Those who understand that America is now on the wrong track cannot reasonably vote for Obama in November, because he is absolutely unwilling to change, perhaps even ideologically incapable of changing, course. Evidence abounds.
First, consider his disastrous economic record and his rejection of any semblance of a course change. He and his economic advisers told us his stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. It didn’t. He didn’t consider for a second that his policies exacerbated the economic crisis. He blamed Bush and said that if anything, he — Obama — hadn’t spent enough. He demanded more stimulus packages — high-speed rail, other infrastructure, American Jobs Act. He continued to grow government in a wide variety of areas; things continued to get worse. No sign of any significant economic recovery; we had the worst recovery in 50 years. No sign of unemployment relief. He didn’t change course.
Despite his failed performance, he told us in 2009 that only the government could break this business cycle. He told us in Osawatomie, Kan., that the private sector couldn’t lead us back to economic vitality on its own. Recently, he told us that successful entrepreneurs didn’t build their businesses — or roads or bridges or whatever claptrap he pretended to have meant. He refuses to reconsider his flawed notions. Arrogance, as much as ignorance.
If you think that despite all this, Obama may have learned his lesson and will change course going forward, you are fooling yourself. Obama won’t change his economic policies, because he is addicted to spending and to growing government on several levels. His economic philosophy, his ideology and his political survival demand that he stay the course.
He firmly believes that only government spending — Keynesian pump priming — can stimulate a moribund economy. He believes it to the point that he’s willing to bankrupt the nation to do it. His philosophy countenances no other alternative methods of recovery, specifically letting the private sector breathe and recover on its own. That’s the economic philosophy component.
He also knows that the most efficient way to redistribute wealth and otherwise reallocate resources from groups he believes less deserving to those he believes more deserving is through an increasingly progressive tax code and more government spending. That is, even if he shared the ordinary American’s debt aversion and reasonable anxiety about our horrifying financial predicament, he wouldn’t discontinue (hasn’t discontinued) his pursuit of ever-greater taxing and spending, because to do so would be tantamount to abandoning his quest, his obsession to fundamentally transform America. That’s the ideological component.