Obama’s progressive vision: A world without political opposition
I wouldn’t call the speech a case for progressivism so much as an attempt to assert its victory.
It’s true that Obama offered a vision of a bigger, bolder state. But what he didn’t offer was much of an argument for how to get there, or make it affordable and sustainable. There were no outright policy proposals in the speech, but there was an awful lot of spending squeezed between its lines. Yet except for a line about using technology to lower the cost of health care, Obama’s speech offered no hints about he’d pay for his expanded state; the words debt, deficit, and budget were notably absent from the text.
Nor did Obama make much attempt to win over his political opponents—to convince them that the goals he laid out were worthy. Rather, the speech instead suggested that the argument was over, that he had won, and that the opposition should simply fall in line. “There are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans,” he said. “Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.”
That’s not an argument for liberalism so much as a statement that Obama believes the argument is over.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
sounds like tyranny to me
ChunkyLover on January 23, 2013 at 9:04 AM
What a pile of horsecrap.
Way to say nothing Junior.
fogw on January 23, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Yeah. So, how is this different from how he acted in his first term?
PetecminMd on January 23, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Bark didn’t understand 75% of the words and terms he was using, it was mostly pap written by a minion and meant to sound lofty. Dog Eater couldn’t accomplish cleaning his own room without someone around telling him how to do it.
Bishop on January 23, 2013 at 9:13 AM
We’d better stop them from teaching this anti-American, collectivist sh*t in government schools, or the argument will be over soon.
petefrt on January 23, 2013 at 9:13 AM
He’s saying something alright. The progressive collective will stamp out all opposition.
forest on January 23, 2013 at 9:13 AM
If Obama has his way, the argument will indeed be over. The fight, however, will be just beginning.
Washington Nearsider on January 23, 2013 at 9:15 AM
Stalin didn’t brook any opposition, either.
OldEnglish on January 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Ein Volk!
Ein Reich!
Ein Fuhrer!
Blake on January 23, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Think of all the fun Stalin could have had with Photoshop.
Flange on January 23, 2013 at 9:20 AM
Hitler tried that. Berlin ended up flattened. Then the blusterous coward shot himself.
fogw on January 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM
Technology has brought better medical devices, but they’ve cost a ton of money.
Obama’s progressive vision: A world without political opposition
That’s so Obama — “I won”. And so liberal — “I will close my eyes to those who disagree with me, or better yet, work to destroy them by questioning their motives, and calling them selfish, racist, and uncaring. Those who disagree with me are worthy of being hated. Death or reeducation camps for them”.
Paul-Cincy on January 23, 2013 at 9:28 AM
Of course they don’t want opposition. Challenges to them represent a questioning of their brilliance, no matter how many times the path they chose is one that has been shown repeatedly to fail..
That’s why they engage in the tactics that don’t address the issues, but attack the opposition. Alinsky wasn’t about engaging in a reasoned discourse. Cloward-Piven wasn’t about doing what is best. Marxism isn’t about how to help people succeed with their dreams.
And that’s why those of us who believe in a reasoned discourse took so long to catch on. We actually thought that there was a rational brain involved on the opposing side. That the Scientific Method is a valid approach to finding “Truth” and changing minds on both sides of an issue.*
So, unfortunately, we *may* be left with very few options, as guaranteed by our Constitution. We may be boxed in: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.
That’s why they want box #4 — to reduce our ability to engage.
Never trust anyone who wants to disarm you. It just means that they want to have more power over you.
—
* Someone who uses the Scientific Method can say “You know, I was wrong. That’s a valid set of facts and reasoning. I’ve changed my opinion. Thanks for helping me see things from a different perspective.” — Liberals can’t do that, since they are vested emotionally in their positions.
ProfShadow on January 23, 2013 at 9:31 AM
We all know how a socialist/Marxist gets to a world without political opposition. You eliminate your political opposition.
Uh.. is there some other way here? Because in a free society you will have political opposition. Isn’t that the very definition of freedom? To be free to voice “opposition?” Could you please name me the free nations where the leaders have no political opposition? I could name you some where they don’t. Iran. The Soviet Union. N. Korea. Nazi Germany, etc.
I never listened to his speech. I can barely stomach hearing his voice. But if he said those words? We all know what they mean. And half of his supporters would be cheering him on as he began eliminating that opposition.
This is where we are at today. You cannot convince me otherwise. The majority of the media would be cheering him on as well. And 99% of our Republican leaders… at least a good strong majority, would do nothing at all to interfere when Obama begins eliminating his political opposition.
If someone dare speak up about Obama eliminating his political opposition… I dare say the likes of Boehner and McCain would call the ones speaking up extremists.
JellyToast on January 23, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Just like Cuba, North Korea, the now defunct USSR, 1930s Germany and Useful Idiot NY Times’ favorite country, China! Progressive! Like so many other diseases!
Marxism is for dummies on January 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Aber, Ich bin nicht einen Obamaner!
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 23, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Per Obama, if his soaring rhetoric (i.e. 2nd inaugural) doesn’t win you over, then you don’t exist.
Paul-Cincy on January 23, 2013 at 9:53 AM
You mean, like, the Constitution? Yeah, I think that’s what you mean.
GWB on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 AM
In other words, a single-party dictatorship.
The Rogue Tomato on January 23, 2013 at 10:00 AM
I was actually thinking of Robespierre, but any of them will do.
forest on January 23, 2013 at 10:01 AM
While I feel some inclination to be snarky about this, the more I read his inaugural words and both left and right parsing of those words, the more it just scares the hell out of me.
I kinda like many parts of the modern world. I like being able to be lettuce and lemons and raspberries year round. I like having electricity with the flip of a switch, running water and a public sewer system. I like being able to drop by one of the numerous stores even in this fairly rural area and buy most anything I could want or need or, alternatively, popping on the internet for almost anything I could ever want with a few clicks and have it here as quickly as the next day. I like that, although I carry a sidearm daily for the unexpected, the danger is just that, unexpected. I don’t run corner to corner, alley to alley with my rifle loaded and at the ready to visit my friends or to get a bucket of water. I like my gas fireplace and central HVAC system that keeps the house cozy with no effort on my part on the coldest of nights.
While I like camping and being in the woods to get away sometimes, I do not want to live as my great-grandparents in very rural America in a poorly insulated house with a pot belly stove for warmth and cooking, an out-house for bathroom facility, a pump in the kitchen for water, a bowl for a sink and a washtub for a bathtub. A time when fresh vegetables were for summer and fall and self-canned for the rest. A time when fresh meat and fresh vegetables rarely met but rather fresh meat was with canned vegetables and salted or smoked meat with fresh.
I think Obama threatens all of this. And I think he is too ignorant of history, arrogant of his positions and derisive of the majority of the producers who mostly live in “flyover” country to understand what he threatens. Will he destroy it by forcing multitudes to “go Galt”? Or will he inspire armed rebellion to reestablish a constitution observing government? Or will he just push a long, slow but accelerating decline that turns us essentially into a third world country? Assuming the Republic survives Obama mostly intact, how long will be his shadow of divisiveness and identity politics?
deepdiver on January 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Now that you mention it, I don’t know which is worse — that, or our increasing national debt.
Paul-Cincy on January 23, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Cynical? So now we will be demonized for even questioning the motivations of the statists. We now must faithfully believe that everything government does is ultimately good and in our best interest. This is the state as religion and it leads to the same place as all the other versions.
RadClown on January 23, 2013 at 10:31 AM
History shows us that though it is tried from time to time. None of it is left standing.
Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Big deal. That’s what any POTUS wants.
Moesart on January 23, 2013 at 11:22 AM