After President Obama claimed victory for convincing republicans to accept a republican debt ceiling plan, even republicans peered across the aisle at democrats as if to say, “you’re not gonna call bullshit on this one?”
As part of Obama’s “grand” deal, Republicans got all of what they wanted and democrats got none of what they wanted. President Obama, who’d come on prime time earlier in the week to lay down the gauntlet and make the case for why revenue must be a part of any deal, apparently felt it appropriate to abandon all principles when faced with the steely resolve of 80 or so Tea Partiers.
As majority leader Boehner goes about discussing how his party got 98% of what he wanted (and he wasn’t exaggerating), the only audible liberal response has been that of grinning and bearing it. Of course there’s been a firestorm of angry tweets and nasty notes in the comments section of blogs, but if you really talk to liberals, they’re quick to confess that they aren’t ready to oppose Obama in any meaningful way.
There seems to be an all too familiar chorus of reasoning taking shape: That Obama is the lesser of two evils. I, however, beg to differ. I take issue with the unchallenged notion that Obama is less dangerous than say Dubya, or Romney, or even Palin.
Now let’s rewind to circa 2005 when George “Dubya” Bush tried and failed to gut Social Security by partially privatizing it. If you’ll remember, Bush’s privatization plan was thwarted by liberals who were on guard against such sneaky right wing flank attack.
That, however, is certainly not the case now. Now that we know Obama’s politics are center right and not center-left, most democrats still view him as the candidate they fell in love with during the 2008 campaign. The most disappointing thing about Americans is their loyalty to personalities at the expense of principles.
When Bush was President, liberals pointed and chuckled at conservatives who marched lockstep behind a dufus who doddled about to and fro in the Oval Office, with no real direction or ambition. George W. Bush never wanted to be President. He was pushed into it. And he didn’t walk into greatness. He was, to the contrary, comforted by his own smallness. This was evidenced by his quiet acquiescence as he was assigned tasks by his V.P. and his giddiness at having 24/7 access to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Yet and still, his supporters marched lockstep behind their President, all the while thinking he could do no wrong. Or that whatever wrong he did do was suitably more desirable than the alternative.
But now, here we are in 2010 and conservative dufuses have been exchanged with liberal ones. Liberals who say things like, “well, at least Bachmann’s not President, then things would be really bad for us.” Really bad like how? Like double dip recession bad? Like draconian cuts to federal programs bad? Like two wars bad? Or like cuts to Medicare and Social Security bad? Remember that it was Obama who put Social Security and Medicare “on the table” during the debt ceiling negotiations, even as Republicans staunchly refused to meet his quasi-demand that revenues be included in the deal.
I mean really folks, it can’t get much worse. And the only sure-fire way to make things worse is to do the same thing we’ve been doing, i.e. supporting a President who doesn’t share our interests in hopes that one day, he’ll come around. He won’t.
It may now be in our strategic best interest to settle on an opponent that we’re all clear on. An opponent who rallies us to solidarity as opposed to one who disperses our energies. I would argue that a President Romney would be much better for progressive’s agenda than President Obama. Since most liberals can’t pull themselves together enough to oppose Obama, a President Romney would give us something to fight for and someone to do battle against.
And when one considers Obama’s policies, it’s painfully clear that by allowing a republican to take the reins, we would only be trading one Republican president for another, one corporate owned drone for another. No great loss there. And if trading in Obama affords us with a bit of perspective, it’s a net gain.
You see, Obama is only the lesser of two evils if you judge him by what he says versus what he actually does. But upon close inspection, it’s apparent that there’s a 1,000 mile wide gaping chasm between Obama’s stated goals and his actions that are in no way aligned with those goals.
Somehow we allowed the Trojan horse to get through the gates, and there’s nothing more evil or insidious than allowing him to stay even after we’re fully aware that our political leadership has been compromised. At least Romney and Palin are who they say they are. They’re not Manchurian candidates. Could anyone imagine a President Palin going into a meeting with liberals and giving way to 98% of their demands? Of course not. But that is democrat’s new reality.
And it will continue to be our reality until we realize that the lesser of two evils is anything but. To be without any representation, as is the case now for democrats, is truly evil. To do battle with a foe with whom you have serious disagreements isn’t evil at all.
- Mitt Romney: Obama Is ‘Out Of His Depth,’ The Nation’s Security Is At Risk (huffingtonpost.com)
- Romney Shifts on S&P Move: ‘I Don’t Think It’s Simply the President’s Fault’ (blogs.wsj.com)
- Where are the Democrats’ ideas? (cnn.com)