I’ve been meaning to write on this for a little bit, but alas it took until I saw a copy of Newsweek laying around on the coffee table to do it. Admittedly, at first I wasn’t quite sure what the pretext was for Limbaugh’s statement of “I hope he fails”. I’ve since done a little bit of googling, and I *think* I understand what it is now. However, knowledge of that pretext isn’t required for me forming my own opinion on why I hope Obama fails.
“Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism”? That came from the transcript on Rush’s site where he issued the famous four word sentence that got all the RINOs and other assorted socialists up in a tizzy (yes David Frum, I’m calling you out). I wish he expanded on it a little because I think for the most part his line of thinking matches with mine.
So why do I hope Obama fails. It’s simple – I do not wish to legitimize socialist, Marxist, fascist, or any other ‘ist’ type political systems with a successful economy. What am I talking about, you might ask. Well, let me use some fictitious scenarios to get you thinking:
Let’s say that in order fix the banking crisis, Obama decides he needs to nationalize the banking industry 100%. Let’s say congress goes along with this, and although the SCOTUS was initially opposed to such legislation, the opposition is quickly quelled with FDR style court packing legislation. After the legislation takes into effect, some how the crisis is resolved. The country screams and cheers. The messiah fixed it. The only people who really lost out were the shareholders in the company, but that’s ok since the crisis has been resolved. Right?
What about the unemployment situation? We can’t have any of that now, can we? Not to worry, Obama will fix that as well! He teams up with congress and signs into law the “Guaranteed Employment ACT of 2010”. This mandates that employers must employ whoever the government wishes, and pay them a government determined salary. If employers are forced to shut their doors as a result, the government will step in and nationalize the business.
However, the beneficiaries of this program are required to work where the government desires in whatever capacity. There is also no backing out once you sign up – you are now bound to serve in whatever capacity the state wishes you to serve. But that shouldn’t bother you either. After all, you have a job and it’s keeping the economy in tip top shape, right?
I’m sure some of the readers out there are thinking that both of the above situations are ridiculous and/or will never happen. The probability of the above examples happening doesn’t matter. As I mentioned, the above scenarios are merely to get you thinking. But thinking about what? Well, it’s pretty simple – both are scenarios where extreme government intrusion into our economy and personal lives somehow leads to something good.
“What the hell is your point, Gillman?!” you might exclaim. It’s really simple.
One group of people will think that these intrusions are ok because good came as a result. These are your “ists” – socialists, Marxists, facists. There are those who are flop on the subject depending on the outcome. These are the sheep. Then of course there are those who believe that such interventionist policies shouldn’t exist – regardless of any positive outcome that might occur. These people are true conservatives/classical liberals (such as myself). The above scenarios were to make you think of which group you belong.
The overall point I’m trying to make is that although history has shown interventionist policies do not work, I do not desire any chance that such policies could be legitimized. This would easily happen with an upswing in the economy after implementation of such interventionist policies. The sheep of this country would buy into the justification of said policies, regardless if such an upswing is actually caused by such policies or not. Remember that correlation does not imply causation.