Ronald Reagan came in and said we need to break out of the old ways of doing things and create a leaner, more effective government," he said. "That was the right message then...Problem: Government grew under Ronald Reagan. RR apologists, such as Rush Limbaugh, have been trying to explain away that annoying fact for years.
So why does Obama say that Regan shrank government? Because that is what everyone thinks. More accurately: That is what everyone has been told to think. The Republican propaganda machine has blared its "government-is-the-enemy" message for so long that people believe the advertising instead of the history.
Consider the case of George W. Bush. Abetted by congressional Republicans, Bush gave us massive borrowing, massive pork, massive government spending -- and now, massive nationalization of financial institutions. Although no friend to the working class, Bush is nevertheless a big-government kind-o-guy. That's the reality of the situation, for those few who still care about reality.
But how many people see those facts as facts? The public will continue to see the Republicans as the party of small government because they keep talking about small government. If a guy the size of Wilt Chamberlain says he's a midget, then he's a midget. Can you prove otherwise? Cameras can deceive you and a yardstick is just a piece of wood. Only words count.
The same "trust the words, not the facts" attitude both abets and hinders Barack Obama. The Republicans keep calling him a socialist, because that's what Republicans reflexively do. In the Republican lexicon, "socialist" simply means "bad person"; the term has no other meaning. Similarly, leftists zealously believe that Obama holds to leftist ideals, because Obama vaguely panders to their fantasies. In fact, nothing in the man's background suggests that he is anything but a Friedmanite Chicago schooler.
Do not presume, as so many do, that Obama's all-things-to-all-people pose means that he lacks any fundamental economic beliefs. His reaction to the financial crisis proves his inflexibility. Early on, he nixed the idea of direct aid to homeowners facing foreclosure, and he maintained that grim attitude even after McCain fell in line behind Hillary's "revived HOLC" proposal.
Obama -- a socialist? Hardly!
His association with Bill Ayers (as documented in the remarkable piece below) speaks to his opportunism, not to his Marxism. I certainly see nothing socialistic about that bizarre Wright/Pfleger/Farrakhan religious axis which seems to hold such sway on the south side of Chicago. (Wright despises Bill Clinton precisely because Clinton used the government to help Harlem -- and the NOI was never a left-wing organization, although many a dope seems to think so.) Nor do I see anything socialistic about Obi's Libertarian economic advisers. (C'mon. No matter how much of a fanatical O-person you may be, do you really think that Austan Goolsbee is the man Destiny has chosen to solve our current problems?) Obama's foreign policy mentor, Zbigniew Brzezenski, has never pretended to be any kind of friend to the left.
Ah, but those are mere facts. And what do facts matter? As I've been saying for years: In America's ongoing political dialogue, the only question left is Pilate's question. And the answer seems to be this: Truth is perception; truth is not what is.
And now, a slice of deep-dish paranoia: Who is Bill Ayers really? How did the son of a Chicago bigwig get up to such shennanigans, and why did wrathful William end up hobnobbing with the powerful instead of rotting in a cell? The antics of the Weathermen served only to alienate America from the left, thereby paving the way for the triumph of Reagan and the end of the New Deal consensus. Walter Annenberg was a friend to Ronald Reagan; how did the Annenberg Foundation end up funding a guy like Ayers?
The allegations found here may be a bit too paranoid even for me, but you may want to read them nonetheless. Caveat lector and all that, but let us not be overly quick to dismiss. I'd like to know more about Cossini and his possible interactions with Ayers.
Added notes: The oft-heard "Obama's a Socialist" meme may be an early use of a remarkably effective weapon against a president Obama.
Like it or not, the financial crisis may force the president to nationalize more financial institutions, as Dubya did with AIG. When Dubya did it, the pundits (except Krugman) were too polite to call it nationalization, and they certainly did not argue that nationalization equals socialism. No-one will offer that same polite treatment to Barack Obama. If Obama gives other too-big-to-fail institutions the AIG treatment -- and he may have to do just that, although he'll be very reluctant -- you'll hear the word "socialism" used every time you turn on the radio or TV.
As a result of that all-too-predictable propaganda barrage, the public will soon become convinced that Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Marx, even though he was, is, and will be nothing of the sort. When Obama's economic reconstruction plan fails (which it will: BHO ain't no FDR), the Failure of Obama will be labeled the Failure of American Socialism. Obi the Friedmanite will get an unfair rap as Comrade Obama. For years and decades to come, even as the American living standard shrinks and shrinks, any politician who proposes any sort of government action will be shouted down: "That's socialism! We tried that under Obama the Red, and it didn't work."
After that? Perhaps fascism, if things get bad enough.
5 comments:
Every now and then I look around for information regarding Ayers as a possible FBI or CIA-backed agitator, and I'm amazed that there's so little in the online community proposing the idea. Looking at Ayers' history and the behavior of FBI plants in today's political and environmental groups, I can't help but assume what we witness today, likely occurred 40 years ago as well.
BHO did not commend Reagan's actions in office, or claim that Reagan followed through with his small government message. He said that the message was the right one for that time.
And indeed, it was a winning message, however much it was dishonored in its breach.
Was Mondale's truthful debate message 'right'? When he said I'll raise your taxes, and so will he (Reagan). The difference is, I am telling the truth, and he is denying it. (paraphrasing).
No. However true it was, it was not the right message for the political climate of the day, even though Reagan did increase taxes substantially each of the subsequent four years in office.
In fact, both Carter and Clinton used the 'government is a problem' Reagan message as the foundation of their own reform actions. Both those Democratic Party presidents chided the overgrowth of sclerotified outdated entangled governmental programs, and both canceled or cut back a hundred or more such programs. Carter championed the notions of zero-based budgeting and sunsetting major governmental programs in their enacting legislation.
Because a) there was truth in the message and b) it resonated with the American people, who had grown to resenting so much excess government, waste and abuse. Neither Carter nor Clinton received much credit for their efforts in this regard, which were substantial, while Reagan got a pass on his relative inaction (because his rhetoric and image were more consonant with this true message).
However, speaking as no fan of Reagan's, he did follow through in great measure on his shrinking of government. No, not overall, but specifically, on the discretionary budget side of things. Discretionary budgets were flat to actually down, given inflation, and that was in the face of a drastic increase in need in the population from the deep and severe recession. Reagan canceled the last vestige of the anti-poverty programs of LBJ (CETA), refused to extend unemployment benefits or use traditional counter-cyclical fiscal policies, and even proposed substantially trimming Social Security. (All these were bad policies, IMO, but they do count as working for the 'message' we're talking about.)
Rather than do a Nedra Pickler style complaint piece about things BHO didn't say, why not stick to a less tendentious exegetical reading, since that is more accurate in this case?
XIslander
Any closer to registering Republican?
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/and-people-think-this-is-funny/
I agree as I slowly coming out of my dream state
I have been suspicious of Ayers for some time. This procedural misconduct that got him off is way too convenient. And how could
Dohrn have gotten off so lightly as well?
It might just be his father's money, but they could easily also have been agents.
Post a Comment