Barack Obama: Liberal Governance Vs. Moderate Rhetoric

Stuart Taylor has an interesting piece in today's National Journal laying out the two possibilities of the Obama administration. On the one hand, he sees a far left governing nightmare in which every far left whim is granted by an Obama administration and the far left Congress lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

This Obama has endorsed a long list of liberal restrictions on free enterprise that could end up hurting the people they are supposed to help, along with the rest of us: statist remedies for our broken educational system; encouraging unionization by substituting peer pressure and an undemocratic card-check process for secret ballots; raising the wages of women or lowering those of men who have dissimilar jobs that are declared by bureaucrats to be of comparable worth; renegotiating NAFTA; and more.

I wonder how far Obama wants to go down the road suggested by his lament in that 2001 radio interview that the civil-rights movement had failed to engineer "redistribution of wealth" and "economic justice." Would he be content with the moderately redistributive, Clintonesque increase in taxes on high-earning Americans that he proposes now? Or would he end up pushing for confiscatory taxes that could stifle entrepreneurship and job creation?

Taylor goes into a long standing far left voting record including being voted by his own magazine, the National Journal, the most liberal Senator in the Senate in 2007. He lists a long line of radical associates like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, and William Ayers. He also points out a voting record in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate. Furthermore, he points out that he's never reached across the aisle on any issue of substance.



Stuart started his piece by pointing out the nightmare far left governing scenario as he saw it. He also made a strong case, at least to this partisan. I was curious how Taylor saw the potential of a bi partisan Obama. Here is what gives Taylor hope.

The pragmatic, consensus-building, inspirational Obama who has been on display during the general election campaign is a prodigious listener and learner. He can see all sides of every question. He seems suffused with good judgment. His social conscience has been tempered by recognition that well-intentioned liberal prescriptions can have perverse unintended consequences. His tax and health care proposals are much less radical than Republican critics suggest.

This Obama has surrounded himself not only with liberal advisers but also with mainstream moderates such as Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. He has won the support of moderate Republicans, including Colin Powell and Susan Eisenhower, and conservatives, including Kenneth Adelman and Charles Fried.

Now, bi partisan rhetoric and some bi partisan adivsors is not much of an argument, given that Senator Obama has had a long history of associations with far left radicals, a lifetime of a far left voting record, and absolutely no history of bi partisanship. It's very easy to make bi partisan rhetoric. It is only slightly more difficult to put a few non liberals on your advisory staff. There is one dynamic that Taylor didn't address that will affect his governance.

Obama will govern with both Houses of the Congress. As such each and every proposal he wants will pass. As such, you can bet we will have redistribution of wealth because that's what he has been campaigning on the whole campaign. You can bet we will have a quasi socialist health care system because that's what he has been campaigning on. You can bet we will have a new "windfall profits tax" because that's what he has been campaigning on. You can bet we will see a plethora of new spending programs, new corporate tax cuts, and a dovish foreign policy because that's what he has been campaigning on. We WILL have another stimulus package costing over $100,000,000,000 because that's what he has been campaigning on. You can bet that we will leave Iraq on a timeline and attempt to meet with vicious dictators ASAP because that's what he has governed on. You can bet we will have a plethora of new business regulations because that's what he has been campaigning on. We will have a plethora of new far left judges because that's what he has campaigned on.

The only questions remain are whether or not the far left will take full control. The question remains whether or not the Fairness Doctrine will be re instituted. The question remains whether or not we will remove secret ballots for union voting and force unions upon WalMart. The question remains whether or not laws like ENDA will be implemented. The only place where Senator Obama is in line with conservatives is on some education issues. It remains to be seen whether or not there will be merit pay and more funding for Charter Schools. It also remains just how much pork there will be in the budgets for the first two years.

