The "Eternal Optimist"

Readers might recall the mild uproar over comments made last year when then-presidential candidate John McCain's economic advisor, Phil Gramm, described the recession in psychological terms. In fact, Mr. Gramm was forced to leave his post in the McCain campaign after making this shocking statement:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession..."

Needless to say, Barack Obama and his minions seized on Mr. Gramm's apparent misstep and exploited it for vast political gain.

Perhaps you've heard analysts repeatedly say that Mr. Obama is actually something of an economic suppressant. What is meant by this is that his rhetoric has had a depressing impact on Americans and the economy. In fact, as I write this, the DOW has fallen nearly 300 points in response to Mr. Obama's signing of his stimulus package. Surely anyone paying attention to economic trends knows about market psychology and consumer psychology. Surely anyone with a radio has heard reports like "oil prices rose steeply today over fears that the conflict in Israel and Gaza will escalate," or reports of similar kind. Psychology plays a major, often THE major, role in markets. (Right now I see this on the TV screen: "Dow plunges nearly 4,000 points since first financial 'rescue' talks.")

Psychology is in many ways nearly everything. And Barack Obama has not helped one bit.

This morning, as I was traveling to a dentist appointment and listening to the radio, I heard Don Imus ask George Stephanopoulos about the need for someone in the White House to begin boosting consumer confidence with some encouraging words. Mr. Stephanopoulos, as you know, is both a political analyst with his own TV show and a fan of Barack Obama. In his answer to Mr. Imus, Mr. Stephanapoulos admitted that psychology is a "major factor" in an economic recovery; he added that Barack Obama, in order to push his agenda through, may have pushed too hard on the "fear pedal."

And Mr. Stephanopoulos is not the only person to criticize Barack Obama for this sort of thing. Mr. Obama is, without a doubt, a master of spreading fear.

INCREDIBLE STUFF!

Here's Mr. Obama last Monday night as he concluded his "prime time" news conference. Note how much better a speaker he is than his predecessor:

And so when I hear people just saying, "Uh, we don't need to do anything, this is a spending bill not a stimulus bill," without acknowledging that by definition, uh, part of any stimulus package would include spending, that's the point, then what I get a sense of is that there is some ideological blockage there that, that needs to be cleared up. But I am the eternal optimist. Uh, I think that over time people respond, uh, to uh, to civility and, and rational argument. I think that's what the people, uh, of Elkhart and people around America are looking for and that's what I'm, that's the kind of leadership I'm gonna try to provide. Alright? Thank you guys.

I must say it is nice to see civility demonstrated so impeccably, especially with locutions like "ideological blockage...that needs to be cleared up." And then there's the "rational argument" thing -- as if Obama's opponents are irrational and he in his gracious and conciliatory manner embodies reason at every turn.

Attentive readers know that Mr. Obama actually amended his own convictions to make his case. Earlier he said that a stimulus package and spending were identical. Now, spending is only "part" of a stimulus package ... "by definition." Of course, at least this writer laughs at Mr. Obama's audacity and cunning: "'By definition', sir? Really?"

Mr. Obama's rhetoric will brook no dissent: his definitions leave no room for stimulus plans constructed solely of cutting taxes and government largess. He knows his definitions, and they are static.

David Axelrod, chief Obama advisor and extremely highly-overrated thinker, told Chris Wallace Sunday the same sort of drivel, namely, that a stimulus package and spending are essentially identical. But that's the nature of propagandizing: say a thing just often enough to make it true. Mr. Axelrod is, after all, precisely where he is because he is expert in propaganda (which, of course, requires high-level thinking skills, albeit deceptive ones, so I concede, in part, that Axelrod might not be entirely overrated).

Mr. Obama believes the Bush tax cuts prove that such cuts don't stave off recession and that they may even cause recession. This from the same man who asserted on the campaign trail that Bush spent too much money. Moreover, if the "failed policies of the past," as Mr. Obama is wont to describe such things, led to this recession, then it must be asked which failed policies, the cuts or the spending. And if the New Deal was so effective, or increased spending under any president is an irrepressible inducement to economic growth, how come recessions still follow? If spending did not keep the economy in recovery under many different presidents, then why are we emulating the "failed policies of the past?"

