based unity and against all unnecessary divisions—racism, sexism, nationalism, chauvinism, homophobia, and anti-communism. Marxism-Leninism is an ideology that not only explains how society works, it is a guide for how to change the world for the better.
“Marxism-Leninism is a system of ideas that correspond to the interest of the working class. Its essential aspects consist of:
1. Dialectical and historical materialism—the laws of social development which enable masses of people to be active and conscious shapers of their destiny, and a philosophical methodology for understanding change and development.
2. Political economy—the laws of capitalist development and theories of its functioning.
3. The theory of socialist revolution—how to move through the stages of struggle to achieve socialism, and the organizational forms necessary to accomplish that.
….
“A Communist Party is essential for Marxists to test revolutionary theory through practice. We are not a debating society wrangling over obscure texts. We are a political movement, and we welcome all who accept our program. As Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.†The Communist Party USA is about changing the world.” (http://cpusa.org/article/static/758/#7)
Pretty tiresome and pure political poison in mainstream America. But ‘Hope and Change’, now that could sell. And 52% of us bought it.
Elections have consequences. God help us.
RE: “I don’t understand the way “socialism†and “communism†are used on this blog . . .”
Nor should John Wilkins — deconstructionists aren’t particularly interested in the existence of truth, meanings, definitions of words, or anything else. “Deconstruction” is what they’re about.
For the rest of us on this blog [liberals excepted, since they also appear to not know what the words mean], socialism means: [blockquote]”a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.”[/blockquote]
It’s perfectly simple. And definition #1 is precisely what Mr. Obama — as nice a man as he is — believes. The American people elected him.
They’ll enjoy him now.