Perspectives from a Maverick Libertarian Pundit
columnist: Gary Trieste

Topic: Barack Obama
Barack Obama - What has become of the Magic Man?

---

Obama's latest Robin Hood economic stimulus plan, achieved by stealing money earned by oil companies and giving it to the American People, reveals a raw socialist streak; that his plan is being accepted as a viable one further demonstrates how destructively the Bush legacy has ruined the American economy, citizen rights, and appreciation for American capitalism.

---

by Gary Trieste
(libertarian)
Monday, August 4, 2008

At a recent rally, Obama sez:

"Keep in mind Exxon-Mobile announced it'd made 12 billion dollars, almost, almost 12 billion dollars last quarter. More than any US corporation has ever made in a single quarter.

It's time we used some of those record profits, ah, to help, ordinary Americans pay for record prices"

And his campaign clarifies by saying:

"Obama simply asks that big oil companies contribute a reasonable share of the windfall profits they receive from high oil prices over the next five years to pay for emergency assistance for families right now."

Wow, I haven't heard anything so blatantly socialist for a long time.

Spoken like a true politician, the words almost sound reasonable. They are said so smoothly and so adroitly, the concurrent implications are so swiftly swept out of sight, like a good magic trick, you never even noticed the substitution.

But really, just slow down and parse out those words for what they really are trying to say -

"Exxon-Mobile made 12 billion dollars last quarter."

Why that's more than anyone has ever made in US history! Its an anomaly, it disproportionate, it must be wrong. Who are these companies to make so much money, when I am struggling to make ends meet. It's just not fair. Something must be done about it.

"It's time we used some of those record profits . . to help ordinary Americans pay for record prices"

Hmm. Well, this is not taking their profits from them, no, we are taking their record profits, so how bad can that be?.

And it is only taking the money they made from record prices, not normal prices.

And, after all, it is for ordinary Americans, not for special Americans, or extraordinary Americans.

And again, its not really taking it from them anyway, not really, since they really shouldn't have made that much money in the first place - and besides, it is to help ordinary Americans.

Yep, that is all the implied, hidden commentary painstakingly engineered to formfit into these few innocuous sounding commentaries.

And yet, how utterly presumptuous it is - "It's time we used some of those profits".  Let us just parse out the statements and see what can be distilled.

Just who are the "we" that he references? What does he mean by "used"? Try the more honest "we take" those profits.

And what is this term "those profits"? Imbedded in the little word "those", is actually the meaning "somebody else's earned and owned" property.

Furthermore, how are you distinguishing those proper "profits" from tainted "profits"? By the sheer fact that they were earned? And that we are taking them from someone we don't like?

Why is it for some reason now "time" to do these things? Has something somebody been hurting someone else for too long, and now it has to stop?

"Obama simply asks. . ."

Obama is not asking for anything, he is proposing that things will be taken, using the full power of the state.

" . . . that that big oil companies contribute . . ."

Another euphemism. This is not a contribution of funds, but a forced extraction.

". . a reasonable share . ."

Is any amount reasonable, when the only justification to take it from them is that they earned it?

"of windfall profits . . . they [will] receive from high oil prices over the next five years to [give American citizens] right now."

Even with the corrective bracketed terms I have included, the assumptive gall seeps through.

The campaign's statement presumes as instant fact that the oil companies will receive windfall profits (read as "frowned upon profits") from high oil prices for the next five years, and that based upon that presumption of future profit, the oil companies should be forced to "pay" (read as "give") American citizens now, some unearned share of their capital.

Is there any provision mentioned as to what happens if the oil companies don't in fact receive "windfall profits" in the next five years? Will the American People give back any of the money taken upon that basis? I don't think so.

Given a little pause, and reflective thought, Obama's plan is clear, it panders to the common man's stark outrage that someone is making so much more money than he is, and it offers a tempting socialist solution to assuage what seems so viscerally an economic injustice.

