creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
22 May 2012
What If Zimmerman Walks Free?

Three months ago, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Handcuffed,… Read More.

18 May 2012
Has the Bell Begun to Toll for the GOP?

Among the more controversial chapters in "Suicide of a Superpower," my book published last fall, … Read More.

15 May 2012
As the Boomers Head for the Barn

When the April figures on unemployment were released May 4, they were more than disappointing. They were … Read More.

Four More Years -- of This?

Share Comment

In what The Washington Post called "a bold act of political defiance," President Obama Wednesday announced the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Cordray's nomination had been blocked by a Senate filibuster. There was no way he was going to win approval in 2012.

Enraged Republicans denounced the appointment as an affront and a usurpation of power, for the Senate had not formally gone into recess.

The White House airily dismissed the Republican rage, saying no Senate business is being conducted during the Christmas-New Year break, and to argue that the Senate is still in session is a sham.

Obama seemed to delight in his Trumanesque contempt:

"I will not sit by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve. ... Not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans."

Cordray's appointment will be contested in the courts. Yet it will likely stand, though it's in-your-face aspect added appreciably to the bad blood bubbling in this city.

The Obamaites seem not to care.

Indeed, from year-end reports out of Hawaii, this is the new Obama strategy. He has given up on working with Congress and intends to run a year-long campaign modeled on Harry Truman's 1948 demagogic assault on the "no-good, do-nothing 80th Congress" — the one that passed Taft-Hartley and enacted the Marshall Plan.

Details of the Obama strategy were spoon-fed to the Post and New York Times. The Times lead: "President Obama is heading into his re-election campaign with plans to step up his offensive against an unpopular Congress, concluding that he cannot pass any major legislation in 2012 because of Republican hostility to his agenda."

The Post lead: "President Obama has a New Year's resolution that will shape his re-election strategy at the dawn of 2012: Keep beating up on an unpopular Congress."

Once he gets a year's extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut, said White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest, that is the last "must-do" item, "the president is no longer tied to Washington, D.C."

But if the president is about to barnstorm the nation savaging Congress for a full year, where does that leave the country?

If Obama will be proposing nothing to deal with the fiscal crisis — trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see — how does America avert the future that Italy faces? Italy's debt is 120 percent of gross domestic product; ours, at 100 percent of GDP, is not all that far behind.

The U.S.

fiscal crisis can be simply summarized. Since 2009, the federal government has been spending 24 to 25 percent of gross domestic product, while tax collections have fallen to 15 percent. When his first four years end, Obama will have grown the debt by $6 trillion.

And if he is giving up on any solution in 2012, believing he can win re-election by vilifying the GOP as toadies to America's top 1 percent, who are icily indifferent to the middle class, what hope is there for any political cooperation, should Obama win?

As of today, Obama is running even with Mitt Romney. He has lost much of the enthusiasm of the young and the minorities that he had in 2008. College-educated whites who had hopes for him seem disillusioned.

Assuredly, he may still win. But should Obama win, how, after a campaign like the one he intends to conduct, does he unite the country?

How does he work with a Republican Party that will likely still hold the House and will have made gains in the Senate, after he has spent a year castigating that party?

And what happen to the nation if we have five more years of political gridlock?

If the president failed to broker a budget compromise with the GOP in 2011 and has given up on 2012, how does he work with a Republican House in 2013? How does he, in a second term, resolve this budget crisis when his bottom-line demand for higher taxes is poison to a party he has just trashed for 15 months as a tool of Wall Street?

Resolving our fiscal crisis seems today beyond the capacity of the U.S. government, as currently constituted. We appear to be in a crisis of the regime rooted in an irreconcilable ideological conflict between two parties of relatively equal strength.

Republicans who refused to raise taxes in 2011 are not going to agree to raise them in 2013 in response to a request from an Obama who defeated them by portraying them as the party of the 1 percent in 2012.

If Obama is re-elected, the crisis endures.

It will then be resolved when the world realizes that the U.S. deficit and debt are beyond the capacity of this U.S. government to bring under control.

