Yesterday, President Barack Obama channeled Theodore Roosevelt, "calling for fair shot for everyone ..."
The Community Organizer in Chief went to Kansas in an effort to portray himself as a modern day Teddy Roosevelt. Unfortunately, people forget that Teddy Roosevelt, in reality, was not a beacon of free market capitalism himself (see MCT post on the subject here).
According to the AP, the speech in Kansas is an opportunity for Obama to offer "a sweeping indictment of economic inequality and unleashed his own brand of prairie populism."
The following are excerpts from Obama's speech:
But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t.
The above paragraph reads a lot like lot like this:
The bourgeoisie or capitalists are the owners of capital, purchasing and exploiting labour power, using the surplus value from employment of this labour power to accumulate or expand their capital.
It makes sense that the collectivist Barack Obama would look to emulate Teddy "the consummate Progressive" Roosevelt. No surprise here.
But did you know on the very same day that Obama was invoking progressive hero Teddy Roosevelt, the alleged conservative Newt Gingrich was singing Roosevelt's praises too?
I'm a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I were going to characterize my — on health where I come from, I'm a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can lean in the regulatory leaning is okay. — Newt Gingrich (the gibberish too).
To some—perhaps many—Republicans, to be a Theodore Roosevelt Republican is quite respectable. Therein lies the rub. If you're the type of (Robert) Taft Republican who values your life, liberty and property — then Teddy Roosevelt, "the guy who started the Progressive Party," and was a proponent of "progressive ideals" — is bad news.
If you didn't already know Newt was bad news; then Glenn Beck makes it abundantly clear.
OK, let's go straight to the legend himself, TR:
"[I]n the days of Abraham Lincoln [the Republican party] was founded as the radical progressive party of the Nation. * * * It remained the Nationalist as against the particularist or State rights party, and in so far it remained absolutely sound; for little permanent good can be done by any party which worships the State's rights fetish or which fails to regard the State, like the county or the municipality as merely a convenient unit for local self-government, while in all National matters, of importance to the whole people, the Nation is to be supreme over State, county, and town alike.
"As to all action of this kind there have long been two schools of political thought, upheld with equal sincerity. . . The course I followed, of regarding the executive as subject only to the people, and, under the Constitution, bound to serve the people affirmatively in cases where the Constitution does not explicitly forbid him to render service, was substantially the course followed by both Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.
"When I was inaugurated on March 4, 1905, I wore a ring . . . containing the hair of Abraham Lincoln.. . . I often thereafter told John Hay that when I wore such a ring on such an occasion I bound myself more than ever to treat the Constitution, after the manner of Abraham Lincoln, as a document which put human rights above property rights when the two conflicted.. . . . I believed in invoking the National power with absolute freedom for every National need. . . " [Theodore Roosevelt: an Autobiography (New York: Macmillan Company, 1913) pp. 381–382, 394–395, 420 (emphasis added)].
Yeah, I'd say TR fan Gingrich is a progressive liberal.
Yet, Progressive Cap and Trader Newt Leads in the polls ... Go figure.
So much for the Tea Party revolution, eh?
I'll let Minnesota Republican and presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann, take it from here
[Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are] the great pretenders right now because they're trying to pretend and talk and walk like they're conservatives when… they hardly have a conservative record. Both of them have real problems in their background with the pro-life issue. Both of them supported the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Both of them were in favor of the climate change reg-legislation. They both were for advocating for – or at least was advocating for Freddie Mac. [Gingrich] was on the take… And they have a serious problem on ObamaCare among a lot of other issues. They were the father and the grandfather of the ObamaCare legislation.
Seriously, if you're thinking of voting for one of these 2 bozos, do us all a favor and sit out, or at least vote for Barack Obama instead. Otherwise, drop your "limited-government" rhetoric and be honest with the rest of us ... by admitting you love the state every bit as much as the left.
Because otherwise, we'll have merely hit the "re-set" button again – and can expect a much worse situation – from the standpoint of liberty – by the next election cycle in 2016.
Reason? A Newtie (or Romney) presidency will be taken as a "conservative" presidency, implying a liberty-minded presidency, when as we all ought to know by now, it will in fact be another authoritarian-statist-corporatist presidency. Which have the effect of further delegitimizing liberty in the mind of the average American, who already rightly equates Republican "conservatism" with everything foul.
No, a much better tactic – if you value liberty - would be to sit this one out and let Obama run the train off the cliff. It is going off the cliff regardless – but it will matter, in terms of public perception, who is the engineer when it does. If either Newtie or Romney becomes the engineer, then the public will blame "right wing" ideology and politics – which will be equated with limited government politics – even though it will in fact be more of the same-same authoritarian politics that we would have been on the receiving end of under Obama's "leadership."
So, let's let him lead.
Nothing fundamental will change anyhow; merely the superficial appearance.
If Obama is re-appointed Frontman we'll still get more and bigger (and meaner) government, to be sure. But then he will own the whole stinking mess. And instead of being played by the ongoing WWF match of "liberals" vs. "conservatives" the public – enough of the public to make the difference, at least - may finally demand a real alternative.
Someone like Ron Paul, even.
But if we get Newtie or Romney, what will happen is four more years of war, fearmongering, diddling of our civil liberties and ruination of the economy – all building to a crescendo of disgust and anger about three years later, at which point a new messiah will be trotted out promising to "change Washington." The exhausted, bewildered masses will rally to his flag, especially if he is a glib, personally attractive messiah. The "conservatives" will be routed; the new Messiah installed.
And we will get four more years.
And then the cycle will re-set.
SSDD. And whether you wish to admit it or not, you know it's true.
How much more of this are you willing to take? Are your "leaders" more important than you?
This just in ...
The man can't be parodied.
So what prompted Limbaugh to proclaim himself and fellow talk radio hosts the only true conservatives? The fact that some conservative journalists are criticizing Newt Gingrich. "No matter where you look in the Republican establishment media today, there looks to be a coordinated attack on Mr. Newt," he said. "I'm not gonna mention any names because you know when I do, all I do is elevate these people." If that quote and the excerpt above are any indication, Gingrich and Limbaugh have now bonded over their unseemly, egomaniacal delusions of grandeur.
When I predicted that Gingrich would be ruinous for the Tea Party I had no idea it would happen this quickly. The most powerful broadcaster in the conservative movement is already carrying water for the new Republican frontrunner just like he admitted to doing during the Bush administration.
If you have to support a devious, flip-flopping Washington insider who co-sponsored 418 bills with Pelosi to be a "conservative," then the conservative label is dead. Either Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party movement, or both are about to "jump the shark."
So, which one will it be?
The Tea Party revolution that wasn't ...
Continuing some thoughts I expressed in the comments on this post here, the Tea Party movement is tragically embarrassing itself.
Outside of a brief flirtation with Michele Bachmann, the Tea Parties have thrown their support behind candidates who require them to betray their own core principles.
Support TARP? Check. Support bailouts? Check. Support money-printing (stimulus)? Check. Support crank Keynesian economic theory? Check. Support socialized healthcare? Check. Support "active government?" Check. Need I continue?
Adherence to the Constitution (the law of the land)? We ain't got time for that now. Liberty? That's so like, yesterday. What we need is a strongman, er, "leader" to follow!
I know, I know, you're a super-serious-realist and whatnot. But what, may I ask, are you being realistic about? Reversing the growth of government? Don't make me laugh.
The conservative movement, including it's Tea Party faction, has become rudderless, drifting any which way the Establishment blows them. It has no convictions of it's own. Nothing it refuses to compromise. So, it should be no surprise to anyone why the country keeps leaping rapidly leftward ... Because as wrong as they certainly are, at least, unlike the grassroots right, the leftwing base has conviction.
You can let polls do your thinking for you. You can let the media do your thinking for you. You can jump on a bandwagon because somebody told you that a candidate is the only "practical" alternative to Mitt Romney, or tell yourself ... that Newt's the only GOP candidate who can beat Obama next year.
Or you can think for yourself and tell all the pundits and pollsters to go straight to hell.
As for me, I remember October 2009, when Tea Party activists were doing everything they could to help Doug Hoffman win the NY-23 special election, and Newt Gingrich went on TV — over and over and over again — to praise Dede Scozzafava as the best choice for conservatives. -- Stacy "The Other" McCain
More on Newt Gingrich's progressive hero Teddy Roosevelt:
- How Theodore Roosevelt Changed America for the Worse ...
- Retire Progressive John McCain!
- John McCain's Mission to Destroy the GOP!
More on Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party:
- Why a Newt Gingrich Candidacy Would Doom the Tea Party
- If Gingrich is the answer, Tea Party has failed
- Gingrich rise is a sign tea party movement is destroying itself
- Newt Gingrich is no conservative
- Newt Gingrich Is No Libertarian
- The Truth Is That Newt Gingrich Is Not A Real Conservative
- Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
- 'Conservative' Newt's New Deal
- The Real Newt Gingrich
- Newt Gingrich: The Un-Conservative