The Great Dictator (Obama And The Left's Resentment Of His Not Being Dictatorial Enough Alert)

For all his faults, and he certainly had many of them, Bill Clinton understood people. His politics were dirty, but they were a common sort of dirt. For all his egotism, venality and corruption; Bill Clinton understood what Obama does not, that power comes from the people. It was this more than anything else that gave him his teflon coating, that let him dodge scandal after scandal. The media was mostly on his side, but unlike Obama, Clinton knew better than to rely on them too much. The media might help shape his image, but in the end it was the public that would pass judgment on it.

This was what allowed him to survive the downturn in his own party's fortunes, to keep cutting deal after deal long after his position seemed hopeless. When the polls turned on a policy, Clinton abandoned it. When the Republicans came out with a program, Clinton co-opted it. He had no shame, no morals and no principles. But despite his inflated self-image and grandiosity, he understood that he couldn't go it alone. That was why he never sacrificed popularity to politics.

By contrast Obama's first year has demonstrated all too well that he has no understanding of people. His quick rise to the top, his lack of real campaign experience, and the wild adulation that his backers cultivated for him insured that he wouldn't. Unlike Clinton's sense of invulnerability which came from poor judgment, Obama's sense of invulnerability comes from his failure to understand that every day there is a quiet public referendum in millions of American homes on his performance.

Like so many dictators, Obama has gone on leaning on his media crutch, certain that a constant stream of propaganda is all that's really needed to keep the public in line. And when it failed to work, his only response was bafflement. The product of a digital campaign, Obama and his people see the media as as the ultimate tool, failing to understand that it is only one of many channels to the voters. And while the media daze has made Obama seem omnipresent, it has also made him seem distant and out of touch.

But there is a reason that Obama is where he is, that a man and his staff who can only think in top down ways, who manipulate and scheme constantly, are where they are. The Democratic did not want another Clinton, they didn't want someone who would make compromises and cut deals. They wanted tyranny and they still want it.

The cry of the left against Obama is directed against his failure to go far enough. Why haven't US troops already withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan? Why wasn't Gitmo closed instantly? Why wasn't the public option passed? That these things weren't feasible is something they don't want to hear. Feasible is for democracies. The man they elected was just supposed to do everything they wanted, no matter what.

And so newspaper editorials demand that a public option. They demand cap and trade. They demand tyranny. The madness of the same people who denounced Bush as a tyrant clamoring for Obama to do whatever is necessary to push through measures that the public opposes and that would never get through the Senate is the sheerest hypocrisy. But their arrogance doesn't stop there. Andrew Sullivan wants Obama to bring peace to Israel by invading it. The New York Times wants Obama to bring on universal health care by taxing everyone to pay for it. There is no room for a middle ground. No room for humility or democracy. Just get it done, is the new motto.

And in retrospect, Obama was the perfect icon for the liberal will to power. The vague reality distorting haze surrounding him, the sense of the unreal pervading his public appearances. Liberals did not want an LBJ, who would get things done through horse trading and back room dealing. They wanted a resurrected JFK, a mythical figure to settle everything through diktat, not democracy.

Obama's unnaturalness, his two faced Janus routine, a fixed grin on one side of his head and a cool contemptuous facade on the other, and his great vagueness, made him the great dictator that liberals wanted so badly to overturn eight years of Bush. And for all that they had accused the Republicans of being irresponsible, arrogant and corrupt-- they couldn't wait to be irresponsible, arrogant and corrupt on a truly epic scale.

The unrealness of Barack, his soaringly empty rhetoric and carefully calculated symbolism, cloaked their ambition and lust for power in borrowed grandiosity. But underneath it was the same old politics of Clinton's day, but completely unrestrained by political realities. Their health care project was not the work of a party that understood people anymore. It was the work of a party that blindly invited a wide backlash, without understanding how or why. And it was the doing of a leader who almost singlehandedly helped revive Republican populism by his very presence.

And now the left is disappointed because Obama hasn't been quite the Great Dictator they imagined. Because as detached as he may be, he still needs to cut deals and adhere to some notion of political reality. Obama may not understand people. He may be arrogant beyond measure and contemptuous of democracy-- but even he has a firmer grasp on reality than many of his high profile supporters. Who want what amounts to a tyranny, right now... and throw childish tantrums when told that they have to wait a little longer.

For anyone who thought that the left had shown itself at its most deranged during 8 years of Bush, are now being treated to the dementia of a left in power, denied absolute power.

They wanted a resurrected JFK, a mythical figure to settle everything through diktat, not democracy.

JFK -

Largest tax cuts in American history
Pro-gun (NRA Life Member)
Proud anticommunist and not afraid to use troops for America’s national interest
Anti-abortion (we can assume by being a ardent Roman Catholic)

Bona fide war hero - personally brave and deeply patriotic

Assassinated by a devout Marxist leftist named Lee Harvey Oswald

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

“To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required”

“Lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.”

“Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.”

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

—JFK would be shunned by the left today...

It concerns me a great deal to see Obama in the White House, the Democrats the majority in the Senate and the House.

Frankly it would concern me more to have a man like John McCain in the White House, no matter who controlled Congress.

I know a lot of people look at our current situation and think it couldn't be worse. I believe it could be.

If John McCain had been elected President he would have no opposition whatsoever. Much of his agenda would be a "reach across the isle" effort. In this environment that would have resulted in very little opposition from either party.

Folks will try to comfort themselves that at least McCain wouldn't have pushed nationalized health care. And no he probably wouldn't have this exact bill, but there's no assurance whatsoever McCain wouldn't have reached across the isle to devise a better nationalized heath care, "a reasoned version". I've heard a number of Republicans lament the fact that they haven't been able to contribute to devising a better version of the hearth care plan. That would be a plan more like Romneycare. We're just kidding ourselves if we think McCain wouldn't have signed on to something like this.

Remember the excuses for the medicinal enhancement to Medicare? The Republicans supported that effort saying, "If we didn't do it, the Democrat's version would have been much worse." That's exactly the excuse that would have been used to justify the Republican's health care plan.

On F.R. we've already discused the foot in the door aspects of any heath care bill. Once any legislation is passed, it will be enhanced over time to be exactly what the Democrats always wanted.

So how many Republicans would have voted against a so-called "reasoned bill"? With McCain pushing it maybe fifty in the house and ten in the Senate. And that would have been the model on issue after issue with McCain in charge.

McCain has at one time or another supported the LOST Treaty. He has also supported the U.S. signing on to the International Criminal Court. The implication of the Lost Treaty is that the U.N. would gain an income stream. It could also gain a sign off on U.S. Naval operations.

Once again, this would be another foot in the door aspect issue. Starting out somewhat benign, it would certainly become more devastating over time. Issue after issue after issue we would see our nation sold out in a bipartisan manner.

The same guy that advocated the closing of Gitmo because it gave the U.S. a black eye, might just decide our efforts in Afghanistan were doing the some thing. I submit McCain couldn't even be trusted on defense issues. He praised Obama's cuts of defense programs earlier there year.

Right now things look bleak. We can't block 60 votes in the Senate. And that is indeed terrible. The one saving grace we have though, is a unified opposition. At least the public is hearing an objection to this. Obama is taking a beating in the polls because of that opposition. And this November, the ranks of Republicans will grow in the Senate and the House. And despite what the RNC's Steele thinks, we may even take back the Senate and House.

Would the public hear any opposition to leftist McCain legislation? Sadly, no.

If John McCain were president, what would we be facing in November? Folks, there would be a very good chance we would lose even more seats in the Senate and the House. Not only would we be passing bad legislation, we would be helping the opposition entrench to the point it might be decades before we could gain power again, Congress and White House.

Under this type of situation Conservatism would be all but non-existent. Right now we're poised to grow our movement considerably. I'm not convinced the Tea Party effort would have been launched or so successful with many of our people supporting McCain if he were president because he would have an (R) after his name.

At the very least, I can safely say a McCain presidency would be very very problematic, and the ramifications not something we'd like to face.

This year is crucial. This is the most important mid-term election in our history. And once John Mc Cain was nominated in 2008, we were screwed. This was going to be a time of trouble no matter what. We just as well admit it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.