In an opinion piece called “Obama curiously rigid at all the wrong times,” E. Thomas McClanahan is puzzled by Obama’s “inflexible streak.”
He showed it last year during the campaign. Even as the success of the troop surge in Iraq became undeniable, Obama remained rooted to his position that the policy was futile and bound to fail.
And last week he doggedly held to his dream of “engagement” with Iran’s mullahs, even as the struggle over the disputed June 12 election widened to encompass a pivotal body of clerics based in the city of Qom. This important group, the Association of Religious Scholars, essentially pronounced the election results invalid.
But the outstanding example of his inflexibility is his continued refusal to adjust his domestic agenda.
Last fall, the economy dropped into a void. The tectonic plates of the financial world shifted. Financial institutions with storied histories and generations of stability vanished. Jobs disappeared by the hundreds of thousands.
But Obama held fast to his “transformative” agenda. In the changed circumstances, the obvious imperative was to stabilize the economy first and worry about the particulars of his program later.
But no. He marched before Congress and called for action on a long list of items that had nothing to do with economic recovery, including a system of carbon limits and health-care reform.
In our age of pragmatism, McClanahan cannot understand why Obama is not flexible. Just about all the presidents for the last 50 years could be called pragmatists to some extent.
Obama is not Clinton or Bush or JFK or Eisenhower. He is something we have seen, I believe, only once before in the White House, with FDR: a far leftist ideologue. Obama smiles, and his rhetoric blows forth clouds of cliche-ridden happy talk designed to mollify. Moreover, he will tell any lie, no matter how brazen, that he needs to tell to confuse people about his real nature. He is capable of saying he does not want to run auto companies, then turn around and tell GM how much money they can have in their advertising budget. So people still do not understand how radical he is.
He is even more radical than FDR because he is a New Leftist, whereas Roosevelt was Old Left. The New Left adds, among other ideas, anti-Americanism and environmentalism to the Old Left’s toxic Marxist brew.
Thus, Obama is unmoved when reality hits him in the face. His ideology has answers for everything.
The surge is working? Our adventure in Iraq is part of a neoconservative project to create an American empire. It’s really capitalist-imperialism at work, but the American people are blind to it, and politicians can’t say such things or they lose favor.
Jobs are disappearing? This is not as important as bringing socialism to America. I suspect that Obama hears “corporate America” making a stink about jobs to stop Obama’s quest to expand state power. He won’t let capitalist propaganda deter him from his goal.
If reality could make leftists alter their thinking, then communism would have vanished long ago. Communism does not work. Look at North Korea or Zimbabwe. Look at the slave pen called Cuba. And yet these states still exist and leftists still make excuses for them and Obama is happy to appease them and be their pal.
Practical results are nothing to those who hold the morality of altruism. Only mass sacrifice, collectivism and statism matter — not productivity, prosperity and happiness. And make no mistake, Obama is a moralist. But when one’s morality opposes the requirements of human life, watch out. Individuals will suffer, but Obama’s philosophy has an answer for that: the individual must sacrifice for the sake of the collective.
In the name of his altruist morality, Obama is determined to bring socialism to America no matter how much we scream. Let us hope his party pays dearly for his morality next year.