Obama – horrifying failure or terrifying success? 12

On June 7, 2008, we faced with horror the possibility that Barack Obama could become president of the United States with a post titled Obama can only fumble and fail:

We would say to him: ‘Come on, Barry, face the fact that you cannot lead this nation.’

Barack Obama makes flabbergastingly naive statements of intent. He seems to be stuck with adolescent ideals, a view of what is desirable and possible that few sane people over the age of 21 can normally continue to hold. He manifests no knowledge of history, or of political or economic theory. His ideas have the quality of sticky-sentiment greetings cards, but are delivered with the grandiloquence of extreme narcissism. His manner of dropping his voice at the end of every sentence gives everything he says a certainty; an inarguable ‘I say so, so that’s how it is’ finality; an apodictic quality. This manner, combined with the lift of his chin to one side like Mussolini, enchants gullible listeners: makes them think, ‘Ah yes, he is so sure, he must be right, he should lead us!’ Only when he has to answer a question he has not prepared himself for, do we hear him fumbling, stammering, losing the eloquence of the well-rehearsed demagogue.

To elect him to the presidency of the United States at this point in history would be a mistake so devastating that it’s hard to believe sensible voters could even contemplate doing so. Now, just as Europe has learnt too late that socialism does not work, he would bring socialism to America. For make no mistake about it, Obama is a socialist …  Just for starters he wants a national health service – a wholly socialist notion – though every example of such a thing everywhere in the world is failing.

Has he brought socialism to America? Yes. Or very much more of it to add to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s start.

Has he imposed a national health service on the nation? Yes. He has begun to do it with a health care act that taxes every citizen and resident of America just for existing, and is proving to be so unmanageable that the only way out of its mess is either to repeal it as Republicans want to do, or go to a full “one-payer system” – the one payer being of course the state – as Obama’s faithful Democrats want to do.

His foreign policy ideas are even more disastrous. He wants to disarm the US in a world of spreading nuclear know-how and capability along with hostile intention.

Is he doing so? Yes. He is defunding the US military and turning servicemen into social workers.

Is the country called ‘the last best hope’ of humanity about to follow the European example and become weak, demoralized, decadent, and slowly subjugated by aliens whose ideas derive from the seventh century?

Yes. In addition to following the European model of socialism, Obama has brought the Muslim Brotherhood into his administration. 

What of his world leadership as US president? He has just proved himself incapable of exercising it. Worse, he has broken the Pax Americana on which the world relied – as Caroline Glick explicates: 

What happened in Geneva last week was the most significant international event since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The collapse of the Soviet Union signaled the rise of the United States as the sole global superpower. The developments in the six-party nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva last week signaled the end of American world leadership.

Global leadership is based on two things – power and credibility. The United States remains the most powerful actor in the world. But last week, American credibility was shattered.

Secretary of State John Kerry spent the first part of last week lying to Israeli and Gulf Arab leaders and threatening the Israeli people. He lied to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Saudis about the content of the deal US and European negotiators had achieved with the Iranians.

Kerry told them that in exchange for Iran temporarily freezing its nuclear weapons development program, the US and its allies would free up no more than $5 billion in Iranian funds seized and frozen in foreign banks.

Kerry threatened the Israeli people with terrorism and murder – and so invited both – if Israel fails to accept his demands for territorial surrender to PLO terrorists that reject Israel’s right to exist. …

It is hard to separate the rise in terrorist activity since Kerry’s remarks last week from his remarks.

What greater carte blanche for murder could the Palestinians have received than the legitimization of their crimes by the chief diplomat of Israel’s closest ally? Certainly, Kerry’s negotiating partner Catherine Ashton couldn’t have received a clearer signal to ratchet up her economic boycott of Jewish Israeli businesses than Kerry’s blackmail message …

Kerry’s threats were so obscene and unprecedented that Israeli officials broke with tradition and disagreed with him openly and directly, while he was still in the country. Normally supportive leftist commentators have begun reporting Kerry’s history of anti-Israel advocacy, including his 2009 letter of support for pro-Hamas activists organizing flotillas to Gaza in breach of international and American law.

As for Kerry’s lies to the US’s chief Middle Eastern allies, it was the British and the French who informed the Israelis and the Saudis that far from limiting sanctions relief to a few billion dollars in frozen funds, the draft agreement involved ending sanctions on Iran’s oil and gas sector, and on other industries.

In other words, the draft agreement exposed Washington’s willingness to effectively end economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran’s agreement to cosmetic concessions that will not slow down its nuclear weapons program.

Both the US’s position, and the fact that Kerry lied about that position to the US’s chief allies, ended what was left of American credibility in the Middle East. That credibility was already tattered by US fecklessness in Syria and support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

True, in the end, Kerry was unable to close the deal he rushed off to Geneva to sign last Friday. [But] it wasn’t Iran that rejected the American surrender. And it wasn’t America that scuttled the proposal. It was France. Unable to hide behind American power and recognizing its national interest in preventing Iran from emerging as a nuclear armed power in the Middle East, France vetoed a deal that paved the way a nuclear Iran.

Kerry’s failure to reach the hoped-for deal represented a huge blow to America, and a double victory for Iran. The simple fact that Washington was willing to sign the deal – and lie about it to its closest allies – caused the US to lose its credibility in the Middle East. Even without the deal, the US paid the price of appeasing Iran and surrendering leadership of the free world [in this instance] to France and Israel. …

Thus, Iran ended Pax Americana in the Middle East, removing the greatest obstacle in its path to regional hegemony. And it did so without having to make the slightest concession to the Great Satan. …

It was fear of losing Pax Americana that made all previous US administrations balk at reaching an accord with Iran. …

The Obama administration just paid that unsustainably high price, and didn’t even get a different relationship with Iran.

Most analyses of what happened in Geneva last week have centered on what the failure of the talks means for the future of Obama’s foreign policy.

Certainly Obama, now universally reviled by America’s allies in the Middle East, will be diplomatically weakened. This diplomatic weakness may not make much difference to Obama’s foreign policy, because appeasement and retreat do not require diplomatic strength.

But the real story of what happened last week is far more significant than the future of Obama’s foreign policy. Last week it was America that lost credibility, not Obama. It was America that squandered the essential component of global leadership.

And that is the watershed event of this young century.

Until Obama became president, the consensus view of the US foreign policy establishment and of both major parties was that the US had a permanent interest in being the hegemonic power in the Middle East. US hegemony ensured three permanent US national security interests: preventing enemy regimes and terror groups from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm; ensuring the smooth flow of petroleum products through the Persian Gulf and the Suez Canal; and demonstrating the credibility of American power by ensuring the security of US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The third interest was an essential foundation of US deterrence of the Soviets during the Cold War, and of the Chinese over the past decade.

Obama departed from this foreign policy consensus in an irrevocable manner last week. In so doing, he destroyed US credibility.

[Even] if  a conservative internationalist in the mold of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan is elected in 2016, Obama’s legacy will make it impossible for him to rebuild the US alliance structure. US allies … will not be willing to make any longterm commitments based on US security guarantees.

Obama has taught the world that the same US that elected Truman and formed NATO, and elected George H.W. Bush and threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, can elect a man who betrays US allies and US interests to advance a radical ideology predicated on a rejection of the morality of American power. Any US ally is now on notice that US promises – even if based on US interests – are not reliable. American commitments can expire the next time America elects a radical to the White House. …

America’s appalling betrayal of Jerusalem under Obama …  is the straw that has broken the back of American strategic credibility from Taipei to Santiago. …

The twice-elected president of the United States has dispatched his secretary of state to threaten and deceive US allies while surrendering to US foes. It is now an indisputable fact that the US government may use its power to undermine its own interests and friends worldwide.

Could a president fail more catastrophically than Obama has? The list of his failures is too long for this space. Enough to say he has had no successes. America under his leadership is more in debt, its government is more corrupt, its position in the world is weaker, its Constitution is voided, its citizens are less free, its enemies are triumphant, its allies are enraged …

And yet … an awful question arises. What if all this represents not failure but success? What if the wrecking of the economy, the collectivization of the people, the weakening of America as the dominant world power, the voiding of the Constitution, the advancement of Islam, the existential crisis of Israel, are precisely what Obama set out to achieve?

Then he would have to be assessed as the most successful president since George Washington. The failure is colossal, but it is not his. It is America’s.

  • Don L

    200 of our top military leaders have either been fired or resigned during Nobama’s terms: cutting off the head.

  • Kerry

    Jillian, Reading this post is most distressing because of its accuracy and prophetic foreboding, however, I still believe in the core principles of America and I believe they will survive. I remember well in 1979 the disastrous situation faced by America due to the incompetence of President Carter. I understand, we are well past that level of incompetence with this administration, but the American people are finally beginning to see that the Emperor has no clothes, that there is no there, there. The world also understands better then most Americans that an America with no leadership and no vision does not make the world a safer place.

