Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

Sunday, July 26, 2009

The Obama Presidency and Liberalism

I think it's fair to say that the Obama presidency could be viewed as a controlled experiment on the worthiness of liberalism. With a very liberal president and overwhelming Democratic majorities, America is going to get a heavy dose of liberalism until at least 2010. (unless that is the President has a moderate epiphany as I suggested) Yet, if the president continues on his current path, he will also lead an imprint for history to judge liberalism in America.

So far, that judgment is incomplete but it's also near an incomplete failure. We first started with the stimulus. On the economy, the president famously said, "only government has the resources to jolt our economy back into life". He went on to say, "Tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems" and so totally rejecting the conservative fiscal solution to an economic recession. Nothing could be more liberal than seeing the government as the driver of economic growth. So, he passed his $787 billion stimulus. Its results so far have been well documented. Our unemployment rate is inching toward ten percent. Our deficit is nearing two trillion dollars and we've only spent one tenth of it. Meanwhile, the president took over several banks, two auto companies, and an insurance company. One way or another, the outcome of all this government intervention will also be a historical judgment on liberalism as well.

In fact, though, the greatest judgment against liberalism so far has been the president's total inability to move his agenda going forward. In fact, despite overwhelming popularity, he barely got the stimulus through. Since then, he's been totally impotent. Things don't look to get any better. Cap and trade barely passed the House and the Senate has no plans to take it up anytime soon. Health care reform is in even worse shape. What sort of a judgment on liberalism is it if the liberal party has veto proof majorities in both chambers and still can't pass a liberal agenda? One might ask if liberalism can't pass now when will it pass.

Even lesser known policies like his $75 billion loan modification plan have been colossal failures. It's important to point out again that this judgment is still incomplete. The economy could have a stunning turnaround and by this time next year our unemployment might be in the 6's. GM and Chrysler might both be profitable by 2012 and the government will have sold its shares by then. In light of all of this, the president will then be able to pass sweeping health care, energy, and education reform. In 2012, we'll be a liberal nation and history's judgment on liberalism in America will be a glowing success. It's still early and so the judgment is incomplete.

There will also be those liberals that will claim that the Bush presidency was a failing referendum on conservatism. That is a popular and totally inaccurate argument. There are some liberals that claim the tax cuts caused the recession we are in now. That's just ludicrous. The tax cuts were enacted in 2001-2003. The recession didn't occur for five years. The two have nothing to do with each other. Others proclaim that deregulation caused the meltdown. Of course, it wasn't a lack of regulation but a lack of enforcement that lead to the crisis. It isn't a conservative policy to look the other way on mass fraud, but a bad policy. In fact, most of Bush's biggest problems came from embracing liberal ideas, big budget deficits, bloated government programs and bailouts. In fact, history's judgment on conservatism should already be written with the wildly successful Reagan presidency. Yet, those with an agenda attempt to cloud the issue. Our economy came out of a recession because government shrank, regulations were slashed, and taxes were cut. Yet, some cloud the issue and leave that debate open still.

Make no mistake, by November 2010, and certainly November 2012, history will be ready to judge liberalism as well. While its currently incomplete, the judgment so far is a total failure.


Anonymous said...

If you think Obama is a liberal, you don't know what the word means.

mike volpe said...

Enlighten me, how am I wrong? What does the word mean and who was and is a liberal if not Obama?

Anonymous said...

He voted lockstep with Bush's policies and McCain during the POTUS run.

It is but one party with two perceived differences, but in actuality, it is the detriment to our country.

They do and act the same... both "liberal" and "conservative", "right" vs "left" Dem vs Repub; and only the ignorant feed from it and agree.

This isn't rocket science, yet too many are too gullible and/or brainwashed to know the difference. Much to my chagrin and the consternation of the Founding Fathers.

mike volpe said...

Bush wasn't actually acting like much of a conservative in the last six months. Obama certainly didn't vote in lock step the whole campaign. They did in the last couple months but that's because Bush turned into a liberal in the last few months.

Anonymous said...


Come now. Bush was never conservative, except in the "shiny little object that gathers your attention" realm. Abortion (even tho he wasn't die hard) is one of those wedge issues they use to divide us, but that is meaningless.

Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. This is no secret. He lied to get us into wars to propagate the war profiteers and the PNAC agenda.

Mike, what I am saying is that they have their kabuki dance that many Americans fall for. But by and large it is bogus.

There is but one really socially liberal in the all of congress: Dennis Kucinich (and Bernie Sanders). There is but one truly fiscally conservative in the all of congress and that is Paul.

Most every other dance the dance. Look at their votes, especially the leaders. Every so-called "liberal" leader voted lock-step on the most prescient issues. Every Republican leader voted lock step with war funding, eliminating rights left and right.

All of this is obvious.

Follow the money and the votes.

I view myself as fiscally conservative, but look how Bush spent the money. Sure, he cut back the taxes on the wealthy and look what that got us. But he spent money on ginned up and bogus wars.

I am Socially liberal, in that I believe that each and every American should be taken care of as our own. Especially medically.

They all bow to the Corptocracy, verging on Fascism. Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. All the same, with just enough of the kabuki dance differences to keep Americans divided and fighting (thanks to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Olberman and the like). They all play for their masters and we are too stupid to make them stop.

Obama spends money in the same fashion and look at his rhetoric regarding abortion and gay rights, etc. Telecom immunity. Patriot Act.