Even if Senator Obama had a Free Trade epiphany, the liberal Congress would never allow any new free trad pacts. The only question is whether or not he follows through with his primary rhetoric of re negotiating old ones, or he is the more moderate of the general election. The question is not whether or not terrorists will receive more rights but how many. We will seriously revisit don't ask don't tell for our military, and both the Congress and Senator Obama have made promises to cut military spending. None of this is a battle between moderate and liberal ideology. Rather it is a battle between liberal ideology and far left ideology.

The idea that Barack Obama will stand up to the far left on the Fairness Doctrine would be welcome to anyone that believes in free speech. That said a bloated budget, where health care is socialized, income is redistributed, Iraq is lost, and our enemies are met with, that also doesn't include a new Fairness Doctrin and ENDAbut does include new merit pay and more funding for charter schools, is not exactly governing as a moderate.

Civil Rights Vs. Gay Equality

Today, Michelle Obama said this about her husband's administration in relation to equality for gays and lesbians.

"Barack believes that we must fight for the world as it should be, a world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws," she said at a Manhattan fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council.

Michelle Obama also drew a connection between the struggles for gay rights and civil rights.

"We are all only here because of those who marched and bled and died, from Selma to Stonewall, in the pursuit of a more perfect union," she said at the event, held days before the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots between gays and New York police, and the city's annual gay pride parade.

"The world as it is should be one that rejects discrimination of all kinds," she said.

Now, since I was born in the Soviet Union and I was abused for it all growing up in America, racism and bigotry are two things that really get under my skin. Still, comparing and equating the civil rights movement with equality for gays and lesbians is a dicey proposition that opens up all sorts of Pandora's boxes.

First, unlike women, African Americans and other minorities, homosexuality is a behavior. If that is protected, then I want protection for being loud, since I have that tendency. When someone says they want behavior to have equal protection, I ask under what circumstances.

The bottom line is that the homosexual lifestyle is inherently unequal. Children cannot be created through homosexual relationships, and this makes them inherently unequal. Generally, when someone says homosexuality equality they mean on marriage. Of course, you can't have equality on two lifestyles that are inherently unequal. Furthermore, if the gay lifestyle is treated equally, then it can also naturally lead to having it given equal treatment in education. It is this sort of political correctness that has spawned an explosion of schools that insist on teaching their students about the gay lifestyle equally.

Equality could also be applied to the workplace, lodging and in school. Laws like ENDA attempt to create such equality.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), is a proposed U.S. federal law that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation

...

While the first bill on the subject of sexual orientation discrimination was introduced in Congress in 1974, the first bill using the current title of "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" was introduced in 1996, failing in the Senate by a 49-50 vote.[1]
The most recent version of the bill, introduced by Representative Frank, no longer includes language regarding protections for transgender people and has been protested by many LGBT rights organizations in the United States, with the exception of the Human Rights Campaign.[2]

Laws like ENDA are, in my opinion, well meaning and compassionate but also misguided. The reality is that sexuality is a private matter. It has no place in the workplace or any other public forum. It is no less appropriate for a heterosexual to flaunt their sexuality than it is for a homosexual to do it. A homosexual only needs protection if they are flaunting their sexuality inappropriately. Thus, protection to homosexuals in the workplace creates protections for publicizing a private act.

On many levels there are parallels between the bigotry that many minorities went through and the bigotry that homosexuals continue to go through. While I am sympathetic to their plight, I don't believe the answer is to legislate equality. Once behavior and especially sexuality is all given equal treatment, then we are ignoring the inherent inequality in the behavior. Furthermore, it opens up a Pandora's box to protect all sorts of behavior.

I think it is a noble goal to have a society where everyone is treated equally, no matter their sexual orientation, however when a politician makes equality of sexuality a platform, I am concerned by what specifically that means.

E.N.D.A. To Move Through the Legislature?

A hat tip goes to Right March for bringing this story to my attention. The Employment Non Discrimination Act may find its way through the Congress soon. ENDA seeks to make gays, bisexuals, and transgenders a minority and treat their discrimination in the work place in the same manner that we currently treat age, sex, and skin color.Now, according to this gay publication here is what Nancy Pelosi promised their lobby.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Friday to fast-track a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act once there are enough votes to pass it.

