Opinion Forum

Don’t Blame Bush, Blame the Right!

June 17th, 2010

The President has met the enemy, and he is the Tea Parties.

Or at least, that is apparently what Mr. Weber of the Huffington Post thinks is responsible for Obama’s inability to follow through on the great promises of his candidate days. In the Post’s latest attempt to find something, anything to blame but Obama’s own incompetence for his mistakes, Weber writes:

If the right wing has succeeded in doing anything (as certainly many of its loudly brayed sentiments have proved as revolting as they are socially untenable) it is the destruction of the office of President of the Unites States as a potent leader.

Wow. We destroyed the office of the President of the United States. But wait, there’s more:

Every day, Congress is observed conducting business at a somnambulistic pace while below the ornate veneer, the real dealing churns and thrums with shocking efficiency; indeed if one were to tune into C-Span… there is conspicuously interminable boredom, as though the dirty business actually being conducted has become as routine as the suicide-inducing rhythms of a bottling factory; the porky little congressmen and women waddle to a podium, utter faintly irate belches and then return to a place somewhere beyond the borders of the stationary camera’s periphery.

So apparently all this corruption in Congress is our fault too.

When Barack Obama was elected, he reminded the masses of dreams they heard about in school, and dreams they may have had themselves; that smarts and drive and verve could win the day, could be as antiseptic to the years of diseased ideals, corrosion and cronyism; his youth and grace under pressure would be a tonic to the studiously sown fear under the Bush regime, characterized daily by obvious hypocrisy and brazen disregard for the democratic standards upon which Americans base their allegiance.

Yes. He also promised that this would be the moment at which our planet began to heal and peace returned to the world. But does it occur to Weber that maybe it was the ridiculous grandiosity of the president’s own words that caused so much of the world’s letdown once he failed to achieve these impossible promises? Nope, had to be those evil, knuckle-dragging neocons.

So loyal to the myth of American democracy in fact, that the public dared not believe what their eyes so clearly saw, as neo-cons wiped their boots on the Constitution as though it were a wire brush mat…

Wiping our boots on the Constitution? You mean, like by saying it is fundamentally flawed and contains “no absolute truth?” Or maybe by trying to sell it with a disclaimer that states the Constitution does not reflect the values of our times? Or maybe you mean by regarding the very idea that the constitution should be considered as ludicrous, or by saying that the Constitution doesn’t matter when you’re trying to alleviate suffering? Sales of the Constitution have skyrocketed, but I don’t think it’s because all the readers of the Huffington Post have suddenly run out and bought copies. After all, when you think the Constitution is a “living document,” what does it matter what the darn thing actually says?

…and the real legacy of Ronald Reagan was an unimpeded perpetual corporate shanghai; the dream of Democracy fatally broken by brazen opportunists who looked at America and saw not the greatest expression of a working democratic society but fodder for the most audacious scam ever pulled off. And as a result, “governophobia” has seeped into our national DNA in the same way trace amounts of Bisphenol and heavy metals have seeped into the breast milk of nursing mothers.

“‘Governophobia’ has seeped into our national DNA?” You mean, that only happened recently? In every history book I’ve ever read (besides Howard Zinn’s, anyway) “governophobia,” at least in the sense of exhibiting a proper wariness towards the institution with a monopoly on coercive force, was supposed to be both completely rational and a noble American tradition, not the stuff of paranoid conspiracy theories. If anything, I would accuse an irrational love of government of having seeped into our national DNA, not an irrational fear. How else does one explain the switching of the national motto from “Don’t tread on me!” to “There ought to be a law!”

Here’s the joke: all the hyperbole spewing like a pyroclastic flow from the volcanic right wing about socialism and communism and fascism is just white-guy-chicken-hawk-runaway-capitalist trash talk. Government has been reduced, thanks to their incessant assault on it, to a knuckle-dragging sporting event, with the country as brutish spectators barking ook-ooks and arrgh-arrghs, intoxicated by the contrived spectacle of the Big Government giant brought down by bureaucratic excess. And the punchline is that those cheering in the stands are the ones being buried under the rubble.

Actually, the spectacle is not contrived, and what really brought the Big Government down was the fact that it’s impossible to create an efficient, smooth-running government when that government must also make decisions in a parliamentary fashion in areas of life (education, health care, the economy) in which it is neither possible nor desirable to obtain agreement on how these things ought to be done from a large majority of the populace. In fact, it is this attempt to force parliamentary governments to do things which are impossible for them which ultimately leads to the rise of dictators, charismatic national leaders who promise to just “get it done.” Obama and Hitler have more in common with each other than the Left is willing to admit.

The office of POTUS is now as formidable as the winner of a beauty contest, thanks to those traitors in patriot’s clothing, the right wing. With all that’s happening to our country and our world, think of how effective their single-minded zeal might have been had it been put to use in a constructive way, instead of toward the death of Democracy.

The real reason the office of POTUS has become “as formidable as the winner of a beauty contest” is because that’s how Obama treated it. He thought that all he’d have to do was out Bush and shake Ahmadinejad’s hand, and everything would suddenly be hunky-dory. But it’s also our fault: everybody’s, not just the Right or the Left. When we treat the election like a really long-winded beauty contest with staggering entry fees, we really shouldn’t be surprised when what we end up with is a smooth-talking, academic incompetent who thinks the best way to run the country is by giving good speeches.

Hate to break it to you Steve, but there is no shadowy neocon plot out there to ruin the Presidency. The Tea Parties have absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama’s inability to save the world and usher in a socialist utopia. But you just keep on dreaming about your twisted fantasies of knuckle-dragging right-wingers. Reality is unpleasant enough these days without you suddenly waking up enough to join us in it.

Articles written by Brianna Aubin
Tags: Constitution, government, left, partisanship, presidency, right, tea parties
Categories: Politics | Comments (8) | Home

8 Responses to “Don’t Blame Bush, Blame the Right!”

larry ennis | June 18th, 2010 at 6:29 am

Considering the present state of things I’d say that this President doesn’t need any help from the tea party or anyone else. His leadership qualities speak reams about who and what he and his liberal/progressive accomplices represent.
I don’t mind being called a knuckle dragging patriot because I do consider myself a patriot.
As for Mr. Weber, the Huffington Post and all the whining left I say “Rave on Fools.

Tom Carter | June 19th, 2010 at 6:41 am

I read Weber’s article a few days ago and could only shake my head. It’s extremist, confused, and doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously (although I’m sure many people do). Obama has been under attack from the right since before he was elected, just as Bush was under constant attack from the left, just as most politicians these days are routinely attacked from one side or the other. That isn’t new to recent times, but it has increased in intensity and in bitterness. Truth is, Obama’s failures to date are mostly of his own doing — failure to fulfill impossible promises, confusion and disarray caused by his lack of executive experience, and poor leadership of Congress and his Party caused by lack of political experience. It would have been nice to have a smooth-running, effective presidency this time, but it doesn’t look like there’s much chance of that.

Your statement that “Obama and Hitler have more in common with each other than the Left is willing to admit.” made me think that something following that would justify such an extreme statement, but there wasn’t anything. What you said proves that the opposite is true, if Obama has weakened the office and made the government less effective while being a poor, uninspiring leader. Fact is, Obama and Hitler don’t compare in any way at all, just as no other American president can be validly compared to Hitler.

Brianna | June 19th, 2010 at 1:43 pm

They were both people who rose from dubious backgrounds to national prominence on speeches that promised everything to everyone. They both sought to control and regulate industry for the “public good.” They both inspired rather frightening cults of personality, especially among the young. They both openly stated their views in speeches and published works, only to have those views either shoved under the rug, whitewashed, or outright lauded by the media. Granted Obama has no intention of exterminating Jews (though he might manage to help exterminate the state of Israel through sheer incompetence and foolishness). But I think the main difference between Obama and Hitler is that Obama faces far more popular and governmental opposition than Hitler did, and that Obama is far too squeamish to actually institute the sort of economic and political policies that Hitler had no qualms about. In short, Obama just wants everybody to be friends, whereas Hitler had no illusions about the ability of those who supported classical liberalism and individualism to be friends with the proponents of a collectivist, statist ideology.

Tom Carter | June 19th, 2010 at 3:18 pm

“I think the main difference between Obama and Hitler is that Obama faces far more popular and governmental opposition than Hitler did, and that Obama is far too squeamish to actually institute the sort of economic and political policies that Hitler had no qualms about.”

