Why Republicans Are Losing to Obama

imagesApproximately twenty-five hundred years ago a Chinese general named Sun Tzu is said to have written a treatise known as The Art of War. Of all the strategic advice it offers perhaps none is more important than this: for success, you must know your enemy and know yourself. It applies to politics as well as war.

When it comes to dealing with Barack Obama, it appears that the GOP leadership doesn’t get it. They fail to understand who it is they are dealing with or the ideology that inspires their political opponent. Republicans complain that since Congress is deadlocked between a Democrat Senate and Republican House, the president should lead us away from the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) recognizes that President Obama admires Abraham Lincoln. He used that recognition to make a point.  Referencing the new Spielberg movie, Lincoln, Blount said that “the lesson of that movie is that to get hard things done the president has to decide he wants something done.”  He seems to think the president wants a preventive measure to be found that will avoid the expiration of the tax cuts that have been in place since the administration of George W. Bush. Speaker of the House John Boehner seems to be negotiating with the same premise.

Republicans are focused only on the short term, hoping to stop an increase in taxes during a period of economic decline.  Obama is focused on his ultimate goal, the redistribution of wealth away from the producers and investors whose success he believes to be the product of a great immorality. His rhetoric about protecting the middle class is nothing more than a political ploy to achieve his goal of remaking America into a welfare state where taxes are higher on all producers and earners, but especially high on anyone he refers to as “the wealthy.”

Obama’s goal–and the legacy by which he wishes to be remembered–is not a stronger, more prosperous economy. It’s an economy of redistribution. The long-term cost is of little concern to him. Like Lincoln, whom he admires, Obama will do whatever he must to achieve his goal.

Lincoln’s goal was the forced preservation of the American union. Using an invading army in states that had declared themselves separated from his authority, he presided over scorched-earth tactics, declared martial law and imprisoned Americans without legal authority, closed hundreds of dissenting newspapers, ignored constitutional limits on government, and oversaw the arrest and deportation of a member of Congress because he had sympathies for the states in rebellion. Sadly, in this case, might really does make right. Lincoln successfully remade America into nation where membership could be compelled by force of arms and states were no longer sovereign.

Slavery could have been ended without warfare, as it was elsewhere. There were already southern leaders preparing for the end of this immoral institution. Political conflicts could have been settled without the violation of states’ rights. Constitutional limits on federal power could have been preserved. But Lincoln wanted a stronger, more powerful federal government. He could not allow threats to this goal to stand. As Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo has pointed out, “the Lincoln regime destroyed the system of federalism, or states’ rights, that was established by the founding fathers.”

For Obama, the economy is a zero-sum game. It’s a pie with only so many pieces–a pie that belongs ultimately to federal authority. It can therefore be seized and divided any way the government sees fit. He fails to understand even the most basic of economic principles. Why should he? He has never operated a business, paid employees, taken a risk to expand services or hire new workers. He has always been a leader among those who criticize the investors, planters, growers, makers, and builders–unless those growers are building a bigger government.

What he will not, cannot see, is that economies can grow and expand. Governmental power can be used to fashion an environment where that can happen or it can be used in a way that impedes it. The pie of economic vitality can actually grow and assist everyone in securing increased prosperity. That idea, however, is anathema to Obama. He sees economic growth as an injustice perpetrated upon workers rather than a form of economic cooperation bringing rewards to all.

Republicans, stop negotiating as if Obama wants to avoid economic disaster. He doesn’t. You do. Take a hint from the ancient writings of Sun Tzu. Know Obama and know yourselves.

About these ads

7 comments on “Why Republicans Are Losing to Obama

  1. MS Conservative says:

    I agree. The Republicans keep playing the Democrat game. And they wonder why they lose.

  2. Duke says:

    I had thought Lincoln just an in-over-his-head fool for supposing his war would be short and decisive. All he had to do, after all, to avoid war was to allow States entering the Union to choose for themselves whether to be slave or free, enter the union without preconditions that did not apply to existing member States of the Union. Fort Sumter, I thought, the first U.S. provocation to have another fire a first shot . . . to be followed by the Maine, the Lusitania, and Pearl Harbor, and so forth. The war, the simple mistake of a well-meaning fellow raised above his ability to discern clearly, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

    But then there’s Obama, who I believe is after more than you are supposing: the completion of the reformation of the United States into an oligarchy. While the identities of those controlling the elitists in Washington is debatable and various, proof of the movement of power and money away from citizens toward a ruling class is clear from the challenges to the second, fourth, fifth amendments, as well as the attack on private property within Agenda 21.

    Of course our problem at home in South Mississippi is that we have two senators and a representative who oppose trial by jury and support unwarranted searches. There is much we can only complain about, but the votes of these three, we should be able to do something about.

    Thank you for your blog post.

    • John Switzer says:

      Duke, thank you for speaking up! Let’s hope that strong, Constitution-minded challengers continue to take on the elitists representing Mississippi!

      In case you or anyone else wants to send a Tweet to the GOP leadership and encourage them not to shoot themselves in the foot (again), there is an opportunity at the end of this blog post from Prof. William Jacobson:
      http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/mcconnellpress-and-speakerboehner-stop/

    • 1hazeleyes says:

      From this: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/p/conspiracy-facts.html

      “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oathsand to secret proceedings.

      We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
      Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
      That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

      -John F. Kennedy

      to Obama, in only about 5 decades

  3. Great article Prof. Switzer. The comparison between these two tyrants is uncanny. Lets hope Obama’s second term doesn’t end with hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.

  4. 1hazeleyes says:

    McKeown: Don’t you think it’s going to? Seems inevitable, and also it seems to be desired by “authorities”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s