Maybe One Bubba Is Enough

Notorious right-wing reactionary Barack Obama didn’t deliver his State of the Union address in front of a rattlesnake flag, sign noting how tea’d he is, or doctored photo of himself as the Joker.  It would have been a nice touch as he momentarily faked empathy for those who have either turned on him or never faced his way.

Of course, most of the 70-minute harangue was masochistically dedicated to whining about either why the public just doesn’t get their misunderstood genius-in-chief or how he’s been forced to clean up after George W. Bush created all the world’s evil.  Oddities such as anti-earmark stand were stirred among his usual bland optimism about the benefits of a limitlessly expanding federal behemoth that’s currently running a 14-figure debt.  His miniature spending cut serves as the equivalent of an alcoholic vowing to no longer buy vermouth.

The wholly insincere attempt to get deficit hawks and ticked-off moderates to accept him with a slight bit of small-government blather was transparently pathetic.  He spent even less time working to placate Tea Partiers than he did on national security, if that’s possible, which signifies how unwilling he is to budge from his socialist-leaning social democratic worldview. 

He’s dooming himself by not following the tack of the last Democratic administration.  Obama may be enough of an incurable narcissist to think that his venerable presence can single-handedly procure a victory for widely-despised progressive beliefs.  But the delusional golden child has, as usual, framed things precisely backward: having Bill Clinton in 1994 actually gave Democrats a greater advantage than Obama provides today.  Pursuing leftist policies ultimately results in lost elections either way.  But Clinton won in 1996 because he was a shifty cad who was willing to betray his principles.

The different styles aren’t based upon fundamental ideological disparity: the thoroughly liberal Clinton basically shares Obama’s beliefs.  The difference is that the second president to be impeached would sell his grandparents’ souls if it meant gaining votes.  His calculating pragmatism always trumped his leftist tendencies, which is why he had to both check that day’s polls and listen to a Dick Morris lecture before he could tell you where he stood.  On the other hand, the incumbent is steadfast about what he believes, which is proof that the courage of maintaining one’s convictions isn’t necessarily a point of pride.

Obama can’t even negotiate correctly.  He’s only willing to suggest compromise as a first step toward getting his hyper-liberal ideals put into practice.  Most obviously, he only dropped the public option from health proposals as a means of eventually slinking us toward single-payer anguish.  He reasoned that, once we realized how wonderful it was to be hooked on federal meddling, we’d be begging for IRS-style health insurance.  Based on the state of the Democrats’ sundry proposals, we can go ahead and gleefully announce that he miscalculated.  Still, importing Canadacare remains the only instance where he’d favor free trade.

On the other hand, Clinton gave in to his opponents as a means of retaining power.  He notoriously abandoned his beliefs when faced with a similar situation to the Yes We Can Man.  Namely, Clinton gave up on his wife’s health care socializing scheme.  In lieu of remaining loyal to Hillary for the first time in their marriage, he chose an entirely different course and signed the Republican-backed welfare reform.  As a result, he actually did something that benefited the nation, not to mention that he subsequently got to be president until early 2001.

Obama won’t do the same, as he’s too much of a partisan to accept that his approaches are unpopular for a reason.  Nobody should be shocked by the failure of professed liberal presidents to create a benevolent government that generates both full employment and international goodwill.  But a small cluster of followers keeps falling for both the dreadfully counterproductive domestic policies and Hallmark-style sentimental approach to international relations.  As with disillusioned Clinton supporters, the most baffling thing about Obama’s deflated cheerleaders remains how they fell for the cheap optimism in the first place.

The counterfeit magic no longer fools anyone.  He’s alienating more former cult members everyday.  Meanwhile, critics don’t even bother with Obamessiah jokes anymore; there’s no need to, as the HOPE picture has officially become ironic.  His stubbornly liberal nature means he’s trapped, too: Obama won’t trick conservatives or right-leaning independents into turning and backing him.  Meanwhile, the left is going to level their most tired accusation at him, namely that he’s a sellout because he wants to cut a couple of bucks out of an unfathomable budget.  He was much more effective at uniting people when all he had to do was yap in a generically inspiring manner.

Obama’s meek attempt to promote hawkish budgetary ideas comes across like retooling a sitcom.  Roseanne, Dan, and everyone else can call the new girl “Becky” all they want, but we all know it’s not really the eldest daughter.  Similarly, the imperceptible cuts feel like an utterly phony ploy even by State of the Union standards.

The Secretary of State’s husband shifted eagerly along with public opinion.  By contrast, Obama only does so reluctantly, and with the aforementioned pretend concessions.  He’s obviously not interested in trying hard: triangulation doesn’t work if one is staking out a position midway between the David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel wings.

That unwillingness to discard big-government nonsense should lead to another difference between him and Clinton, namely the number of terms each serves.  Obama has famously announced he’s fine with returning to his sheltered version of private sector life after four years if it means being a good president as opposed to being mediocre for eight years.  Every conservative wag has pointed out that he’ll likely be the worst of both worlds as a one-term mediocrity.  His blind allegiance to policies that don’t work and are nearly universally disliked means the damage he inflicts will at least be contained to one Olympiad.

Unfortunately for both his prospects and the nation, Obama is enough of a leftist zealot that he’s unlikely to modify his goals or relinquish an inch of territory in the meantime.  As a result, fellow Democrats are retreating as the moderates sprint to join the other side.  He must be getting lonely, although it’s entirely his fault for scaring away most potential cohorts.

He should glean a lesson from the last Democratic president and realize the lone strategy for liberals who want to stay in office revolves around discarding liberalism.  Only Obama could govern so feebly as to make Bill Clinton looks sensible by comparison.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Popularity: 1% [?]