TeeJaw Blog

To Believe Or Not To Believe, That is The Question

Posted in Government and Politics by TeeJaw on Saturday, April 30, 2011, 8: 22 AM

I have noticed that people tend to believe what Barack Obama says when they want to believe him, and those same people conveniently ignore the things he says that they don’t want to believe. Well, that’s not unusual. Most of us believe what we want to believe and ignore the rest.

For example, when people talk about Obama’s failure to implement policies that would enable and encourage the private sector to do the necessary things that will revive the weak economy (investment in new business, capital expansion, job creation, etc.), they speak in forlorn tones. It’s as if poor old Obama tried his best to get the economy going but he just got bad advice that led him into mistakes and made him do the wrong things (stimulus that failed, etc.) The underlying assumption in most of the thinking is that Obama has tried and failed. The assumption is that Obama actually wants the economy to revive and he wants high gasoline prices to come down. He just can’t seem to “get the car out of the ditch”, to use one of Obama’s own metaphors.

This sense of forlornness for our poor beleaguered president can be heard in these words from Walter Russell Mead in his recent internet posting, Fallen Between Two Stools:

…the President has been wounded both by his successes and his failures. [the successes Mead refers to are the failed economic stimulus package and Obamacare. When speaking of these things he implies they were “catastrophic successes” adopting a phrase coined by Colin Powell.]

These successes would not be so damaging if it were not for the core failure to date of the Obama presidency: the failure to deliver what looks to most Americans like the promise of an improving economy. Part of the problem is international; the turmoil in the Middle East, the global surge in commodity prices and the waning credibility of the dollar combine to push gas prices to $4.00. For tens of millions of American families the price of gas is both an economic indicator and a key variable in their disposable income. Add to that the persisting weakness in the housing market, where millions of families have watched the value of their prime asset shrink or disappear, continuing weak growth in employment and stagnation in wages, and there is a pervasive national sense that life is not getting better on President Obama’s watch.

Isn’t there another possibility? One might say that it is the country that has been wounded by Obama’s successes and whether or not Obama has been wounded by his failures, the country has dodged a bullet every time Obama has failed.

Isn’t it possible, indeed plausible, that Obama doesn’t want a thriving economy, and doesn’t want lower gasoline prices? It is probably a lot to ask of the American people that they believe we have a president who sees his success, in terms of what he wants to accomplish, in just the opposite of what the people want. What if he sees high gas prices and a weak economy as being to his benefit? To believe this is to believe that we have a president intent on implementing changes to this country using an Obama variation on the Cloward-Piven strategy, i.e, bring the country and economy to its knees in order to impose fundamental social changes that would not be possible under ordinary circumstances.

While this is certainly difficult for most people to believe, there are ample reasons to consider it. First, Obama’s own actions. It is not rocket science to know that lower taxes and reduced government spending would stimulate growth in the economy. Obama is dead set against both. Obama could lift his drilling restrictions and crude oil prices would fall immediately, quickly leading to lower prices at the pump for gasoline. History proves it. No one is holding their breath waiting for him to do that. Second, his own words. All one need do to understand Obama and his true intentions is to take him at his word. He wants high energy prices. We should believe him. He said it in January, 2008 in this video:

Finally, we have the words of Obama’s close advisor and confidant, Rahm Emanuel on February 9, 2009:

Resistance to Obama will come from the middle class, not the rich or the poor. The rich are insulated by their wealth, the poor are already dependent on the state and aren’t going to rise up against it. It is the middle class that have a stake in a healthy economy, making them Obama’s main problem. Once this is realized his policies make sense as an effort to make the middle class poor so they won’t offer resistance his social engineering. A recent essay by John Hayward titled The Middle Class Problem sees this clearly:

Have you found the economic policies of President Barack Obama to be confusing and incomprehensible? They’re not. He used to openly state that he would ruin certain industries, and raise the price of gasoline. He spends a lot of time declaring his eternal hatred for the people who produce what the middle class wants, and can give them the jobs they need. Everything he has done is part of an effort to solve the middle class problem.

Read the whole thing.

Advertisements

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Philo said, on Saturday, April 30, 2011, 8: 44 AM at 8:44 AM

    Come, come, my dear TeeJaw. Human reasoning, especially your brand of reasoning, is wholly inadequate to make assumptions on the true intent of President Obama. In fact, the one thing you have said that makes sense is that most people believe only what they want to believe.

    Even if you were correct in your assumptions and conclusions, do you really think that conservatives are any different on this score? Isn’t it just as likely that conservatives, yourself included, really don’t want Obama to be successful in reviving the economy or bringing gasoline prices down because that would lead to his likely re-election? You don’t want that, so I’d say it’s a safe assumption that if anyone doesn’t want economic recovery before November, 2012, it’s you!

  2. TeeJaw said, on Saturday, April 30, 2011, 9: 00 AM at 9:00 AM

    Thank you, Philo. That is the comment I thought I might get and I’m glad you made it. I knew as I was writing that my thesis was vulnerable on the grounds you stated. I must admit that you are correct, but only in a limited sense.

    I would say it is more correct to say that conservatives, including me, are ambivalent. We certainly want a thriving economy and a prosperous country. We want free market oil prices unencumbered by politics. We also fervently want Obama to lose in 2012. We know those are contradictory circumstances.

    On balance I’d say conservatives would be most happy to see the economy recover even though we know that right or wrong, Obama would claim credit and would get the credit. But he could still lose in 2012. He has other problems that a true conservative candidate can exploit.

    Besides, the smart money is on Obama not changing a thing. We can be sure he will continue on the disastrous path he has chosen, and that makes him beatable in 2012.

  3. Ken Spiker said, on Saturday, April 30, 2011, 9: 36 AM at 9:36 AM

    There is certainly a preponderance of evidence from Obama’s actions and words that he wants America to be diminished both internally and externally, in terms of its economy and it’s influence overseas, a couple of items of which are graphically illustrated above. Then there are his associations with leftist ideologues, most notably with Rev. Wright, and his early mentors like Frank Marshall Davis. Of course one could infer that Republicans might secretly wish that the economy would stay in the dumps at until the next election as a tactical matter, but it would be inconceivable that conservatives would actually want a bad economy in the long run. I think that in the core of his being Obama actually does want the American economy to falter and its power degraded in the world.

    Why would he want that? I’ve grown up with leftists and it’s not all envy and resentment. The envy and resentment are mixed with an infantile utopian vision of a world without conflict, which runs on solar and wind power. A world very much like the Big Rock Candy Mountain where everything necessary for human happiness comes free for the taking and no injury is done to Mother Earth or the creatures who live on her. They really believe that stuff. Our nation would revert to being a peaceful village without strife and we would heal ourselves with natural herbs. (Of course even as we speak the sheer impracticality and environmental damage that those utopian schemes do is becoming more and more evident: the birds killed by windmills, the desert habitats destroyed by solar arrays, and the miseries of progress denied to impoverished third world peoples.)

    Let us just say it is a valid hypothesis, that Obama wants America to fail, backed up by tons of evidence which, like the Copernican theory of the Solar System, explains so much that up till now appeared crazy and inexplicable about his behavior.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: