[...]neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Tyranny and Obama: success or failure[...]…

Obama has said, proclaimed actually, so many things. Start a “Civilian National Security Force,” abolish nuclear weapons, end racism, begin socialized medicine, stop the seas from rising, and so forth.

It’s hard to know where to take Obama seriously.

Untrammeled, he would no doubt be a menace in who knows how many ways.

However, there is notable lack of follow-through on almost everything. Whatever Obama’s dreams may be, he and his administration siimply do not execute well.

ACORN may escape the final, thorough cut-off they deserve. But they are being watched and they will never get away with what they did before. Likewise SEIU.

So, when the continuing resolution expires in a couple of days, the ACORN funding cutoffs expire with it.

Gee, it sure would have been nice if at least one all those posturing Democrats who joined to pass the continuing resolution funding cutoff, had pointed out the minor technicality that their high profile cutoff was only going to last for a mater of days and then self-destruct,. But I guess such smoke and mirrors, such little games of lying by omission to fool citizens are all that you can expect these days from our “representatives” on Capital Hill.

What Obama may be able to achieve in a future, highly dangerous, first-ever situation–rife as the Civil War was with agonizing over and confusion as to “loyalties”–(is it the military’s duty to be loyal to only and just the Constitution, and how does it understand and demonstrate this loyalty, or does this loyalty also extend to the Presidency and to this particular President, as well, especially when the two loyalties conflict?)–is their paralysis, i.e. effective neutrality, or reluctant, sporadic, partial cooperation.

Fortunately, we have not had–so far–to be Turkey, Greece, or other countries where the military has periodically stepped in to protect these country’s types of democracy when, in their judgment, civilian governments threatened it. What, for instance, has been and is now taught at our military academies and in our military generally about the nature and extent of our military’s duty towards and fidelity to the Constitution? How would our military leaders evaluate—or would they even see a duty to evaluate as being part of their “job description”–Obama & Co’s actions, and render a judgment on whether they violated the Constitution in a way serious enough to require them to take actions to “protect and defend the Constitution,” or would their reaction be to say, “it’s above my pay grade,” just keep their mouths shut, say “yes sir” and “soldier on?”

That is why Obama’s pre-election call, in his speech in Colorado on “Service,” for the creation of an alternative, civilian power base, a massive, well funded “Civilian National Security Force,” was so extraordinary and ominous; a magnesium flare in the night (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=b7k&resnum=0&q=civilian+national+security+force&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=1TzjSpLvDtPS8QaOnej0AQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=8&ved=0CCQQqwQwBw#).

From where I stand, I view his attempts to strengthen his corrupt, very close allies, ACORN/SEIU, to give them a role in the activities of the government, and grow them with many billions of dollars in funding (it has been asserted that all of these various showy Democratic voted “cutoffs” of federal funds to ACORN apply only to this fiscal year, which expires at the end of this month, and, then, the spigot will be wide open again, unless legislation is passed all over again, cutting off funds for this new fiscal year, or language making these various cutoffs permanent becomes law), his emphasis on “volunteerism,”—you might note the 60 different shows on television this week that will feature a “public service” “volunteerism” theme–and legislation that has become law setting up a commission to explore ways to initiate “mandatory public service,” the recent federal takeover of all college loans, new government programs to forgive those loans in exchange for 10 years of “service” by the mostly young to the government, new public laws quadrupling the size of AMERICORPS and creating several new, massive, well-funded “public service organizations,” coupled with his plans to vastly expend the welfare class via delivery of the disguised federal welfare checks of “tax credits,” as multi-pronged, interlocking attempts to create a civilian voting and power base, particularly beholden to and loyal to Obama—seemingly innocuous now, but with the right indoctrination (you might take a look at Obama’s involvement with the community organizers who favor Alinsky type tactics at the shadowy “Gamaliel Foundation,” and at hints about its indoctrination programs)—potentially very dangerous down the road; the types of “mass” or “popular organizations” that have been so useful in the past to Hitler, Mao, the Communists in the Soviet Union and Vietnam, to Castro, and are so useful today to would be dictators like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, as an aid to gaining and keeping power and as a weapon to intimidate enemies; all this to bypass the need for cooperation by a conflicted or reluctant U.S. military to achieve Obama & Co.’s ends.

