A liberal relative of mine recently told me I ought to read Machiavelli's The Prince, explaining that the parallels to today are scary. I asked him if it would be describing Obama. His face registered an expression of shock, shock that I could suggest such a thing. But he quickly recovered and said no, no of course not, The Prince is really cut throat. As if to say, that Obama is not.
So this morning in a very roundabout way, I found my way to this essay by Jim Geraghty that raised a very similar parallel. Mr. Geraghty wrote his essay about a month ago, and the parallel was not between Obama and The Prince, but Obama to Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.
'After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president — an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. Gays wonder why Obama won’t take a stand on gay marriage when state legislatures will. Union bosses wonder what happened to the man who sounded more protectionist than Hillary Clinton in the primary. Some liberals have been stunned by the serial about-faces on extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, military-tribunal trials, the state-secrets doctrine, and other policies they associate with the Bush administration. Former supporters of Obama, including David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, and Warren Buffett, have expressed varying degrees of criticism of his early moves, surprised that he is more hostile to the free market than they had thought.
Obama’s defenders would no doubt insist this is a reflection of his pragmatism, his willingness to eschew ideology to focus on what solutions work best. This view assumes that nominating Bill Richardson as commerce secretary, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit, approving the AIG bonuses, signing 9,000 earmarks into law, adopting Senator McCain’s idea of taxing health benefits, and giving U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs that don’t work in Britain constitute “what works best.” Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power.'
That last sentence pretty well captures Obama. He is pragmatic about getting and keeping power. It is the common thread to all of his policy pronouncements, and it explains the ease with which he glides from one "deeply held" position right over to the opposite side of it.
'During the campaign, Obama’s critics laughed and marveled at how quickly the candidate threw inconvenient friends, allies, and supporters under the bus once they became political liabilities. Over on the Campaign Spot, it’s been easy to compile a list of quickly forgotten promises. But it is unlikely that Obama would consider any of this a character flaw; instead, it is evidence of his adaptability and gift for seeing the big picture.
Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.'
In Obama the true face of liberalism begins to stand out, and it just may be that some Democrats who recognize what they see in it, will become disenchanted, put off, although I expect my liberal relative will not be among them.
Proceed leftward along the political spectrum and the further you go the more you find acceptance, and even approval, that liberalism is a con job. Those in the know, those in the in crowd, accept that the rubes have to be fooled into what's good for them. Liberal "truths" are just so much pap for the rubes.
'It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it — including invite Rick Warren to give the benediction at his inauguration, dine with conservative columnists, and dismiss an appointee at the White House Military Office to ensure the perception of accountability.
Alinsky’s influence goes well beyond Obama, obviously. There are many wonderful Democrats in this world, but evidence suggests that rising in that party’s political hierarchy requires some adoption of a variation of the Alinsky philosophy: Power comes first. Few Democrats are expressing outrage over Nancy Pelosi’s ever-shifting explanation of what she knew about waterboarding. Those who screamed bloody murder about Jack Abramoff’s crimes avert their eyes from John Murtha. The anti-war movement that opposed the surge in Iraq remains silent about sending additional troops to Afghanistan. Obama will never get as much grief for his gay-marriage views as Miss California.'
It's all about the power. No doubt there are lefties galore who believe fervently in Obama's power to do good, and their own as well. But what happens when Obama uses his power for something that is clearly not good.
The video below describes the kind of power we can expect President Obama to exercise. Gerald Walpin is the AmeriCorps Inspector General who was fired for investigating Kevin Johnson, a friend and supporter of Obama. Watch the whole thing.
So how long will the moderate Democrats make allowances for this kind of abuse of power? It's corruption pure and simple. Can they believe there is some greater good to be achieved by it? The liberal true believers can, and they can also be reliably blind to to the abuse, believing it unimaginable that they would ever be in disagreement with the One. But what about the moderates? How many are willing to jettison principles in order to avoid being the next Gerald Walpin? And when our Democratic congress has acquiesced, ceded power to this Democratic White House precedent will have been set, putting even the true believers at risk. It means they must never relinquish power.
Comments