Changing the Trajectory of America
By William Warren
“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not… we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”—Barack Obama, January 16, 2008
Ronald Reagan did indeed change the trajectory of America. He changed the trajectory from one of national malaise to national optimism. He believed in, and helped restore, American Exceptionalism by loosening the fetters of a burdensome Federal Government and allowing the individual to thrive. He ushered in an era of genuine hope bolstered not by eloquent platitudes but by policies that defaulted to free people and free markets.
Now, Barack Obama seeks to become the next great transformational president—although in a manner wholly opposite from the Great Communicator for whom his admiration (albeit begrudging, as he later explained) is unmatched. And “dynamism and entrepreneurship” have nothing to do with the Obama transformation.
Barack Obama desires to reverse the trajectory set by Ronald Reagan and transform the United States into a socialist Big Government society that exceeds those of the Carter, Johnson, and FDR administrations before him.
His record thus far bears witness to his chilly success.
Consider first of all the backdoor nationalization of the banking industry. As chronicled by ALG News Bureau, the government doled out TARP funds to banks all across the country in an ostensible effort to abate a banking calamity. And now the government, in a clever political stroke, has refused any repayment by banks with the wherewithal to do so.
In other words, Barack Obama wants to keep them on the leash.
Healthcare is another target on which the new president has admittedly set his sights. After failed attempt after failed attempt, Barack Obama hopes that he will break the trend and be the first president to completely socialize healthcare in America. With a Democratic Congress by his side, little stands in his way.
And let's not forget that the government already controls the mortgage industry in America. Last summer's complete federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was merely the precursor to the nationalization witnessed under Barack Obama's brief tenure as President.
Lately, the automotive industry has been the talk—make that the take—of the town. After receiving copious amounts of taxpayer money through the TARP funds, the financial outlook of these companies remains dire. As newfound shareholders in GM and Chrysler, however, The Federal Government's outlook has never been better.
Like AIG before them, the federal loans given to GM and Chrysler have essentially converted to government-owned stock in the companies. This equates with ownership. And if the government control wasn't evident enough, one need look no further than Barack Obama's firing of former GM CEO Rick Wagoner last March.
In just a few short months, then, Barack Obama has consolidated more power in the hands of the Federal Government than even his harshest critics before the inauguration could not have foreseen. The new trajectory is more acute than was once thought—and it appears to be escalating.
Apparently comfortable with his role of saying what needs to be said, Representative Steve King from Iowa had some harsh words for the 44th President during an interview with the Washington News Observer. When asked about the new Administration's takeover of the automotive industry, he referred to another “transformational” leader of Mr. Obama's ilk:
“I saw it all in the image of president Obama standing next to Hugo Chavez. When I saw that film, that image, what flashed in my mind was ‘President Obama has nationalized more industry in the last 30 days than Hugo Chavez has.'…
"He's gone through two of the three big auto makers, nationalization after nationalization, in direct defiance to the tenets of free-enterprise capitalism, one of the major pillars of American exceptionalism. We can't continue to be a great nation if the government is going to run our business. And I don't know that they can save the bankruptcy of General Motors today, but the bond holders, the shareholders, the secure creditors for these large auto makers, are losing their equity, leveraged by the white house, and the white house is handing shares over to the unions.”
Referencing the socialist website of The Democratic Socialists of America, Rep. King explained what he sees as the ideology driving the Obama Administration in their efforts to nationalize sectors of the American Economy:
“…They argue that big business in America should be run for the benefit of the people affected by it—that being the unions, and also sometimes the customers. That's what President Obama has done with General Motors and with Chrysler, and I think we'll pay a price for a long time to come.”
Obama's actions thus far bespeak more of a Marxist Latin American despot like Chavez than any of his 43 American predecessors. And while those on the left seek to downplay Obama's meeting with Chavez by citing Nixon's visit with Moa or Reagan's visit with Gorbachev, those presidents didn't return to America and subsequently adopt its nemeses strategies.
“I recommend to Obama -- they're criticizing him because they say he's moving towards socialism -- come Obama, ally with us on the path to socialism, it's the only road. Imagine a socialist revolution in the U.S. Nothing is impossible.”
Like Chavez, the new administration's actions aren't merely illegal. They are extralegal. Barack Obama's endeavors go beyond the purview of the law and tread into realms unimaginable just months ago. Like those of Star Trek fame, Mr. Obama has boldly gone where no president has gone before.
Moreover, his decisions seem to come on an ad hoc basis boosted by a well-cultivated perpetual panic mode of management. Decision after decision seems carefully tailored to suit his Big Government whims and is always accompanied by an unhealthy dosage of hysterical urgency. Mr. Obama seems to have found his rhythm—and the media, of course, is humming along with it.
So when Barack Obama cites Ronald Reagan, talks of a new trajectory and professes his will to be the next transformational President, the American people ought to take him very seriously. He's well on his way.
Bear in mind, however, that a new trajectory, like the oft-chanted “change” itself, can be catastrophic. For, if history is any indication, catastrophe is all that emerges from the wholesale imposition of socialist hegemony.
William Warren is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau.