Page 1/3
I haven’t posted on here in a while, yet I have been reading through some of the threads on this site and some of the comments have left me quite discouraged for the future of our nation. I am directing this thread to the “Obama loyalists”, for lack of a better term. From certain members, I have witnessed a stunning lack of understanding of even basic principles of economics, a naive faith in public institutions and authority, and a world view and understanding of US history no doubt shaped through decades of propaganda and misinformation. It is quite sad, actually. I am directing this thread towards the education of these members who remain enamored with the possibility of “change” and “hope”, even at this late hour. The most tragic element of the willful ignorance or blind loyalty to a political party is that those of this mindset will be hurt the most when the most negative repercussions of current government policies come to fruition as this crisis deepens. I hope I can open some eyes and turn a few of you towards the truth.
On “The Opposition to Obama”:
Many on this forum seem to parrot the line that all opposition to Obama in the Tea Parties or the grassroots is based upon racism, religious extremism, or xenophobia. You characterize the opposition almost exactly as outlets such as MSNBC do, as far right “extremists”, always “exclusively white, older” and “dangerous, armed, militia members”. Possibly they are “unhinged”, or “domestic terrorists” who could snap at any time and turn into the next Timothy McVeigh. Obviously, most of this is fear mongering and scare tactics to keep otherwise sympathetic people from engaging with the members of these protests. In reality the “opposition” to Obama is very diverse and includes many people who have never in their lives been associated with the Tea Party, such as myself. Are there some of these extreme elements in this country? Certainly. But they are a very small percentage and to the extent that they do exist, I am reminded of a saying by the brilliant and stunningly prescient Trends Forecaster Gerald Celente, who says “When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it.” Meaning, there is a profound anger toward the incumbent politicians that manifests as yelling at town hall meetings and some make a spectacle of themselves and go overboard. I don’t intend to defend every action of the protesters, but the reasons for the anger is very valid and have nothing to do with the color of the President’s skin.
I don’t know any of you personally, but I will wager that most have never attended a Tea Party rally. You likely have never even talked to a participant. To make such blanket statements and accusations against so many people is beyond irresponsible. You should know by now that the media’s portrayal of reality is frequently not accurate. I have made a point to attend a few rallies and protests to gauge for sure the tenor of the political climate in 2010. I live in California and yes there are Tea Party protests in California. A few things that I noticed:
-
One protest was at least 15% African American. Another rally I witnessed many Hispanic voters in the ranks. Yet another was filled with many college age protesters signifying a significant youth demographic.
-
There was very little mention of Obama specifically. I heard much about Congress, some complaints about the spending and plenty of blame for both parties.
-
The tone was distinctly Libertarian. I heard no social conservative issues like gay marriage, abortion, religious issues, or anything of the sort. It was focussed on balancing the budget, cutting spending, ending the bailouts, and following the Constitution. I heard some complaints about the Federal Reserve. I even heard some complaints about the war in Afghanistan and of our foreign policy in general. There was also a distinct opinion that Obama’s economic policy has failed and will continue to fail going forward.
-
Of the protests I have attended and some that family members and relatives have attended (in different States), I know that they are not affiliated in any way with the Republican Party. Obviously the GOP will try to woo these voters, but many operationally are more interested in defeating the establishment backed candidates and running on their own platform. There are even Tea Party candidates running as Independents.
-
Sarah Palin’s popularity is VASTLY overestimated by the mainstream media. They are trying to create a excitement for her that for the most part doesn’t exist in most parts of the country. Even those that I talked to who liked her were happy for her to remain a sort of conservative “celebrity” rather than someone they considered a serious person for higher office. Nobody thinks she is qualified. The people I heard mentioned were Ron Paul, some economic intellectuals like Mises and Hayek, as well as founders such as Thomas Paine, Jefferson, and Madison. I feel like Palin is designed to feed into this media storyline that portrays very simple minded, anti intellectual social conservatives as the main people in this movement.
-
I came away convinced that by 2012 this “revolution” will expand beyond the confines of “conservatism” and even the tea party label to become broader and more inclusive. The reality on the ground is so far from what you may have seen on tv that it can be staggering.
Some rallies in some parts of the country include some of the more standard conservative voices in the country to be sure. But there are people who don’t attend any of these rallies who are upset and would easily join a third party (or movement) that isn’t attached to the stigma associated with the Republican Party. This is what is happening. As I said before, I am not a Tea Party member. I am not a conservative.
I am a rationalist, an anti war libertarian, and an intellectual. A seeker of truth.
The truth is that we are living in a fantasy world. Our welfare/entitlement programs are insolvent. Within a couple of decades they will face a shortfall of tens of trillions of dollars. The housing bubble is bursting and the dollar is collapsing. We are borrowing billions from China everyday to continue our extravagance. We are escalating our commitments in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan and threatening Iran. We’ve known for a while that we cannot fund our government and its obligations, yet all our political class can come up with is more of the same.
I find it funny in a depressing sort of way that those who really have a problem with the above, those who see us speeding towards the cliff and advocate that we change directions, that is, really cut spending and rethink the role of government in modern society in relation to fiscal reality and common sense are considered not just right wing, but far right, fringe, lunatic and crazy. Thats what I have noticed. That is the dominant theme in the grassroots in this country right now. There are many differences between grassroots groups in race, age, religion, state, etc. The unifying theme is concern about the debt, the unfunded obligations and a recognition of the need to have a smaller government in light of the ongoing financial crisis. The day of reckoning is here and people are recognizing this.
Yet certain members of this forum, with a broad brush, label all these people this way (from another thread):
And:
I sincerely hope that most here do not truly believe this kind of hyper partisan generalizations. You all should learn to lay off the destructive red state/blue state bickering and articulate your views with more care, more thoughtfulness.
I have read many comments from various members who will defend Obama to the very end, and many have responded to my posts in the past. I find it fascinating to understand how one comes to believe the things some of you apparently believe, and what education or societal stimuli have shaped your world view. From my perspective, through my years of research and delving deeply into the various subjects, I can see very clearly the devastating effects of government policy and the culmination of the disastrous modern trend of runaway government spending, endless stimulus, globalization and the impoverishing of the poor and middle classes through inflation and debt. It saddens me to see people so obviously in the dark about the nature of the times we live in. Perhaps you could lay off the knee jerk partisan stuff and enlighten us on your more broad understanding of political issues and your educational background? I’m sure it would be fascinating.
For now, however, school is in session. I want to raise a few issues for all of you and I am looking forward to your feedback.
Lesson 1: “Big” Government vs “Limited” Government:
It seems to me that those who could be considered loyal liberals scoff at anyone who seems to be anti government or believes in small government, as if this is such an absurd point of view that it barely merits discussion at all. The perspective that perhaps we should shrink government spending or cut back in an effort to regain solvency is hardly broached in liberal circles I know of. The discussion is the need to provide “Universal” health care to everyone who needs it, and the desire to implement new social programs and agencies to combat any number of perceived threats or societal problems. Although there may be a token discussion on a few things that would merit cutting (like the Defense Budget), hardly ever is the discussion on cutting spending overall. In fact, from my discussions with many of my liberal friends, I have come to the conclusion that:
The term “Progressive” means year by year expansion of government power and authority over all aspect of society and that any resistance or desire to “roll back” in a significant manner this power is considered a threat to this mindset.
It is a fallacious argument to equate expanding government power with “progress”. This is absurd. Progress comes through the evolution of culture and principles of the people toward a more enlightened, kinder society than the one that came before. Many times we have not progressed, but rather devolved as a society. For example, our standards of education have dropped drastically in the last fifty years. Health care also has gotten worse. We have obviously not “progressed” despite dramatic increases in government control over these two areas.
I feel like libertarianism is the truly progressive movement that seeks to progress humanity out of the dark ages of totalitarianism and authoritarianism into the light of human liberty, equal justice, non violence, tolerance, and egalitarianism.
In terms of “Big” Government vs “Limited” Government, I propose the followed two principles all rational beings should be able to acknowledge:
1. No matter what one thinks of the role of government, the functions that it takes on must be fully funded without dangerous levels of debt and inflation.
And:
2. We recognize government as a potential threat to liberty, therefore we “limit” government to a set of explicit functions (no matter what they are or how many) that they may engage in. We are vigilant in the enforcement of these limits.
How could anyone disagree with these two principles? The first is the one I want to explore, because anyone who knows basic arithmetic can easily figure out that our government is completely insolvent and we have no choice but to cut spending drastically, including “sacred cows” like Medicare and Social Security.
As to the second point, the document that is supposed to limit the federal government is called the Constitution. We The People, being sovereign free individuals, delegate certain limited authority and responsibilities to a central government. Everything not expressly delegated, is reserved to the states or to the people. Now, you could argue that we need to change the Constitution. If you desire to have government take on new and expanded functions, we must amend the Constitution. There is no way around it. Our government should evolve slowly and deliberately, with much caution and respect for human liberty. This is how our system is supposed to operate.
As far as the debt is concerned, I want to give you a few numbers to think over:
The National Debt = $13,330,000,000,000 (Thats Thirteen Trillion Three Hundred and Thirty Billion)
Look at this graph of the monetary base over time (number of dollars in circulation):
http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/money-supply.gif
Now, consider the rate of increase in the national debt over the last few decades:
When Nixon was sworn in (1969), the national debt was: $354,000,000,000
When Reagan was sworn in (1980), the national debt was: $908,000,000,000
When Clinton was sworn in (1992), the national debt was: $4,065,000,000,000
When G.W. Bush was sworn in (2001), the national debt was: $5,760,000,000,000
When Barack Obama was sworn in (2009), the national debt was: $10,124,000,000,000
Now, in eighteen months the national debt has gone up by more than three trillion dollars! The numbers aren’t working. The early stages of hyperinflation are here. Don’t you see that the rate of increase has been exponential? The Federal Reserve has more than doubled the money supply since 2008.
The system is being held together only by the fact that many don’t understand how bad things really are, so a residual confidence remains in the system.
What the liberals need to understand is this:
The era where the American people could be sold on the idea of massive government interventions like The New Deal or The Great Society are finished. Nobody believes in the promises of politicians any more. The era of frugality and government reform (meaning cutting spending drastically) is here to stay. That is what the electorate wants.
The liberal, Keynesian arguments that deficits don’t matter and we could afford the welfare state and entitlements are being exposed. The people with credibility are the Austrian economists and those who warned of the long term consequences of the mentality that we could create wealth out of thin air and give everyone a house and health care are being vindicated.
So, regardless of whether you and I would agree on exactly what the government should be involved in, you should see that we should cut back immediately, balance the budget, get back to a solid fiscal standing, and restore solid economic growth. Then we can have our debates within the context of reality.
Because, really, isn’t it wrong to promise people a government service that you know you won’t be able to deliver?
Yeah, pretty weak response from someone who calls himself “The Facts”