“Why Are Obama’ Critics So Dumb?†That’s the question posed by
Andrew Sullivan in the cover story of this week’s Newsweek.
But you’d have to be stupid, fanatical, and dishonest to argue–as
rig Truther Sullivan does–that Barack Obama’s failures are part of
an ingenious “long game†that is destined to succeed.
If this is the best Obama’s supporters can do, Obama’s only hope
for re-election is the weak Republican field.
Sullivan, who claims to care about national debt, begins by arguing,
contrary to reality,that Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus
(actually, $862 billion) turned the economy around. He offers no
proof other than the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy familiar from
basic economics. Sullivan also ignores the composition of the stimulus,
which shoveled cash to cronies and bloated big states with their
massive public sector obligations.
In addition, Sullivan claims that Obama’s auto bailout succeeded–when
in fact it pushed aside property rights and subsidized failed “greenâ€Â
cars, rather than allowing car makers to rebuild through normal
bankruptcy. He also commends Obama for continuing George W. Bush’s
bank bailouts–but does not mention the Dodd-Frank financial “reformsâ€Â
that enshrine “too big to fail,†hurt small businesses and fail to
address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Next, Sullivan tries to defend Obama on taxes, pointing out that the
president passed tax cuts as part of the stimulus. He ignores the
numerous new taxes and tax increases that Obama signed into law–from
higher cigarette taxes to the many ObamaCare taxes–as well as the
glaring fact that Obama has been campaigning for the past several
years on the promise to raise taxes on the rich, and would have done
so if not for Congress.
Sullivan’s defense of ObamaCare is that it is more “moderate†than
it might have been. That is hardly a measure of success–and after
devious accounting tricks, thousands of waivers, and the abandonment
of ObamaCare’s Community Living Assistance Services and Supports
(CLASS) program, the law is clearly on a path to failure.
Fundamentally, it is unconstitutional–a reality Sullivan does
not care to note in his encomium to Obama.
On foreign policy, Sullivan hails Obama’s success in the death of
Osama bin Laden–giving a fantastical account of the president’s
courage, and perpetuating the false meme that Bush had “ignoredâ€Â
Al Qaeda. In fact, it was the war in Iraq–and the interrogation
methods that Sullivan decries–that produced the intelligence that
led to bin Laden.
Aside from the war on Al Qaeda, Obama squandered every diplomatic
and military success bequeathed to him by Bush. He destroyed missile
defense in Europe, and wasted hard-won gains in Iraq by withdrawing
troops against the advice of the military. While appeasing Iran and
gutting the future of our defense, Obama alienated and undermined
U.S allies. Sullivan, who detests Israel, even applauds Obama’s
pointless confrontation with Benjamin Netanyahu–hardly a way to sell
a second Obama term.
Having dealt with conservatives (in his own mind at least), Sullivan
lists reasons that the left should be pleased with the president they
elected. He’s correct that liberals should back Obama; they will never
again see a U.S. president with such radical policies and pedigree.
But he overlooks the degree to which Obama has discredited left-wing
theory by exposing its flaws in practice–the real reason the left is
distancing itself from him.
What is most telling in Sullivan’s admonition to liberals is his use
of Obama’s inaugural metaphor of the “clenched fist.†The president,
he says, “begins by extending a hand to his opponents†and outwits
them when they respond “by raising a fist.†Yet Obama was referring
to foreign policy, not U.S. politics. Once in office, of course,
Obama embraced America’s enemies and bullied domestic opponents–as
even the left knows all too well.
Sullivan quotes George Orwell: “To see what is in front of one’s nose
needs a constant struggle.†What is in front of Sullivan’s nose is
Obama’s incompetence. He has coasted on the military success of his
Republican predecessor, and is taking credit for moderate economic
progress enabled by a Republican Congress that has held taxes,
regulation, and spending in check. If he wins in 2012, Obama will
again have Republicans to thank.
