Destroying America from Within
The American people have elected a president for whom the critical battleground in the world is not the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, or even Afghanistan.
March 22, 2010 - 12:00 am
Indeed, one must really wonder, as Nancy Morgan has written, whether Obama is trying to bankrupt America, “adopting a strategy outlined by Cloward-Piven: overwhelm the system until it fails, and then replace it. … Based on Obama’s actions to date, reasonable people must allow for the possibility that the change Obama promised may include destroying the free market economic system in order to replace it with an economy regulated by government entities.” Similarly, if the Democratic liberal-left is so smart, Tom Blumer asks rhetorically, why are we so broke? And answers: “because they want us to be.” And as Nancy Coppock writes at American Thinker, “It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d’état.”
Pajamas Media Chicago editor Rick Moran believes that “President Obama means well,” since “even at the risk of disastrous political defeat at the polls in November for his party, he is willing to undertake this imprudent, radical, and unnecessary change in the relationship between the governed and the governors.” I respectfully disagree. I suspect, rather, that what we are observing is an authoritarian personality and dogmatic political commissar intent on forcing his doctrinaire convictions upon the body politic regardless of the cost. It is, so to speak, to the Finland Station or bust. It’s either The Socialist Republic of America or it’s nothing. Let’s not kid ourselves. Obama and his catwalk crowd are not to be intimately equated with Lenin and his Bolsheviks, but they are definitely in the same snack bracket. As J. Robert Smith writes, “the differences … are significant,” yet “Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are decidedly pale reds.” Lenin, he concludes, “would be proud.”
We must not sell Obama short. He is a determined man. He is supremely confident in his oratorical powers, even if his rhetoric sounds somewhat wattled when he’s off the teleprompter. He has the backing of his party, the liberal intelligentsia, the mainstream media, and the teeming campus myrmidons. He is imbued with the theories of leftist revolutionary Saul Alinsky and has no doubt learned much from his friend and former neighbor, founder of the terrorist Weather Underground Bill Ayers, and has mastered what has come to be known as “Chicago tactics — “a machine,” according to Michael Gecan writing in the Boston Review, which “thrives on narrow or limited voting situations” and is predicated on “centralized power and influence.”
Obama’s presidential chutzpah knows no bounds and his primary impulse is winning above all else. But all this and more should be common knowledge by this time. What is not common knowledge is the extent to which the Cloward-Piven doctrine, which envisions the destruction of a capitalist economy and the democratic state on which it is based by spending the nation into financial collapse, seems to inform the president’s domestic strategy. This is the real meaning of Rahm Emanuel’s aphorism: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Accelerated borrowing and debt, galloping inflation (and its twin, deflation of the currency), unaffordable government-controlled health care and the monopolizing of industries and banks, and endlessly expanding entitlement programs which the nation cannot pay for are the weapons of choice to parlay the “crisis” into the statist takeover of a free market economy. Like Shakespeare’s profligate King Reignier, the president is a man “whose large style/Agrees not with the leanness of his purse.” Those who claim with former director of Citibank, Walter Wriston, that nations, unlike individuals or corporations, do not go bankrupt, should think again. Zimbabwe argues otherwise. The miseries of Argentina between 1999-2002, staggering under the combined weight of unemployment, stagflation, and the flight of capital, furnish a paramount object lesson. Sound familiar?
A nation is not built from cyclopean stone. It is a fragile tissue of shared assumptions about the nature of its history, its social consensus, its cultural and political coherence, and its implicit sense of destiny which is always subject to the threat of unraveling into a tangle of loose strands. This is a process that has been gathering momentum for some time now. It did not begin overnight. We can trace this gradual dénouement (or unknotting) from the “progressive school” of education in the 1920s and 30s with its child-centered deprivileging of hard content in favor of method and personal experience, through the student revolution of the 1960s, to the affirmative action enterprise and self-esteem movement of the latter part of the last century, to the postmodern attack on the concept of verifiable, objective truth and the politicizing of the universities we see today.