Characterizing the Obama Administration
(or, "What the Heck Have We Gotten Ourselves Into?")
A Connundrum
For months, I have watched what has been occurring in
Washington through the actions of Congress and the policies issuant
through the Oval office. Like most of those in this country, it
quickly became apparent to me that something wasn't right. Rapidly,
this grew into one of the biggest political demonstrations in my
lifetime but it made little difference to the current administration,
they pressed forward and got their agenda anyway through some of the
most underhanded and dishonest methods the American people have ever
witnessed.
Well, like all of you, this made me madder than a wild dog but I
had very little power to act other than contacting my Congressmen who
were already opposed to what was going on. So I spent my time
listening to the commentary on both the radio and on television,
reading, thinking, and learning. It quickly became clear to me that
some of the views I had adopted over the years were in error, not
because I had changed my mind, but because I didn't understand what
it was I was supporting. The platforms had been couched in carefully
worded terms and deliberate phrasing that ultimately hid the real
intent from the uninitiated. Over the last eighteen months, I have
learned these terms and have learned how to listen to a political
speech. Much became clear to me after my eyes were opened to the
truth.
Despite this insight though, something still bothered me. Always
on my mind was the question of, "Where will this end? What is the
ultimate goal?" I looked at the actions of the President and
couldn't figure out how to characterize him. Thus, it became very
hard to predict his actions or even to understand them. For months,
this stuck in the back of my head but I couldn't figure it
out. None of the labels I had heard applied by anyone seemed to
completely fit. There was always something inconsistent about it.
Expositions...
My meditations finally reached a fever point after my cousin
insisted that I read Mark Levin's book, Liberty
and Tyranny (a very good book, btw, and I highly recommend it.)
Mark's characterization of this President is that of a pure
statist—one who wishes the federal government to have ultimate
regulatory authority—but even that didn't fit. Sean Hannity
characterizes him similarly but a bit less pure. There can be no doubt
whatever that Obama wants as big and as powerful a central government
as he can get and that he believes in a centrally planned economy.
This description, though, doesn't account for his lack of direct
involvement in many issues. Never have I heard this President quote
specific parts of legislation he was trying to push through Congress
and that was because the details didn't matter to him as long as he
got the authority. (Note, I said he got the authority, through
a delegation of power by Congress to the Executive branch, leaving him
to appoint whom he will to act on that matter.) I contend that a
statist, especially one who has exhibited the sort of ideology of
President Obama, would want to be directly involved in the process to
ensure that it is done right, but in no single instance has that
occurred.
Bill O'Reilly considers Obama to be rigidly ideological but
ultimately political. In this, I consider O'Reilly to be somewhat
naive. During the first eight months of his term, this President again
and again went against public opinion as he force fed his agenda to
the American populace. Over the subsequent months, he repeated this in
one form or another time and again. Not once has Obama shown a
tendency to favor public opinion polls even from amongst his own
supporters, yet O'Reilly is continually befuddled by reports of Obama
bucking the will of the populace and even going against members of the
political Left. It appeared that Obama would stick to his agenda
regardless of the lack of popular support for the issue under
consideration. (For Obama, this would seem to be an exercise in, the
"ends justify the means," sort of philosophy.) A politician
in the usual sense would eventually become concerned about their own
personal popularity and would either back off or change directions and
while not compromising necessarily, would also eagerly engage the
opposition in order to garner the broadest base of support for their
agenda and thus ensure a continuance of their political career and
power. Obama has not done this, despite polling lower than any
President in modern history.
