Sunday, May 24, 2009
The immense power of Barack Obama
If by some small chance you do not agree that Barack Obama is vastly more powerful than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton ever was, I respectfully submit Exhibit A. Business people who staunchly oppose his policies will not speak out against them, or if they do it is in private or, in my case, behind the shower curtain of blog anonymity (easily penetrated, to be sure, but enough to identify me as a blogger, rather than an executive, for purposes of speaking out). Of course, there is a reason for this. Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress have expressed an intention to intensively regulate, in one fashion or another, virtually the entire private economy. The only defense is to hope that they cannot shoot at all the targets before their political strength begins to wane, so the goal is to keep your business or industry as far down their list as possible. There is an enormous premium on keeping your head down, more than at any time since FDR went to war against American business in the 1930s.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
14 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun May 24, 09:04:00 AM:
I understand the idea of hunkering down and waiting for the storm to blow over. It is the low risk strategy. Does a person do what he feels is right or just roll with the punches? OTOH, if you are unwilling to stand up and fight an agressor, do you not deserve the fate he has in store for you? Maybe the fight would be a lost cause? An exercise in futility with no chance to win? It will take men of extraordinary character to fight back. Do we know longer have such men?
By 
TigerHawk, at
Sun May 24, 09:07:00 AM:
Part of the problem comes from conflicting duties. Yes, if you own all the stock in the company you run, by all means make the decision to stick your neck out. If you do not -- and that is the situation for most executives -- your duty to your stockholders outweighs your duty to your political opinions. That is essentially the only reason why I blog anonymously, to avoid a conflict between those two duties, and even then I rarely write about regulatory agencies that oversee my company's business.
By , at
Sun May 24, 11:10:00 AM:
One change in law has much broader effect than regulatory changes. If the Obama proposals for tax code changes pass (to apply American rates to income wherever generated), don't companies with significant overseas activity have an at least implied obligation to their shareholders to consider reincorporating?
By , at
Sun May 24, 01:58:00 PM:
The element in all this that concerns (hell, scares!) me the most is that otherwise confident, dynamic, aggressive individuals have demonstrated reluctance and trepidation at voicing their positions.
This tears at the very fabric of our freedom!
The demonizing of a group and ideology (capitalists/capitalism) by this administration to further its own agenda has been too easily accepted by the populace, which remains unnoticing of the slope down which we are headed.
Hmmm, focus an attack on a group vice the bad actors in that group (i.e., greedy and criminal individuals) to achieve a political end? Where have we seen that before.
By , at
Sun May 24, 06:06:00 PM:
I linked this quote on another thread but it applies to this discussion too, so, as Spengler says,"There is a consistent theme to the administration's major policy initiatives: Obama and his advisors start from the way they think things ought to be and work backwards to the uncooperative real world. If reality bars the way, it had better watch out."Several years ago, Niall Ferguson said our time were becoming ideal breeding grounds for the rise of demagoguery. Perhaps he was prophetic. Demagogues of ancient times often backed up their words with thuggery, claimed to be acting on behalf of the good of society, and yet found no problem killing and maiming institutions and people who disagreed with them. The Chrysler creditors might see a parallel with their own perilous lot, as might the banks, big pharma, hospitals etc. etc.
By , at
Mon May 25, 10:32:00 PM:
On this Memorial Day, when those before us who GAVE THEIR LIVES to defend our freedoms are honored, is it too much to ask that the well off and comfortable maybe go out on a limb and SAY SOMETHING? I am a physician in NW PA and I speak out and up to anybody who will listen. I also have an anti-O bumper sticker on my car (that hasn't gotten keyed yet). We all need to start organizing in a major way real soon here. The GOP is probably the only realistic alternative (despite their obvious problems). Man up everybody.
By , at
Mon May 25, 10:33:00 PM:
Who has nationalized more companies, Barack or Chavez?
By , at
Mon May 25, 10:53:00 PM:
Which Hussein caused more human suffering, Barack or Saddam?
By , at
Mon May 25, 10:56:00 PM:
Relax. After Nov. 2010, his majorities in congress will be less. He may still have a majority, but it will be less. Then his power will be less.
Plus, he hasn't had a geopolitical or natural disaster crisis yet.
Also, the question is, will the media be able to keep his approval rating above 50%? Or we he dip below, and drag the media down with him?
The media is so invested in Obama that if his approval rating drops below 50%, that would corelate closely with another mass discontinuation of newspaper subscriptions, pushing many over the cliff.
By , at
Mon May 25, 10:59:00 PM:
If the only reason that people are afraid to speak up is because of Obama's race (which is still only half of his composition), that is pathetic.
But that will backfire. This is the perfect climate for minority conservatives to get fast-tracked. Bobby Jindal is one. We need to cultivate a few others too.
Never will you have a better chance to elevate more non-white conservatives.
By Billy Beck, at
Mon May 25, 11:47:00 PM:
"The most subversive political implication of 'Atlas Shrugged', is that individual freedom is possible only to those who are strong enough, psychologically and morally, to withdraw their sanction from any system that coercively thrives off their productive energies."(Chris Matthew Sciabarra, "Ayn Rand - The Russian Radical", 1995, Pennsylvania State University Press, Part 3, ch. 11, "Relations of Power" - "Master and Slave", pp. 301-302)
By , at
Tue May 26, 01:56:00 AM:
This thread exemplifies the point I make to my liberal friends all the time. Liberals assail the power of corporations and their corrupting influence over our lives. However, the power they wield is nothing compared to the power of the government. When the federal government decided to sue Microsoft for anti-trust violations related to internet explorer, they caused Microsoft stock to go down in value by 50%. That was the case despite the fact that almost all of the trial court's ruling against Microsoft was overturned on appeal and Internet Explorer is still an unremovable part of Windows.
This issue is relevant to the health care debate. Even though insurance companies might deny coverage for certain treatments, you always have the threat of a bad faith insurance claim to leverage against them. In short, you have recourse against an insurance company but not against the government when they start rationing care.
By , at
Tue May 26, 07:58:00 AM:
Jump into the cesspool fray and fight? I'd rather fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. The weapons there can only maim and kill.
By amr, at
Tue May 26, 09:20:00 AM:
At meetings the 912ers and the TEA Party organizers seem welling to prod along but seem to not like the idea of direct action such as the picketing I plan to do at my tax and spend senators regional office. Having lived through the MLK civil rights movement, his tactics seem appropriate for recovering our civil liberties and economic freedoms that are slipping away ever faster.
I'm probably already on the DHS enemy's list on many counts, and am retired so why not take peaceful, direct actions against those who would destroy our American dream; a civil grass roots war. If many joined me in this civil grass roots war we might see the Sedition Acts of President Wilson return, but that would show the true nature of this administration.
