Sunday, November 14, 2010

The More Things Change…

The thing about politics and politicians is that often no matter how much the talk and campaign about change, nothing really ever changes. And more to the point, those who have power are never willing to let go of it. With that in mind, please consider the following from Ian Welsh
...it’s not hyperbole at all to say that Obama is Bush’s third term. He has embraced Bush’s wars, Bush’s approach to executive power, Bush’s civil liberties doctrines and Bush’s economic doctrines. The differences exist, but they are not significant. In almost every way that matters, Obama took Bush’s constitutional order and institutionalized it, giving it a bipartisan imprimatur.
I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and it wasn’t until I discovered his administration’s gross abuse of power via signing statements that I regretted my vote.

Fast forward to 2008. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to bring change and sanity back to Washington. It became pretty evident early on that this new administration’s primary focus was centering more power around their party. In other words, nothing changed. In March 2009, the administration made a move to give the government the power to take over businesses it deemed too big to fail, then in July Obama broke a specific campaign promise when he used his pen to write a very Bush-esque signing statement. Needless to say I regret my vote and am exceptionally disappoint with our President and wonder where the name who gave that amazing inauguration speech has gone, but my regret isn’t the issue at hand.

The fact is that there is really very little difference in how this administration and its predecessor have run the business of the American people. They have both done whatever they can to increase the power of the government. So with that in mind, I ask you if you are at all surprised by this revelation
The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain’s campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. “I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” Bush told the group, according to two people present. “I had to endorse him. But I’d have endorsed Obama if they’d asked me.”

To borrow a word made popular in recent years by someone whom I honestly can’t stand, both Bush and Obama are full blown statists. Granted they have slightly different views in how the state should wield its power, they both seem to whole hearted believe in the power of the state above all else. This smacks in the face of everything that this country was founded on. Granted I’m not one of those who believe that the federal government should do nothing, but I know for a fact that it can’t and shouldn’t try to do everything.

Here is the question that every partisan out there must ask him/herself. Each time that an administration does something to increase the power of the federal government, do you want those with whom you vehemently disagree wielding that power? If the answer is no then you should be against whatever policy is being proposed that would increase said power. Plain and simple. This was the point that I tried to make for years when Bush was in office and a point the got brushed aside by those on the Right. Well guess who is now clamoring and screaming about the increased power of the government? Funny how that works out…

Thanks to Peace Arena for the find.

1 comment:

Rena said...

It's tough being an equal opportunity critic. End up with everyone pissed off at you. I'm impressed with the path you've traveled politically, with a passion for truth being your guide. It doesn't get better, in my experience, you just keep having to speak out, regardless.