Follow Objectivist Commentary by Email

Monday, April 25, 2011

Trouble on the Left

(Fast Forward to :20 for the protest)

At Obama's fundraiser in San Francisco a number of far-Left activists began singing about releasing Private Bradley Manning (who released secret military information to Wikileaks). Heaing this, it was reported that Obama shot an angry glance at Nancy Pelosi as if it were she who had oganized or sponsored this little demonstration. Clearly, all is not right among liberals.

Some Progressives are beginning to realize that even when a very liberal president is elected, that does not mean that his agenda will necessarily succeed. No matter what mood the country is in, there will always be a core base that maintains the United States' status as a center-right nation, at least in the near future.

Because some activists did not realize this or intentionally ignored it, Obama was doomed from the start: there was no way he could achieve all of his goals in their full form. The best example of this is health care reform. Yes, it is "landmark" legislation, but there is no public option (a favorite of those on the far-Left) and some say that it benefits big insurance companies more than anyone else.

Similarly, people were content criticizing Bush for Guantanamo, but, when push came to shove, very few actually wanted potential terrorists living in their neighborhoods.

The Progressive tax system that Obama campaigned on is all well and good to the electorate until it has the potential to damage the economy. Then, the only people who still want it are die-hard socialists. After all, this helped usher in the Republican majority in the House.

I am not going to deny that the U.S. is inching to the Left: we are. But we are "inching" there, our freedoms, capitalistic society, and individuality cannot be stripped away within four or eight years. So from the very start Obama was pinned between two crushing forces: what is possible and what Progressive activists blindly expected. Breaching the latter may cost him an election, but there is no other choice: the former is an impenetrable stone wall of reality.

The next election cycle will certainly be a challenging one for President Obama: anger on the Left, disheartened independents, and motivated conservatives. 2012 polling shows that Obama would lose New Hampshire to Romney by 10%. Trump, who could be said to have "no experience," is holding his own against Obama in the polls.

Regardless of the outcome of the 2012 election, voters should be happy that reality prevailed and fought off the liberal agenda. This time.


  1. 2012 polling shows

    polling? did you say polling?

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 14-17, 2011
    "In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Medicare, which is the government health insurance program for the elderly?"
    support 21%
    oppose 78%

    "In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose raising taxes on Americans with incomes over 250 thousand dollars a year?"
    support 72%
    oppose 27%

    McClatchy-Marist Poll. April 10-14
    "Increase taxes on income over 250,000 dollars"
    support 62%
    oppose 33%

    "cut medicare and medicaid
    support 18%
    oppose 80%

    would you like to see how obama polls nationally against individual possible republican candidates? whether the public trusts president obama or republicans more to do the right thing in regard to taxes and protecting the middle class?

    teddy roosevelt, fdr, harry truman, jfk, and lbj were great progressive presidents who, between them, established the anti-monopoly principle that broke up the standard oil monopoly and continues to operate, established the food and drug administration, the right of individuals to band together to fight the collective power of large corporations, our national pension program (social security), integrated the armed forces and submitted the first universal healthcare bill (truman), and established civil rights in law and established our national health insurance program for the poor and elderly, medicare and medicaid. as you can plainly see, these last remain among the most popular government programs ever seen in this country. in addition, a republican president created the greatest national public works program of all time, the interstate highway system - can you tell me who that was?

    now, i invite you to tell me about what conservative and libertarian politicians have done for this country in the past 100 years

    in addition, you do know, don't you, that every country in the world has progressive taxation, and nationalized pension and healthcare plans

    the people of the united states of american are solidly behind the great progressive accomplishments such as the fda, social security, and medicare, and no about of naive self deception on your part is going to change that

  2. our freedoms, capitalistic society, and individuality

    p.s., here's a little hint for you: progressives are not against freedom, capitalism, or individuality

  3. how sad that a little bit of debate leaves you speechless

  4. INDIANAPOLIS— People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

    The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

    “We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

    this is an outrageous violation of a long established principle of civil rights! i can assure you that no progressives are in favor of this ruling which restricts the rights of citizens! please let us know that you are serious about being committed to freedom as an objectivist and libertarian by adding your voice to the chorus of those objecting to this outrage!

  5. Imhotep, I agree with your last post--being able to defend yourself, others, and your property against anything illegal is a foundation of a free society.

    However, I take issue with your previous posts. Those social programs are ruining our country, and it is a simple matter of people learning how to leverage the democratic process that is allowing it. All one needs to do is create a bias against a small portion of the population (let's arbitrarily say, the richest 2%) and the other 98% of the population will support you. This is essentially what "progressives" do by saying that the few well-off should be forced to sacrifice for the many who are not in as favorable of a position. I am completely for that sacrifice, but only willingly in the form of charity and support, not coercively in the form of excessive taxation, spending, and government mandates. That is libertarianism.