THE LACK OF AUDACITY, THE ABSENCE OF HOPE
By Buck Evinger
If you want to know what prompted this blog post click this link to the original article at brietbart.com
What do you look for in a leader? Inspiration? Motivation? Guidance? Reassurance? All great qualities that I wish Barack Obama truly possessed. After reading a post on brietbart.com that I discovered as a headline banner on drudgereport yesterday, I’m sure Obama possesses none of those qualities of leadership. The headline showed a picture of Obama with the text, “pass it now or we may never recover.”
Inspiring, eh?
Obama actually made the following comment in an op/ed published in the Washington Post.
“This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse,”
Is that really the kind of language a great leader would be using now? Put aside the arguments about the provisions of the stimulus package, or whether government stimulus can really even affect the free market. Let’s just talk about leadership. Here’s an alternative to the above paragraph.
The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
A striking contrast, wouldn’t you say? That’s what Ronald Reagan told America in his inaugural speech in 1981. America was suffering from an inflationary economy and unemployment that was just as bad if not worse than today’s mess. If you want to be inspired and read a how-to manual to get out of the mess we are in now, click this link to read the rest of Reagan’s inaugural speech. It WILL give you hope.
It seems that Obama is decidedly lacking in the audacity of hope that propelled his campaign across America. Now he is employing the certainty of doom if we don’t borrow and spend our way out this current crisis. Reagan had a few choice words on that too. Again, I encourage you to follow the link to Reagan’s speech from 1981.
Obama’s audacity lies in his presumption that a.) This stimulus package can actually work and b.) That America is so fragile and incapable of righting herself without the interdiction of an elitist ruling class. Get out of our way, Mr. President and we’ll handle it.
I leave you with Reagan’s closing remarks.
Martin Treptow left his job in a small town barber shop in 1917 to go to France with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire.
We are told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, “My Pledge,” he had written these words: “America must win this war. Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone.”
The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God’s help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.
And, after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans. God bless you, and thank you.
Kaiser Says: February 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Dang straight! A good many politicians have little idea how the economy morks and no responsibility there anyway. People entrust them with money, power, but no consequences. At least businessmen have the sense to keep the company running and to know that in a recession, people won’t buy as much. At least, the good businessmen would. A politician has none of those responsibilities and only follows them enough to get re-elected.
The recession is really just a hangover from a period of unregulated spending. Smart people know that we should let the recession run its ourse to impose discipline and cull out the companies that made idiot decisions. If we give money to the moron businessmen who let it happen, that’ll only encourage them.
Even if Barack Obama had the guts, skill, and brains to be able to fix the economy, it’s not his place to do it anyway. Why does everyone think that the President is gonna solve their problems.
I personally think he should have stood up to Congress on that new bill. It’s too thick, what with all the ham, bacon fat, and other pork.
The Other Side Says: February 9th, 2009 at 6:13 am
what smart people are you listening too? paul krugman, nobel prize winner in economics, says we need to spend more than what obama is proposing.
there are some times when government needs to step in to help. this recession is one of those times. government isn’t always the problem.
its not as simple as kaiser makes it out to be. does unregulated spending account for the housing crisis. deregulation does, but how does spending equal poor mortgage decisions? does it account for the job losses? what unregulated spending caused this recession?
conservative ideals like deregulation caused this problem. america voted for progressive ideas. conservatives were in control in the years leading up to this mess. why should they get to decide how to solve it? why do republicans get to decide whether or not this bill fails?
Zack Says: February 9th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Ummmm…..”The Other Side”, DEMS have been in charge of congress since this thing started!
The Other Side Says: February 10th, 2009 at 4:26 am
correlation doesn’t prove causation. just because democrats controlled congress when the economy tanked doesn’t mean their policies caused the crisis.
zach, can you blame bush for 9-11 because he was in office when it happened?
Buck Says: February 10th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I’m once again proud of my Republican party standing up on principle to vote against this stimulus bill. Other Side, nobody disagrees that money needs to be spent, including federal tax dollars, to fuel a recovery. The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is simple. We beleive that you should use tax breaks to give the people more of their money to spend and you want to take their money and spend it for them. Did you actually read Reagan’s speech? You may be to young to remember, but back then Carter had been using the same kind of negative voice that Obama is using, saying that America had a “general malaise”. Reagan said, yeah times are tough, but I have faith in you, the American people to solve this problem and I’m gonna get government out of your way and let you do it. AND WE DID!
The Other Side Says: February 10th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
this is a fundamental debate between liberal and conservative economics. it would normally be a good arguement in weaker recessions where tax cuts may work.
but this crisis is only comparable to the great depression where fdr’s spending relieved the hurting. when fdr listened to conservatives, in 1937, the recession worsened. the government spending worked and is needed today.
obama is being tough because republicans are obstructing. they can voice their economic ideas but they can’t expect to have a large impact. america voted for obama’s ideas and solutions for the crisis.
Kaiser Says: March 13th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Perhaps. The Other Side, you do make some good points, but there are just as many economists and economic analysts who say that Obama’s policies aren’t helping. In fact, quite a few polls show that the majority of economists are giving Obama’s administration a failing grade.
Well, supposing this spending and regulation and welfarism does help us out of this recession, I don’t trust the government to give up this new power it has by itself afterwards. The people will have to force it to do that and it worries me that more and more actually want to keep these kinds of things. The worse tyranny is one that the people vote for.
I suppose my biggest concern over the new administration is mainly their foreign policy and welfarist/socialist tendencies.
I would like to point out that FDR’s economic policies were not very helpful and it was WWII that got us out of the Great Depression, not liberalism.
Besides, I find Obama passing this Stimulus Bill kind of hipocritical. He promised during his campaign that he would lower the federal deficit, but I fail to see how all this spending is going to help.
When I say “unregulated spending”, I should have been more clear. I meant the gov, business, and everyday people were receiving/giving out bad loans and spending money none of them had. I apologize for not being clear.
Still, Obama should not be talking down the economy. Using that kind of language, whether intentionally or unintentionally included, will only hurt America. One may argue that he’s taking a sober look, and that may be true, but the “inspirational” half in those speeches is weak.
It amuses me, though, that I find hipocrisy in your very own arguments. First, you blame the conservatives for being “in control in the years leading up to this mess.” Then in the next reply you counter Zack’s assertions by saying, “correlation doesn’t prove causation. just because democrats controlled congress when the economy tanked doesn’t mean their policies caused the crisis” No offense. I just thought I’d point it out.
Also, not all of America voted for Obama. Sure there were a lot of brainwashed supporters, you know, those kinds always waving banners in your face, wearing the t-shirts all the time, calling you a redneck if you didn’t agree. But also there were plenty of Americans who didn’t want Obama, who felt that a real conservative was what they needed, that Obama was too inexperienced as opposed to Clinton, or that they simply wanted a less radical approach. So you can’t say “america voted fpr obama’s ideas and solutions for the crisis”.
Besides, is it wrong to have opposition, even when a large chunk of the country blindly follows you? At the very least, we can act as a mediator, pulling back the reins when he goes too far. We can be the devil’s advocate “in case” he gets too high on his own inflated popularity. Everyone needs one. What’s so special about the Obama admin? Boy, if anyone needs a leash, it’s President Pelosi, er, I mean Obama.
Kaiser Says: March 13th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
I’m sorry mine is so long.
The Other Side Says: March 20th, 2009 at 2:22 am
kaiser, do you see what the republicans are doing right now? if you say nothing thats being generous. they have no ideas, no support and no right to stand in the way of obama’s attempts to help america. they are hypocrits that have no leadership. isn’t it amazing the same republicans who railed against obama’s proposal to curb executive compensation are voting for a bill to tax it for 90%?
fdr cut the unemployment rate significantly. it was only when fdr listened to conservatives, to scale back government intervention, when the unemployment rate went up. how fast does kaiser think the new deal was going to work? america wasn’t going to recover quickly under the best circumstances.
trickle down economics doesn’t work. the rich got richer and median incomes decreased (they rose 8% under clinton). deregulation let wall street run wild and led to irresponsible decisions. bush inherited a surplus and left with a significant defecit. those are causes that led to economic disaster. just because democrats were in office at the same time republican policies were failing doesn’t mean democrats caused it.
its not wrong to have opposition, but its unfair for people who don’t have any alternatives besides tax cuts to stand in the way of legislation. its ironic that after years of the bush administration doing what ever it wants that conservatives all of a sudden care about checks and balances. the republicans can’t veto anymore and they can barely filibuster. they have no power. deal with it.
rob Says: April 28th, 2009 at 5:29 am
Reagan years where wonderful BS!!!! I remember hearing newscasts of people committing suicide because they couldn’t make ends meet, got foreclosed on etc, lower income families went through their savings, unemployment peaked to almost 11%, minimum wage was $3.35/hr through his entire 2 terms.
Is it unrelated that things went from bad to worse when Dubs buddies where getting $4/gallon?
Kaiser Says: April 29th, 2009 at 5:24 am
Whoa chill.
Anyway, perhaps you’re right. But I’m not going to argue the point. I think trickle-down works, you don’t. I don’t think FDR’s New Deal was effective, you do. It’s a fundamental difference that’s not gonna be solved anytime soon.
Well, if Al Franken gets in and he probably will, then the Republicans won’t be able to filibuster. Stupid, snakey, two-timing Specter. Good riddance, I say. At least they won’t get blamed for anything that follows.
And thank you Rob so much. “Bush was a bad prez”, I think we all get it now. As if all the t-shirts and bumper stickers didn’t drive that home.
As for suicide “newscasts”, here:
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/stolinsky1.html
I know I can’t hyperlink it, but it helps.
Kaiser Says: April 29th, 2009 at 5:24 am
Oops. Never mind. It hyperlinked itself.
rob Says: May 8th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Well the trickle down theory wasn’t working or was working real slow, but it was a good thing GHW Bush was beaten by Clinton because it would of been at least another 4 years before Rush Limbaugh could blame its failure on a Democrat.
In my opinion the best time for trickle down theory to work is start it when minimum wage is high and keep raising prices like whats been happening since Clinton’s minimum wage increase eventually eliminating any advantage of that minimum wage increase, but in the end it may just take longer to fail
During the new deal people hit much harder times and like now it was world wide, the dust bowl drought(1930-36[40]) did nothing to prevent/help America out of its hardships, but unemployment lost 10% from 24-14% through the years of 33-37 with 38 raising again to about 19% then back down to 14% in 1940. Had he not tried balancing the budget in 38 unemployment may have reached a lower number by 1940 considering it dropped 5% from 39-40 it could of been as lower by 1940 than it was. The gdp went up by 40%
Hoover’s economic policy didn’t work either doesn’t mean it was wrong necessarily maybe just the wrong time.
Kaiser Says: May 12th, 2009 at 2:35 am
I don’t personally like trickle-down so much. Too much sponginess in between the bottom and top. If I were in the higher and/or middle management’s position, I know I’d definitely grab some myself.
Just give cuts to everybody. Why not?