Topic: Barack Obama
Obama Won't Change Anything (Except His Mind) Barack Obama has apparently achieved the Democratic nomination by opposing war and promising change. But the only thing he seems to want to change is his mind.by rtbohan
(libertarian)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
His promise of change appears to have been campaign rhetoric to win the nomination. As he closed in on that goal, he seems very anxious to convince the lobbyists that an Obama administration will be open for business as usual.
The most persistent criticism of Obama's campaign was that he was entirely too vague about what he would change, how he would change it, and how quickly he would or could move to change the shape and activity of the political system. He never seem to get down to specifics.
He did call for a national health program to subsidize the medical industry and the drug industry. But this, while a change, is neither a new idea nor a particularly good one. What he proposed was not quite the totalitarian monster that Senator Clinton had in mind, but it was primarily based on the medicare model, which does not satisfy either the doctors or the patients and is a major factor in bankrupting the government and destroying the economy.
After the Indiana and North Carolina primaries seemed to clinch his nomination, he stopped talking about the things which made his campaign different and stopped talking about change. After acieving success in the battle for the nomination largely through working on the smaller states and avoiding the "big state" approach of the Clinton campaign. On the way out of Indidana, the campaign organizers mentioned that Obama would not return to Indiana or the other small states during the fall campaign.
He then decided to forego the rallies which had marked the earlier stage of his campaign and talk to small groups in the upcoming, and largely uncontested, primary states. In Oregon, he spoke at an assisted living facility, but really was speaking to the reporters he had with him. And he was not talking about change. Instead, he was assuring his captive audience and the press that he was against making any change in the social security system.
The social security system is a massive Ponzi secheme. This is where you encourage (or, the case of social security system, force) people to deposit money with you with a promise of great returns. You then use the money that the original investors put in for yourself, but maintain the image of paying massive returns by paying dividens (or pensions) out of new money as soon as it comes in. This works until you run short of people who can be cajoled or forced into giving you money, or the money you are able to collect decreases to the point where you can no long pay out the promised dividends. For the social security system, that point is fast approaching. Obama knows it, so do the other politicians. But Senator Obama is promising to ignore the problem, and make no changes.
Of course, this really was not a change of position for Senator Obama. While he had talked vaguely about change he had given no specifics. He never said that he would suggest, of even allow, changes in social security. But given the fact that he had promised change, it would seem more fitting to talk about something he would change than his undying commitment to something he would not change.
On foreign policy, of he was clear about some of the changes he would make. He promised to end the war and Iraq and get the American troops out of the country during his first year in office. He would not threaten to meet every challenge with military force, and he would be willing to meet with the leaders of hostile nations face to face to avoid conflict.
Now his campaign is sending signals to the press that, since the war in Iraq is going well and fewer Americans are being killed the Senator may be rethinking his timetable and may be opting for the McCain solution and only promise to have them out by the end of four years. With McCain, of course, the feeling is that the troops will be out of Iraq in four years because they will be in Iran fighting the next war. And this week, Senator Obama gave evidence that this may be his thinking as well.
Senator Obama went to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee meeting and made a really astounding speech. "Israel's security" is sacrosanct to the United States." Well, of course it is pretty well established that Israel is our ally and the major recipient of foreign aid from the United States. The United States is pledged to the existence and the independence of Israel. Presumably, we are also our assistence is also pledged to the independence and territorial integrity of ou other allies. But Obama was not talking about our allies, only about Israel, and he certainly made a commitment the placed the position of Israel in our foreign policies but even above the importance of the United States. He made a pledge to support an undivided Jerusalem to the Isrealis, and stated that he would move the U.S. embassy there. This is an old gimmick of Democratic politicians. But Jerusalem is a divided city in population, and Obama has now belated retreated from this position to a minor degree.
On Iran, however, he showed that now that Senator Clinton is out of the way, he is as ready as she to devastate another middle eastern country. hH said that Iran is a threat to Israel. He said three times that he would do "everything in my power to eliminate that threat." As President of the United States he will have an immensely destructive power in his hands. To threaten to use that to eliminate a potential threat, which is what he is doing, is quite serious. No nation can leave in complete security. The United States cannot provide complete security to Israel. We cannot even guarantee complete security to ourselves. To engage in a war of conquest or a war of devastation in Iran on the basis of what they might be capable of doing in twenty years. is irresponsible. Obama as the anti=war candidate no longer exists.
As to his other policies, and his promise of change, we need only look at the record of the last two Democratic Presidents. Jimmy Carter ran against Geral Ford in 1976 a time of economic slowdown. He campaigned for the federal government to help the struggling cities, he called for projects to lower the unemployment rate. Between election day and inauguration day he announced that he had been wrong and that Ford had been right, so he was scrapping all of the programs he had promised and was going to concentrate, as Ford had, on preventing inflation. The result was four years of stagflation.
Bill Clinton ran against George H.W. Bush in 1992 promising tax reform with a "tax break" for the middle class. When he won the election he announced that the government needed more money. "Some people," he said, had expected a tax break, but he was not going to give it to them.
The only difference between Obama and the last two Democratic presidents is that he is so confident he has started jettisoning his platform on clinching the nomination and not waiting until election day.
Obama supporters had better not get too close to the campaign. There is already a danger of being hit by the planks of the platform which are being tossed overboard.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of rtbohan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. rtbohan is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Obama's proposal of CHANGE requires sound judgement to determine which things should change, and which things should be kept, cherished and embraced. Unfortunately Obama and his left wing supporters want to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water. They have no appreciation of U.S. history, or the blood, sweat, and sacrifice it's taken to make America the greatest country in the world. They seem to believe that before you can create change, first you must discredit, or destroy everything that's come before. Obama relies on young voters apathy and ignorance of American history and tradition, which makes it easier for them to buy into CHANGE, without any sense of what kind of change is needed. Evidence of this, is Obama supporters embracing his disrespectful alteration of the Presidential seal, to further his personal ambition. Or, Obama's black liberation church discrediting Thomas Jefferson, because of an alleged affair with a black slave. If Obama is elected President, I predict that American history will be gradually revised, and America as we know it will become barely recognizable.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
