President Obama has just been sworn in for his second four-year term. I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to rehash the things about him and his administration I don't like. Ditto for the dire consequences his policies will have on our lives and nation if they are allowed to proceed uninterrupted.
I've spent enough time ranting about Obamacare and other issues, so I thought I'd comment on two key policies of Obama's first term that may actually be positives, then speculate about the second term.
First of all, I guess if someone asked me to describe one thing for which I can compliment the administration (or at least not criticize it), it would have to be national security. By extending the FISA warrantless wiretap program (something for which candidate Obama criticized George Bush in 2007-8), Obama has authorized continued interception of suspected communications between terrorist plotters. He also stepped up the use of Predator drones to take out suspected terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen. And while it was Bush-era intelligence work and interrogations that led to the finding and killing of Osama bin Laden, at least Obama gave the order to take him out, at the risk of losing American lives.
Obama did not withdraw American troops immediately from Iraq, but followed along with a pre-negotiated framework for withdrawal and a transition of power agreed to by the Bush administration several years earlier.
In Afghanistan, Obama weighed many options presented by his generals, the Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor and others before deciding to send 56,000 additional troops in several stages during 2009. Rightly or wrongly, the administration decided that protecting civilians, gaining their trust, rooting out corruption in the Afghan government and fostering stability in Afghan society were as important as simply killing the seemingly endless supply of Taliban and al Qaeda vermin.
Like Iraq, Afghanistan is a work in progress. Not only is the jury still out; it will be out for a couple more decades, at least. I have said before, and still believe, that we may well be better off in the long run with Saddam Hussein's regime destroyed and a reasonably free Iraq following in its footsteps. We paid a grievous price in terms of deaths and soldiers maimed, not to mention treasure. But it just might help bring more freedom and enlightenment to the woeful Middle East.
The Bush administration made many mistakes in how it conducted matters after Saddam was overthrown, and did not appear to do much to stabilize Afghanistan, either. The Obama administration has also taken some actions in these two countries with which I adamantly disagree, including imposing restrictive rules of engagement on our soldiers that make them extremely vulnerable.
There are never good answers in the Middle East; only decisions and policies that are less damaging than the alternative. This region remains a mess, but its problems are so deep-seated and multi-faceted, it would be foolish to blame them all on one political party.
The other major policy of the administration that I think was correct in its intentions, but not in its execution, was helping General Motors and Chrysler stay in business. Four years ago, both were hanging on by a thread.
Granted, the Obama bailout was a major league sop to unions. Stockholders and bond holders got screwed royally. And taxpayers will never get back the many tens of billions of dollars they put into these companies. But I do believe we'll be better off anyway.
I live in Michigan, and I've seen how badly communities and families have been ravaged by the struggles of the auto industry. I recognize the pronounced ripple effect of automotive plants being shuttered. It's not just auto parts suppliers, auto dealerships and municipal tax revenues that get slammed; it's a slew of other businesses, from bars and restaurants to retail stores and hair salons.
Had GM and Chrysler been forced to seek private equity while in bankruptcy, theirs would have been a much tougher row to hoe. No one was lending in 2009, and these companies weren't exactly flush with collateral. Hundreds of thousands of jobs could have been lost, and there's a good chance Asian or European companies would have swooped in to gobble up the carcasses of two once-great American corporations.
It turns out the administration's brokering of the Fiat-Chrysler alliance was a good idea, and GM is doing far better than it was a few years ago, but is still not out of the woods. Look at it this way: The amount of money spent on the auto bailout — approximately $85 billion — is but a fraction of the $800-billion-plus pissed away on the stimulus program. And it is going toward preserving jobs, not expanding welfare programs. So although I disagree with the way it was implemented, I believe its positives outweigh its negatives.
Enough on the past. Let's talk about the future. Specifically, the next four years.
Gun control has dominated the conversation of late. But there are other important matters that will play out in the coming months, including budget negotiations and whether genuine entitlement reform can commence (doubtful); immigration reform and the mischief it portends; and implementation of Obamacare and its hideous ramifications (in particular, the HHS abortifacient/birth control mandate that assaults religious freedom).
I cannot prove it, but I sense that the tide of public opinion will gradually turn against this administration. Even, dare I say it, the opinions and attitudes of the hated mainstream media, which is finding that Obama's promises of transparency were utter B.S., and the administration's razzle-dazzle smoke-n-mirrors crap is really getting old.
Even though the majority of news reporters, editors and anchorpersons are left-leaning, that doesn't mean they won't try to expose major hypocrisy, malfeasance and incompetency if there are awards to be won, recognition to be garnered and career advancements on the horizon. In that regard, the abundance of low-hanging fruit in this administration is astounding. This is like shooting fish in a barrel, and I believe some mainstream reporters will pick up the gun and start firing.
The public at large, too,, has got to be wondering. The unemployment rate is really far worse than the 7.8 or 8 percent we've been hearing, and human suffering that is splashed all over page 1 time and time again when a Republican is president has not received a lot of attention under this president.
The appalling arrogance and condescension of this administration as it flagrantly violates the constitution and maintains a "we know what's best for you" attitude, is bound to backfire sooner than later. Sorry to predict this, but things could get ugly. We may not get literal riots in the streets and National Guard troops being called out to restore order. But we could easily return to the bitter, cynical antipathy of the Watergate era.
Obama won't resign, nor is he stupid enough to get himself in the "deep doo-doo" (George H.W. Bush, 1992) of Richard M. Nixon. But he can and very well may morph into North America's version of Hugo Chavez. I certainly wouldn't put it past him.
When millions of Obama's supporters know a lot more about the Kardashians, "Jersey Shore" and "American Idol" than about basic economics, the U.S. constitution or U.S. history, that scenario is not just possible, but likely.
Recent Comments