Thursday, February 21, 2008

Obama and change: what might that mean?

The juggernaut that is the Barack Hussein Obama Bin Laden campaign keeps rolling along, generating all kinds of...uh...I was gonna say "emptiness", but that's not really the word just yet...let's say "happy feelings". Of course, running against a woman that screws up everything she does hasn't hurt. They're about equal in their lack of experience, and both are scary and potentially ruinously dangerous in their views of foreign policy. Both claim to be progressives, both claim to be for change.

The "progressive" tag is of concern to me. Hillary says she's of the classical progressive model, as in the nineteenth century meaning of the word. To put the term in a political context, it could be said that "progressives" are "ultra liberals". While the current crop of liberals dabbles in the far left wing, and in some cases is half way underwater, the progressives are even further left than that, being heavily into worker's rights and social collectivism. If you think the kooks on the far left that are in office now are leftist, progressives go left, come around and pass the liberals twice on their way to the extreme of fascism and socialism.

Its funny to me that Republicans are constantly labelled as fascists, when the root of the term is easily traced to the Axis powers of WW II and the political systems of Germany and Italy during that time. The Nazis were, as you know from reading my blog, of the National Socialist Party, and were undeniably fascist. Progressives don't overtly have the racism of the Nazis as part of their beliefs, so they're more like Il Duce (Benito Mussolini if you don't know your WW II history) in that respect. Basically, progressives are all about crushing taxes on those that work to fund the myriad of programs they want to institute to keep their base happy. Who's their base? Traditionally, the unemployed, unskilled, and basically stupid, as well as the bleeding hearts that think they're helping and spending money to feel good.

So which is it with B.O.? That's the part that concerns me. According to some figures, the amount of new spending that he's proposed tops $800 Million. He's gone on record as saying that the Bush Tax Cuts only favored the rich (his definition of rich is much different from mine, separated by at least one zero, and more) and that the rich don't pay their fair share. That's not really a new idea; that's the standard Democratic Party line. The problem is, you can't keep abusing the rich in this country and have them continue to stay in this country. That's getting a little off track though.

B.O. is a progressive of the FDR mold. That's not a good thing. While the rest of the world was coming out of the Great Depression, America continued to wallow in it under the weight of the programs FDR instituted. The debt we rang up was nowhere near enough to bring us out of the Depression, but it was plenty enough to keep us in it. The Depression didn't end for America until we were forced to spool up for WW II. FDR was all about runaway spending, which I think B.O. is as well. We're going to bankrupt Social Security because we don't have the money for it, and we're going to add Universal Health Care, Baby Bonds, and expanding the nanny state? C'mon, even a math deficient guy like me can see that we can't do that. If he has his way and he really is a classical progressive, we're going to be a semi-socialist state in the mold of China, but with much less economic clout because slave labor isn't an option...right away...

What if B.O. isn't that far left and isn't a socialist fascist tax and spender? Then he's a classic liberal of the last 30 or so years. Wonderful. We get the failed policies of Carter and Clinton all over again. Same old tired, ineffective, expensive crap: higher taxes, less efficiency, and an even more huge, expensive government we can't afford. America's credit rating takes a nosedive (even more than it already has) and we verge on bankruptcy, which we already are.

I have to blame the Republicans in D.C. for this current state of affairs, at least their culpability in it. This is what happens with run away spending. If the guys in D.C. had stuck to the Contract with America ideals, especially of balancing the budget, we'd be in much better shape. We're in dire straits now, and its not going to get better, even with McCain in office. These next four years are not going to be pretty, no matter who's in there, but a B.O. administration with a democratic Congress is a horrifying thing. I hadn't considered moving to another country, even during the Carter years, which were really rough. I'll have to look into it now. I don't think I'd move, but the fact that I'd consider looking around is, to me, telling.

No comments: