‘Pragmatist’ or Not, Obama Is Trying to Remake America
As a veteran of hard-core street organizing with a fair amount of experience at bare-knuckled, backroom political brawling, there’s not a whole lot than can surprise a guy like me.
But when I watched Barack Obama’s interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, I saw something that made me sit up and take notice. During the interview, President Obama stated:
I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.
What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if the people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.
Let me get this straight. Obama is a Harvard-trained constitutional lawyer who once taught con law at the University of Chicago. Yet, here’s this man, the president, saying: “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.”
Wait a minute — didn’t this president have any constitutional concerns about the “procedure” involved in the strong-arm tactics that were employed to pass a government-run health care plan that amounts to a takeover of one-sixth of the nation’s economy?
Even Democrats had grave concerns about the process to jam through a health care plan few Americans wanted. Democrat pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen noted before the House vote that “four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it … while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly.”
Nonetheless, Obama has tried to present himself as a deep thinker, a cautious, intellectual president who moves carefully — in other words, a political pragmatist. However, his ruthless rush to pass a health care bill — damn the consequences or the methods used — exposed him as an opportunist who will trash the Constitution if necessary to gain a legacy for himself and remake America as we’ve known it. If we let him, Obama — rooted as he is in the beliefs of the old radical Saul Alinsky — would have America resemble a European-style social democracy, not the nation that rose to greatness based on individual liberty and free market capitalism.
By saying this, I want to make it clear that I’m not joining with the fringe that sees Obama as some sort of Manchurian candidate. I’m not going to encourage those caught up in the Obama derangement syndrome — something that’s as embarrassing as it is politically destructive.
Here, of course, I’m referring to those who continue to argue that Obama is “intentionally” trying to destroy the American economy as part of some sinister plot, or that he really isn’t an American citizen. This is simply dumb and dangerous stuff.
It is, however, another matter to weigh in on the argument that tries to paint Obama as some sort of benign, if ruthless, pragmatist.
This ruthlessness could be seen in Obama’s testy exchanges with Fox News’ Baier. He appeared to be outraged that anybody would have the audacity to question his views.
Obama’s comment that he “doesn’t care about the procedural rules” tells us at least one thing: this president is an ideologue.
He wants to remake America and doesn’t care if his fellow Democrats will pay the price for what he’s done at the ballot box. And he doesn’t seem to care that every trick in the political book got played by Pelosi and company to pass his plan. He just wanted the victory — even if it may be Pyrrhic.
We’ve all heard the argument that Obama can’t be an ideologue. “Look at how he’s pissed off his left base” they say. And to be honest, he has angered the MSNBC-type leftists — but not because he’s operated as some kind of centrist. They’re mad as hell with him because he hasn’t moved fast enough to implement the goals and beliefs they share.
Just consider Dennis Kucinich, the wacky leftist congressman, who rolled over and said he’d vote “yes” on the health care bill. He wanted “reform” — even if it’s a weak and watered-down version of what he’d prefer. No, leftists don’t oppose Obama’s attempt to “reform” health care. What made them mad is that, as Kucinich said, Obama’s plan is not radical enough. It’s not the full-on, slam-dunk single payer plan they’d like him to impose on America.
In the meantime, while some lamely argue over whether or not Obama’s a pragmatist, he’s gone to work re-shaping American society.
General Motors has become “government motors,” financial institutions are government-controlled, bureaucrats will oversee education loans, and energy use will be dictated by the government if cap and trade passes.
All of this is being orchestrated to the tune of political bribery, threats, and intimidation.
This certainly isn’t what a lot of Obama voters had in mind when they embraced “hope n’ change.”
Those who are shocked, shocked by the ruthless putsch of Obama’s designs, coupled with his disdain and disregard for procedural rules, should have paid better attention BEFORE he was (s)elected.
Just a few days before his coronation, Obama exhorted in a bold faced manner exactly what he intended to do.He declared in a VERY in your face posture, that in 5 days the path will be paved for a TRANSFORMATION of America.
Obama did not use the word transform to mean that he would transform civic dialogue into more civil terms, or any other such nonsense. When a radical leftist-and ALL signs were there that he was a leftist-opines about transformation they mean complete overhaul, nothing more, nothing less.
Obama did to healthcare what he does best-ruthless, bare knuckled tactics, where the ends justifies ALL means.
An accurate way to describe Obama’s tactics is Mafioso strong arming.
What do you expect from a guy without integrity or principle? Why respect the voters, or the constitution when he knows he can get away with it? After all, that’s how he advanced throughout his life.
Leninism is highly pragmatic – in fact, it was criticized from the Left as “opportunistic,” to them a term of aspersion. His essay “Left-wing Communism: An Infantile DIsorder” is about precisely this: bourgeois parliaments are class enemy institutions, but does that mean you challenge them openly when the Communists are weak and the bourgeois are strong? No! It means you infiltrate them, you form political parties with names palatable to the natives, you introduce legislation that undermines the current order, you corrupt everyone in sight, you open the back doors for more Communists. You sponsor groups like ACORN. You turn the “imperialist war into a civil war.”
Leninism’s essence is that the only rule is that which furthers the revolution is good, all is bad. I’d say Obama is admirably fulfilling his Leninist directives.
“Wait a minute — didn’t this president have any constitutional concerns about the “procedure” involved in the strong-arm tactics that were employed to pass a government-run health care plan that amounts to a takeover of one-sixth of the nation’s economy?”
Of course not. Why would that surprise anyone? Barack Obama is essentially a Progressive in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Rules are only for the disgusting capitalists and others who reject the grand vision. This is why so many of those close to Obama fail to pay their taxes. These narcissists are above all that because of their altruistic impulses and “elite” schooling. We should cut them a lot of slack. Their self-sacrificing on our behalf must be taken in account. The arrogance of the Obama insiders should never be underestimated. They have every intention of becoming our benevolent dictators.
I had the same reaction to his procedure answer.
The Constitution is a very conservative, government limiting document. I think during all those years spent “studying” the Constitution, Obama developed hate towards it and the people who wrote it.
It ain’t the party of Jefferson and Madison any more.
For whichever reason, America elected a “domestic enemy” as President. The facts were there for all to see prior to the election, but the voting public chose to ignore them.
Now, the enemies of America are running rampant. We will not be able to slow them down until the new congress is seated in January 2011.
Be prepared for more damage coming out of Washington, DC.
I should have added in my earlier post that arrogant elites like Barack Obama have no intention whatsoever of using the newly imposed national health care program. That is only for the common folk. He will continue to receive the best medicare for him and his family. Do you wish to receive superior medical care? If so, you had better be on good terms with the Democratic Party establishment.
It is hardly dangerous to say that someone who has spent much of his time among people (Andy Stern, Ron Bloom to name a few) who do advocate destroying the American system might share some of these ideas. Are you prepared to say that all of this is unintentional? How is it that we have several thousand pages bills appear for a stimulus bill, cap and trade bill and a health insurance bill so quickly if this is so unintentional? Unintentional actions don’t have so many punative measures already written in to them. He intends to make the government the sole custodian of the people – a total abberation from our founding principles
There is a bit of irony here, all though I gather Obama is not the progeny of former slaves. Slaves and indentured servants were also forced to purchase products at the “company store.” The new first time congressional mandate to purchase health insurance is a functional equivalent. But since it’s mandated “democratically,” it’s not really slavery when you “volunteer” for it. Obama is pragmatic, which, as pragmatism, is only interested in what works or is useful at the moment. Since pragmatism can’t decide which values you should select to apply it to, it’s basically a default method with a short term time horizon. So if you’re a racist National Socialist, you liquidate the Jews or any other antithetical social groups. It’s the pragmatic thing to do.
The conservative press made much of the vacuous nature of obama’s ‘change’ slogan–that nobody could articulate it. Yet, the media who championed him and the victim classes knew exactly what he was promising, and he is delivering–more marxism. 99% of the world’s marxists are not able to articulate marx’s precepts. It is simply their world view–the lens of truth through which they view the world.
Obama is exactly what the conservatives feared and said he was, exactly what the marxists hoped he would be. The only ones who were scammed were the moderate voters who took what he said at face value and didn’t listen to the conservatives.
We never have heard Obama’s world view, and the reporters never asked. Bret tried and was shunned by “the audacity of indignity.”
Public servant is not on his resume, and the take is more public master.
We can guess that he favors big government: the collective of bureaucrats who are responsive to his hierarchy. Individuals don’t count as much as the whole. The whole are those who agree with his opinion. How would he have reacted if Bret or Joe the Plumber said, “I outrank you, I am a taxpaying citizen”?
I now score him as a better liar than Clinton. Clinton stopped at half truths. Obama can go all the way in his idealogue totally convinced pontifications. “A democrat is one who would help the other guy who is down on his luck.” That is an absolute, denies the concerns of anyone else, and fails to mention how or with whose money he would pay for the hardship. Twenty years of Rev. Wright has brought the chickens home to roost.
What could be the motivation of turning the US into a European-style social democracy? What’s the gain?
What could be the motivation of using any procedural means necessary to pass a bill that restricts liberty? If proponents believe it improves liberty of the individual and business, has anyone heard that case made convincingly?
A willingness to use these methods so far seems to be profoundly unpopular with the American people? If, as current polls suggest, the gig is up once the next congress is seated, what other legislation might fall into the same category between now and then?
As pretending guardians to liberty, how does the left expect the right to behave when the pendulum swings in the other direction?
What would be the response of the left if the states currently seeking legal action against the federal government were to call for a constitutional convention to further enable the 10th amendment?
In an old interview when he was nothing but a Chicago pol, Obama fretted that the Warren Court did not go far enough in defining the “positive rights” of the Constitution to address such concerns as social justice and redistribution of wealth. That should tell you more than enough about Obama.
Then again, I thought that when people heard him say, “I think if we spread the wealth around it’ll be good for everybody” everyone’s antennae would start tingling: this guy’s an old school socialist. Now, being a socialist ain’t bad, but students of history knows that it won’t work.
The reason that Obama can go the distance in leftist ideology is because he is not breaking from any former traditions. He’s a foreigner.
It is very mundane now to explain Obama’s wrongness, in whatever manifestation. It is more true that Obama is just what the doctor ordered. Everything he represents is apparently desired in the population, since, as far as I see, nothing new is being shown in him now than was during the election. Any disillusion about Obama is really disillusionment with the American majority. What does it say? That America is a land of lazy, envious, uniformed, allegorical Christians, and burgeoning atheism. Taking the fight to Obama is to follow the illusion of his power. Changing the people is the only think that will work.
We can’t shout our opponents into submission, or even force them. If Conservatism has failed to show the rest of America that it is more equitable, generous, and right then it has failed, based on the logic inherent in moral principles, of it’s own accords. Are the people duped? Yes, I believe they are. I believe they do not understand the contradiction in forcing charity, as it is obviously not benevolence when the funds are not from your personal laboring. The stinginess of the rich (though they are most likely why America is a nation of wealth) is giving way to the pious promises of the poor. The poor of America (either seemingly or truly being seduced by the Left) are really making vows to God that they will be more just than the status quo. That much is in the open – that they are making vows. So, we should at least deduce that it is not money that talks, but real equity. Let that be the guide of the Right, and do not be so flipping legalistic.
(A clever leftist might reason that the presidency, and the power gained, is a result of Obama’s “laboring”. Morality is necessarily cast aside (temporarily, and temporarily justified, it would be argued) in such a revolutionary (in a good way, it would be argued) idea. – And all I can understand from it, as it does follow and holds water, is that the distortion will continue in much the same way, and that this movement has the upper hand.)
