About This Blog

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.

Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.

In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.

Friday, October 28, 2011

2012 Is Going To Be An Uphill Battle

Here is a comment I just posted at Legal Insurrection:

This is a Hit-The-Nail-On-The-Head post.
Remember, since Reagan the country has elected two “compassionate conservatives” from the Bush family, a philandering liberal (Clinton) and a whining liberal (Obama). Though Reagan talked a good game, government expanded under his leadership.
Running against Bush the 1st, Dukakis–a textbook liberal–got 45.6% of the vote.
In 1992 Clinton won with 43% of the vote, but Perot the populist got 18.9%.
In 1996 Clinton won with 49.2% of the vote.
Gore, an off-the-wall liberal, got half a million more votes than Bush the 2nd in 2000.
Kerry, a pompous and arrogant liberal, got 48.3% of the vote in 2004.
Obama the Marxist won with 52.9% of the vote.
This is not a conservative country anymore. Viewed in the light of these numbers, the argument that Mitt Romney is the only electable Republican begins to look sensible.
Anyone who believes defeating Pres. Obama in 2012 is going to be a slam dunk had better look again at the numbers above.

It is fashionable for pundits to call this a center-right country. Not true, as the numbers demonstrate.

Now, it is possible that there exists a sizeable "silent majority" who are center-right but just don't vote. I have no idea. Either way, conservatives aiming to turn this country back from a welfare state to a bastion of free enterprise have their work cut out.

Here is another aspect of the problem: In order to get the Tea Party and the Christian right amped up, donating and campaigning for a Republican in 2012, the candidate cannot be Mitt Romney, but a true conservative. However, can a true conservative win?

There is much talk about a possible third party candidacy. Donald Trump, the populist billionaire, has mentioned the possibility. Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican, won't rule it out. Buddy Roemer is making noise. The Upward Sprial group of Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has been active. If any of these candidates run in a serious way, I can't see how a Republican -- any Republican -- defeats Obama.

Furthermore, the biggest albatross around Obama's neck at this moment is the jobless rate and the down economy. Don't count on either to help the Republicans in 2012. The oldest trick in the book is for a sitting President to fudge numbers. A well-timed QE3 by the Fed could have the economy humming nicely, if only temporarily, by election season.

There are other means by which a sitting President can stack the deck, especially one like Obama who is so inclined. We've already seen Obama govern by executive order. The federal bureaucracy, especially the FCC which governs the talk radio airwaves, is in the President's camp. The old "wag the dog" use of foreign policy to distract the public has been done before by Presidents from both parties.

Any hint of civil disorder or terrorism requiring a response from Homeland Security can be to the sitting President's advantage as he locks down the problem. Ditto an earthquake, hurricane or other natural disaster. And then there's always the bully pulpit which Presidents have used since the nation's founding. This President has demonstrated his willingness to say anything and everything, whether true or not, to rally the public to his cause.

And then there is the mainstream media that is positioned squarely in Obama's corner, ready to prove that the man they supported in 2008 is fit to be re-elected.

Moreover, you can bet your life that, despite moans and groans of disappointment in Obama from the far, far left, standard run-of-the-mill Progressives, socialists and unionists realize the strides Obama has made toward making America a European-style social democracy. They are not about to let go of power without a fight. They are a ready-made source of campaign funds and manpower. Obama is an expert in using them.

Lastly, there is at least one man who realizes what Obama has accomplished and who will fight like hell to keep the President in power: Obama himself. Consider what Obama accomplished in his first two years when Democrats controlled Congress. He virtually nationalized 1/6 of the economy by ramming ObamaCare through the Congress. He appointed two liberal Supreme Court Justices. He sheparded through the congress a $-trillion "stimulus" bill which was nothing more than a naked expansion of the welfare state. He appointed Marxists, socialists and even avowed communists to influential and, now, entrenched positions in the federal bureaucracy. He's similarly filled countless Czar-positions with like-minded individuals bent on transforming this country from capitalism to crony capitalism to downright social welfarism.

Even in his third year, after he lost the house, he's managed to govern by edict rather than legislation. Who knows what lasting effects his administration will have in areas like immigration, trade, foreign policy, the justice department, education, the environment and the like. The federal bureaucracy is unimagineably huge, complex and far-reaching. From day one on the job Obama set out to control and transform every aspect of it to suit his purposes.

No, President Obama will not go quietly into the night. He will fight tooth and claw to retain his grip on power in this country.

The stakes are high. Despite all the damage he has caused in his first term, I believe he will cause much more in his second, if re-elected. Why? Because he will be a lame duck. There will be no portent of a coming election to check his actions. It will be a no holds barred second term. Who knows what the end game will be? No possible outcome is too unrealistic or dangerous to imagine.

So as mobs of malcontents and morons Occupy Wall Street, we can be amused by their antics, like attempting to end crony capitalism by bombing banks with "mass paper airplane throwing."

Too funny.

Unfortunately, defeating Obama in 2012 will be no laughing matter. 


LD Jackson said...

You have expounded on the thoughts that I have been having for quite some time. Defeating President Obama in 2012 is not a given fact. Neither will it be an easy task. It's going to take everything we can muster and then some.

Concerning a possible 2nd term for Obama, I have felt for a long time that it would be a disaster for America. A disaster of much greater scale than his first term, for the very reasons you have stated. Put him in the White House with no worry about winning reelection and there is no telling what he will do to achieve his agenda. Not only is that not a laughing matter, it's a downright scary thought.

Sherman Broder said...

The crucial question for the opposition in 2012, as I see it, is: Who to run against Obama?

Does the opposition field a true, dyed-in-the-wood conservative/libertarian such as Ron Paul and risk outright rejection by the voting public?

Or, does the opposition field a "moderate" candidate like Mitt Romney and risk losing the enthusiasm of committed conservatives?

Either gambit is a huge risk. And, as you say, the stakes are high.

I would gamble, as I know you would, on the honest approach: Ron Paul. If the voting public rejects Paul's message, then they may learn the hard way about the consequences of rejecting reality and truth.

LD Jackson said...

Gamble on the honest approach and vote for Ron Paul? Count me in that category.