The Real Damage of Obama

There has been much said about the damage Obama is creating to free enterprise, business, national security, and foreign policy. But, the real risk is far greater and could be impossible to repair later. The Great American Experiment was an incredible balancing act by our Founding Fathers. The thirteen colonies had diverse economic, social and cultural characteristics, and getting them to agree to a single national government was an amazing accomplishment.

But, it involved compromises that strained the new republic at the seams, especially as regards slavery. The strain was so great, that it ended up with eleven states seceding from the union. It took a devastating war fought within its borders resulting in heavy military and civilian casualties to reunite the United States. Wars in the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries solidified the reformed country by focusing on common external enemies.

Keeping the country together through World War II, Korea, and the subsequent Cold War was relatively easy. But, since the Vietnam War, the country has continued to drift politically. We are now defined as Red States and Blue States. This is more than a distinction driven by election results; there are fundamental differences in core values. Just travel from South Carolina, one of the reddest states, to California, one of the bluest, and you will see that differences that are so vast as to be irreconcilable on issues like abortion, gun control, health care reform, separation of church and state.

Keeping an increasingly diverse 50 states together is not an easy task, and one that is not fully appreciated for its difficulty. Staying in control is a difficult job for the political leadership. It is an art, not a science, nor is keeping the country unified a given.

In many ways, 9/11 was an opportunity for America to reunite once again against a common foe. But, as we approach the 10^th anniversary of the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the drift has begun anew. George Bush, a moderate conservative president, was able to find common ground, as did Bill Clinton, and his father. Even the feckless Jimmy Carter avoided causing deep divisions despite a very left wing orientation.

Obama is different. He has not shied in the slightest from confrontation, despite campaign rhetoric that he would re-unite the country. This nation is more deeply divided than it has been since before the Civil War. It is so bad that the governor of the second largest state, Texas, has talked openly about secession. There are secessionist movements in several states and twelve state legislatures have passed legislation re-asserting State’s rights.

Even if a unifying event such as 9/11 occurs, there is no guarantee that the nation will unite under Obama. The left and right are not in agreement as to what an appropriate response would be, so whatever he would do would further alienate one side or the other. We seem to be in a downward spiral that is without a foreseeable bottom.

If Obama continues to divide and govern as irresponsibly as he has, pushing legislation that is unpopular and locking the GOP out of the process, the political divide will continue to widen. There is no good that can come of what may be Obama’s greatest threat, failing to keep the fabric of the nation from unraveling.

I Was Wrong About Thomas L. Friedman

There are times in man's life when he just has to admit he was wrong and move on. Today is one of those times. In his New York Times op-ed of November 17, entitled, "What They Really Believe," self appointed green nanny Thomas L. Friedman says:

"And we believe the best way to launch [Energy Technology] is to set a fixed, long-term price on carbon — combine it with the Obama team’s impressive stimulus for green-tech — and then let the free market and innovation do the rest."

And, all this time, I thought he was an avowed anti-capitalist communist. I guess I was just wrong. I should have seen the signs when he had a chapter in his book, "The World is Flat," entitled, "China for Just One Day."

Take a close look at the theme here, it is ludicrous on the surface of it -- fix the game, then let the free market work. In "The World is Flat," Friedman strikes a similar theme, if we could just have a totalitarian government for one day, we could destroy capitalism, then let the "free market" work. Friedman has the odd view that government should make a set of counter-intuitive rules and regulations before turning anything over to free market innovation. You have to read the Constitution to understand how truly wrong this is. Thomas Jefferson would scoff at this notion, as would anyone who values liberty and appreciates the importance of free markets.

But, the really disturbing thing is that many of those who share his "green" views also share his political philosophy, including, of course, Barack Obama and his minions. The good news, if there can be any in the light of an increasingly disconnected and fanatic one-party government, is that the attempt to destroy capitalism known as "cap and trade," may finally be dead. Majority Leader Harry Reid, soon to be the ex-Senator from Nevada, has delayed any debate on cap and trade until the spring. By then, we will be into the mid-term election cycle, joblessness will be approaching 12% and the country will hostile to any plan that will kill even more job growth.

The bad news is that a lot of people at the EPA read Friedman's column, and armed with a Supreme Court decision that carbon is pollution, will try to implement the scheme without Congressional approval. In fact, they are already implementing it, and threaten to accelerate the process. It will take court action to stop them before 2012, when America gives Obama what is likely to be a failing report card. In the meantime, those who care more about power over others, like Friedman, will have field day, and may nanny the rest of us to death.

The only thing that I was wrong about regarding Thomas Friedman was when I thought in his heart of hearts, he really loved America. About that, I was truly wrong.

Blinded by the Right

A recent Facebook post by a friend of mine, and the ensuing dialog with her liberal friends, are a crystal clear illustration of the most significant characteristics of the American left. In her post, this lady, who is suffering from advanced breast cancer, expresses outrage at the recent decision of the U.S. Preventative Services task force raising the age for mammograms to 50. She is so outraged that she made the entire posting upper case. An experienced writer, this indicates the depth of her revulsion for the decision.

She and her liberal friends begin to flog, deservedly so, this idiotic action, which could put millions of women in harm’s way. As the dialog unfolded, one of the participants came to the conclusion that this proved why we needed to reform the health care system and pass Obamacare.

This jaw-dropping conclusion was quickly agreed to by all those engaged in this dialog.

To most of us it is clear that this kind of bureaucratic meddling, resulting in the rationing of essential preventive health care is a flash forward to what we can expect with a government take over of the health care system. Decisions about individual health care will be taken out of the hands of doctors and patients, and relegated to rigid government rules based on economic concerns.

This dialog on Facebook also illustrates what is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of today’s American liberal, the ability to completely deny the obvious. It is a classic case of ignoring the elephant in the room.

How is the left able to pull off this incredible act of denial?

Part of the answer lies in the vilification process the left uses to advance their agenda. If they can hang a label of “evil” on the opposition, they can justify seemingly illogical conclusions by destroying the credibility of the opposition. This is why the left spends so much time attacking the people who oppose them instead of the ideas they oppose. It is much more efficient to undermine Sarah Palin, say, than it to try and counter each of her opinions individually. It avoids the need to have any meaningful dialog on the issues themselves.

Just look at the health care debate. What do you hear Democrats say when Republicans question whether it is affordable? They talk about the obscene profits earned by health insurance companies, leaving the question of affordability untouched.

This explains how Democrats and leftists can vote to pass bills they do not even read. All they need to know is that the right opposes a particular bill, and they can justify passing it. No debate is necessary.

Doubt that this is true? Go read a few of the left wing web sites, like Daily Kos and Huffington Post. You will see that they are clearly blinded to issue by hatred of those on the right.