Obama’s Socialization Europeanizing of America

Loading

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before, although tonight I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.

~~~

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad.

In this century, in this city of all cities, we must reject the Cold War mindset of the past and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that opens markets have created and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development, but we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few and not the many.

Together — together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

Barack Obama speech, Berlin, Germany July 2008

Of late, we have the progressive socialists spending quite a bit of time and money, rejecting the charge that Obama is socialist. Personally, I’m hard pressed to come up with another definition for taxpayer funded “universal” health care, taxpayer funded college and preschool education, taxpayer funded work training programs, taxpayer funded energy plans, etc etc. This country has already shifted more than uncomfortably to the left already… with no thanks or too little efforts and prevention by the GOP.

So let’s find find a word that Obama, the DNC and their adoring media can swallow a tad easier… and that word would be “Europeanization”. That’s a tough word to respond with Obama/Alinsky campaign playbook rule # 5 – “ridicule” – and remain in good graces with their socialist progressives overseas.

So let’s discuss the Europeanizing of America.

Mark Steyn is always one of my Sunday favorite reads (right along with Wordsmith’s Sunday Funnies, of course…). But I believe Steyn has outdone himself in today’s column, Point of No Return.

As the media informs the American electorate that showing up on election day is all but optional for a President Obama, Steyn admits with no joy that an Obama presidency would indeed be transformative… the 4th and greatest wave of socialist “liberal” annexation. And one that may be irreversible.

McCain vs Obama is not the choice many of us would have liked in an ideal world. But then it’s not an “ideal world”, and the belief that it can be made so is one of the things that separates those who think Obama will “heal the planet” and those of us who support McCain faute de mieux.

I agree with Thomas Sowell that an Obama-Pelosi supermajority will mark what he calls “a point of no return”. It would not be, as some naysayers scoff, “Jimmy Carter’s second term”, but something far more transformative. The new president would front the fourth great wave of liberal annexation — the first being FDR’s New Deal, the second LBJ’s Great Society, and the third the incremental but remorseless cultural advance when Reagan conservatives began winning victories at the ballot box and liberals turned their attention to the other levers of the society, from grade school up. The terrorist educator William Ayers, Obama’s patron in Chicago, is an exemplar of the last model: forty years ago, he was in favor of blowing up public buildings; then he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within.

All three liberal waves have transformed American expectations of the state. The spirit of the age is: Ask not what your country can do for you, demand it. Why can’t the government sort out my health care? Why can’t they pick up my mortgage?

In his first inaugural address, Calvin Coolidge said: “I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people.” That’s true in a more profound sense than he could have foreseen. In Europe, lavish social-democratic government has transformed citizens into eternal wards of the nanny state: the bureaucracy’s assumption of every adult responsibility has severed Continentals from the most basic survival impulse, to the point where unaffordable entitlements on shriveled birth rates have put a question mark over some of the oldest nation states on earth.

A vote for an Obama-Pelosi-Barney Frank-ACORN supermajority is a vote for a Europeanized domestic policy that is, as the eco-types like to say, “unsustainable”.

For many uneducated to European cultural and economic plights, allow me to summarize briefly by digging back into the WaPo archives to a Robert Samuelson column in June of 2005… The End of Europe. At a time when Euro’nations were resisting the proposed EU Constitution and the loss of sovereignty, Samuelson pointed out Europe… whether as an EU entity or sovereign states… needed to reverse two serious trends … a dwindling birth rate, and “meager” economic growth… in order to survive.

No one knows how well modern economies will perform with so many elderly people, heavily dependent on government benefits (read: higher taxes). But Europe’s economy is already faltering. In the 1970s annual growth for the 12 countries now using the euro averaged almost 3 percent; from 2001 to 2004 the annual average was 1.2 percent. In 1974 those countries had unemployment of 2.4 percent; in 2004 the rate was 8.9 percent.

Wherever they look, Western Europeans feel their way of life threatened. One solution to low birthrates is higher immigration. But many Europeans don’t like the immigrants they have — often Muslim from North Africa — and don’t want more.

One way to revive economic growth would be to reduce social benefits, taxes and regulations. But that would imperil Europe’s “social model,” which supposedly blends capitalism’s efficiency and socialism’s compassion.

~~~

The trouble is that so much benevolence requires a strong economy, while the sources of all this benevolence — high taxes, stiff regulations — weaken the economy. With aging populations, the contradictions will only thicken. Indeed, some scholarly research suggests that high old-age benefits partly explain low birthrates. With the state paying for old age, who needs children as caregivers? High taxes may also deter young couples from assuming the added costs of children.

Like European nations, the US birthrate is also in decline. As these statistics from ChildStats.gov show, percentage of the total population of children (0-17 in age) is projected to continue it’s decline in proportion to the steady incline of the population over 65.

i.e. in ratios of children v over 65 adults… (percentages expressed here as “x to y”)

1970: 34 to 10
1980: 28 to 11
1990: 26 to 13
2000: 25.6 to 12.4
2008: 24.4 to 12.7

Projected?
2010: 24.1 to 13.0
2015: 23.9 to 14.5
2020: 23.9 to 16.3

Why the projections decided to suddenly halt a historic decline in birthrate over decades, and chose to hold a steady 23.9 to 24% between 2010 and 2020 for this analyses is not clear. Needless to say, it’s optimistic to assume a rise in over 65 adult and an unchanging birthrate for our future, given the historic context.

Another spreadsheet shows birth rate projections by race. The project a very slight decline for both white and black races, and only slight increase in Asian. The largest American birthrate projected is from the Hispanic community, increasing from 14% in 1995 to a projected 23.6% by 2020.

This is important as the aging population is more dependent upon what the younger generations will contribute in tax revenue for social programs.

Now we know more about Europe’s financial problems caused by increasing social welfare programs, and declining population to support those welfare programs. We have already seen this in the US ourselves, and we are not (yet) as welfare state heavy in government spending.

Samuelson’s final paragraphs are also worthy of a repeat here… and remember, this is WaPo 2005.

But in general Europe is immobilized by its problems. This is the classic dilemma of democracy: Too many people benefit from the status quo to change it; but the status quo isn’t sustainable. Even modest efforts in France and Germany to curb social benefits have triggered backlashes. Many Europeans — maybe most — live in a state of delusion. Believing things should continue as before, they see almost any change as menacing.

~~~

All this is bad for Europe — and the United States. A weak European economy is one reason that the world economy is shaky and so dependent on American growth. Preoccupied with divisions at home, Europe is history’s has-been. It isn’t a strong American ally, not simply because it disagrees with some U.S. policies but also because it doesn’t want to make the commitments required of a strong ally.

Unwilling to address their genuine problems, Europeans become more reflexively critical of America. This gives the impression that they’re active on the world stage, even as they’re quietly acquiescing in their own decline.

If you utterly reject the socialism label, you will have a hard time arguing the “europeanizing” tag. For it is into this mecca of (little d) democratic socialism that Obama seeks to lead the US with his massive tax plans… officially flushing the US-dependent Euro economy down the toilet, with America plunging right behind it.

Back to interweave Steyn’s “Point of No Return” comment that vote for an Obama-Pelosi-Barney Frank-ACORN supermajority is a vote for a Europeanized domestic policy... Much like Samuelson points out above, the only reason the Euro decline has been held in check as long as it has is because the strength and girded by “cold, hard American power”.

More to the point, the only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?

“People of the world,” declared Senator Obama sonorously at his self-worship service in Germany, “look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

No, sorry. History proved no such thing. In the Cold War, the world did not stand as one. One half of Europe was a prison, and in the other half far too many people — the Barack Obamas of the day — were happy to go along with that division in perpetuity. And the wall came down not because “the world stood as one” but because a few courageous people stood against the conventional wisdom of the day.

~~~

The world rarely stands as one. You can, as Reagan and Thatcher did, stand up. Or, like Obama voting “present”, you can stand down.

As Steyn notes, Obama has rarely, if never, demonstrated the convictions to take a stand. And I mean the cajones it would take to be the last hold out against the collapse of world economy that would result under a completely socialist world. His meteorite rise to power has not been that of maverick stands against the popular and traditional methods of politics. Instead, with uncanny adept useage of the political machine – combined with the ruthless, brutal Saul Alinsky tactics of community organization that Obama so admires – he fine tuned the execution of “politics as usual” to a purring Ferrari engine… all the while convincing the public otherwise. Well designed mass propaganda has always worked, as history has shown.

To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving “fetuses” of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – ie, the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex — voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely “present”?

~~~

Nobody denies that, in promoting himself from “community organizer” to the world’s President-designate in nothing flat, he has shown an amazing and impressively ruthless single-mindedness. But the path of personal glory has been, in terms of policy and philosophy, the path of least resistance.

Obama – the “fellow citizen of the world” who touts he is cut of a different cloth – will most certainly bring “change” and “transformation”. Whether those results are healthy for the future of America – a nation who overwhelmingly rejects “spreading the wealth” as a mantra – remains to be seen. But if Europe is any harbinger, the outlook ain’t good…

The obvious unknown is, what happens if Obama takes the White House, and the DNC has a supermajority in Congress? Here’s Steyn’s finale…

Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic.

So the “Now what?” questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance.

An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice. But, if you don’t want it, vote accordingly.

As I’ve oft said… this is an election that is all about socialism… er, Europeanizing of America vs our traditonal capitalist structure allowing anyone who is innovative and entrepreneurial to become a financial superstar.

So vote accordingly…but for heavens sake, VOTE!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

we have the progressive socialists spending quite a bit of time and money, rejecting the charge that Obama is socialist. Personally, I’m hard pressed to come up with another definition for taxpayer funded “universal” health care, taxpayer funded college and preschool education, taxpayer funded work training programs, taxpayer funded energy plans, etc etc.

It’s not socialism… it’s not runaway spending… the new Democrat trick is to call them “investments.”

And you’re right, Obama would love to see us become more like Europe: weak, unproductive and unable to compete or defend ourselves without the kind assistance of a greater power (which used to be us).

As Mark Steyn said today:

A vote for an Obama-Pelosi-Barney Frank-ACORN supermajority is a vote for a Europeanized domestic policy that is, as the eco-types like to say, “unsustainable.”

An Obama administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and U.N. foreign policy.

> but for heavens sake, VOTE!

Obama wants to affect this vote of yours in some novel ways. For example, his official site explictly targets kids age 12 and under, urging them to ask their parents and grandparents to vote for him. The same age group is protected by regulations even when it comes to marketing of products like candies and cereal.

whats so awesome is my kids are listening to me and to the the other adults in our lives. they want our country to remain strong and for us to have our rights i have been talking to them about this a lot. my son comes home from school and tells me that in his art class the teache has a farelly unbias summery of both candidates and their plat forms on a board in his room. i guess the information is at a childs level of understanding and it also explains why we need to vote. i am impressed that it isn’t pro obama like you would expect, but it could be perceived that way if you tried really hard. my son actually read it all and asked me if the info was correct, and it pretty much was. i am proud of my son for reading it and telling me about it, and i am also happy that his teacher presented the info for the kids.

The problem is that the whole World is jealous of America. They would really appreciate an Obama presidency. To see the U.S. on their knees is what they are hoping for. Please do not give them the pleasure. Vote McCain/Palin.

Klaus: Central planning won’t tackle crisis
23.10.2008

Prague – In a letter published on Tuesday by the daily Mladá fronta Dnes, Czech President Václav Klaus says that the global financial crisis did not result from insufficient market regulation, but, on the contrary, from excessive government interventions and increasing public spending.

According to Klaus, there is a risk that the rescue packages proposed by some governments will turn the European banking system into a partially state-owned and centrally regulated sector.

What is now happening in the financial markets after long years of exceptionally solid economic growth around the world is nothing unusual. After years of growth there must necessarily be a decrease at some point,” the president wrote.

He rejected that the pending recession can be “prevented by some sort of a global economy management”, likening such ideas to the communist-era central planning.

Klaus argues that previous interventions by the American and European regulators encouraged financial institutions to invest in high-risk activities on unregulated markets and to cover those risks through very complicated financial products and techniques.

The president opines that “the European politicians have used the current financial shocks to abandon the Maastricht criteria (which I am not defending at all as I find them too soft)”, adding that this has removed existing restrictions on “irresponsible increases in public spending and a resulting growth of governmental debt”.

Klaus concludes that the EU plans to better regulate the financial markets and reform the International Monetary Fund will not lead to a “new capitalism”, as termed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but will represent a return to an “old socialism”.

http://aktualne.centrum.cz/czechnews/clanek.phtml?id=620088

“Strong Europe”. What does O’Bama mean?

Better to speak with clarity. Vote YES or NO to Free Europe at http://www.FreeEurope.info !

This article mentioned the economical weakness of Europe. In the last few years, it was however not recognizably weaker than the one of the US. How does that come when its social services remained somewhat constant?
Many American commentators predicted the downfall of Europe constantly, and still it stands, Germany is still one of the largest exporters in the world, unlike a country called USA for example, which can only look back at former glory in this regard.

Another point. The birth rates: France is one of those European countries with the furthest reaching social security system, yet its the EU member state with the highest birth rate (2.0 children per family which is only slightly less of the about 2.1 that are needed for a stable demographic development if no immigration should occur). Also the Scandinavian countries with a strong social democratic tradition have better birth rate numbers than the others. On the other side those who are among the least social democratic, the new member states for example have the by far lowest birth rate numbers.

“the other half was a prison”
Well, thats over simplistic. It ignores the multiple number of countries behind the Iron Curtain. The Hungarians for example had their “Goulash communism” in the later years. They traded with Austria and also personal trade was allowed. While the regime was still authoritarian, it was like day and night compared to the GDR for example.