Fatcow Icon
Obama finalyl reveals true self
Jan 26, 2013 | 2170 views | 6 6 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print

BY RICH LOWRY

There should have been something for everyone in President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address. For liberals, a full-throated call to arms. For conservatives, vindication.

Obama settled the debate over his place on the political spectrum and his political designs. He’s an unabashed liberal determined to shift our politics and our country irrevocably to the left. In other words, Obama’s foes — if you put aside the birthers and other lunatics — always had him pegged correctly.

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, you got a better appreciation of Obama’s core than by reading the president’s friends and sophisticated interpreters, for whom he was either a moderate or a puzzle.

Rush, et al., doubted that Obama could have emerged from the left-wing milieu of Hyde Park, become in short order the most liberal U.S. senator, run to Hillary Clinton’s left in the 2008 primaries and yet have been a misunderstood centrist all along.

They got him right, even as he duped the Obamacons, played the press and fooled his sympathizers. David Brooks, the brilliant and winsome New York Times columnist, has been promising the arrival of the true, pragmatic Obama for years now. In his column praising the second inaugural address, he appeared finally to give up. “Now he is liberated,” Brooks wrote. “Now he has picked a team and put his liberalism on full display.”

Paul Krugman, also of The New York Times, wrote blog posts during the past few years titled “Obama the Moderate” and “Obama the Moderate Conservative.” For Krugman, Obama could never have proved himself a liberal short of an order to liquidate the kulaks. Even he, though, wrote of the second inaugural: “Obama has never been this clear before about what he stands for.”

After years of portraying Obama as cautiously picking through warmed-over Republican ideas, an Eisenhower Republican miscast by his opponents as a liberal ideologue, Obama’s allies exulted in his open embrace of liberal ideology.

The media, as a general matter, loved the speech. They praised Obama’s post-partisanship, and now they praise his post-post-partisanship. They aren’t strictly contradicting themselves because the content is the same. In his old post-partisan phase, the president passed a nearly $1 trillion stimulus, a universal health-care bill sought by the left for decades and a massive regulation of Wall Street. All prior to his “liberation.”

One theory is that Obama has been forced into his unabashed liberalism by the irrational recalcitrance of Republicans. But you don’t advance a philosophically cogent view of American history in an inaugural address in a fit of pique. It wasn’t Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who made Obama believe that progressivism represents the logical outgrowth of the American founding. It wasn’t House Speaker John Boehner who made him weave Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security into the flag as the 51st, 52nd and 53rd stars.

Yes, Obama would have preferred to pass his agenda with Republican votes. That wouldn’t have made the agenda any different or changed his conviction that History with a capital “H” runs in one direction — toward more government and social liberalism.

Obama is making his play, as the newest cliche goes, to become the liberal Reagan. He has a long way to go yet. He will have to leave office adored. He will have to cement his legacy by winning a de facto third term. His big policies will have to work.

For all of the ideological ambition of his second inaugural, the policy agenda was thin or unachievable. Reducing wait times at the polls isn’t a major item. At the federal level, gay marriage is largely up to the courts. He will get much less on guns than he wants and probably nothing significant from Congress on climate change. His best chance for a breakthrough is on immigration, which divides Republicans.

The virtue of the address was making his intentions unmistakable, although his critics never mistook them in the first place.

Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.



Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
ROSSisRIGHT
|
January 28, 2013
Drjk, do you know how ignorant you sound when you say the word "hate"? That word means nothing anymore.

You talk about Rush, but I bet you love and support everything those race-baiters Al Sharpton and Jessy Jackson say...

And you've never had respect for Lowry, and I know why... and so do others.......It's as plain as the nose on ones face.

ps. And I listen to Limbaugh as often as I can.
JeremyHamm
|
January 27, 2013
Anytime I hear someone give credibility to that drug-addled hate-factory junkie, Rush Limbaugh, I know immediately that they have no idea what they're talking about.

If you view Obama through the hate-filled lens of people like Ingraham and Hannity, you have a perspective that's not only inaccurate, but the craziest possible interpretation of the situation.

Americans love their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They should love them. Our contract with Americans says that if you work hard all your life, you shouldn't have to die in poverty. You shouldn't have to die of easily treated diseases and conditions.

And I know that Republicans don't really care about spending since they're willing to throw billions away for a Defense Department that is larger than the next dozen nations. They don't mind corporate welfare to makes the rich even richer.

They suddenly have a spending problem when it's going to help American citizens instead of lining the pockets of the Defense contractor buddies or blowing up brown people on the other side of the world.

Republicans didn't care about deficits or debt when they slashed taxes and started two wars and implementing Medicare Part D. Nary a peep was heard from the right when they were running America's economy into the ground.

Now, suddenly when we need better teachers and a more robust infrastructure, they complain about the deficit and how it's going to wreck America.

Well, Americans are finally getting wise to the con game Republicans have been selling for 30 years. Trickle-down doesn't work. Supply side doesn't work. But it sure makes the richer richer and the poor poorer.

But hey, keep listening to people like Limbaugh and Hannity. Those extremist right-wingers will keep steering you and the rest of the Republican party right into irrelevance.

As long as you keep vile ilk like Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham as your spokespeople, you're going to keep losing national elections.

So, enjoy Fox News and talk radio. Your entire party can listen to it all the way to the 'dustbin of history'.

Dr.JK
|
January 27, 2013
Bravo Jeremy!I feel the same way. ANY one who chooses to quote Rush or Hannity to show proof of anything should just go ahead show us their tin foil hat. Nothing good will ever come from the lies and the hate these guys spew.They are part of the problem , not the solution in this country.I used to have a tiny bit of respect for Lowery as a journalist but, his hate has so over powered his ability to reason and think rationally, I no longer can give him any credit.
ROSSisRIGHT
|
January 27, 2013
Me and God listen to Limbaugh..... and neither of us hate anyone.
BBBD
|
January 27, 2013
Please provide examples of the lies and hate spewed by these people. Since it's all they do, it should be easy to list several examples.
Weather
Sponsored By:

Lottery
Sponsored By:

Stocks
Sponsored By:

Gas Prices
Sponsored By:

Featured Businesses
Recipes
Sponsored By: