ON FAILURE - OBAMA’S AND AMERICA’S
I’ve said this before and will say it again because it needs to be repeated right about now.
This country is in a helluva mess and Barack Obama is the only president we’ve got. He is “it.” By virtue of a free and fair election, he has been chosen by the American people to lead us in this crisis. We have placed upon his shoulders the responsibility to lead us out of this financial morass in which we find ourselves. He deserves all the support we can, in good conscience, give him.
And that’s the trouble, isn’t it? President Obama has proposed policies that are such an anathema to conservatives that most of us find it impossible - within the boundaries of our principles and conscience - to do other than oppose him as he seeks to remake America into something it has never been, and indeed, cannot be and still remain an America we would recognize.
Wanting Obama to “fail” in this pursuit is very tricky. I would compare it to the left wanting Bush to “fail” in winning the Iraq War. Of course, they would never admit it but in reality, that is what they were advocating. Are they going to try and convince us that they wanted Bush’s war policies to “fail” but they wanted the US to win in Iraq? That’s even too convoluted for a liberal. I grant them their sincerity in opposing the president’s policies in Iraq but is there any other way to look at it except liberals wanted the US to fail? And if there is another way to see it, why not give conservatives the benefit of the doubt in opposing Obama’s economic policies?
The left will say there is no comparison but that’s about as disingenuous as you can be. There are only two outcomes to a war; winning or losing. Opposing policies and hoping for an American pullout leading directly to defeat is no different than conservatives working to block Obama’s programs with the end result being an economic meltdown. And positing the notion that the war was “already lost” and that advocating a pullout in 2004 was only bowing to the inevitable is similar to conservatives saying that Obama’s policies are doomed to failure anyway so why not oppose them?
Neither was the left keen on having Bush economic policies succeed. Again, let us grant them the sincerity of their beliefs that Bush’s policies were bad for the country. But wouldn’t it be fair to say that by hoping for failure, they were, in fact, wishing for a recession?
We are not vouchsafed the sincerity of our beliefs by the left despite our willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt that what Obama is proposing, they truly believe to be in the national interest. So be it. Politics is politics and even in a crisis - perhaps especially in a crisis - competing ideas are routinely portrayed by the opposition in the worst possible light.
But “failure” of Obama’s policies in this case would be as devastating as America losing the Iraq War during Bush’s tenure. The question, then, whether this kind of opposition is responsible or necessary is a good one and is not easy to answer. At bottom, we are dealing with the most deeply held beliefs of the opposition. Asking them to toss basic principles in favor of some mindless “unity” or “patriotism” is asking your opponent to roll over and die in the face of something they cannot countenance.
A higher calling, then, than principle? That’s a hard argument to make in matters of war or what conservatives sincerely believe is the disappearance of fundamental building blocks that make America what she has been in the past.
So you can’t dump principles nor can you go along with the president even in a crisis such as war or threatened economic Armageddon. You can’t nuance your opposition to hope the president’s policies fail but that everything turns out alright anyway. That would be a stretch and hence, insincere.
You are left with the only viable construct; you oppose the president because you wish him to fail and accept the consequences that your opposition is tantamount to working to bring economic ruin upon the country (or in the case of war, America’s defeat). All the rest of this nattering is pure sophistry, splitting hairs, and searching for justification by going through the manure pile, convinced that there’s a pony in there somewhere.
And this brings us back to square one. What is the opposition supposed to do when a president’s actions in a crisis are considered so far beyond the pale that they cannot be supported in good conscience and without abandoning one’s fundamental principles? Conservatives have answered that question by saying we believe that economic meltdown is a lesser evil than Obama’s remaking America into something it has never been before and cannot be if it is to remain the same country we have been entrusted to hand down to our children just as it was handed down to us going back to its founding.
This will no doubt discomfit even some conservatives who aren’t prepared to accept the consequences of their opposition or take the reality of their position to its logical conclusion. We will also no doubt suffer politically for opposing the president. This is the way of the world and should be an accepted consequence of standing on principle rather than bending to the political winds.
It is a forlorn hope to expect the liberals to grant us the sincerity of our beliefs in this matter just as it was impossible for conservatives to give the left the benefit of the doubt in their opposition to the Iraq War. Perhaps at another time in history, it would have been possible to see beyond the poisonous partisan struggles and grant the tiniest bit of respect to one’s opponent - a tip of the cap, a nod of the head that would show that despite our differences, we are still all in this together and that finding a way back after all is said and done will be the goal of both sides.
But it won’t happen. It’s much to easy to score cheap political points when your opponent bares his chest and invites the point of your sword.
I think I agree with the substance of this post, Mr Moran, or at least say that it makes sense.
I’m still surprised you chose to disagree with right-wing orthodoxy (that Obama’s failure is the only way the USA can survive and prosper) so bluntly. I hope you are stalwart enough to withstand the venom about to be spewed against you. Please keep in mind that you do have some supporters.
Comment by Frivolous — 3/8/2009 @ 12:14 pm
I for one do grant you the sincerity of your beliefs. I never doubted the sincerity.
That’s precisely why I think, and have said, that 1856 and you’re Whigs. You can’t change enough to survive. The comet’s already hit and you’re all some species ending in “saurus.”
Modern Republicanism has gone from William F. Buckley to Rush Limbaugh. You used to win the college educated vote, now you lose it. You’ve given up on African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, moderates, intellectuals, creatives. You’re anathema in places like Silicon Valley and successful in places that have lots of tornadoes. And as a party you have no capacity to reverse that.
But not all is gloomy. After all, Lincoln started his political career as a Whig. You need to split the remains of the GOP into a party of Rush Limbaugh and a party of David Brooks, as the Whigs split themselves between the Republicans, the American Party, the northern Democrats and assorted fragments. After all, as Mr. Obama has reminded us: a crisis is an opportunity.
Comment by michael reynolds — 3/8/2009 @ 12:16 pm
So the failure of Obama’s policy prescriptions is a bad thing? At what point did you decide that Obama was the United States? His policy failure is not everyone’s failure, it just means that we try some other policy. Also, at what point are some people going to realize that the media and democrats whining about how “divisive” some statements are doesn’t make them so. They have ulterior motives - and if you don’t recognize that you’re simply wasting bandwidth.
BTW, is it good in general for the United States to have everyone line up in lock step behind ANY politician; with all voices of dissent stifled and opposition commentary labeled as “treasonous”. Do we all have to subscribe to the cult of Obama? And, hasn’t anyone noticed that the very same people who were lecturing every one on how patriotic dissent was when it meant getting our soldiers killed, are now telling the other side to shut up on the issues.
Comment by Michael D. Giles — 3/8/2009 @ 1:08 pm
I’m not so much concerned with Obama himself, but that his policies will actually fail. He wants to do the following:
1. Make energy massively more expensive.
2. Make it far easier to unionize companies.
3. Raise taxes on small business.
And he wants to do this in the teeth of an emerging worldwide depression. The logical response to these policies will be the following:
1. Raising the price of energy will drive energy-intensive businesses out of the country, raising unemployment - as similar policies have already done in Europe. Other businesses will raise their prices and pass these costs onto consumers.
2. A few high-end businesses with healthy margins will allow workers to unionize, while others will simply close or hire more illegal workers. Look for the market in low-skilled workers to be even more dominated by off-the-books Mexican labor than it already is. Unions were important and useful 75 years ago, but today they dominate two “industries”: Detroit and government, particularly local government. Both are in severe trouble.
3. A deep recession is actually a good time to start a business. Costs are lower, it’s easier to hire good people, and the business will grow as the economy recovers. But starting a business is hard and scary, and raising taxes on the money you’ll earn if you’re business is ultimately successful means you’re less likely to start up a business.
One final point is a whole lot of Obama’s arguments are basically punitive: these rich people did great under Bush, now is our time to nail them to help the deserving. The problem with this argument is the rich tomorrow won’t be the same people as the rich yesterday. Also, the “super-rich” already have their money - messing with the income tax code won’t change that, which is why the super-rich tend to care less about this sort of thing than the “strivers”, who hope to make money or have solid incomes but not a lot of assets.
As to your question of failure, I don’t “hope Obama fails”. I *know* he’ll fail. If you drop a rock, it falls to the earth. If you have anti-business policies, business will leave.
Look at Michigan or California. They both have implemented a lot of the sorts of policies Obama wants to do nationwide. Would you start up a new labor-intensive business in either place if your business had a choice in location?
Comment by Foobarista — 3/8/2009 @ 1:54 pm
Foobar:
An energy tax only costs a business if a business fails to conserve energy. Americans are staggeringly inefficient when it comes to energy use. I just spent 8 months living in Italy, probably using half the energy I use back in the States. Why? Because energy was expensive, and, because it was expensive, the society as a whole created an ethos of energy-saving. Cut your use and guess what? You won’t pay any more. And over time you’ll improve the national security posture of the US as well as help the environment.
As for destroying small business with tax increases: bull. Mr. Obama is putting the marginal rates back where they were under Clinton. I seem to recall we did pretty well under Clinton. 35% is happy days, but 39.6% is the apocalypse? Pffft.
Comment by michael reynolds — 3/8/2009 @ 2:02 pm
Mike: business isn’t paying to Obama’s current tax proposals, but the fact that his math doesn’t work. Nobody with any sense thinks that the “Clinton tax restoration” is the end of the Obamataxes. He promised the sun, the moon, and the stars during his campaign, and the top rate increase doesn’t come close to paying for it.
And as for energy, how does an aluminum smelter conserve energy? Manufacturing, in particular, is extremely energy-intensive - and competes in a world market where competitors will have access to cheaper energy. If the business is already energy-intensive, it is already doing a lot to save energy in its manufacturing processes. But so are its competitors, so the “net net” is higher prices equals “we leave”.
Frankly, I actually agree that some sort of energy tax to force conservation may be a good idea. But it should be a retail tax, not a “carbon trading” shell game, which will only make Congresscritters rich and “hides the ball” on the fact that the carbon trading regime is actually a sales tax. (Personally, I’m not opposed to a gas tax with a revenue-neutral offset of the payroll tax.)
As for other taxes, the problem as I mention above is Obama’s numbers don’t add up. The “Clinton tax level restoration” won’t pay for what he wants to do - and he even says so (see his speeches about the health care “down payment”). Given that, the only thing we have to go by is Obama’s punitive attitude toward strivers shown repeatedly in his speeches and policies, which equals massive and unknown taxes down the road.
In short, business doesn’t trust Obama any more than anti-war lefties trusted Bush. And unlike anti-war lefties, business gets to “vote” by going elsewhere or choosing to not do business.
Comment by Foobarista — 3/8/2009 @ 2:33 pm
OT: One of Insty’s “emailers” is calling this site out here: pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/72439/
The response is easy: most of those at the rally were protesting Arnold, the CA legislature, and so on. The two radio hosts aren’t libertarian loons, they just support fiscal responsibility.
Comment by 24AheadDotCom — 3/8/2009 @ 2:58 pm
Foobar:
I’m 54 and have yet to see a budget — Republican or Democrat — that added up. How did an “off-budget” trillion for Iraq add up? How did Mr. Bush’s prescription drug plan add up? How has the baby boomer medicare/medicaid surge ever come close to adding up?
You don’t start balancing the budget in the middle of a deep recession, you balance it when times are good. Mr. Clinton and a GOP congress did that (more or less.) Mr. Bush and a GOP congress sent the country hurtling into a massive deficit and debt increase, simultaneously increasing the size of government and cutting taxes.
Now we have no better choice than to keep digging into deeper debt. The Obama taxes come into play in 2011. Hopefully we’ll be out of the worst of this by then. No one knows, of course. But hopefully. So what we have right now is a massive increase in debt, a hefty tax cut for most people that happens right away, and a tax increase down the road to begin cutting some of the debt we’re taking on now as a consequence of previous mismanagement.
As for aluminum smelters, can’t help you on that. But we have to play the long game here, not just freak out the way Mr. Bush did in response to his crises. Over the long term we need a health care solution and we need to cut energy use. (And whatever the economic climate Republicans always say “no!” to both.) We are in this shit precisely because no one in American politics ever looks beyond the next election. Mr. Obama is finally trying to do that and avoid the next crisis and the next after that.
Comment by michael reynolds — 3/8/2009 @ 3:12 pm
Interesting. Suppose Obama’s cap-and-trade fails. Does that mean Obama fails? Suppose Obama’s nationalized health care fails. Does that mean Obama fails. Thus, by circuitous logic, one must support Obama’s initiatives so that Obama can “succeed” and somehow America “succeed”. Pure claptrap. Obama is directly responsible for the decline in the equities market. Period.
What does one suspect pension funds invest in? Beach sand? The next show to drop due to Obama will be an emergency in the pension funds. Obama will have “succeeded” in collapsing them and will “reluctantly” agree to bailing them out or some scheme to further his agenda.
You make no sense since your proof is fully flawed. There are alternatives which will work and have worked. Obama will not, on his own, turn to them. Your problem is your presumption that Obama’s policies will somehow work. All the proof points to just the opposite.
When someone is pulling the trigger to a gun and you happen to notice the barrel is pointed at that persons head do you try to stop the person? In your logic, you will have caused the person to “fail”.
Obama’s proposed policies, as the markets have shown, are failures. Thanks for supporting them.
Comment by cedarhill — 3/8/2009 @ 3:50 pm
I believe you can make your standpoints firmly known and at the same time work hard for a better future for our country. I can help find solutions to make us less energy dependent on the Middle East. BTW, I would do that for every president. I volunteer at a church related facility for people to make up their GED. I’m just saying that all has nothing to do with politics.
Obama’s foreign policy is actually not so bad. Even James Baker said it is more than Bush I (in fairness Bush II got better in the end after kicking out the neocons except Cheney). So why should I not support him there?
That leaves the economy and I would have predicted that you would have seen exactly the same on a slightly smaller scale under McCain/Palin (true enough that is not conservative). However, would Rush have wanted McCain to fail?
Comment by funny man — 3/8/2009 @ 4:01 pm
Rick, you’ve glossed over the fundamental difference between the liberals opposition to the war and conservative opposition to Obama. We aren’t afraid to say that the consequences of Obama’s failure will have painful results…not so the Opposition to Iraq. They were dishonest and we are not.
In the best case scenario Obama putters along until we can get a _Conservative_ majority in the Congress. More realistically we prepare to pull America back from the ashes of a depression that makes the last one look like a rexxession.
But to hope for our own comfort to be secured at the cost of our children’s future sacrifice is cowardice. We are indenturing our children because we lack the moral fiber to take our own medicine. It’s repugnant. I hope Obama fails regardless of the consequences.
Meanwhile 8-15000 people were at a Tea Party in California. That, Rick, is how we keep Obama on the ropes until we can get a new Congress. Care to join in yet?
Comment by Quilly Mammoth — 3/8/2009 @ 4:15 pm
This is why I actually continue to read your site although I actually disagree with it in large swaths. You are at least willing to acknowledge that your “enemies” really do have the best interests of the country at heart, even if you completely disagree with how they want to accomplish it. A little respect goes a long way. Too bad your freeper and hot air and what-not buddies can’t also figure this out.
And no, the liberals aren’t entirely excused either - there’ve been a few things over on their blogs that I’ve thought “that ain’t right” about as well. But they’re, by and large, not near as vicious about it.
I’m glad you’re not too. Gives me a little hope.
Comment by Russell Miller — 3/8/2009 @ 5:01 pm
I don’t like the current process of the decision and bill making. It is dishonest and hasty. In the military, when things go wrong, it’s because many small problems or deviations from standards became the norm. Once you get organizations back to following the rules, it’s amazing how many problems just go away. In this case, I think it’s rational to vigorously point out and insist that the rules be followed. I also think citizens should actually have a chance to weigh in when fundamental changes in the contract between citizen and government are proposed. That isn’t happening with these massive bills. It’s the wrong fight to get into as to whether conservatives want the elected government to fail. You pointed out in your post as to where that leads. Instead, the loyal opposition can insist on clean governance and can spend efforts on making the bill making efforts as transparent as possible. They can point out that the rule of law requires all to be treated equally. No more it’s ok for me, but illegal for you… tax paying, school choice, “green” taxes, are examples readily coming to mind.
Comment by HChambers — 3/8/2009 @ 6:04 pm
While Obama is our only president, his policies are not helpful and should be opposed. Of the $787 Bil. spending bill, only 4-7% takes place in 2009.
It’s not a stimulus bill —it’s a government expansion bill. And our children will have to pay for it, which is also irresponsible.
Opposing this is correct. We’re being lied to (it’s not a stimulus bill), and opposition is appropriate.
Comment by Chris Hebert — 3/8/2009 @ 8:01 pm
Your analysis ignores the blame America first mindset. Liberals are opposed to any war that directly serves America’s self-interest. A lot of people think that Obama’s plans have little to do with reviving the economy and will do more harm than good, so why not oppose them? How is opposing plans that you think will make things worse the same as wishing failure? Don’t you think it could be the opposite?
Comment by Steve — 3/8/2009 @ 8:25 pm
The idea that those who vigorously oppose Obama’s approach to governing must of necessity be a hope for his failure is not realistic or sane. Many of us hope the best for the President because as Barry Goldwater once said if our president is successful the country cannot help but be benefited.
Where I draw the line is where a hope for his success( meaning good actions by this administration that results in good things generally for the nation as a whole) does not demand loyalty to him personally regardless what his approach may be.
If I knew for sure Obama’s Presidency would ultimately mean less individual rights, less freedom from government intrusion, less freedom of the press,and greater influence by left-wing radical nutcases I would get down on my knees and pray for his failure.
Since I cannot know these things for sure(even though I have deep suspicions) I will wish him well, then watch, watch and watch again to see where he and his gang is leading us. I also will not hesitate to speak out against him and his policies no matter how non supportive that may appear.
Comment by Edward Cropper — 3/8/2009 @ 8:45 pm
@ Mr. Moran:
“I would compare it to the left wanting Bush to “fail” in winning the Iraq War. Of course, they would never admit it but in reality, that is what they were advocating.”
That is possibly one of the most moronic statements I’ve ever seen you make. Nobody said “I want the President to fail”, but you know that’s what the Lefties secretly wanted because . . . well, because otherwise they just objected to the premise and execution of the war. That would simply be principled opposition, and I guess that’s too beyond the pale to accept?
I’ll put that right next to “Lefties cheered whenever they saw dead American soldiers” so I can always remeber that, despite being a clear thinker sometimes, you apparently fall victim to the ignorant, insulting stereotyping exemplified by the nutjobbers as much as the next person.
“Are they going to try and convince us that they wanted Bush’s war policies to “fail” but they wanted the US to win in Iraq? That’s even too convoluted for a liberal. I grant them their sincerity in opposing the president’s policies in Iraq but is there any other way to look at it except liberals wanted the US to fail?”
Here’s a newsflash — liberals don’t like seeing dead or suffering Americans. They wanted out of the war because it served no reasonable or legitimate goal. They wanted out, win or lose. If The Iraqis spontaneously became self-reliant in a week and we got the hell out, liberals wouldn’t go “Damn! I’m so pissed we won! I love it when we, as a country, lose wars — it makes me feel great to get beaten!”
“And if there is another way to see it, why not give conservatives the benefit of the doubt in opposing Obama’s economic policies?”
Two reasons. First, because they’re not offering an alternative. Tax cuts? A spending freeze? Unfettered free-market capitalism? All wonderful ideas . . . but none of them fix recesions. Sure, there are conservatives with actual legitimate alternatives based in sound ecconomic theory. When I turn on c-span, that’s not what I’m hearing from House and Senate opposition — I’m hearing some version of “trickle-down ecconomics” which is too damn slow for the current situation. Liberals offered an alternative on Iraq: get out and take the loss. Not because losing makes them happy, but because if the ony legitimate American interest in staying is our ego, then that’s not a good enough reason to get more Americans killed.
Second, The Repubs have been patting themselves on the back for opposing every thing Obama has done since day one. That makes their “principled” opposition suspect. After 9/11, most Dems signed off on the war resolution. Lots of Dems backed No Child Left Behind. Repubs are boasting how they’re denying votes to the Administration. Maybe their opposition to the stim bill IS based on principles — but it’s pretty damn suspicious that they oppose EVERYTHING he’s done or tried to do.
I’m lumping Conservatives and Republicans together in this rant, because most of the anger I see from liberals isn’t targeted at conservatism per se. It’s targeted at two main factions: Republican politicians and “Obama is a communist/socialist/AntiChrist/smear-on-the-soul-of-America” wingnutters. Conservatives are unfortunately inexorably linked to these two groups, and their shameful behavior smears a legitimate philosophical and moral ideology. Want conservatives to be respected? Get the hell away from these two groups, as far as possible. Take out Restraining Orders to keep ‘em at least 100 yards from conservatives.
Just saw Newt on the box today. Asked about the stim bill, he commented about how Obama was doing everything wrong. Asked about economic recovery, he commented everything Obama was doing was essentially un-American. Asked about joblessness . . . Obama drinks baby blood. No alternatives, just attack Obama. That doesn’t sound like “principled opposition” — that sounds like “my party hates Obama with the cold intensity of a thousand dying suns, and if he magically made candy fall from the heavens for the children we’d complain about the how he’s trying to give the kiddies cavities.”
You’ve commented on the need to re-format the Repub party. You’ve recognized the harm the talking heads and the wingnuttia are doing to the body and soul of conservatism — and then you wonder why non-reds aren’t listening to your philosophy.
@Steve:
Define “self-interest”. An ACTUAL threat to the homeland? That’s what war is for. I don’t know a single liberal who opposed rolling into Afganistan when they wouldn’t give up Bin Ladin, for example. “He tried to kill my daddy”? “Y’know, I never liked that guy — let’s go get ‘im”? “Let’s use a tragedy to do some social engineering”? NOT what wars are for — isn’t that the basis of the Right’s complaint against Obama? That he’s using the recession to “re-make” America?
Comment by busboy33 — 3/8/2009 @ 10:02 pm
I am at risk of becoming a broken record, but when I read the comments, I feel we are not even looking at the problem. America is facing a credit crisis AND the economic depression that has resulted from that credit crisis.
If the conservative approach has devolved into blaming the Democrat solution to this very real crisis without putting forward a very real alternative policy prescription of its own, then I don’t want any part of it!!!
This crisis is real. This crisis has real causes. See here:
http://www.vimeo.com/3261363
We do not have to accept blame for this mess. We do have to put forward a real policy plan that shows we know how to deal with problems.
Watch the video. Offer a solution. Don’t tell me we need a capital gains tax cut.
Comment by bsjones — 3/9/2009 @ 1:31 am
Something must first exist, before taxing it less becomes anything worth noting.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 3/9/2009 @ 2:23 am
“Mr. Obama is putting the marginal rates back where they were under Clinton. I seem to recall we did pretty well under Clinton. 35% is happy days, but 39.6% is the apocalypse? Pffft.”
This line of argument is tired and misleading. Everyone recognizes, we’re in some pretty different times right now. Blindly claiming that “it worked then, it can’t be that bad now” without honestly assessing the underlying differences is disingenuous. Using that line or reasoning, we may as well look back at the tax rates during the lowest point of unemployment in our nation’s history and shoot for that, right? Ignore all other factors?
Comment by sota — 3/9/2009 @ 4:57 am
[...] assertion that “I want Obama to fail” has been explained on his show, yet many prominent conservative bloggers still do not get it. Rush wasn’t saying that he wants Obama’s policies to actually fail, or that he wants [...]
Pingback by Conservatives Are Falling Into Obama's Trap | Axis of Right — 3/9/2009 @ 6:01 am
Principled opposition is fine but wishing for the economic collapse of the country to underscore your principles smacks of treason. The energy devoted to the electronic ink spilt here (yours truly included) adds little to the solution of our crisis. How about a collective redirect?
Comment by De bende van — 3/9/2009 @ 6:02 am
It matters not what I want, the truth is his policies will fail, must fail. His policies are based on fleecing the “rich” and helping the poor, growing government while destroying the tax base by which he hopes to expand governemtn. It is a myopic and doomed philosophy. You cannot continue to bleed the beast while trying to ride it accross the finish line. I hope he fails but having said that it is a forgone conclusion that he will. It’s kind of like betting on the chances that the evening news will contain depressing stories. We can hope against hope that it wont but when you turn it on you know what you are going to find.
Comment by Robert — 3/9/2009 @ 7:39 am
Count me as among those who are willing to accept the lesser evil of a collapsed but still capitalistic economy so that the greater evil of a collapsed and big-S Socialized economy doesn’t happen.
Comment by steveegg — 3/9/2009 @ 8:39 am
That rhetorical WE is part of the problem. The opposition tried valiantly to head this chaos off, did not vote for this man, and failed to win the election… So WE didn’t do it at all: the majority of voters–THEY–did it by our winner-take-all system.
Those of us that understood the radical ideas and policies this man championed before the election, are now even more convinced of the absolute necessity for immediate and effective opposition wherever possible.
The marketplace, the financial sector, and the consumer are in massive defacto opposition, and are refusing to even try to take up business as usual, which just about guarantees that our nation will suffer extremely. So the economy is now his problem; he owns it; and it is a good bet that he can’t fix it; and keep America free.
The people will score a deep hatred for those who have taken advantage of our problems to spread pork and payoffs around in the multiple billions from taxpayer revenue, and all this man could do is say “that is old business.” So he signed it. Change and hope? I doubt it.
It is the Triumverate of Obama, Reid and Pelosi, and their minions, that must be held to a detailed and explicit account of their wrong moves–starting right now. Hopefully, WE can turn things around in 2010!
Comment by mannning — 3/9/2009 @ 8:39 am
Why does opposing his policies mean that I feel that an economic meltdown is a lesser evil than remaking our country? I feel that the President’s policies will lead to less economic growth for the future of the country. As does the CBO(in regards to the stimulus bill). The economic policies seem to me to be leading to an economic meltdown. higher interest rates and inflation along with stagnant employment numbers. Therefore, I oppose them.
I doubt that conservative opposition to his policies will have much effect on the policies enacted much less lead to economic ruin due to the mere fact of opposing them.
Pulling out of Iraq would have definitely amounted to a defeat. Charting a different economic course will not definitely lead to an economic meltdown although there will be different opinions as to what is the best course.
I have read this article twice and the dominant theme seems to be we are in a bad spot and must support the President and his policies whatever we think about them. Is this a spoof a la the Tea Party article?
Comment by Harry O — 3/9/2009 @ 9:00 am
The CBO was refering to the Stimulus Bill not the rest of the President’s policies.
Comment by Harry O — 3/9/2009 @ 9:02 am
“Nobody [on the left] said ‘I want the President to fail’”
Wrong: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/guess-who-also-wanted-a-president-to-fail/
Try again.
Comment by kent18 — 3/9/2009 @ 9:22 am
I’ve read your posts and recently your posts have shown the ills of the conservative movement. It is a lack of convictions and confidence that your side no longer has the answer. I would argue that the three major components of failure in republican governance were too much moderation, political corruption and policy complacency. It was not our principles.
The American people have relieved us governance and assigned us the role of the loyal opposition. This means refreshing our ideas and supplying the alternative to what is being done now. Let us stop debating Rush, Big Tent and our bi-partisan responsibility. To the Brooks and Buckley and all obamacans, “GO!”. Go to the coalition you have advocated. Go, stand in the room and offer your ideas only to have them brushed aside in the phrase “We won.” I’m staying with the principles of individual rights which include property rights for all, respect for human life and a strong national defense to protect us. I would rather argue with Rush and others who are committed to these principles and reach a new consensus to offer the American people then be the Brooks and Buckleys who will become disillusioned or sale out completely to liberalism. Yes, Liberals won the election but another election is coming and I’m going to fight to win it. I hope you find the confidence to believe in your core principles and bring your voice to the new solution to be offered instead of the hand wringing.
God’s Speed.
Comment by Kevin Kellogg — 3/9/2009 @ 10:30 am
Your intellectual honesty here is to be commended. I also want him to fail. But that’s moot….
This isn’t so much what we want as what will happen. The bottom line is that these type policies have failed everywhere they have been tried. Every day the market casts its verdict on the Obama Administration. It isn’t pretty but it is honest because it is completely neutral.
I have concluded that Mr. Obama, who was elected largely due to his opposition to the Iraq War, doesn’t have much of a grasp of economics. I wish that weren’t the case but it certainly is what we face.
Comment by jackson1234 — 3/9/2009 @ 10:59 am
Rick,
I have sensed a deep conflict within yourself for the past few weeks and this posting has pretty well summed it up.
I have only one question to, what gives our generation the right to encumber so many future generations with a burden that in many areas is not needed and is only being seized as opportunistic expansion of the central committee?
Comment by Dale in NJ — 3/9/2009 @ 11:13 am
Actually, I see nothing intrinsically wrong with Republicans hoping that the President’s policies fail. I think that this IS the principled position for the Republicans. The more that come out and say it, the better. As a sound bite, it will certainly be used by either the Republicans or the Democrats in the next elections, depending on what has happened.
So, I agree with your premise about the Republicans. But when you attempt to give the Republicans “cover” by talking about opposition to the war, you lose me.
The left certainly had distrust of the Bush Administration’s ability to pursue a good strategy in Iraq… there were strategic mistakes until they started paying off the Sunnis and set up the surge. Distrust is not the same as wishing them to fail.
Simply put, your attempt at your usual “They ALL do it” is a lie. No Democrat with any stature came out and said “I want President Bush’s policy in Iraq to fail.” Mostly it was “I’m afraid that Bush’s strategy in Iraq will fail… again.”
Comment by Postagoras — 3/9/2009 @ 11:59 am
Postagoras:
Apparently the Democrats showed they wanted Bush to fail in Iraq by giving him every single soldier or marine he asked for, every single dollar, every single weapon.
Comment by michael reynolds — 3/9/2009 @ 12:03 pm
A truly lazy effort from start to finish.
Comparing the Iraq war to a massive economic meltdown is disingenuous. Furthermore, how could the U.S. have “lost” a war that still has not been won?
Comparing some libruls “silent” failure wishes regarding Iraq to some conservatives in-your-face failure wishes cinches it.
This post gets an “F.”
Comment by Shaun Mullen — 3/9/2009 @ 1:15 pm
“Apparently the Democrats showed they wanted Bush to fail in Iraq by giving him every single soldier or marine he asked for, every single dollar, every single weapon.”
I didn’t catch that vibe until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the war was lost. Then again, he is nowhere near as important figure as a radio personalty who states the obvious about long-discredited economic policies.
Comment by jackson1234 — 3/9/2009 @ 2:30 pm
As a conservative I’d like to know from the many posters here how they get the absolute knowledge something is going to work or not. So what are some of countries where these policies have failed, Germany or Japan? Some of the conservative states are real economic powerhouses like Mississippi, Oklahoma especially compared to Massachusetts or Washington.
I don’t want to put our side down it is just that nobody really knows what works. It might just be that our economic hegemony is slipping away and trust me that is not pretty. Some of the poster who want to build the US up after the predicted meltdown, have you really thought that through? With what? There is a real world out there beyond the Harry Reids or Rush Limbaughs!
Comment by funny man — 3/9/2009 @ 4:14 pm
I’ll take a different tack on this; it’s a moot point. There is an assumption out there that higher government spending will stimulate the economy. Long term economic data does not support this. There is an opposing assumption out there that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. Long term economic data does not support this.
I view government fiscal policy as a capacitive Maxwellian element. That is, it reduces the oscillations. Having said that, bank policy is a different matter. The problem we face is not how our economy is growing or shrinking currently. But, do people have a fundamental trust in “money” in all of it’s forms?
Comment by Allen — 3/9/2009 @ 5:40 pm
Allen,
ok, but the economy is not exact science. Remember, we are talking about gambling with virtual money. On second thought, I remember Maxwell’s demons keeping everything moving (but then doesn’t modern quantum physics need them no more?).
Comment by funny man — 3/9/2009 @ 6:27 pm
I find it interesting that until the 2006 election, the Republicans were in control of Congress, thus the democratic opposition had little effect. The Dems didn’t give Bush every soldier and Marine he asked for - other Republicans did. All the Dems demonstrated when they came to power, was the lack of moral courage necessary to change policies they had been criticizing for three years. I guess wasting the lives of American soldiers for a second time was considered politically, a non starter.
In any case, what is it about socialists that makes them believe that if we try it just one more time, this time it will work - despite damn near a hundred years worth of evidence to the contrary?
And they make fun of evangelicals, as true believers in an “outmoded” religion?
Comment by Michael D. Giles — 3/10/2009 @ 4:03 am