These are NOT liberal views, but just the portrayal of the dance.

Please stop watching the magician's right hand, because it is the left hand that holds the secret. Americans are fixated on the sleight of hand.

Patriots will know the difference and speak to it.

Read my blog some and you will realize I cut NONE of them any slack because they are all full of malarkey.

Again, Opensecrets can show you so very much. Follow the money.

Thanks for your time...


mike volpe said...

Now it all makes sense. You're a Paulian. That's why you are so conspiratoria.

That doesn't mean that Obama is NOT a liberal. Obama is still a iberal and frankly you proved it, you just seem to think that the rest of the government is also liberal. That's true to some extent though not entirely. Of course, I wasn't talk about the rest of government. I was only talking about Obama.

Anonymous said...


I am not "Paulian", whatever you think that is. Do you deny that he is conservative? The MOST conservative in all the congress?

Look at the votes and where they get their money.

Let me explain something that you can't seem to grasp, spending money on bogus wars does not make one "liberal", it makes one a criminal.

War profiteering is that. A crime, and all of the past presidents, since Kennedy are guilty.

Allowing the Federal reserve to rule this country is not "liberal" or "conservative", it is criminal.

Just as I said, you don't know what the word means, except in the mind of Limbaugh.

I can enlighten you, but you may be too far gone.

That isn't surprising, for it is rampant on both "sides" that fall for their show.

Enjoy the show Mike, but as for this real Patriot, I'm working to to fix things. I need your help, but not if you can't shuck the brainwashing.

Take care,


PS: If you will not delete these posts, I would love to link back to forward the discussion and to show that it is possible to have a decent conversation with a person like you.

mike volpe said...

By Paulian, I mean you voted for and supported Ron Paul. I am guessing you did given how cynical you are toward everyone except Paul. Yeah, Paul is a conservative except when it comes to earmarks for his district and then he's very liberal. It's funny how that works. He's ideologically pure except when it comes to pork in his district and then he's one of the most liberal folks in the Congress.

It's easy to be ideologically pure when you're a back bencher legislator your entire career and never lead to get a law passed. When you're actually passing laws, you have to legislate and then it's much more difficult. That's the main difference between McCain and Paul. McCain actually got things done while in the Senate while Paul criticized everyone else and got nothing done. He is ideologically pure though. That's why not a single law has his name on it.

As for war profiteering and the fed, I know the conspiracy theories. Libertarians are full of them and it's corrosive to the philosophy.

Anonymous said...


I have never voted for Paul. Ever.

Nor is it likely that I would, unless he ran as VP under Kucinich.

Now, where's the pork?

But I will say that you showed your cards with your McCain diatribe. Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black.

As if McCain wouldn't take pork...

laughable, especially considering the latest money going to Arizona from the government. All hat and no cattle, as they say.

I see so little difference between McCain and Obama as to only describe a shade of color.

Please, Mike, listen to what I say (write). Stop hearing me thru your Rush hearing aide or your hannity eyewear. I am NOT speaking thru an Olbermann microphone.

I will not defend Paul, if you stop glorifying McCain in that ignorant way.

Do you deny that war profiteering is occurring as we write this? Really? That, sir, would be the height of true ignorance. One doesn't have to be a Libertarian to understand that.

How many times do I have to tell you to FOLLOW THE MONEY?

It is likely that it is too late for you.

I am sorry, because us real Patriots need your help.

Damn. I hate it. I hate it for you, but I hate it more for America's sake.

It is your (and those like you and your "liberal" enemies')ignorance that is destroying this country. Not the man in the office.

They are playing you like a banjo, brother.

Twang. Twang.

I was wrong in my hopes for you. Now, take another sip of Fox News and go back to sleep.

mike volpe said...

I don't know about the money going to Arizona from the Prez though I am guessing that Texas is also getting plenty. What I do know is tha McCain has never asked for an earmark while Paul is one of the biggest porkers as far as earmarks that's what I meant.

By diatrobe, you must mean two sentences in support of McCain. As for war profiteering, I don't know what that means so I won't comment on it.

Ironically enough, I don't listen to Rush or to Hannity so I am not sure what you mean. You need to chill out and relax. You can't tell everyone that disagrees with you that they have no hope and are tools of some media or personality. That's just silly.

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

Forget “conservatism,” please. It has, operationally, de facto, been Godless and thus irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor,

Recovering Republican

Anonymous said...

Our country is falling because crooked Corporate Interests have taken over (which ois called Fascism). It doesn't carry a name like "conservatism" or "liberalism": it is what it is, Fascism.

Godless in a godless world.

But I have studied the Scriptures to know that Yeshua was the most liberal "liberal" I ever knew... the problem is that most people don't understand the term, like the author of this blog post.

That is today's "conservative", simply a contrarian using talking points that are misleading, bogus or irrelevant. The Party of No, as many of its twin ugly headed sister the Democratic Party would call them.

BTW: one doesn't have to be a Libertarian to be anti-Party establishment. They just have to be aware and with a thinking brain cell left.

mike volpe said...

I didn't say anything about conservatism in the post. If you think that Obama isn't a liberal, that is your business.

You have some sort of view of the world that frankly you aren't verbalizing well to anyone else. Obviously, you don't like the current political system. That's fine. You seem to be taking out your anger on this piece and I am not sure why or how you think this piece relates to that.

It doesn't bother me but it is very confusing.