At that point, the ratings agencies and world markets will begin to treat the U.S. debt the way they treat the debts of Italy and Spain.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


Comments

8 Comments | Post Comment
Same result if the republican candidate wins. Each party, it seems, now sees its prime objective as making sure that the other party does not control the white house after the next presidential election. One difference between the parties is that the GOP senate leader has actually said so.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Thu Jan 5, 2012 11:00 PM
This is the grim reality of our political system. Only someone who solidly identifies with one of the 2 parties has a chance to be elected. Those elected must also be willing to play ball with the higher powers behind the scenes or they get evicerated by the corperate-controlled media. Only a 3rd party or out-of-the-box candidate can bring these issues to light and change the system.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Jan 6, 2012 7:16 AM
It could go a little differently than the depressive scenario Buchanan offers. If Obama loses, his loss will bring with it better majority control of Congress by the Republicans and a pretty clear mandate for the Republicans to get out of the Monday morning quarterback role and deal with real pressure to offer real solutions. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. It's called accountability.

On the other hand, if Obama wins, his win on this kind of a referendum on basics will likely mean bigger changes in the makeup of Congress than most people are considering to be a realistic possibility. That will mean a significant swing to the left and, again, the clarity of a mandate. And also, real accountability.

Up to now, after the greatest downturn since pre-World War II times, it has been hard to say with honest certainty whether the morass we're in now represents failure of the president's policy or success of the president's in the form of keeping things from being a lot worse than they would have been otherwise.

The most important thing we can do now is let the executive give clear orders, let them be executed, and see what result we get. Sitting on the fence just gets us more maybe this-maybe that. The next prez will not be able to say any more "it could have been much worse." He will have to articulate a theory of how to fix things, and he will have to implement that theory for us all to see if it works. If it doesn't, then we can try something else armed with real information.

So far, Obama's "empirical" approach has been to stay in the safe middle, without really testing anything but his oratorical prowess. He kind of gets a pass so far, considering what he inherited, but the time to complain about the bum inheritance has passed.

Time for the American people to make a real decision, try it out, and collect some data. I find getting to this point a relief.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Masako
Fri Jan 6, 2012 7:47 PM
Masako I think you made a lot of sense when you said Obama did inherit a bad situation, but they can't use that as an excuse anymore. Anyone who claims that Bush was a good president is so far right they're probably not worth talking to. He spent like crazy and plunged us into a decade of war. But its been 3 years, plenty of time for policies to work and change things. And Obamas policies haven't. We are only 6 trillion more in debt. Its good to see that not all liberals are still clinging to that tired excuse.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Sat Jan 7, 2012 7:13 AM
Chris: The fact that I disagree with you doesn't make me a "liberal" any more than the fact that you disagree with me makes you a conservative. I chucked ideology when I was a teenager, which is what those two labels are all about. I have no doubt that in some ways I am more conservative than you and in others you are more liberal than me.

The point is that whoever is in the position of being decision-maker has to start with some kind of a theory, implement it, determine from the results what about the theory was true and what was not true, and adjust accordingly. Even about face, if that is what the results tell you.

Most of the label folks seem interested in collecting data more to justify their preconceptions than to actually use the information to find the truth. That is why we fail.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Masako
Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:34 AM
Masako. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. In fact I appriciate your input on this article. I'm sorry if I mislabeled you as a liberal. Judging by your posts in other articles it seemed appropriate to me. I am not a conservative either. More of a civil-liberty minded independent.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Jan 9, 2012 5:39 AM
For awhile, I was calling Obama "Step and Fetch it" for two reasons. Obviously, he had handlers. Sometimes you could actually see him looking to the side to see what the advisors would direct him to do or say, for example, when he pardoned a Thanksgiving Turkey and made Pope like hand gestures. Also, here was the first black President acting like some sort of clown or tool of people who wanted to continue raping the United States (the Bush Clinton gang). However, I totally was won over by Obama when he made a speech in Kansas recently. Now, he could throw off the chains of his handlers and say, "I'm the President, the buck stops here, and I work for the citizens." In other words, the three branches of government could oppose each other rather than be in it together in an us against them attitude.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Mike Hayne
Mon Jan 9, 2012 9:53 AM
Dear Chris. Thank you. I have immensely appreciated your thoughts, even those I may have a different slant on. Looking forward to more agreement and disagreement with you!
Comment: #8
Posted by: Masako
Mon Jan 9, 2012 7:41 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 23 May 2012
Dennis Prager
Dennis PragerUpdated 22 May 2012

1 May 2009 The Obama Flu?

24 Mar 2009 The Weimar Solution

20 Mar 2012 The Glaring Inequality of Obamaville