In his column today (02/27/09) Charles Krauthammer makes the case that Obama is intent upon moving the US toward European style social democracy. Indeed, with his stimulus bill now a done deal, Obama, in his first 30 days, has already pretty much succeded in that goal.
I for one think Krauthammer is being too generous in asserting that Obama's goal is mere Euro socialism. After all, Obama's earliest political mentor and guru was an avowed Marxist; he was a disciple of Saul Alinsky; his earliest Chigago poliitcal ally was terrorist and Marxist William Ayers. None of these factors sugest that Obama has much interest in the "democracy" part of Euro-style socialism.
In any event, let's grant for the sake of argument that Krauthammer is correct and that Obama aspires to merely be a two term European-style socialist leader. What hasn't been commented on is that Europe's 60 year fling with its current brand of governance has been made possible totally and exclusievkly as a result of six decades' worth of American security guarantees; in comparison to us, the Europeans have had to spend almost nothing on their own defense. They've been on a 60-year binge, in other words, largely at our expense.
Unless we intend to totally abandon our own military investment - and our global responsibilities - we will find pretty quickly that a socialist model is unsustainable here for strictly pragmatic reasons. After all, it was (at least in part) its need to match us in military spending that destroyed Sovient communism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Very good points. Oh, no: European-style socialism is for wimps. Our great messiah and savior is going to do right what the Soviets failed at. And it's all on a very fast track. It's like watching the World Trade Center collapse. The low-lifes and losers are lining up at the trough. We have not even begun to pay back Lord Obama for our sins.
Maybe Mr. Obama does not aspire to be a European-style socialist leader at all; maybe he aspires to be a European socialist leader. He is only 48 years old. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the thought of becoming the leader of the entire world has entered into his larger-than-life cranium. I'm sure he sees himself as up to the challenge. Perhaps he views the transformation of the US as a mere first step toward transforming the world. Rush quoted some economist today who says that in fifteen years there will be one bank and one currency for the entire world. This fulfills a clear biblical prophecy. About all we would then need is a one-world dictator. I don't know if Obama is the man, but if not, he is certainly a John the Baptist figure, preparing the way.
Dave, I have had thoughts along the same lines you suggest, and I have absolutely no doubt that Obama would love to be the first truly global ruler - and he would be a ruler, not a leader. (Remember during the campaign when one of his staff reminded us of Obama's ambitions? "Under Obama's rule" . . the staffer said.)
The thing is, there are other voraciously ambitious men out there and they won't yield to Obama's rule gracefully.
But as you pointed out, we are Europe's defense. Who would defend Europe from her defender. And once he became the new Caesar of the West, the rest of the world wouldn't be too tough to swallow up. Maybe this is crazy thinking, but it doesn't seem all that far fetched to me, especially when you consider his pre-existing friendship with the Muslim world.
You guys are right. I've always viewed Obama and the Clintons as the type of madmen who want to rule the world. It's what they're all about. That slob slick Willie sold us out to the Chinese with no compunction. They are sick. I've never felt this disgusted about public affairs in my entire life, to put it mildly.
Post a Comment