The fact is this: the vast majority of Americans AND economists believe that the BEST stimulus package is one heavy on tax cuts combined with reduced spending. During hearings about the Bush tax cuts early in the Bush tenure, Allan Greenspan testified that the tax cuts would indeed work AS LONG AS THERE WAS A DECREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING. It was a statement that still rings in my ears. And yet it was, and continues to be, utterly ignored. (It would be interesting to hear Greenspan now.)

But, alas! Barack Obama has everything in place: he has a package heavy on spending that also includes significant tax cuts. Hence, in the end, no one will be able to divine -- should the economy recover -- what portion of the stimulus was effective. Plus, as I've said in other posts here, the lower fuel costs we are all enjoying are part of a current windfall that can only assist recovery in ways profound and effective. And despite our inability to know whether this stimulus is ever effective, Barack Obama will insist that it was, will be, and ever shall be, effective. Perfectly effective.

In the end, it is all about psychology ... the psychology of fear, arrogance and conceit.

Peace through dissent.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

No, We Aren't

(Inauguration Day, 2009)

It is ironic that Jamie Foxx, one of many pop-culture icons on hand Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial lauding America's first pop-culture president, Barack Obama, would quote the late Thurgood Marshall during early inaugural festivities:

“Each of you as an individual must pick your own goals. Listen to others but do not become a blind follower. Do not wait for others to move out. Move out yourself. Where you see wrong or inequality, speak out, because this is your country, this is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.”

Has there ever been in the history of the American people a more blind, conformist, passive and incurious mass than those who have deified Barack Obama? Have you met a single Barack Obama supporter who has an original thought in his or her head about the man? Have you met anyone informed about who this parvenu actually is, what he stands for politically, and what he has actually ever accomplished? This is a president without a resúmé, and yet "change has come!" This is a president who has neither a record of success nor one of failure, and yet "hope is here!" Granted, a case can be made that the election of George W. Bush to the office of president is incontrovertible proof that one needs no qualifications to serve in the Oval Office, but at least Bush had been something, even if that something was a failure. He may have only been a governor of a large state; he may have only been a poor businessman. But at least he had a record, a provenance; even if his life was replete with failure and mediocrity, we could map those failings for ourselves. But Barack Obama, whose only notable qualification is that he has been perpetually running for president, is surrounded by millions of folks who adore him, blindly, mindlessly (and even cynically); he is revered for doing nothing more than, as Hillary Clinton said during her campaign, giving a speech (or two). Jamie Foxx urges the very people who have acted like a common, disinterested and mindless herd not to "become blind followers." The irony is too great not to note.

Inauguration Day. This is NOT a great day for America, though I will say it is an exciting and important day for Americans who have been under the impression that America has been such a bastion of racism that the election of a person with darker skin than white could never be elected to the presidency. I am happy for those who find some message of potential and possibility in his election. But today is a bad day for those who disagree with the over-arching theme of the inauguration -- that "We Are One" -- for the simple reason that America is not one. Over 56 million people voted against Barack Obama: 46% of those who bothered to go to the polls believed he was not fit to be president. And there is no evidence -- NONE! -- that those who opposed him, and STILL oppose him, harbor ANY racial ill-will against him simply because his skin is dark. There are millions of disenfranchised voters not applauding this day -- for reasons having everything to do with ideology, with policies -- and nothing to do with race. Those who voted against Barack Obama do not see "change"; instead they see 1992 and corruption, scandal, in-fighting, smoke-and-mirrors promises, and deception.

We are not one.