    Were it not for the incredibly stupid candidates the Republicans put up for Senate in a number of states…Delaware and Arizona come to mind…then we would be having a completely different conversation. As it is, being the eternal optimist that I am, I believe America will come back, albeit slowly due to the tremendous economic burden and total calamity of foreign policy and corruption of government in general.

    Perhaps these have been good lessons for America to learn. Perhaps the black community will finally be able to take the words of Martin Luther King to heart and vote based on the content of ones character and not skin color. Project 21, which you do not hear much about in the MSM, is one such group of African Americans that have their eyes open and I expect great things from them in the future.

    • liz

      …”the American people are finally beginning to see…” Dream on.
      What “seeing” there is, is too little, too late.
      Obama has succeeded in putting the icing on the cake that started baking long before he was born – the “long march through the institutions”.

      • Kerry

        Liz, I have been thinking about your comment here for a couple of days…”Dream on” to my suggestion that the American people are waking up to the truth about BHO. I do hope you are not so calloused and hardened of spirit that you have no optimism for the future. Having read many of your posts here, I believe you to be an eternal optimist, and in my world that counts for a lot. while I can agree that the situation is DIRE in every respect…it is not HOPELESS by any stretch of the imagination. The American spirit is still strong and vibrant. The opportunities to overcome these seemingly insurmountable obstacles to freedom and liberty can be realized and will be…they MUST be realized. You are also correct in that the “cake was baking” long before BHO was born, but so was the fragile yet solid ideals upon which the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. The Republic has never been without its detractors and enemies from without and within, but the strength, the backbone of our Experiment is to face these challenges squarely, admit wherein we have failed, and find the courage deep within to make the adjustments…no matter how uncomfortable. I still believe, and even though I have not lived in America for many years now, that fire of patriotism still burns within my breast.

        • liz

          Thanks for the encouragement! My optimism has been eroding at warp speed ever since the last election.
          But I agree with you that we who value what we have in this country must never give up trying to preserve it, whether we have any hope of succeeding or not.

          • Kerry

            Liz, after seeing the actions of the Senate today and the nuclear option passed by King Harry and his court, some of your reasons for depression have become more evident. America is certainly in a death spiral of sorts now, and it may take decades to resort what may be lost. This action will no doubt bring about a reversal in the Senate majority a year from now, but the kinds in the play ground will be sure to break as much of the playground equipment as possible before they retire. I weep for America.

            On another point, I saw this article which just demonstrates in subtle ways the problems with America. If we cannot clearly educate our little ones appropriately, then what kind of future can we really have?


            All the best to you Liz and please now is the time for eternal vigilance for the heart and soul of America.

        • Don L

          Jillian and this site, Ayn Rand and Austrian economics are motivators for me.

  • WmarkW

    Obama is a dreamer, so naive, to think he’s a visionary.

    We can “thank” George W. Bush and the Republican Congresses of 2001-06 for the fact that he’s President.

    • Jillian Becker

      Partly. But we can also “thank” the poor education the last couple of generations have been getting, the intense left-slanted anti-America indoctrination from kindergarten through university. And the Christian/Socialist sentimentality over the underdog. Vast numbers – black and white – voted for Obama for no better reason than that he’s black.

      • WmarkW

        Yes, and also the ideological rigidity of the two parties due to the closed primary system. Worthwhile centrist politicians like Richard Lugar, Joe Lieberman, Lisa Murkowski, Arlen Specter, Mike Castle and Adrian Fenty were defeated in primaries from the wings of their parties.

        Congress’ approval rating just dropped to 9%. I suspect the next political movement will be of working people tired of having to choose between the party of government and party of corporations.

        • Jillian Becker

          Please explain what you mean by “party of corporations”. Leftists often fling the word “corporate” at conservatives as some sort of accusation, and I don’t know what they’re getting at. Sure there are some big corporations – they employ an enormous number of people, and if they were to go out of existence the results would be dire. Their executives apparently give much more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans. (Even in Silicon Valley, the hugely successful entrepreneurs, those who have done best out of personal freedom and the capitalist system, seem mostly to vote Democrat, ie statist!) There’s a lot wrong with the Republican Party – mostly sheer pusillanimity – but what do corporations have to do with their principles or their policies?

  • Frank

    People deserve the government they elect.