Shall we take heart in that the plans of the wicked will never come to pass? If only we weren’t so intrinsically wrapped up in their colluding this might bring comfort. They must be stopped, but I still do not see the right stuff in the primary opposition. Technicality will not win the day over practicality. Practicality is where Leftists are preaching from, and if you don’t understand this, perhaps you are wrapping yourself too tightly in the American flag.
What will win the day? That the Lord is with the generation of the righteous. Bring back the generation of the righteous. The strictness that we implore from our founders is surely misunderstood by most of those who quote them. Where is such strictness in America? It is very rare.
Stupid people always hear what they WANT to hear and not what is actually said . That is what happened with Obama the STUPID American electorate,with the exception of Blacks of course who just voted like RACISTS, voted for Obama because they THOUGHT they knew what he was promising but of course they were just WEASEL WORDS.
Sorry to keep calling the American electorate STUPID but as Forrest Gump’s Mum always said “STUPID is as STUPID does”
I should have added in my earlier post that arrogant elites like Barack Obama have no intention whatsoever of using the newly imposed national health care program
Same old threadbare GOP talking points. Obama’s approval rating among Democrats, according to the Pollster.com average, is 81%. So yes, hope and change is, on balance, working fine. We elected Obama to make progressive change — healthcare reform was the centerpiece of his platform (maybe if you had been listening to Obama for the two years he campaigned instead of inventing Bill Ayers narratives, you might not be so surprised) — and he is beginning to deliver. If the right wing has its panties in a bunch, which I think we can all agree it does, Obama is doing his job well.
As for the procedural rules of the House, Obama is a Constitutional scholar, which means he knows that the head of the executive branch should never publicly climb into the wheelhouse of Speaker of the House. Kudos to him for showing respect for separation of powers. No doubt Obama has his opinions and legislative strategies, which I’m sure he shares with the Speaker in private. It’s likely his opinion even influenced the House to drop the deem and pass option.
Perhaps, instead of demonizing Obama, your time would be better spent analyzing how the right’s strategy of obstruction failed so completely and how your teabaggery managed to cost the GOP its worst legislative defeat in 60 years?
I know several Obama supporters personally and for many of them, this is exactly what they hoped would happen. A small percentage fell fooled. I hear apocryphal stories of people who have rued their voting for him. I only know one confirmed “I made a mistake.”
and #17 is an example of someone who is quite happy about all of this.
This November will be an interesting time.
While you may disagree with his policies, i find it kind of funny that you hate his ability to pragmaticaly attack problems. Isnt a practical leader just what the US needs right now? The military seems happy with his warleading, Gates is almost a culthero among the veterans. The poorest of you will now have acess to healthcare, something wich will also benefit returning troops and their families. Hes getting ready to cut the gordian knot of immigration, and has just gotten START2 pushed through. It seems you are shocked that he is actually doing what he campaigned on.
And this hyperbolical driveling about him being an enemy of the US/a commie/a foreigner really just drives moderates into democratic arms. The GOP has become the reactionary party, like the nobles at Versailles or the old apparatchniks of the soviet.
I noted that in his speech right after HC “Reform”…um, “passed”, his mannerisms are strongly suggestive of Benito Mussolini.
(Yes, I know Bambi doesn’t dress up in silly uniforms or give funny salutes…)
Re: #19 – “And this hyperbolical driveling about him being an enemy of the US/a commie/a foreigner really just drives moderates into democratic arms.”
Really, Fnord?; then why independents are running away from him in droves?
Re: #19
BTW, Fnord, you might want to look up the definition of “reactionary” – it was the late 1800′s – early 1900′s reactionaries that took the term “Progressive” to mask their intents.
http://abcdunlimited.com/ideas/reactionary.html
Get it through your head Joe, Barak Hussien Obama is a dangerous man. A Liberal is a Liberal by any other name.
Barako’s own words On the U.S.Constitution…”I think it is an imperfect document.And I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture”…