As Obama falls into the comfort of an assured nomination, and as he feels less afraid to alienate Democratic voters (since he is now certain that they will vote for him no matter what he says at this point, considering the alternative), Obama is beginning to break form from the ambiguously appealing, babyface smooth, white bread and milk tact he had held before Clinton dropped out of the nomination race.

As he feels more cocksure of his position, and the implicit understanding that McCain is not much of threat, we can now hear more and more of the substance of what Obama is and stands for, of what he justifies as correct in an absolute sense, and what he insists is consistent with his previously avowed positions.

In a sad way, I now feel like I am again in familiar territories with each new stance he has taken, or retaken - he is not the Magic Man he first impressioned himself to be; I am now viewing him as just another politician.

He has already at this early date, so far committed the worst of a career politician's repertory.

He has reversed himself in a very public, unambiguous way on the telecom immunity/FISA bill, in order to pander to political forces, while all the time insisting being consistent with his earlier self.

He is pandering to the electorate, promising them them an unearned cut of legally earned profits of productive companies, simply because it feels good and everyone loves free money. Blatant vote buying.

His man of principle persona, his stance as an outsider to the wanton ways of Washington career politicians, and his prospective different-kind-of-leader vision begins to fray as he takes on political positions that are less brightline than they used to be, positions that are, almost transparently, inclusive to the more center-of-Right electorate (i.e., the portion of the electorate that is not mindlessly, tropicatingly, pro-Republican).

In the process though, he shows that he is not beholden to the principles of the Democratic electoral body, principles that he loudly upheld and pledged alligience to in seeking the Party's nomination.

In doing this, he also shows that he is willing to trade principles for votes.

That Barack Obama feels this to be a principled, viable way to pump money into taxpayers hands, and one that will be accepted by the electorate, is a tribute to George W. Bush's legacy of destruction to the American way.

In his freewheeling, do-it-first-get-permission-later modus operandi, Bush has managed to engender a deep skepticism in the American people. We now collectively accept that American companies are vile, purely self-serving, gloming behemoths that deserve no peace, and should be railed in at all costs.

In his hamfisted way, the president has soured the American people on all things Bush, even guilt by free association.

Bush pushed for capitalism, deregulation and lower taxes, and now these too have garnered a dark cast.

The fact that Bush achieved nothing successful despite pushing for these fundamentally sound principles (having easily offset them with mismanagement and adventurism), is an irony that compounds his failure even more, and has set us up for a socialist blowback that will ruin us economically even more.

Unfortunately, despite the unusual political landscape this quadennial, the playing field given to us in the way of presidential choices is not very robust.

There is Obama, McCain and Barr. The latter apparently becoming a recognized, albeit barely significant, choice showing 3 to 8 percent returns nationwide.

In McCain we have Bush Second Edition, and it is very unlikely that, given the publically acknowledged job Bush has done, that McCain will become elected, nor should he be godwilling.

In Barr, we have a relatively principled recent partial convert to Libertarianism, who no doubt would whip this country back into shape fiscally, and cut short our addictive adventurism abroad, while re-establishing Americans' Constitutional rights at the federal level. Unfortunately, we also have a citizenry that is not ready for the tough love Barr is itching to unleash in order to get the country healthy again. Nor may they be ready for such changes, for the fear of unintended consequences and break with the last 50 years' way of looking at government.

But more significantly, en masse, the American people just don't know Barr well enough, nor are they familiar with libertarian purviews in government. Not knowing of either, they will simply not vote for him.

In Obama, we thus have the presumptive next president of the United States. For the main reason that there simply isn't another viable candidate, and auxiliary reasons that he is very personable, has great oratory skills, is a tried and true patriotic American, appears impassioned and has a great political inertia moving him along. These combined with another very appealing attribute - he is not George Bush, literally will make him a shoe-in for the Presidency.

Let us hope he shows the wisdom that the office will demand, and that he can shore up his allegience to principle.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
19 thumbs so far

©2008 Gary Trieste, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, August 4, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, August 5, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Gary Trieste only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Gary Trieste 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.

Report violation by Gary Trieste of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.