That’s ahistorical nonsense. You need to take another look at Germany from the end of WWI to 1933. And you really think the only reason Obama won’t try to “institute the sort of economic and political policies” that Hitler favored is because he’s too “squeamish?” It’s disappointing to see you write something like that, to be honest.

What I really don’t understand is why extremists find it necessary to equate first Bush, then Obama with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. There’s no justification for that, and it’s easy enough to make your case against any American political leader without going off the deep end into la-la land.

Brianna | June 19th, 2010 at 4:38 pm

“What I really don’t understand is why extremists find it necessary to equate first Bush, then Obama with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. There’s no justification for that, and it’s easy enough to make your case against any American political leader without going off the deep end into la-la land.”

Then deny any of the things I said before the only sentence you actually refuted, and then only by calling it “ahistorical nonsense.”

I said this before and I’ll say it again: I think there are two kinds of leftys out there. There are those who shy away from the task when they realize they’ll have to kill 25 million people in re-education camps in order to institute their ideals. And there are those who don’t mind the idea very much because they honestly think that once they’ve broken enough eggs, they’ll finally get their omelet. To Obama’s credit, I think he belongs to the former class. Hitler pretty unequivocally belonged to the latter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk

Tom Carter | June 19th, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Brianna, aside from a few rattle-brained extremists on the far, far left (like in the video), there’s no American liberal who wants to institute something that will required killing 25 million people. I find it impossible to believe you don’t know that.

There’s nothing wrong with being a conservative/libertarian, just like there’s nothing wrong with being a liberal/progressive. Good, intelligent arguments are made by both sides, and you’re eminently capable of making those arguments, as you’ve proven time and again. But when you start comparing American politicians to murderous dictators, most reasonable people are just turned off, regardless of the validity of the points you’re making. This article is a case in point: well-written, well-argued, effective use of satire — I was really enjoying it until I hit the Obama/Hitler comparison. In addition to being logically invalid, it just wasn’t necessary to the argument.

What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.

— Robert F. Kennedy

The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning.

— Winston Churchill

Brianna | June 19th, 2010 at 5:49 pm

“there’s no American liberal who wants to institute something that will required killing 25 million people. I find it impossible to believe you don’t know that.”

I do know that. Just as I’m sure there were plenty of Germans who would never have dreamed of killing 6 million Jews, just as there were plenty of Russians who would never have wanted to starve 7 million Ukranians, just as there were plenty of Japanese who would have been horrified at the Rape of Nanking, just as there were plenty of Chinese who never wanted to undergo devastating famine, just as there were practically no NKoreans who wanted to watch 10% of their population starve to death, just as there are plenty of Muslims who don’t want to commit terror attacks, just as there are plenty of Palestinians who just want a 2 state solution and some peace and quiet at night…. Nobody is ever, ever in favor of mass murder. And yet it happens. So how do you explain that? People just go nuts, overnight, for no reason whatever?

In any of these movements, there is never a majority of the population who wants to resort to mass murder. What is important is that the majority not get in the minority’s way when they try it. You can deride people like the Weather Underground as a fringe group NOW, because they never got power. But things like this do happen somehow, Tom. I think the danger of it happening becomes real when the vast majority of the population thinks that man must live for the People or the State or Allah. Or as Obama put it in his acceptance speech, “I am my brother’s keeper.” It’s the gateway idea which, when taken far enough, eventually can lead to the acceptance of suffering, evil and death as a “necessary evil which had to be committed for the good of the group.”

Here’s another thing I don’t doubt. Most of those leaders wanted the best for their people. They honestly believed in the Utopia. I think Hitler believed he was doing the best for the German people. I think Kim Jong Il truly believes that capitalism is wrong. I think Lenin really wanted to create a worker’s paradise. I never said Obama was evil. I said he shared the same set of ideas which has been proven to lead to disaster over… and over… and over again, and that if he didn’t create disaster, it would be due to his own reluctance to carry out those ideas and the opposition against him, rather than any repudiation of those ideas on his part.

Opinion Forum » America Is the Problem | July 17th, 2010 at 11:56 pm

[…] know how my earlier article was about how it was all the Tea Party’s fault that Obama’s presidency wasn’t […]