Although a version of the bill that protects only sexual orientation will be marked up by committee and move to a floor vote next week, the San Francisco Democrat has promised to hold a floor vote on a fully inclusive ENDA without delay as soon as the political support is there.

According to Right March, the bill is making its way through House Education and Labor Comittees. The problems with such a bill are plentiful. For instance, while it protects religious organizations, it does not protect groups like the Boy Scouts. If this bill passes the Scouts may very well be force to hire openly gay scouts or face sanctions. It also violates people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Finally, and most importantly, homosexuality is a behavior which is totally different from someone else's skin color, age, or sex.

Let's put aside the wisdom or lack thereof of this bill. I think most people that read this page will agree with me on my position.

Instead, I want to focus on two things related to this bill. First there is the political tone deafness and utter lack of competence that the Democratic leadership continues to show. This bill is another in a long line of bills that has either been handled poorly or is simply a total political loser for them. Whatever your beliefs on this particular bill, most Americans will reject it. In fact, short of SCHIP, I can't remember the last thing the Democrats did that works for them politically.

Let's look at some examples. The Democrats tried to pass a NON BINDING resolution that condemned an act from almost one hundred years ago. As a result, our ally, the Turks, took great offense and threatened all sorts of diplomatic retaliation. Fortunately, critical mass was reached when this story saw the light of day and the bill was withdrawn. Also, A high school student wanted to include the word God in a message to his grandfather that accompanied a flag that he wanted flown over the Capitol. Initially, Nancy Pelosi resisted allowing the word God accompany the flag, however once again critical mass was reached. Finally, the leadership backed down and they let the word God stay in the message that accompanied the flag.

In August, the Senate tried to play chicken with the President on the terrorist surveillance program (known as warrantless wiretaps to most of you). Again, the leadership backed down at the last minute and extended the program for six more months. Just this past week, a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities, something that is popular overwhelmingly with Americans, was voted down 52-42 in the Senate. All but one Democrat voted against it. Even on Iraq, the Democrats have been totally politically tone deaf and incompetent.

Which brings me back to the ENDA bill. This is another in a long line of political disasters for the Democrats. Once critical mass reaches on this bill, they will be forced to back down the way they have on everything else.

This brings me to my second point. It is now nothing less than shocking just how much the Democrat's agenda mirrors that of George Soros. This ENDA bill is right down his gay friendly secular progressive agenda, and it follows a long line of bills and maneuvers that are very friendly to his agenda.

Several months ago, The Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. All the Democratic candidates came out against this ruling and some even swore to impose a litmus test of only pro abortion Supreme Court Justices.

At their last debate, the Democratic candidates agreed that teaching second graders a story about a gay couple was perfectly acceptable. Half the candidates refused to even acknowledge that the war on terror is really a war. Here is what Soros said vis a vis the GWOT.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

In fact, this statement is eerily similar to one made by John Edwards who called the war on terror...

"bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political opponents."

The two leading Presidential said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

The two leading Presidential candidates said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

In fact, when Senator Clinton voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards( responsible for among other things hijacking British sailors in international water) a terrorist organization, the rest of the Democratic Presidential contender pounced on her.

Even on the economy, the Democrats are marching in lock step with Soros. We are all well aware of the plethora of big government, quasi socialist, government giveaways. Including the granddaddy of them all, universal health care. How does this jive with Soros' view of the world? He believes in a "mixed economy". That is defined as such.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates the characteristics of several different economic systems. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics.

Of course, it should be pointed out which part of the mixed economy he fears.

Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Thus, anything that takes the decisions away from the market and puts it into the government's hands is something that Soros approves of.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in unison with Soros open borders policy, the Democrats just this week killed a bill that would have outlawed so called sanctuary cities. Now, we have the Democrats, through ENDA, pandering to another of Soros' favorite groups, the homosexuals. The overlapping agendas of the Democrats and George Soros can be found just about anywhere you look.