If he were awoken at 3 a.m. and told he had to make the case for nationalizing the banks by denying he was nationalizing the banks, he would do an entirely creditable job of it, even without a TelePrompTer. The salesmanship for Obamacare represents in microcosm the larger Obama political project, which has always depended on throwing a reassuring skein of moderation on top of left-wing ideological aims.
All politicians are prone to shaving the truth, giving themselves the benefit of the doubt and trying to appear more reasonable than they are. Obama has made it an art form. Bad faith is one of his signal strengths as a politician, and makes him one of the greatest front men progressivism has ever had.
He will never admit his deep bias toward the growth of the federal government for its own sake, or that he doesn’t care that much if Iran gets the bomb, or that he is liquidating the American leadership role in the Middle East. No, no—he is just trying to make government work, giving diplomacy a chance and pivoting to Asia, respectively.
It’s a shame more people didn’t catch on the the con last year.
He will never admit his deep bias toward the growth of the federal government for its own sake
Libertarians and small-government conservatives believe in shrinking the federal government for its own sake. The belief that liberals hold the opposite view is just projection. To liberals, government is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
“Libertarians and small-government conservatives believe in shrinking the federal government for its own sake. ” (Not really–it’s more for the sake of individual liberty, a concept you may not be familiar with.) “The belief that liberals hold the opposite view is just projection.” I’m going way out on a limb here, but I’m guessing this projection based on the fact that “liberals” wage a never-ending campaign to keep expanding the power of the State. That would probably be classified more accurately, not as “projection,” but “observation,” i.e., observing the nature of the beast. “To liberals, government is a means to an end, not an end in itself.” A means that they seem in love with and addicted to, since they are endlessly caressing it and lying down for it. I think we can guess what that end is that they seek.
Welcome again to Baghdad Jim’s World o’ Fantasy and Denial.
Let’s see if ol’ Baghdad Jim can name a significant cut in government he wouldn’t be opposed to (other than the military.)
Clearly, you do not know the value of liberty.
“To liberals, government is a means to an end, not an end in itself.”
In fact, not only do you not know the value of liberty, you also do not know the reason why liberty is valued higher than governmental power. You are completely free of any knowledge of history and why large amounts of power in the hands of Big Government has ALWAYS been a bad thing and needs to be sharply limited. You are unaware of human nature and how humans naturally react to obtaining power.
Also, you are unaware of tremendous heights free people can take themselves, their neighbors, and their nation if left truly free.
You are unaware (even though you have piles and piles and piles of steaming evidence before your eyes) of how government is almost always NOT the best or even capable of effecting the end you wish to see. And in the very few cases where government is the best means to the end (say, winning a war) it is usually the case that the lowest level of government that can do the job is best.
You are unaware of the opportunity for graft and corruption when government bureaucrats are given power to write laws that everyone has to follow, and other people’s money to spend.
About the ONLY thing you are aware of is the fact that you are totally unable to persuade a majority to vote for your hairbrained and imbecilic schemes and so you use the only tool you have left:
FORCE.
And you love to force people to do what you want them to do; behave how you want them to behave. Laws and regulations are force and you love force. You are the antithesis of liberty. It is doltish lovers of force and big government and massive centralized power that have brought ruination upon millions and millions of people throughout all recorded history and you are blissfully unaware of it.
Echoing the ‘Force’ line:
We’ve moved past a Nanny-state, where putatively well-intentioned people advise the populace: “You shouldn’t drink that much soda!” We’ve moved -to- a neo-paternalistic state, where force is applied: “It is -illegal- to sell a large soda!”, and “It is -illegal- to self-insure.”
Can’t imagine the label “neo-paternalist” going down well. Tough.
“And you [Baghdad Jim and other State-humpers] and love to force people to do what you want them to do . . . ”
As the satirical bumper-sticker has it: “Liberalism: ideas so good they have to mandatory.”*
*”And what’s wrong with that?”–Baghdad Jim.
“SOMALIA! BOOSHH!”–dn guy
” To liberals, government is a means to an end, not an end in itself.”
Ya, that is the scary part. We have watched the subversion of our countries institutions by people taking advantage of the freedoms this country offers only to destroy it. And because Obama can’t be honest about his true intentions, according to his own words this is true, we get an endless stream of lies, distortions, misinformation, and doublespeak.
Obama is an untrustworthy negotiator. He will lie about what he wants, lie about the other side’s positions, lie about the outcome and then when there is an agreement will totally disregard what it says.
““Maybe I should just come out and say what I really feel about this,” he said. “Maybe I should just go out and say what I think about everything.””
That would be nice.
To liberals, government is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Ends justify the means, eh? Government is the ultimate short cut. There’s no need to discuss things, experiment, or plan. Just make everyone do the Right Thing. And when things don’t work out as you expect, you just make everyone do a different Right Thing. Meanwhile everything gets more and more broken.
As I see it, you are the problem you are trying to fix.
Libertarians and small-government conservatives believe in shrinking the federal government for its own sake.
Bullshit.
We believe in right-sizing it to what the Founders intended.
Appropos of which:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/masking-totalitarianism/
I can see the Eloi who post here regularly reading Williams last paragraph . . .
“The idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another has served as the foundation of mankind’s ugliest and most brutal regimes. Do we want that for America?”
. . . and responding with a resounding chorus of “We sure do!”
It’s like talking to a pet rock, but I’ll try again.
No, the idea isn’t “Smaller for its own sake.”
Businesses have a large slice of the same problems when they reach “bigger”, perhaps they’re recognizable from the sections on how evil businesses are:
1) Monopolies.
2) Company Towns.
3) Price fixing.
4) Union busting.
Except governments have the added powers of force, incarceration, and both extra hurdles for even generalized lawsuits -and- near-perfect individual immunity from suit.
Add those to a company town, and try to imagine that -improving- anything.
Rotated to government, it is recognizing that there’s a fundamental difference between “just” mandating “No more than 0.001% of a vehicle’s exhaust can be carbon monoxide” and “Thou shalt have a catalytic converter.”
One is a simple rule.
The other -demands- further involvement. An Agency to determine “is this a catalytic converter”? And there’s the opportunity lost because now you’re locked into just one method of eliminating the pollution. And can’t even really experiment with others because of the cost hurdles involved.
But when you have a big bureaucracy setting the rules, it leads to nearly -always- choosing the turf-building option – at least eventually. This is true for businesses also. Because the people involved who are making the rules aren’t ego-less. They like helping people that feel like “their tribe”. And they’re also always presented with “Doing it via method A has an incalculable effect on jobs, while doing in via method B will create 200 jobs right here, and also do incalculable things out in the marketplace.” So the turf-building option is always on the menu.
Even the simplest “Hey, it isn’t a -Federal- problem, go deal with it state-by-state” splits the problem into 50 pieces, all of which will solve it somewhat differently.
“It’s like talking to a pet rock, but I’ll try again.”
Actually, Al, I have a pet rock–and even IT values its liberty more than Baghdad Jim!
The concept of positive and negative rights is not fundamental or true. If I have the right to speak and you have the right not to listen, you might be able to turn the channel, but what if you can’t for some reason?
It’s much better to just realize that it’s about the ability to restrict other person’s liberty. It’s about tyranny.
The purpose of good government is to secure our rights. To prevent tyranny. But that’s a contradiction.
The number one way government secures our rights is by not allowing other governments to harm us, not just by war but any other imposition.
But once you have government, you have members of government trying to fix things. How? By restricting individuals liberty which is by definition tyranny.
I wish there were a name for no government. Anarchy isn’t it. Anarchy means lawlessness and you can have no government and still have laws. Contract law for example, but once you add enforcement you’re back to having government. Honorable people don’t need to be forced to do that to which they’ve agreed.
It is possible for a group to get together and agree to strong property rights. No amount of force would be allowed to take property away. This would be a form of government but it would certainly fit the definition of ‘for the purpose of securing individual rights.’
It’s never been tried and can’t be on this earth.
I think there may be some sort of Laffer curve for incompetence versus malice. At some point all government institutions will fall into that sweet spot which maximizes both.
Obama thinks a Laffer curve is something about doing donuts in a clown car with the rest of the choom gang.