Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

After Obama Fails
American Thinker ^ | June 18, 2009 | George Joyce

Posted on 06/18/2009 3:38:48 AM PDT by Man50D

A failed presidency for Barack Obama could turn into liberalism's worst nightmare. Barely six months into his term, the 44th president has succeeded in generating the most widespread and serious discussion of secession since the Civil War. Despite what Newsweek's Evan Thomas may claim, Obama is not the "God" who will bring us together but the autocratic sponsor of an overbearing, oppressive leviathan from which a growing number of Americans are seeking refuge.

That refuge, according to author Paul Starobin, will come in the form of several regional republics that reflect the diverse character of Americans no longer bound in any meaningful way by our unrecognizable Federal government. In a riveting exploration of America 's coming breakup, Starobin writes in a recent Wall Street Journal article:

"Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society."

Starobin chronicles in fascinating detail the historical basis for America 's future balkanization. He provides a snapshot of today's most viable and vocal secessionist organizations. Starobin goes on to argue that the overbearing and stifling "Obama planners and their ilk" will probably be doomed to fail in a land replete with the Jeffersonian impulse of radical self-determination. Obama's extreme power grab, in other words, will cause a correspondingly extreme backlash:

"All of this adds up to a federal power grab that might make even FDR's New Dealers blush. But that's just the point: Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution."

By focusing most of his attention on how big unwieldy entities devolve into creative little ones, Starobin's analysis misses however the more direct personal role Barack Obama himself has played in fracturing America.

Back in March of last year for example New York Times columnist Roger Cohen told his audience he could "understand the rage" of Obama's former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Without missing a beat Cohen then concluded in his essay that the "clamoring now in the United States for a presidency that uplifts rather than demeans is a reflection of the intellectual desert of the Bush years."

Has Barack Obama's been an "uplifting" presidency? Mr. Obama knew full well that his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, dismissed the test results of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, entitled to promotion but denied because they were of the wrong race. Surely her decision is demeaning to both white males and to those who study diligently for exams. Did the black firefighters feel uplifted or demeaned when Sotomayor ruled in their favor? Was the New Haven firehouse more unified or more divided after Sotomayor's ruling? Was Obama's Sotomayor choice uplifting or demeaning?

Indeed, from the Sotomayor pick and anti-business rhetoric to the endless lecturing about America 's sins, Mr. Obama is starting to sound a lot like his former pastor. To be sure Obama is not as grating and shrill as Mr. Wright but closer to something more like Jeremiah-lite. In other words, Mr. Obama's strategy seems to be to convince Americans to drink his socialist tonic out of sheer guilt. I'm not sure what is so inspiring about all of this.

Maybe this is why Starobin claims to be witnessing a lot of neo-secessionist activity. Wouldn't a new American devolution however be a liberal's worst nightmare? Beyond the psychosis most liberals would have to endure at the thought of losing any kind of control, the prospect of vibrant, happy, and successful conservative republics in places like Texas, South Carolina or Utah would be an inescapable spotlight forever exposing the failure of liberal ideology in a Republic of California.

But this brings up another problem. When the framers of the American Constitution favored a multi-state solution to the problem of centralized tyranny they argued that an additional benefit would be that each state could become a unique laboratory displaying the policy successes and failures to its neighbors. If the Republic of Texas chooses a classics curriculum for its youngsters, celebrates the family and tradition in its media, encourages personal responsibility in lieu of a nanny state, rewards citizens on the basis of merit, is tough on criminals, sends its politicians home after brief excursions to the capitol, is business friendly and generally leaves its citizens alone, how are those controlling the politically liberal Republics like California going to react?

What most liberals fail to understand is that their leisurely dabbling in progressive politics and moral equivalency is made possible by the existence of accumulated conservative moral capital. Remove the conservative anchor and progressive societies become dangerously seasick. I guess the lesson here is that liberals need conservatives more than conservatives need liberals (although society needs them on occasion). There is much in progressive ideology that simply seeks to undermine -- a strange method of establishing an identity.

While reading "A Little History of the World" to my kids the other day I came across an interesting observation by the author, E.H. Gombrich:

"Because the Egyptians were so wise and so powerful their empire lasted for a very long time. Longer than any empire the world has ever known: nearly three thousand years. And they took just as much care of their corpses, when they preserved them from rotting away, in preserving all their ancient traditions over the centuries. Their priests made quite sure that no son did anything his father had not done before him. To them, everything old was sacred."

When Obama fails it will be because he's convinced enough Americans to tire, as he has, of what used to be known as "America." Imagine what would have happened in Egypt had their priests adopted "liberation theology" rather than the standard of their fathers. A mere footnote in the pages of history.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: balkanization; bho44; cwii; democrats; donttreadonme; fubo; ihopehefails; ihopeobamafails; limbaugh; lping; miserablefailure; obama; rushlimbaugh; secession; talkradio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last
To: Aquabird

Lockean America?

I’ll believe it when I see it!

Nice write-up, tho!

CA....


81 posted on 06/18/2009 10:38:40 AM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've at last found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Excellent post!


82 posted on 06/18/2009 10:38:57 AM PDT by mojitojoe (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Aquabird

Excellent post, thank you.


83 posted on 06/18/2009 10:39:59 AM PDT by Max in Utah (A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

ping


84 posted on 06/18/2009 10:52:53 AM PDT by acw011 (Great Goooogly Mooogly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wastoute

My thoughts exactly. I bet not to many FReepers actually remember house fuses and the trick of putting a penny under the burned out fuse. Worked for a short period of time but in the long run you were going to burn up the house.


85 posted on 06/18/2009 10:55:19 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

There is only one real question here. Will a military of citizens obey commands from Obama to suppress any rebellion by force?


86 posted on 06/18/2009 10:59:26 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
There is only one real question here. Will a military of citizens obey commands from Obama to suppress any rebellion by force?

My question is it truly a rebellion for people who are seeking to uphold the rule of law by preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution against a usurper who seeks its destruction?
87 posted on 06/18/2009 11:08:04 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Wahoo82

I think a second American civil war/revoution is almost inevitable at this point. As is well known, the Left hates the Right with a religious passion and has for many years; the George Bush hate machine was awesome — Remember the books and movies about his “assassination?”

The only thing keeping the lid on things was the fact that the Right didn’t hate the Left. In fact, the Right in the guise of political Republicans attempted compromise after compromise with the Leftists (Does this remind anyone of the run up to the First U.S. Civil War?) that failed.

But the Rightist hate machine will swing into action (and rightly so!) with the election of Obama and his fascist attempt to overthrow the Republic by means of an economic meltdown and naked oppression.

The dogs of civil war are lose...


88 posted on 06/18/2009 11:39:12 AM PDT by Sergeant_Ronbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
Good analysis. I had forgotten about the
NAU since the immigration debates.

Obama as the anti Christ seems to fit.

89 posted on 06/18/2009 11:52:46 AM PDT by Wahoo82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I see the start of an ANGRY American backlash coming and coming soon.


90 posted on 06/18/2009 12:42:27 PM PDT by Biggirl ("Live Long And Prosper!"-Mr. Spock:)=^..^==^..^==^..^==^..^=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal
Two words: Term Limits. Why Franklin didn’t convince Jefferson and Madison of this is beyond me. I believe they just never dreamed of career politicians.

You are correct. In those days, the pay was a stipend and an occasional reimbursement for expenses. People served as a patriotic duty, but not for too long, they had to go back and earn a living. There was not money or "favors" from special interests. That would've been bribery. Why it isn't today is beyond me.

91 posted on 06/18/2009 12:45:20 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (A victim of 0bamunist 0ppression!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: qwertypie

A few months back at a meetup of CT FRpers at a restraunt, I had seen a mixed bag of different ages for FRpers, young and middle age. I say it is a mixed bag.


92 posted on 06/18/2009 12:48:55 PM PDT by Biggirl ("Live Long And Prosper!"-Mr. Spock:)=^..^==^..^==^..^==^..^=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Mr. Joyce makes some good observations, but he simply leaves the rails with his focus on secession. It’s not even remotely in the cards and, despite his introductory claim, it’s not a serious topic of discussion in any forum that counts.


93 posted on 06/18/2009 12:49:01 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

I always check myself for that comment. I honestly believe the thought of career politicians never entered their noble minds. I check myself because it is difficult to put my head full of mush up against their purity of thought.


94 posted on 06/18/2009 12:56:34 PM PDT by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal
Two words: Term Limits. Why Franklin didn’t convince Jefferson and Madison of this is beyond me. I believe they just never dreamed of career politicians.

I disagree. They were certainly familiar enough with English politics to recognize the not just the possibility, but the actual likelihood, of career politicians.

And we should note that a long political career is not necessarily a bad thing, though we have plenty of evidence that it's quite often a bad thing. The difference between good and bad is, of course, the quality of the politician himself.

I think Madison and Jefferson probably made the mistake of assuming that there would always be more "good" than "bad" politicians -- something I imagine they believed would be protected by the requirements for land ownership among voters, and indirect election of senators. They probably also assumed that the political class of future generations would generally have the same extraordinarily high quality that characterized the Founders' generation.

I think that Franklin was a much more cynical -- and thus more realistic -- judge of human character than Jefferson ever was (I can't knowledgeably discuss Madison's views on the topic).

95 posted on 06/18/2009 1:01:57 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Franklin probably had the proper understanding of the nature of man, while others often do not.

The nature of man is NOT “basically good”.


96 posted on 06/18/2009 1:04:33 PM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal
Not too different from my NIV Quest study Bible.

My point, if I was vague, Obama has ,in a short time, attained a lot of power.

You can see it every day in the news.

If we choose to go against our government, we'd better be willing to go the distance because they are.

97 posted on 06/18/2009 1:25:56 PM PDT by wolfcreek (KMTEXASA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

The votes that put NObama into office were contaminated by ACORN and others.
IMO, at least 20% of the votes were not valid.


98 posted on 06/18/2009 2:01:07 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: csense

Good account!


99 posted on 06/18/2009 2:02:42 PM PDT by dennisw ("stealth tribal warfare" is what the Sotomayor nomination is about)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

Also Hungary.


100 posted on 06/18/2009 2:03:47 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson