He’s Not Jimmy Carter
By Quin Hillyer on 9.3.09 @ 6:09AM
Conservatives are taking too much solace in the precipitous drop in Barack Obama’s approval ratings, and too many of us are overconfident that his administration is merely a replay of the hapless presidency of Jimmy Carter that was easily swept out in a landslide election.
Today’s situation is far different, far more conducive to our political adversary’s political power, than that which faced Carter. And Obama is an entirely different breed of cat. He’s more ruthless, more tactically savvy, and has far more dangerous objectives. A drop in his poll ratings isn’t as serious a setback for him as similar occurrences were for the peanut farmer from Plains.
In short, conservatives should beware. The political battle we’re in is far more difficult than any the conservative movement has ever faced. It will take all our energy and all our smarts to win it.
First, consider the differences in political circumstances between Obama and Carter. Unlike Carter, Obama does not face a Kennedy-led left wing of his party that despises him. Unlike Carter, Obama did not take office by an incredibly slim majority vote so close that a few thousands votes in two states would have swung the whole election. Unlike Carter, Obama took office in the middle of a crisis he could blame on his predecessor and coming off an unpopular war that he could blame almost entirely on the Republican Party. On the right, Carter faced a conservative movement (even if not a Republican Party) unified and energized by an inspirational leader — but no similar, single spokesman today galvanizes conservatives like Ronald Reagan did then. Carter also did not have a nationwide movement kept together by a tool like the Internet, and did not have billionaires behind his general aims the way Obama has George Soros.
Finally, Obama has the advantage of a more ethnically diverse nation that has far less of a common culture and less of a common appreciation of shared socio-political history and values. Why is that an advantage? Because it gives him more leeway to make outlandish claims, and still have huge pluralities believe him, than Carter could ever hope for.
More important than all that, though, is that Obama’s personal skills, aims, and training are like nothing we have ever seen before in the White House. Every other president before him has intended at most to achieve change within the American political system. Obama wants to change the system itself. He is a radical’s radical, with an authoritarian impulse. His Alinskyite training means that social unrest doesn’t unnerve him; it plays right into his hands. Social unrest is both his modus operandi and his mid-term goal. The more unrest, the greater the crisis; the greater the crisis, the more excuse he has to use and consolidate central power in order to completely remake society.
And unlike Carter or most other Democratic presidential nominees of the past 45 years, Obama has tremendous oratorical skills. Sure, Bill Clinton could please lots of audience members with small promises, but he did not possess half the ability to inspire people (however misguidedly) that Obama does. Obama has the talent to raise demagoguery to an art form.
Already we see a cult of personality around Obama, one deliberately encouraged by the Obama political operation. Already we see him push for centralizing, fascistic economic powers. Already we see him creating “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the regular military, complete with uniformed youths (and even senior citizens) formed into “cadres.” And in order to make AmeriCorps less answerable to the public, Obama fired the Inspector General trying to blow the whistle on nefarious AmeriCorps activities. Now he is using AmeriCorps and the National Endowment for the Arts to politically agitate for his “recovery agenda.”
And that’s not to mention the Big Brother-like data-mining and reporting of “casual conversations” to a White House website, or the creepy address to all the nation’s school children — or the continued public trashing, by the permanent Obama campaign known as Organizing For America, of ordinary citizen protesters as “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists.”
Obama also is politicizing the Census; giving contracts to ACORN; letting a recognized hate group like the New Black Panthers go free; undermining the CIA at every turn, radicalizing the Supreme Court; re-orienting the civil rights division of the Justice Department; appointing more “czars” than anybody can keep track of and who, unlike Cabinet members, do not answer to Congress; resisting transparency on TARP bailout funds; refusing to enforce financial reporting requirements on union political organizers; and doing all sorts of other things designed, as are the items above, to consolidate power, tilt the deck, and rig the political rules in his favor for the long haul.
In foreign affairs, his radicalism is even more apparent. He keeps undermining allies while embracing enemies. He deliberately undercut the brave protesters in Iran. He stubbornly continues to punish Honduras and its citizens, via economic and travel sanctions, because Honduras actually followed its own Constitution in removing a harshly anti-American president from office — when he should have been rewarding Honduras for its commitment to the rule of law. Yet while he punishes friendly Hondurans, he refuses to punish radical leftist Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa when Correa’s government tries to shake down an American company for $27 billion. It’s all very bizarre. One wonders what exactly his agenda is. But it’s clearly something the likes of which we’ve never seen. Again, the comparison with Carter’s foreign policy is telling. Carter’s was full of woolly-minded, pie-in-the-sky idealism, but it didn’t deliberately mollycoddle sworn enemies. Obama’s, on the other hand, portrays Obama to the world as if Obama himself is more admirable than the nation he supposedly represents — a nation for which he continually apologizes. This attempt, so far quite successful, to garner personal, worldwide glorification is another gambit for power. Again, it makes him nobody for domestic political adversaries to trifle with. It gives him tools never enjoyed by the Jimmy Carter who was burned in effigy by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his pals in 1979 and 1980.
To defeat Obama’s radicalism will take plenty of political savvy on the right. Until the 2010 elections, discontent should simmer, but not boil over. Civil unrest will not win the day; it will only help him. The one, and perhaps only, opportunity to stop his juggernaut will be in those mid-term elections. Every bit of conservatives’ efforts should be directed at building a massive voter turnout to defeat Obama’s leftist allies in 2010. The TEA parties and town hall protests and all the rest should be aimed at building a political infrastructure and political arguments sufficient to win those elections. The energy of conservatives should climax then and only then. Anything premature, anything over the top, will allow Obama to more effectively mobilize his own troops in the supposed name of order and stability.
Finally, it will help Obama that, probably by design, the bulk of the “stimulus” funds remain unspent. What will happen is that at just the right time, those funds will spur a false recovery — a “recovery” hailed by the establishment media as proof of Obama’s wisdom. The recovery won’t last, because it won’t be real. But that won’t matter. Timed just right, it will allow Obama to claim the economic high road — something Jimmy Carter never was able to claim. Relieved Americans who are apolitical could easily be swayed to “stay the course,” just as Americans stayed the course with Ronald Reagan in 1982. But Reagan’s course led to greater freedom; if Obama’s course is stayed and he consolidates power in 2010, the diminution of freedom may be well-nigh irreversible.
In short, the wonderful conservative success in August should not hide the reality that our backs are still against the wall. Obama still owns the upper hand. If we make any major mistake, he will use that hand as a fist to smash the conservative movement to bits. Clear-eyed about this possibility, conservatives must keep fighting. Uphill. Against the wind. And without a Reagan to lead us.
…but our President has already ‘appointed’ over two dozen. Since Czars are not approved by or answer to Congress–nor to you or me–it’d be a good thing to find out who they are right? (In the President’s defense, some of these people were appointed prior to January 2009. The principle remains the same, however.)
Afghanistan Czar – Richard Holbrooke
AIDS Czar – Jeffrey Crowley
Auto Recovery Czar – Ed Montgomery
Border Czar – Alan Bersin
California Water Czar – David J. Hayes
Car Czar – Ron Bloom
Central Region Czar – Dennis Ross
Climate Czar – Todd Stern
Domestic Violence Czar – Lynn Rosenthal
Drug Czar – Gil Kerlikowske
Economic Czar – Paul Volcker
Energy and Environment Czar – Carol Browner
Government Performance Czar – Jeffrey Zients
Great Lakes Czar – Cameron Davis
Guantanamo Closure Czar – Daniel Fried
Health Czar – Nancy-Ann DeParle
Information Czar – Vivek Kundra
Intelligence Czar – Dennis Blair
Mideast Peace Czar – George Mitchell
Pay Czar – Kenneth R. Feinberg
Stimulus Accountability Czar – Earl Devaney
Sudan Czar – J. Scott Gration
TARP Czar – Herb Allison
Technology Czar – Aneesh Chopra
Terrorism Czar – John Brennan
Urban Affairs Czar – Adolfo Carrion Jr.
Weapons Czar – Ashton Carter
WMD Policy Czar – Gary Samore
Sorry there’s so many; I know it’s gonna take serious focus time. But…I’m sure you agree that one can’t defend someone unless we’re informed about them, right? (Here is a well-researched list done by some “terrible right winger.”)
Oh!! I almost forgot Van Jones, the “green jobs” czar. He’s a fascinating character–no one needs to falsely accuse him of being a communist. He makes that claim all on his own. (He was radicalized in jail? How often does someone go from jail to high positions in government? Maybe Charles Manson could be ‘The Family Czar’; after all he has experience with the family.)
In his book, The $$$$Green Collar Economy, Jones bemoans that oil, natural gas, and coal are allegedly “fast-diminishing nonrenewable resources,” despite the fact that, for example, we have enough domestic natural gas resources–including new discoveries–to last for several decades; plenty of time to come up with real stewardship-worthy solutions. As supplies disappear (read: as Leftists hamstring US domestic energy development and drilling), the price of energy climbs and nearly everything becomes more expensive. With costs and unemployment soaring (and continues down a dark path thanks to wasteful Spendulus bills and punitive tax policies), the economy stalls. Not only that, when we burn these fuels, the greenhouse gases they create overheat the atmosphere (and if you don’t accept that you will be prosecuted and re-educated). As the political Power-hungry and green profiteers like Gore cry out–climate chaos looms over us, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, we need cap and tax now. The bottom line is that Gore’s ilk and their allies in the MSM who would like to see a world communist government (ruled by an elite politburo including, of course, Gore, Obama, Soros, and the czars, who know better how to handle the world’s resources than the common folk) and want to continue to dupe the dupes in America into believing: we cannot drill and burn our way out of these dual dilemmas. Oil and gas are bad. Health-care is broken. Everyone must turn in their SUV’s and take mass transit. We must “fix” the health-care system. Crisis and alarm. Blah blah blah.
***Update: Sept. 22. Within the last week or two, Mr. Jones resigned due to pressure over his radical views.
My friends, the Founding Fathers set up a framework for a healthy paranoia regarding government. They knew first hand about oppressive governments. Their goal was to find a balance between self rule of the people (what is desired) and government rule (basically there to keep us from killing each other or being killed by some foreign nemesis). Government is necessary–but it is best when kept small and completely accountable to the people who, state by state, self rule.
The people we elect swear to uphold and protect our Constitution. We, who elect them, must do our part to be sure they do just that. It doesn’t matter who is in office; balance of power is essential to our survival as a Republic.
That brings me back to the Czars. As you know, there are 3 branches designed to keep a balance of power. My position is that these Czars can and do affect the balance of power. Czars essentially bypass accountability to the other 2 branches. 1 or 2 Czars (though I don’t think there should be any at all) may not make a huge difference in radically changing our republic (without the consent of congress and the people) but what happens when there are 32? 40? 50? These Czars have the power to design and set policy with NO accountability to Congress or you and I. As a result, the balance of power is shifted to the Executive branch. It is no longer “equal”.
If you and I could be absolutely certain that this shift of power would never corrupt–or ever go contrary to what our Republic is all about–then we would not have to worry. But unfortunately, that is not what human nature is like. There is no such thing as “perfect” power. Power corrupts. The Czar apparatus does not operate within the framework of the Constitution because the Executive branch, per our Constitution, is required to vet and confirm nominees through the House and Senate. This way, we KNOW who they are and what they believe. Knowledge is power. It’s the only real power you and I have. When we are informed, we can make smart decisions about our futures.
Czars are given billions of our dollars and power to make policy (and now trillion is the new billion, right?). It is imperative that not just ONE person decides who they are. That’s what dictators do, and we don’t want that (unless, of course, someone wants that!).
These 30-odd Czars do not answer to Congress. They do not answer to us. They are not “elected”, let alone vetted or confirmed. No matter what party affiliation we are, this is not healthy for the Republic.
These powerful people with power to shape this country are put in place in a back-door sort of way. I don’t think you and I should ever want Czars–isn’t Congress bad enough? The potential damage should concern us enough to at least want to KNOW who these Czars are. At this point, if we don’t look out for ourselves we are in the dark. There is NO President or Congressperson I blindly trust. I don’t care what party they are in.
Who knows, maybe they are the most wonderful men and women that ever graced the face of the earth–but I am not willing to assume that. We should be on each others side; we should be watching each others backs. If we find there was no reason to fear–great! But, there is nothing wrong with our need to know who these people are just in case there is reason for concern, even fear. Our leadership should be vetted and elected. Reagan, Bush, Obama… NONE should have placed or place appointments that do not answer to the other branches of power–and the people.
What a fascinating foray into “soft tyranny.” This is precisely where the “Representatives” turn into “Rulers” if We the People do not inform, instruct, (and then monitor) them of their limits.
(Too bad. Here in Minnesota, I do not feel very represented…seriously, Klobachar and Franken?)
**Note: I do not believe the Republicans are going to fix America, either. In fact, they, for the most part, don’t possess the intellectual firepower to enunciate the true problems we face any more than the Power-grabbers on the Left. Most of the Republicans in Washington, too, are content with their cushy job with the best benefits, their Brooks Brothers suits, and the escort of people that meet their every whim. God save us all.
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”–Thomas Jefferson
