David Brooks' latest love letter to Obama was filled with such sloppy wet kisses that at least two commentators think he's trying to apply for an administration gig.  So if you see the position of "Czar of Servile Flattery" open up, you'll know who's got the inside track.

Brooks' main thrust is that Obama isn't the pinko that the righties think he is, nor is he the sell-out that the hard Left thinks he is.  The Gospel according to David says that Obama's a left-center President.  Of course, Brooks is wrong.  Obama has always been a Leftist.  He grew up a Leftist, he campaigned mostly as a Leftist, and he's doing his damnedest to govern as Left as he possibly can.

Before the election, I argued that Obama was a neo-Fabian socialist.  Fabian socialism is defined at least in part by its tactics of incrementalism, attrition, and misdirection.  Using the working thesis that Obama is an incrementalist (a "progressive" even), the lack of complete sovietization of our economy shouldn't count against me. Nothing that has occurred during Obama's time in office has dissuaded me from this assessment. 

He grew up a red diaper baby. Obama has so many communist buddies in his background that the Jawas asked rhetorically (?), "Does Barack Obama have any friends who AREN'T communists?". The red background includes Mom, Dad, Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Phleger, Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Alice Palmer, Michael Klonsky, as well has his connections to ACORN, the New Party (whose endorsement he sought), and the Democratic Socialists of America. There are first person accounts of the collegiate Barack Obama acting like the vanguard of the frickin' proletariat.

But of course, that's the distant past. How did he campaign?

Not as a moderate, I'd argue. He campaigned on direct wealth redistribution through a negative income tax, increasing taxes for "fairness" purposes even if it would decrease tax revenue, the Global Poverty Act which would commit the US to an international wealth redistribution scheme to the tune of about a trillion dollars over ten years, support of the dirigiste auto company bailouts, punitive taxes on oil companies coupled with cash redistribution, EFCA/"Card Check", and on the banning of "scab" employees during union strikes. And of course, he was the anti-war candidate.

(Semi-random palate cleanser - The Iron Lady dissing the socialists.)

Ok, so he argued against an individual mandate on health insurance in the primary with Hilary. That went out the window pretty quickly, and it's now the centerpiece of his plan. Which brings us to how he's governing...

Well, we could start with the political purge from the bureaucracy. Or the war against democracy in Honduras. Or maybe the alleged "scrubbing" of military assessments. And then there's Van Jones and the various Maoists.

But maybe I should stick to his big projects -- the stimulus and healthcare.

The stimulus was a massive giveaway to all the lefty spending priorities. To the extent that it provided funds to states, it did so by locking the states into higher future spending... permanently increasing the overall size of government on purpose and for its own sake.

As to healthcare, some would argue that Obama's sold out on Lefty principles. I disagree. Firstly, this bill he's pushing now is designed to be just centrist enough to pass... which it still may not. A Fabian gets what he can get, always moving the line of scrimmage down the field. Secondly, it's no secret that the original Obamacare "public option" plan was designed, yes designed, to degrade more or less gracefully into a single-payer system. If you doubt this, you've been living on the moon, and I have some ocean-front property in Nevada I'd like to sell you. That he's given up single payer for the time being is merely a partial nod to electoral reality, not a genuinely centrist development.

Brooks refers to Obama's "tenacity unmatched in modern political history" in pushing the healthcare plan. After the Massachusetts Miracle, I think a description including the words "deep, stubborn, ideological denial" might be in order. Obama said he'd pivot to "jobs", but he just can't quit healthcare. He's irrationally obsessed with it, and he has told blatant lie after lie in its service, even as it threatens to destroy his Presidency. (How's that for pragmatic?)

Brooks mentions Obama's plan to remove failing teachers. -- Wow, how not-socialist of him. Oh wait, no. Even the Soviets needed competent educators. The unceremonious sinking of the DC Voucher program is more in line with his philosophy.

Brooks points to foreign policy, and Obama's newfound testicular fortitude on Afghanistan. While this surely irritates the anti-war Lefties, there's nothing inherently un-Leftist about using America's "big stick". ÃœberProgressives Wilson and FDR were both wartime Presidents. Progressives became enamored of applying the military model to civilian society, and salivated at the thought of "mobilizing" Americans in the same way her soldiers were.

Brooks also examines the realm of finance, where Obama seems to have let down the bank-nationalization crowd. Again, my answer is incrementalism. Incrementalism is not the same as centrism. He's getting to it, don't you worry. Recall, the criterion for allowing banks to repay TARP was "the national economic interest".

For all that I've written here, Mr. Brooks would surely accuse me of living in a "cocoon". I say Brooks has his head in the sand.

Would Obamacare cover the surgery to remove your lips from the President's posterior, Mr. Brooks?

Posted by: JoeCollins at 03:55 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 914 words, total size 8 kb.