The Cult of Obama

I wrote in a previous post, and still believe, that Barack Obama is a good person and will be a major improvement over the disaster that was George W. Bush. His election is also great for race relations and surely means even more to many African Americans than I, as a white man born decades after Jim Crow ended, can fully understand. I still disagree with our President Elect on a lot of issues, especially his Keynesian stimulus garbage, but his tax and spend is better than Bush’s borrow and spend. What concerns me is this cult of personality that has sprouted up around Obama.

It’s almost like Barack Obama has been knighted as the Messiah of America. Conservative talk radio is often hyperbolic, but I think they got the mainstream media’s (other than the neoconservative Fox News) kids glove approach to Obama right. However, what’s more disconcerting than this media fawning is the millions of people who seem to just seem to fall heads over heels for him.

I’ve had a couple of friends on facebook constantly post pro Obama related material in their profile and there are currently 1,156,677 confirmed guests to Obama’s inauguration on facebook despite the fact that you can’t attend his inauguration via facebook. For the real thing over two million people are expected to attend the actual inauguration. I unfortunately missed the parties after he was elected, but I heard they were out of control.

Now, this isn’t necessarily bad, I mean it’s good that people are getting involved in politics. But there seems to be a feeling that his election will save us all from financial ruin, terrorism, war, greedy corporations, racism, sexism, crime, foreclosure, layoffs, bird flu and athletes foot. I mean look at all these Hollywood stars falling all over themselves for Obama in music videos like this one, this one, this one, and of course Obama girl.

What’s stranger and more disheartening are the youth choirs singing about how great Obama is. I don’t mean to compare Obama to Hitler, but I’m sorry the hero worship is just too reminiscent. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

It’s not a surprise that some conservative writers have picked up on this but even liberal economist Paul Krugman picked up on it during the primaries. Unbridled executive power is extraordinarily dangerous as we’ve seen in the fascist and communist states of the 20th century and we need to be very careful about how much power we allow our presidents to have. Bush, like many before him, increased executive power significantly which liberals have rightfully criticized. Now, however they’re jumping all over themselves for a president who will almost certainly expand the federal government.

We have to pull ourselves back from in this cult of the presidency in general and the cult of Obama in particular. The intent of the founders and the explicit language in our Constitution was meant to limit the power of the president. Hell, the original Articles of Confederation didn’t even have a president! Now there were problems then (think slavery), but a powerful executive is simply the antithesis of liberty and while it’s great Bush is gone, it’s time for Obama fanatics (and Obama himself) to relax.

Or we can just laugh at them.

Getting My Vote On

Who to vote for, who to vote for? That was my dilemma last weekend as I went through and filled out my mail-in ballot. It was probably the most mind-numbingly boring experience of my entire life... so I'd like to share it with you. Don't worry, I'll skip the boring ballot measures and annexation requests and State Treasurer runoff and jump right to the real meat of the matter: Who should I vote for President.

I'll start with the Republicans. Wow, have they proven they don't deserve my vote over the past eight years. I'll say that no matter what happens, this election can't be all bad given that George Bush will be out of office in two months. And while I like John McCain as a person and definitely respect him for what he had to go through in Vietnam, I simply can't vote for him. I won't even consider it. The reason being is his steadfast support for the war in Iraq and his almost romantic disposition toward US militarism. Every prediction made by the war's supporters - that it would be a cake walk, that there wouldn't be an insurgency, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that oil would pay for the war, that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence - has been proven wrong. The surge seems to have helped stabilize the situation, but I think it has more to do with the Iraqi people segregating themselves along sectarian lines. Basically McCain was wrong about Iraq in the beginning and he is still unwilling to budge. To me, this is unacceptable.

Unfortunately it's not just Iraq with him. McCain is a super hawk, through and through. He even said in one of the Republican debates that "we lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the will to finish the job." Really John, really? Were 13 years not enough (1960-1973)? Were 55,000 dead Americans not enough? I'm just afraid that he is such a hawk that not only will we stay in Iraq for a 100 years but that Iran may be next. To fill out his resume he has admitted he's doesn't know much about the economy and Sarah Palin is inexperienced and looks kind of lost on the campaign trail. At least she's helped Saturday Night Live produce a much needed revival.

So let's turn to the Democrats, Barack Obama is tempting. All that talk of change, well it makes me think of this. He did oppose the Iraq War and comes of as uniting figure. However, if you read his anti-war speech closely, it's really not very anti-war, it's just anti-this-war. While obviously very few people would oppose all wars regardless of circumstance, Obama felt it necessary to reiterate that four times in a 921 word speech. And since when does one short speech make you passionately anti-war prior to the conflict. So Barack may just bring us back to the ineffective, scattered, naive interventions a la Bill Clinton. Oh and he hasn't pushed any legislation to end the war of even voted against funding it. Some change there buddy.

What worries me more about Obama is his economic ideas. As I mentioned in the previous post, the government is the root of our financial crisis, but the junior senator from Illinois simply blames Wall Street and only Wall Street. Overall he wants to raise taxes during a recession. Come on Barack, economics 101! Sometimes his economic policies are just plain ridiculous, such as when he was asked why he wants to raise the capital gains tax even though the last two times that was done it brought in less revenue. His answer: it's more fair. Really Barack, really? He also wants to increase spending, which will mean more borrowing, even with the tax increases he has proposed. Thereby increasing our ever growing and unsustainable national debt, which I will have to write a blog about sometime later.

So I'm saying no to the two major candidates. Aren't I throwing my vote away then? Well, I live in Oregon, which is easily in Obama's camp. So no matter who I vote for I'm throwing my vote away. I'm not against democracy by any means (although it needs to be restrained by a strong constitution, separation of powers and federalism). And I do know that if many people vote for a third party candidate en masse it could swing the election, such as with Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. However I also know that it is simply a fact that no election has ever been decided by one vote and Oregon will go blue no matter how I fill out my ballot. So screw the major parties and call it a protest vote if you want, but I'm voting for who I want regardless of their odds.

So then who? Well I liked Ron Paul a lot during the primaries, so maybe I could write him in. He's not on the ballot, but did gain quite a following during the primaries. Paul's libertarian conservatism may be a bit simplistic, but he's one of the few politicians that Washington hasn't corrupted. I supported him until those ugly, racist newsletters saw the light of day. Paul says he didn't write them and I believe him, but it's hard to believe he had no idea what was going on. I mean the newsletter was called the Ron Paul Newsletter for crying out loud. So I guess I still respect him (and by the way his book, The Revolution: a Manifesto, is quite good), but I'm not going to write him in.

So, given my moderate libertarian beliefs I guess I'll just go with Bob Barr and the libertarian ticket. I have some beefs with the former congressman too - such as his support of the Defense of Marriage Act, a very unlibertarian piece of legislation if there ever was one - but overall he's a more restrained version of Ron Paul with out the racist charade circling him. Hey, he's as good as anyone to throw my vote away on.

Is George Bush the Worst President Ever? No, but not for a Lack of Trying

Fewer and fewer people these days would dare say George Bush has been a good president. His approval rating is hovering around 30%, worldwide it is even worse, many staunch Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Gordan Smith, Patrick Buchanan and Bob Barr have turned against him, there have been hundreds of books and documentaries lambasting him, Keith Olbermann and Dennish Kucinich among others demanded he be impeached and even my super conservative roommate is completely fed up with him. I posed this question to him "whenever you think we should do something and then Bush comes out with a similar proposal, does it make you question your assumptions?" His answer: an emphatic "yes!"

Bush has certainly been bad. The wars in Iraq in Afghanistan have so far yielded 4677 deaths and possibly many more suicides as well as countless Iraqi casualties. The reasons for the Iraq war turned out to all be false. His administration failed to stop 9/11 or catch Osama Bin Laden. His policies have vastly increased the number of terrorists as well, defeating the whole idea of a “war on terrorism.” The deficit has skyrocketed leading to high inflation. The economy is also extremely weak making the possibility of 70's like stagflation uncomfortably high. Government spending has increased quicker under Bush than at any time since the Great Society. Of all the embarrassing things he has said, the most ridiculous was probably his attack on John Kerry in one of the debates for "pretending to be fiscal conservative." Sorry sir, you are pretending to be a fiscal conservative. OK, back to the transgressions; the Patriot Act set fire to the 4th and 6th ammendments of our constitution allowing federal agents to search your home while you are not there, with out a warrant and with out even telling you they were there. The Military Tribunals Act is a direct assault on Habeus Corpus, the water boarding, renditions and other torture scandals, the miserable response to Katrina, the Scooter Libby scandal, and then there was that ridiculous attempt to put retroactive immunity into a funding bill earlier this year. There are plenty more, but you get the idea.

So how could such a dismal track record not ordain Bush Jr. as the worst president ever? Well, when you're competing with our 42 previous presidents, you've got a strong handicap to start with! Richard Nixon comes to mind right away. In my honest opinion, Watergate was about the best thing he did. However, the worst of all time belongs to a guy who inexplicably manages his way into most historians’ top 10 lists : Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson, wait, let me think... oh yeah, World War I, League of Nations, decent president. Well right on the first two, not quite so much on the third. Many historians have called him an "idealist" for the 14 Points he proposed after the conclusion of World War I. The truth is less appealing, for starters, the man was a die hard racist whose favorite film was D.W. Griffith's Klu Klux Klan adoring The Birth of a Nation. And as one might expect from an extreme racist, upon being elected he almost immediately went about segregating the executive branch.

However, being a bad person doesn't necessarily make for a bad president. Ty Cobb was one of the most miserable human beings that ever lived, but he could sure play baseball. Unfortunately, Wilson’s ugly side was more evident in his policies than his character.

We'll start with his economic policies, which were in some ways prescient (being in favor of centralization), but were also disastrous. He brought us both the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. You can argue that these are legitimate now (I wouldn't), but economists almost universally blame the Federal Reserve for causing the Great Depression. Some, like Milton Friedman blame the Fed for mismanaging the crisis, others like Murray Rothbard blame it for creating it.

Still, all we have is that he was a racist and his economic policies turned out to be disastrous a decade after he left office. No, those reasons alone won’t do the trick. The reason Wilson was the worst president in history was all about World War I.

In 1914, Europe brought upon the world the worst war we had ever seen. The American people were almost unanimous in wanting to stay neutral. Wilson played lip service to this sentiment, even using the line "he kept us out of the war" to get reelected in 1916. However, Wilson wanted the US to have a seat at the peace conference. (1) He wanted to "make the world safe for democracy." The only way to do this was to get the United States into the war. In many ways he was the first neoconservative (except they don’t like the whole League of Nations idea).

To do this he’d need a reason though. Many believe today the cassus belli for the United States to enter World War I was when 128 Americans died after the Luisitania was sunk on May 7th, 1915. However it was actually two years later when almost simultaneously Germany foolishly sent the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico (who was in the middle of a civil war) recommending they retake Texas and reopened unrestricted submarine warfare. Wilson decided this was unacceptable and asked the congress to declare war on Germany (which they actually did back then).

However these were ridiculous reasons on their face. The Zimmerman telegram was bad, but basically meaningless given Mexico’s state of affairs. And was losing a few ships worth hundreds of thousands of American lives? Wouldn’t going to war require more ships to go through dangerous waters? Furthermore, it was blatant hypocrisy. Wilson had no problem with the almost identical policy Britain had in blockading (and starving) Germany.

Wilson went ahead regardless though, and to gain public support for the war he launched the first propaganda ministry in the history of the United States. He set up the War Industries Board that could only be described as fascist. Its job was to control the prices businesses charged, ration resources and bully anyone who resisted into compliance. He censored newspapers, jailed dissidents, initiated the first draft since the Civil War and sent over 4 million Americans to the muddy, rant infested trenches on the Western Front. 117,000 would not return. (2).

Yet somehow it got worse as soldiers returning home brought with them the Spanish flu, which killed another 675,000 Americans. And if all this were not bad enough, his “idealism” failed in every way possible. The 14 Points predictably broke down as the Allies wanted revenge for the brutal four-year war. The League of Nations was all he got through, which the United States didn’t even join. In the end, what Wilson claimed was the “war to end all wars” was only that for 20 years when we were blessed with World War II (the war to end that theory). Unfortunately the peace treaty Wilson wanted so much to be apart of, the vicious Treaty of Versailles, had a lot to do with the Nazi’s coming to power (along with the Great Depression the Federal Reserve helped create).

If the United States had stayed out of World War I, it is certainly possible that the First World War would have ended in a bitter stalemate, which neither side would have wanted to repeat. Instead, one side was humiliated and forced to pay massive reparations. The Nazis capitalized on the discontent the Treaty of Versailles brought as well as Germany’s economic woes to come to power in 1933. While we can never know for sure, it’s certainly plausible that if the United States had stayed out of World War I, we would have never heard the name of Adolf Hitler. Jim Powell strongly defends this argument in his book Wilson’s War. It’s not to say World War II and the Holocaust were Wilson’s fault, but the unintended consequences of his reckless actions should be lessons for everyone today. And it’s still safe to blame him for the 117,000 dead Americans as well as the horrible precedents he set. Afterall, he was the first one that foolishly thought the United States should be the world’s policeman.

So while George Bush has certainly been bad, Woodrow Wilson still has him beat in my book. Luckily for George W, he’s got six months left to screw things up even further. Good luck George.


(1) Tom Woods, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Pg. 123-124, Regnery Publishing, Copyright 2004

(2) Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, Pg. 108-113, Random House Inc., Copyright 2007