Conversation with Liberals: Why Do You Oppose Obama?
We’re making progress, friends. The 9/12 Rally numbers were incredible, support for Obamacare has disintegrated to shambles, and more and more Americans are realizing that what we’ve seen in the last two presidential terms is a rapid contraction of human liberty.
Still, we should be vigilant not let apparent success make us complacent. We have to be ready to spread what has become an incredible grassroots movement in opposition to massive government spending and behemoth government intervention in our lives. One of the methods whereby we can spread the movement is being ready to answer some obvious questions when those around us present them.
For example, I recently had a dear friend ask this question: “Why don’t you like Obama?” Though the question is based on a false premise, this is a question to which conservatives and liberty-lovers need to have a prepared and compelling answer. In the paragraphs below, I’ll lead you through my response.
CORRECT THE QUESTION
My friend asked the wrong question entirely. My opposition — our opposition — isn’t to Barack Hussein Obama the man. We oppose virulently his philosophy and the consequential policies and agenda. We don’t, and shouldn’t, care at all for President Obama — or any other politician — on any meaningful level. A politician’s value is equal only to the sum of his or her policies, agenda, and political acumen. We need to make clear that we don’t care either way about the person Obama. He’s just a guy with power. In that way, he’s just like Ronald Reagan. The personalities are absolutely irrelevant.
EDUCATE ON THE ISSUES
Once you’ve dispelled the mindless objection of, “you just don’t like him,” you can move on to the substantive points of contention — and we have a plethora. This is where you can personalize the conversation as well. Go ahead. Ask yourself, “why is it that I oppose the Obama agenda?”
We’ll all likely have varying answers, but allow me to share with you what I told me friend.
It’s the Liberty, Stupid
I always get a, “C’mon, you have to be kidding me,” look when I say it, but I tell anyone who asks: “I oppose the Obama agenda because from the very beginning, it has opposed the concept of human liberty.” I’ve already written about this more in depth.
It seems that every policy proposal from the White House is one that constricts freedom. Whether it be cap-and-tax (Now estimated to cost each family over $1,700/yr) restricting our free use of energy or a Public Option that would shrink are already sparse choices for health insurance, the consequences of the Obama agenda strip liberty. Examples abound from media policy (Localism, Fairness Doctrine) to federal criminal law (Hate Crimes Legislation).
What about the “Change?”
Specifically, the person who asks this question is often a supporter of the President (on personality alone) or someone who voted for him, but is now wavering. Because of that, we must expose the president for what he is: a liar.
In the most genuine of ways, it would be challenging for an Obama supporter to point to a specific example of effective “Change” from this administration even though that abstract, meaningless concept was the very center of their campaign. The previous administration concluded by injecting the federal government into private banks with a “bailout.” The previous administration ran up insane and irresponsible deficits with terrible ideas like Medicare Part D.
This administration? More of the same on economics. The bailouts continued with a $700 billion pork package. After that, the federal government got into the car business. We now have our first ever $3 trillion budget. And top it all off, we have run up more debt in 9 months than in the previous 243 years combined. That’s just bad policy, folks — plain and simple.
Explain the consequences of the national debt and deficit. Help folks see that the guy they love so much is creating an economic disaster as we speak — and all the while, his policies are restricting the freedom of businesses large and small.
A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie — Jewish Proverb
I’ve never been a guy who called politicians liars until recently. Because of that, I believe I was part of the problem in American politics. The more I look back, I see how I justified conservatives not being completely forthcoming on issues. I was wrong and irresponsible. In that vein, I now see in the White House one of the most institutionally deceptive administrations in recent history (though NO administration this century can claim a whole lot of innocence).
We need to illustrate these lies to those vacillating on the Obama agenda. We’ll start with the most recent.
Just TODAY (sunday), the President of the United States didn’t lie outright, but deceptively distanced himself from the now manifestly corrupt organization, ACORN. Barack Obama WORKED for ACORN back in Chicago. He’s still connected with many of them. During the interlude between his election and his inauguration HE WENT BACK TO A CONVENTION and spoke to ACORN. But today, he needed to be distanced from them, and so he tried to establish that paradigm.
Guys, Joe Wilson was right.
Another recent institutional deception was indeed the president’s health care speech, now more known as the forum where Joe Wilson (now a hero of mine) shouted “You lie” at the president (Speaking of, I bought this yesterday).
The president, infinitely more clever than the Clintons in his attempt at socialized medicine, took the exact opposite approach to “health care reform.” Instead of drafting a bill, submitting it, and then being forced to be responsible for everything in it, he gave Congress a general outline of some goals, and let them do the writing. The consequence was that over 70 health care bills were submitted to Congress and that less than five have had any real consideration.
This strategy allows the president to say anything he wants about health care reform. For example, he can say “his plan” won’t cover illegal aliens because, technically, it doesn’t. He doesn’t have a plan. And, at least one bill that’s been considered in Congress doesn’t cover illegals. He can do the same thing with the question on covering abortions. A bill exists that says in it what he needs it to say, and he cherry-picks what he wants.
It’s brilliant — and despicable.
Past Associations
I’ve got one last illustration of dishonesty for you to use while discussing the president’s agenda and merit. During the campaign, the Obama campaign did everything they could to distance themselves from Obama’s radical past (i.e. Jeremiah “G**-D*** America” Wright, Bill Ayers). But facts are, as always, stubborn things.
As undesirable as Jerome Corsi is in general, he does a fantastic job chronicling just how close President Obama was with these radicals.
CONCLUSION
Our reasons for opposing the current agenda in Washington are legion. It’s imperative that folks understand that the opposition isn’t to Obama himself. In essence, he’s truly insignificant. He’s nothing special: just another big-government, leftist politician seeking power. We’ve a hundred before him — Republicans and Democrats alike. And we’ll see hundreds after him.
The key is being sure that our fellow citizens understand that the agenda restricts freedom, weakens the economy, and attempts to institutionalize a new philosophical system in American government.
FINAL THOUGHT AND ILLUSTRATION
I had another conversation with an Obama support recently. I wanted to share the dialogue. It’s cleaned up a little bit for better understanding, but I’m being faithful to the content.
Liberal Friend: “Why do you hate Obama so much?”
Me: “I don’t hate him. He’s insignificant. I oppose his agenda. It’s radically Leftist.”
Lib: “Oh c’mon! Please! What are you talking about? What’s he done that’s so radical?”
Me: “My friend, Obama said during the campaign that he wanted to ‘fundamentally transform the United States of America‘. I believe he meant it. He isn’t like past presidents in that he wants to tweak, reform, or create more to what is already established. He believes, as made manifest in his writings and associations, that the Constitution and our under girding principles of freedom and private property are antiquated. Then, we see the agenda: Hate crimes legislation, cap-and-trade, socialized medicine, surrending sovereignty to international bodies, etcetera.”
Lib: “He’s not doing anything like that. He’s not doing anything different than what we’ve tried before and failed to get done.”
Me: “So, that seems to fly in the face of the whole “hope for change” garbage. He’s not doing anything new, but still, you believe he’s a force force for change. Which one is it?”
Is he exactly who he said he was: A force seeking fundamental transformation of America?
Or is he a liar: Nothing new to see here?
Cory Truax @ September 20, 2009