Glenn Beck has laid out a very compelling case for a corrupt
Chicago politician now bringing Chicago politics to the White
House. On many occasions, Beck has outlined the ties between various
members of the administration and the groups they support and how the
same faces keep appearing over and over again. In his words,
"It's a small world, isn't it?" This lends great credence to
cronyism and clearly there has been payback for the unions—SEUI
in particular—and other supporters of this President. His ties
to George Soros and others of his ilk through groups such as the
Center for American Progress are quite evident. If we look at the case
Beck made regarding the Chicago Climate Exchange and how Leftist
groups and individuals from Al Gore on stand to make billions of
dollars, all wrested from the taxpayers and the private sector by
fiat, if we look at the case made on the reasons for the ban on deep
water drilling and the potential benefit to Soros directly, along with
the Blagojevich and Sestak affairs, there is a very compelling
argument for quid pro quos corruption and that it emanates from
the Oval office. Through this, Beck quite effectively (and perhaps
unintentionally) refutes the notion of Obama as a pure ideologue. An
ideologue would not tolerate corruption in any form since it instantly
dilutes his utopian society. Yet even the description of "Chicago
politician" doesn't quite fit.
A corrupt politician in that vein will be looking to enrich
himself and his friends as rapidly as possible but will not want to
see these things made public because unlike many parts of the world,
Americans, as a rule, do not look favorably on such egregious behavior
and tend to punish it swiftly. Yet this President and his
administration have made no statements on these ties, the alleged
crooked dealing, and have not in any way attempted to distance
themselves from any of these individuals or groups. It is only when a
pawn has committed actions or maintained associations that are so
utterly disgraceful, as with Van Jones and Valerie Jarrett, that they
are shoved under the carpet and hidden from view. But they are not
removed, merely repositioned. No, a politician who is in it only for
the money and the power will want to keep his public image as clean as
can be managed and will not hesitate to smear others around him if he
thinks it will deflect the charges from themselves. This
administration does not do that.
One last item I observed was that Obama is also not especially
Presidential. It was clear to me pretty early on that he was a good
campaigner but not a good administrator. As one gains experience in a
job, though, one tends to learn how to get better at it. Obama, it
appears, does not seem to have done this. In fact, he seems very aloof
from the responsibilities of President, as though he simply cannot be
bothered by the job. Look at his response on critical issues. From
healthcare, to the economy, to the debt, to
immigration, to the Christmas bomber, to the gulf... he only seems to
get personally involved when circumstances and public outrage force
him to, often going days or weeks beyond prudent before commenting and
then merely paying lip service to the issue before moving on to
another topic (ala the gulf and, "this is why we need cap and
trade," instead of, "this is how I'm going to organize the
cleanup and recovery efforts") never again to speak on it or
follow through with actions unless the matter is again forced upon
him. The responsibilities of the office seem to be a distraction from
his golf game or his evening parties or his family vacations. He
simply will not engage on any serious issue unless given no practical
option. Look at his handling of Afghanistan and how the commanding
general could not get an audience with or even communication from the
President. Rush Limbaugh terms Obama an "agitator" rather
than a leader, offering that he knows how to stir the pot but can't
offer any real solutions that he didn't read in a book somewhere, just
incite the populace. I think this is true and it supports the
appearance that Obama has a lack of real concern for the
responsibilities of his office.
None of this made any sense to me for a very long time. As the
days wore on, it seemed we were getting ever closer to a social
dictatorship and yet even that description, I reject. Obama seems to
love the trappings of power, the grandeur and ceremony and the culture
that has evolved around the Presidency. Dictatorships are often rather
poor and overtly oppressive affairs. For examples, I cite Castro, Mao,
Chavez, the Taliban during their control of Afghanistan, and point you
at the several African nations so endowed. The leadership craves power
and privilege but often does not end up living much better than the
average citizen. These individuals also tend to be very militant,
often directly donning military uniforms and relishing in the
appellation of General or Commander. There can be no doubt that Obama
is a radical but I would not term him militant, it just doesn't fit
his personality. He does not display the public aggression common to
dictators, military or otherwise.
Epiphanies...
So how do you sum up the current administration? Clearly, the
Left in Congress considers themselves better than all of
us proles (to use Orwell's nuspeak term) and has
exhibited attitudes more properly associated with rulers than
governors, but what of Obama and his administration? It finally became
clear to me as I sat watching the talk shows one July evening and
contemplating what I've laid out here. As noted, I had in the days
immediately prior read Mark Levin's book. That was not what led me to
my answer but it was the seed that spawned a thorough reconsideration
of my previous observations.
In meditating on the issue, it occurred to me that there was
indeed a proper term to apply to this administration that also
encompassed Congress and the President's Czars. That term is
monarchy in the classical European sense. (Say, in the era of King
George III of England or Elizabeth I.) No doubt this has repulsed many
reading this, engendering sour looks and a response along the lines
of, "not hardly..." and I do not doubt that others are telling
their computer screens, "there's no difference between a king
and a dictator." Well, let me explain.
There are critical differences between a dictatorship and
a monarchy. They are subtle but very important. As noted, dictators do
not often revel in ceremony or grandeur, they are interested simply in
power but ceremony and grandeur have come to define many aspects of
the Presidency over the years. Most past presidents viewed these very
informally and some even stand on ceremony for no other reason than it
is expected of them, but look at the number of events that have been
held at the White House since Obama took office. Many of these have
also been somewhat overdone even for that venue, have they not?
Dictatorships are also quite volatile, a change in leadership only a
meal or a bullet away. Sometimes a rival faction will rise up and
carry out a coup d'état changing from one dictatorship to
another in the blink of an eye but not changing any of the
manners. Dictators also generally care little for the policies or
views of the dictator who came before them. Radical changes are made
overnight and fresh waves of police or soldiers roam the streets,
ensuring that the populace knows how to comply with the new views.
Contrast this with kingdoms. Monarchies are far more centered on
culture than power. Yes, there is a great deal of power in a king,
even one with an increasingly powerful Parliament to contend with such
as England had for almost 800 years before the Royal Family ultimately
held little more than the title of "Highness" but no useful
power. Succession in a monarchy does not tend to be generally
disruptive to normal society, nor does it tend to cause significant
changes in policies or foreign relations. Such cannot be said of
dictatorships. Preserving the power of the monarchy is very much
connected with preserving the traditions that have grown around it. In
many ways, the power of a monarchy is actually contained in those
traditions. Dictators care nothing for tradition and more typically
view such as ties to the past that need to be severed in order for
them to consolidate their hold on power. Further, monarchies tend to
be dynastic in nature, ascension of leaders much more likely to occur
through succession than fratricide, rebellion, or coups. Monarchies
will change from family to family through a breakdown in the familial
lineage or similar circumstance but rarely do they transition through
intrigue, despite what some history books would have you believe.
Consider the various historical rulers of France, Germany,
Italy, Spain, and England. One trait that occurs frequently among the
royalty of these nations, often at the end of a dynasty, is a neglect
of the state by the monarch. Edward the Confessor is such an example,
spending so much time in spiritual concerns that his House decayed
around him even as his enemies were at the very gates of
London. President Obama continually refuses to engage on critical
issues and seems more interested in living it up rather than attending
to matters of State, preferring to let his cabinet and his Czars
handle those pesky issues instead.
Another trait common to monarchs is a total disregard for the
citizenry. Louis XVI of France is a good example here. The last monarch
of France (if you omit Napoleon's short-lived self-coronation a few
years later), his reign was not a happy one for the French
people. When the starving masses demanded bread, he gave them
worm-ridden and rotting food not fit for a pig. As a side note, he
didn't have much else to give them anyway, having spent France dry
building the massive palace at Versailles not to mention funding the
revolution here in the U.S. but he made no attempt at cutting back
royal expenses and no attempt to hear the people's concerns or to
empathize with them in any way. President Obama apparently cares
nothing for public opinion or the public in general and, in
cooperation with his staff and leaders in Congress, will push his
agenda through regardless of public opposition or the potential
consequences to the public good.
President Obama seems very much to care about the trappings of
his office as do the leaders in Congress. Indeed, Speaker Pelosi, on
her infamous march to the Capitol Building this past year during the
health care proceedings arrogantly carried a ceremonial gavel, very
reminiscent of a royal scepter, through a throng of angry
protesters. Private jets, political favoritism, tit for tat... it all
seems to be on the table for this President.
But what is a monarchy without the power of the monarch? With
the legislation that has been passed since even before his
inauguration, an unprecedented amount of power has been transferred
from Congress to the White House. Through regulatory agencies, laws
are being rewritten and transformed behind closed doors as we speak
without any Congressional involvement and without Congressional
oversight. Congress has effectively delegated away the greater part
of their authority, thus eliminating the restraining forces of
co-equal branches of government, creating an enormously powerful
executive with few real restraints. It has been happening slowly for
decades but the past two years or so (it started under Bush, afterall)
have seen a greater transfer of power than has been witnessed since
the New Deal and I would contend that in the modern political
culture, it is far more dangerous today than it was back then.
We're in Trouble
President Obama and his associates are now free to enact
virtually any regulation and policy they desire without the approval
of Congress.† Power has been wrested from the people and from
the states as never before and placed in the hands of the
President. Efforts to attack the constitution, the 1st and 4th
amendments in particular, the recent appointees to the Supreme Court,
recess appointments of cabinet members, and the alleged corruption in
the DOJ all concentrate power to the Presidency in a manner never
intended by the Founders and begin to more closely resemble that which
they threw off rather than the Republic they subsequently created.
In my estimation, the term monarchy fits this
administration much more closely than any I have heard thus far. This
does not disallow the advancement of various ideological positions or
a particular favored political agenda, but it does do a pretty fair
job of characterizing President Barak Obama, his administration, and
the current Congressional leadership. I submit to you that for all
intents and purposes there is a King in the White House and that the
Oval office is his throne room.
† If you do not understand the power of the
Presidency as it now stands, consider this... Congress did not merely
pass regulations, they established multiple rule making bodies (dozens
of them) as well as enforcement agencies or delegating authority for
enforcement to existing agencies. It is estimated that for each page
of legislation, there will be 5-10 pages of regulations written. The
health care bill was 1,200 pages plus ammendments for a total of about
2,200 pages. The financial reform bill is 2,400 pages. The stimulus
bill was 1,000 pages. The cap and trade bill is over 1,000
pages. These will result in an additional 27 to 32 thousand
pages of regulations which will affect all of us. Remember that there
are already many tens of thousands of pages of regulations on
the books at the federal level alone covering everything from
electrical codes, workplace safety, fuel efficiency, air and water
pollution and chemical handling, mining, power generation, banking and
credit, forest management, air travel, trucking and rail
transportation, product labeling and marketing, and trash disposal to
name just a very few and these figures doen't even include the tax
codes which are presently estimated at about 75,000
pages before these changes were made. Recall also that no one
knows how to interpret these recent bills because they were
deliberately written in general terms in order to allow for the
broadest possible application by the rule making committees and
enforcement agencies. In the end, it will be the courts who have to
interpret these laws resulting in almost arbitrary alterations through
litigation. With so many individual regulations, there will
innevitably be ambiguities, conflicts, or outright
contradictions. With that environment, it will be very difficult for a
business or individual to not be found in violation of the
law. Consider the pressure that the enforcement bodies—which are
also part of the executive branch and under the direction of the
President—can bring to bear on industry, businesses, and
individuals when they are trying to institute some new policy or
garner support for additional items on their agenda, whether federal
or local. "Comply with our wishes or I'll fine you more money
than you can contemplate or send you to jail." Or perhaps this,
"We don't like this aspect of business or what's being done in
this particular state or city so we're going to write rules that will
directly punish that specific area and see if we can't kill it."
We've seen all of this before. More than once, in fact. It should
remind us of a quote by one Mr. Beria, "Show me the man, and I
will find you the crime." Perhaps that will mean more to you if I
tell you that Lavrenty Beria was the chief of the Soviet KGB under
Stalin during The Great Terror and his agency was responsible for
making a great many of Stalin's political rivals simply disappear.
|