Saturday, July 11, 2009

The audacity of ... Obama

Rex Murphy opines:

We've seen him in action for a bit more than six months. What we can say with confidence, now that we have the evidence of his actions, is that had he run on (a) transforming the U.S. economy by massive federal government intervention, (b) taking an owner's stake in the automobile industry, (c) transforming the rules of America's energy economy, (d) instituting a national health-care system - all of these simultaneously and in the centre of a financial meltdown - Barack Obama wouldn't merely have lost the election, he wouldn't have got as many votes as gnarly old Ross Perot did in an election long past.


Mr. Obama has taken the real crisis of the U.S. (and world) economy and used it as the screen and lever for a massive agenda of transformation, a transformation that calls for expenditures on a scale never before seen in the history of government on this planet.


It is inconceivable that these ideas occurred to Mr. Obama postelection. His agenda is of such scale and particularity that it is evidence of design and previous contemplation. He knew what he wished to do when he was campaigning, but he was not going to whisper the scale and range of his designs while the campaign was on. It would have scared off people.


But daring is Barack Obama's real middle name. When he borrowed the phrase "the audacity of hope" from his frightful mentor, most people fastened on the word "hope." They should have highlighted "audacity."


He's flying high in dazzling hubris. The American economy is not yet fixed. It may get worse. And it is in this parlous and critical context that Mr. Obama has launched history-making expenditures and a reordering of American governance.

Daring? Daring - if you believe in it. Reckless – to the point of real danger if you do not.

I don't believe in it. I side with reckless -- and dangerous. And I am not hopeful about his "change".


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home