The history of the 20th Century paints a very clear picture of how liberal orders collapse into authoritarian ones. Contrary to popular belief, liberal orders do not gradually evolve into authoritarian ones by the accumulation of state power. Instead, liberal orders fail suddenly when they cease to provide basic physical and economic security. The functional power of the state decays until conditions reach a degree of disorder that triggers a sudden collapse into an authoritarian order. Ineffectiveness kills the liberal state, not excessive powers.

The major cases of Russia, Italy, Germany and Japan all follow this pattern. In each case, the liberal order lost the ability to provide the basic order and stability required for the economy to function, and simultaneously lost the ability to suppress the violent action of political extremists. A feedback loop arose in which the erosion of state effectiveness created disorder which empowered extremists who further sabotaged the state’s ability to function. The feedback loop rather rapidly increased the power of extremists and destroyed the liberal order.

I agree. The US is not going to become a tyranny by boiling the frog as some argue. And if Obama were to destroy the economy and the stability of the US such that the middle class sought an authoritarian solution, the country would no sooner turn to Obama than the Germans turned to the Weimar Republic after the hyperinflation. Obama would be a direct victim of that instability and some outsider like Hitler would be the beneficiary.

Neo: I didn’t ask for that. I wanted something beyond hand-waving that the current warning signs are to be read as a persuasive indications that Obama’s ultimate goal is to seize dictatorial power in the United States and that he is capable of doing so.

I and several other people here have described how Obama could act within the Constitution and still grab enormous power, including power for the state itself.

We discarded the possibility that Obama could change the Constitution, and, as I recall, none of the scenarios was persuasive for Obama obtaining tyrant status. Yes, Obama can obtain greater power for the state, but that’s not the same as tyranny.

As to the military — if Obama colors within the lines of the Constitution, I assume he will have the military’s support. My point was that if Obama were to declare himself President for Life out of the blue, the military would not support him and he would fail.

No, I was not expecting you to prove that point or any other. I would have settled for a plausible scenario, which you have not provided.

I don’t see Obama as incompetent at all. I see him as very competent;

Obama was competent within the limited sphere of Chicago machine-race politics and Democratic primary campaigning. He won the presidency under flukeishly favorable conditions, including a global financial meltdown and outspending his opponent almost 3:1.

Since Obama has become president he has displayed little competence. He has squandered his sky-high poll numbers into the worst honeymoon decline since Truman, betrayed his post-partisanship, post-racial campaign promises, and so far none of his initiatives have succeeded.

How is this competence? Is his current position what he was aiming for? Is this a guy who could really parlay the presidency into tyranny?

Obama may have meant to keep the other media in line by attacking Fox but (A) they were already in line and (B) his efforts inspired some of them, such as Helen Thomas, to step out of line. Again, more incompetence.

Of course I am mindreading when I evaluate Obama. So are you, so is everyone.

However, I am the only person here who readily admits he doesn’t know what Obama really wants, and that my opinions are only that.

You and others may occasionally qualify your statements, but most of the time you post as though those opinions were the truth, and proceed to even more speculative claims.

If your position is that you are speculating that Obama wants to be tyrant and you are speculating that he is working towards being a tyrant and you are speculating that he could succeed at becoming tyrant … well, that’s fine.

Me, I’m sticking with Occam’s Razor. There are other, simpler explanations for Obama’s behavior.

You have a good head on your shoulders.. But, I would be arrogant to be judgmental about you anyways…

Baklava

betsybounds: Yes, we are on the same side. I don’t understand the vehemence of some commenters that skepticism of Obama’s tyrannical intentions is a terrible negligence that will help put him in power.

Given that Obama’s ultimate intentions remain unclear, barring mindreading, I could just as well argue that proclaiming Obama’s malevolence prematurely only serves to marginalize those who make that claim and anesthetize others to the growing menace.

As to the swine flu vaccination — I think that’s just more snafu from the Obama administration with a bit of the old short-term exploitation.

Best to stay alert and keep your powder dry IMO.

JohnC: I’ve had houseguests for the past week and limited time for posting.

Plus there have been so many comments that it wouldn’t have been practical to respond to all. So I addressed neo’s post, the root.