One of the topics Rick Moran, Doug Mataconis, Aaron Gee and I didn’t get to on Rick’s show tonight was a discussion of whether Barack Obama is intentionally trying to weaken America. The genesis of this is a piece by Michael Medved in The Wall Street Journal earlier this week disavowing the claims of some conservatives that Obama is intentionally destroying the country. Indeed, in the hot post of the day (and the main reason why I was on Rick’s show), Shoebox and I sort of bandied it about. I suppose it’s time to more-fully flesh out the question, or at least explain whether the intention actually matters at this point.
Perhaps if it were earlier in Obama’s Presidency, the question of intent would be relevant. If he were simply seeing a different path to continue America’s greatness, without intending to weaken America, it would be theoretically possible to convince him his course of action is wrong, and thus turn him from said course. If his intentions were to cripple America, no amount of attempted persuasion would deter him from his course.
Even with the historic defeat of Democrats, both nationally and in key states such as Wisconsin, Obama hasn’t turned from his course. Further, there is a significant body of evidence that the weakening is indeed intentional. On the other hand, since we cannot reliably see into the thought process of another human being unless that person explicitly states the thought process, one cannot simply assume that Obama’s continued push toward what many are seeing as oblivion is due to an intent to drive the US to oblivion.
The penultimate question is whether it really matters whether the damage being done is intentional or not. Insofar as the same amount of damage is being done through a “merely” flawed world view or through malice, it doesn’t. Insofar as it relates to the attempts to vote the destroyer out of office, as much as I would like to say it shouldn’t matter, it does to the degree that elections are a popularity contest. Yes, there is a significant risk of backlash because it is all too easy to falsely accuse someone of having evil intentions rather than simply having bad results, but honestly, there are times that is precisely what needs to happen.
So, is this one of those times to continue to let that metaphorical genie roam outside the bottle? As hard as it is to get the genie back in, like Medved, I think the continued focus on intentions over results is harmful to the cause of defeating Obama in 2012. However, I can’t quite go as far as to say that it would make the task impossible. Let the case be made that the results of Obama’s actions, regardless of motive, are and continue to be ruinous.
While “intentionally destroying America” would be an over the top description of Obama’s motives, I do think he and his intellectual allies in American Socialism are on a deliberate course of American decline, because they see US strength as a source of problems. I wrote about this a few weeks ago, in fact: http://is.gd/twFYmg
As for whether motive is important, I think it is, if only because we need to understand why our opponent does something in order to effectively gauge his goals. It’s not essential –the oncoming train wreck is scary enough to warrant opposing almost everything Obama wants with all our will– but I do think it’s important and helpful.
BTW, my impression of his budget proposal is that it’s meant to foster a deliberate confrontation with the House, with the intent of polarizing the sides and creating a crisis. He’s already got the incremental step toward Socialism he wanted in ObamaCare: deadlock over the budget gives him the chance to prevent it’s being undone. The man is a student of Alinsky and Cloward-Piven, after all.
The longer he is in office, doing the things he does, the more I am persuaded that he IS deliberately tanking the country.
The first path he’s chosen, and the fastest one to demolition, is bankruptcy. We looked at TARP askance (I thought it was necessary, but an evil). Well, GWB started it…and all Obama did was finish it.
Then “stimulus.” Most Americans were uncomfortable with it, like TARP; but the actualities (Gummints benefit, no one else) emerged and it tanked.
THen the TEA Party revolution…the election. That should have been a signal.
But he now submits a budget which is, to put it kindly, a laugher. It is awful. Horrendous. Terrible. Un-doable. Even the MSM has nothing good to say about it.
That submittal–his budget–has tipped me into the “he wants to destroy the country” camp. The document is not a product of naivete, nor “dumb.” It is a deliberate effort. Of course he doesn’t expect it to be approved; but the question is: “where is the Overton Window compromise??”–and it is clear that the compromise—COMPROMISE—will demolish the country’s bonds.
FWIW.