The Cost of Disillusionment – Obama and the Young

Headlines these days are full of news about members of the President’s administration hiding the truth about Benghazi and using government powers to discriminate against political foes.  And Obama is seemingly ignorant of it all.

Claiming a lack of knowledge about damaging events has long been a staple of political survival.  Government leaders hiding behind the shield of “plausibility of denial” of knowledge of wrongful conduct by one’s subordinates did not originate with the Obama administration.

But wasn’t this president supposed to be different?  Remember “hope and change”?  “Believe” was the mantra of a youthful, articulate candidate who said appealing things such as his intention to bring post-partisanship to Washington, to lead a government which was honest with Americans, and listen to its citizens.  In other words, Barack Obama promised to herald all the qualities which George G. Bush had supposedly ignored or undermined during his eight years in office.

So what was not to like?

Some observers noted that Obama’s brief political career to that date had not exactly reflected an abhorrence of partisanship.  In fact, he had revealed himself to be a leftward ideologue.

Many on the right pointed out that as appealing as the message of the Obama campaign might be, it also was very calculating and cynical.  But in the midst of the “Obama fever” reverberating across the land – aided greatly by a media suspending disbelief – such voices were easily disregarded.

The young, particularly, followed the Pied Piper’s flute.  In 2008, 66% of voters between 18 and 19 fell under the Obama spell. 

Support from this group dropped somewhat (6%) in 2012 so perhaps some disillusionment had sent in.  But the reduction was hardly dramatic, suggesting that most young people were still clutching at the promise of hope despite the Obama administration’s highly partisan and distinctly “old school” activities.  Ramming the unpopular Obamacare through Congress and lambasting the Republicans are examples that come readily to mind. 

So will the scandals of 2013 (IRS, Benghazi disclosures, press intimidation, so far) finally shake the young free of their wishful-thinking illusions? 

In time, if not yet, the shift will take hold and spread as the realization finally sinks in that “they’ve been had”:  They will be unable to avoid feeling  great disillusionment when they finally recognize that they’re been treated as compliant dunces in Obama’s efforts to transform American into his leftist ideal. 

Disillusionment will turn to bitterness and cynicism indeed toward government and their ability to affect its conduct.

Broadly speaking, Americans have always – with good cause – been suspicious of government.  But Obama told the young, in particular, that this was a wrong-headed attitude.  “Believe,” he said, under his administration things would be different.

The shattering of this dream will result in the long term alienation of the young from politics.  Hopes dashed, they will be far less likely than before 2008 to trust our system of government.  That can’t be good.

This legacy of President Obama will be unheralded, of course, but its poisonous nature may be the longest lasting.

Government Bias Against Conservative Groups Is Not Shocking News

Anyone versed in the ways of Washington should find it difficult to generate genuine shock over revelations that, for several years, the Internal Revenue Service singled out, for negative treatment, right of center political groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Like, duh, government employees wouldn’t be tempted to target organizations aiming to reduce government spending and threaten their jobs?

It may not be coincidental that Barack Obama has been president during the IRS’s seemingly illegal activities.  Some might see a conspiracy orchestrated by the White House to reduce or stymie opposition to Obama’s policies and his re-election.  Possible, but highly unlikely.

Arrogant though the President and his campaign team may have been, it is highly unlikely that they would risk the harm which would ensue if such a role were revealed.  If tempted, they would certainly have recalled the attacks leveled at Richard Nixon when it became known that IRS audits had been directed at his perceived “enemies”.

It’s far more likely that Obama partisans within the IRS simply wanted to help their candidate – they were self-motivated, as it were. 

[There’s a bit of irony here.  As anyone who has worked for the Federal Government knows, its employees are not generally known for their initiative.] 

And there is another factor to consider.  Liberals (and it’s surely a given the IRS wrongdoers were) generally don’t respect conservatives as holding reasonable political views.  Their policies are considered illegitimate, selfish, greedy, mean and displaying a lack of human compassion.  That being the general liberal mindset, there can’t be anything wrong in discriminating against conservatives.  They deserve it, don’t they?

A Horrible Foreign Policy Record

Ask an Obama fan to evaluate the President’s foreign policy record and the likely response is that it’s a good one.  Osama Bin Laden is dead, after all.  As if that fact is the only significant event in America’s foreign and military policy in the last four plus years. 

Shortly after Barack Obama took office in 2009, he embarked on a tour of the Middle East, excluding Israel.  Many conservatives termed it a “guilt tour”.  In fairness, that’s hyperbole.  But his comments did suggest that past American policies had displayed insensitivity to Arab-world concerns.  The President promised a reset in the American policy.

Obama did likewise in his approach to Russia  by cancelling the Bush Administration’s plans to build anti-missile installations in the Czech Republic and Poland.

The same attitude was displayed in comments about Iran, with the President, prior to his election, offering direct talks with the Iranians, in contrast with what was termed intransigence on the part of George Bush. 

Did any of that serve America’s national interest?

When the Green Revolution broke out in Iran in 2009, following the questionable re-election of Ahmadinejad, the Obama Administration was largely passive, with little if any support voiced for those protesting in the streets (with nothing offered of a substantive nature).

The Arab Spring bloomed first in Tunisia and Libya – and the President led from behind.  Egypt was next and he undercut President Mubarak (albeit an authoritarian ruler) and led the way (unwittingly?) to a successor government manned by the hostile Muslim Brotherhood. 

And don’t forget the raging civil war in Syria where the US is sitting impotently on the sidelines and the Administration is busy erasing red lines. 

Iran and North Korea are told by the President, time after time, that continuing efforts to develop nuclear weapons are “unacceptable”, yet those weapons continue to be developed.

It’s as if the Administration has chosen to combine the worst of both policies.  Passivity, when the proper course of action is unclear, is appropriate.  The drawing of “red lines” warns off one’s foes from taking actions that will cause a truly unacceptable response.

But to adopt a passivity punctuated by empty threats is to highlight one’s unwillingness to protect the national interest.  That makes for horrible foreign policy.

Killing Bin Laden was a psychologically satisfying event.  Did it substitute for an effective foreign policy?  No.