| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Last October I observed that Obama's actual policies were opposed to his stated goals:
...leaders who announce their support for an innovative and popular goal are often trusted to provide means that can reasonably be expected to achieve that goal. A popular and innovative goal, provides the leader with a glamor, that blinds many people to any consideration of whether the means provided are in fact suitable to achieving the goal.
...It is therefore essential in all cases to examine the means provided by a leader to see if they in fact are suitable to the purpose of achieving the stated goal.
We can call this approach the Matrushka Doll analysis, following the nesting Russian "Matrushka" doll shown on the poster for the Museum of Communism, since what matters in this analysis is not what's on the outside, i.e. the stated goal, but what's on the inside, i.e. the actions to be actually taken, hopefully in pursuit of that goal.
Which brings us to Obama. His stated goal is "hope and change." The goal is innovative and popular and has in part earned him the nomination of his party. It is therefore essential to examine the means he has provided for achieving this goal, to see if the means are suitable to the purpose of achieving the goal.
Here is a Matrushka Doll Analysis for Obama - a review of a number of the programs Obama supports on two of the issues that are of the most importance to American voters: the economy, and national security.
[...]
...The policies of Barack Obama reviewed here are not suitable for achieving his stated goal of "hope and change." They would bring about changes, but the changes would reduce, rather than increase, the hope of Americans for a more successful future. Instead of increasing Americans' hope for a more successful future, Obama's policies would have harmful consequences:
- His opposition to oil drilling would continue to strangle our economy with high oil prices.
- His support for the so-called"Global Poverty Act" would transfer close to a trillion dollars over 15 years away from U.S. taxpayers and into the hands of the corrupt U.N.
- His plans for vastly increasing U.S. government control over the decision-making of U.S. companies would paralyze U.S. business decision-making.
- His proposed near-trillion-dollar increase in U.S. government spending would lead to higher taxes and increase the power of the government over U.S. citizens.
- His insistence on reducing U.S. military power would reduce our ability to defend our nation.
- His proposed "civilian national security force" would reduce money available for our military to use for defense of our nation, and would vastly increase government control over U.S. citizens.
- His insistence on ending the war in Iraq without victory would turn our soldiers' achievements into defeat.
Obama is in the tradition of leaders who benefit from the glamor of an innovative and popular goal, which blinds many people to the nature of the policies they propose. As the above examination shows, Obama's policies are not suitable to achieving his stated goal of "hope and change." Instead, his policies would have harmful effects on the nation.
Today, with the horrifying, market-killing experience of Obama's first six weeks in office as established history, Charles Krauthammer makes the nearly identical observation:
Deception at Core of Obama Plans
...The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.
Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.
Obama's stated goals are nothing more than a deception. His policies pursue an agenda which is unrelated to his stated goals. The result so far is massive damage to our economy and markets.
Update 3-10-09:
From Newsweek:
Presidential Double-Talk
Uncertainty (too much) and confidence (too little) define this crisis. Investors have surely noted the gap between Obama's rhetoric and his actions.
From Bloomberg:
‘Manchurian Candidate’ Starts War on Business
Update 3-11-09:
From McClatchy Newspapers via Yahoo News:
Obama decries earmarks, signs law with 9,000 of them
#1
If, one year from now, the economy is showing improvement, will you say it is because of Obama or in spite of him?
He is not our King...he is our President. One man does not make or break this nation. While I was not a fan of President Bush, I accept that he alone did not get us into the mess we are in today.
It's fine if you disagree with Obama's policies, but I would take issue with anyone who claims he doesn't give careful consideration to the positions of his opponents. I believe he has brought a measure of civility to the debate...something that radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh have no interest in because divisivness is his bread and butter. In the end, our nation has thrived with a two party system. It helps us maintian the right balance, which is usually somewhere in the middle. Leadership by only one party would only lead us down the road to communism or fascism. I suspect if the democrats fail to deliver they get their clocks cleaned in the 2010 elections just like they did in 1994. That's the way it works.
Earmarks are a bipartisan sin. I would have liked to have seen them done away with immediately, but I can accept that change does not come overnight. If the issue is never addressed, we will certainly be talking about it in 2010.
I don't think offshore drilling should be ruled out, but it's only one part of the puzzle. We need to be looking at all of our options, especially in the field of new technologies and energy sources. How does the saying go..."if you say can't...you're right".
I think Obama has us on the right track in the war on terror, and I go into more detail regarding that opinion in other threads on this website.
The stock market is falling still because the economy sucks. As more details come out and plans are implemented, we'll see where things end up. This week it rose 3 days in a row. Time will tell.
The voting is done, so for now, the debate is over. Republicans will need to learn how to say more than "no". The country needs new ideas and Republicans need to step up and deliver. It's not enough to oppose universal health care when the entire system obviously has issues that need to be addressed. People are getting sick and falling into bankruptcy through no fault of their own...this should not be acceptable in America. If I have a pre-existing condition, how am I supposed to get insurance without lying about it? Recognize that universal health care does not have to mean socialized medicine...there are other options and if you look outside Canada and Great Britain to places like Japan and the Netherlands, you'll see there are creative ideas in place that we might can learn from.
The best leaders don't necessarily have the best ideas. They have the ablility to bring out the best in others...building bridges and holding people accountable for results. They certainly don't sit around thinking of how they can make their opponents look as absolutely bad as possible.