I am grateful to a Boston radio talk show host for reminding me yesterday of one of the political left's mantras repeated during the bulk of the Bush presidency. That mantra was shouted even by Hillary Clinton in the wake of Bush's (and her) decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq: We heard "Dissent is not unpatriotic!" from all sectors of our nation's disenchanted. But if dissent was patriotic under the Bush regime, it is surely as glorious under the Obama regime. I admit I do not hold much in common with the host who reminded me of my right to dissent, but I do accept his commentary that the double-standards inherent, not only in the press but in the Democratic Party itself, are so despicable that dissent is not only the only option, it is the noblest option.

For this citizen to be in good standing with his own conscience and convictions, dissent is my only choice. And no, I am not afraid of the ridiculous rejoinder that I must therefore be a person who supports inequality, injustice, racism, oppression, torture, war and "the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer." Moral rectitude is not, even by a long shot, the banner flying over the Democratic Party and its new president. I dissent against deception. I dissent against idolatry, of worshiping a mere man. I dissent against the claim that "America's standing in the world" as defined by pop-culture has been elevated by the new imperialists moving into the White House, led by a pop-idol president. I dissent against the obvious socialistic plans of the new regime; I dissent against the fear-mongering used by Mr. Obama to push down the throats of the American people a "stimulus package" that we need "urgently," and I do so noting that such dire and frightful forecasts coming from Mr. Obama's lips are religious in nature and not one whit factual: he claims to know outcomes he cannot know, telling us we "must" do X and Y before it is "too late," that we are in "imminent danger" and we MUST act with a "preemptive" strike against this mother-of-all recessions. (The economic alarm rung by Mr. Obama sounds exactly like the "non causa pro causa" global warming fallacies used by the likes of Mr. Al Gore.)

I dissent against the idea that America looks to a president, some guy in Washington, for inspiration. For guidance. For direction and hope and a moral compass. I dissent against the day we have become so pathetic we must be reminded by a president and a Congress that we need "national days of service," as if America heretofore had been struggling to find volunteers: that until we all saw Barack Obama roll paint on a wall yesterday, Americans had no idea that helping others was a good thing. I dissent against the idea that kindness is to be a matter of law, and not a matter of grace.

And not only do I dissent against the welfare state, I dissent against those who believe the state -- the collective unified as one -- and not the individual acting in freedom, is the basis of the American constitution. I dissent against the new master/plantation mentality already evident in the new regime -- that the master will provide jobs, stimulus, safety, ease -- if we all just comply, if we all just pick our cotton and stop our partisan bickering -- and give the fruits of our slavish labors back to the master to redistribute fairly among those who are "less fortunate." I dissent against a state that seeks to enslave and indebt its citizens to itself. And I dissent against the Ponzi scheme that is the Obama regime's economic plan.

I dissent against the blindness of people like Bono -- who has made himself into a god, perhaps a lesser god. He seeks to eradicate poverty, and yet can countenance -- and participate in -- an inauguration costing more than $105 million. Recall the OUTRAGE over President Bush's intent in 2004 of spending a mere $40 million for his inauguration -- and Bush's party was during the heights of a sterling and thriving economy. Today home foreclosures are at an all time high; Barack Obama has warned us of how dire things are in this recession. And yet things are not so dire that he and his minions would consider refraining from blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on pop-idols and party favors. (Barack Obama believes Americans will overlook these huge expenditures, or so it is reported.)

We are not one. And no we can't.

In honor of the words of Thurgood Marshall, I shall indeed pick my own goals. I will NOT be a blind follower. I will fight injustice and evil and idolatry everywhere I see it. I will NOT be like the common herd that has gathered at the beck-and-call of pop-culture, baptized by the zeigeist, at the National Mall.

Peace through dissent.

BG

Are Rumors Of Recession Mere Fabrications?

______________

In the past few weeks, I've caught myself saying, whenever I am pulled into a discussion about the economic "recession," that Americans "hear about recessions EVERY election cycle." I know that I am ill-equipped to descry the numbers buried in the convolutions of economic reportage, my technical understanding of the meaning of "recession" notwithstanding. But at least one seemingly qualified person thinks that "The 'Recession' Is A Media Myth."

What do you think?

I'd love to know.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.