Now we go from there to the American presidential race. The Republican Party has every card to defeat President Obama in 2012. In fact, polls reveal that Obama could not even defeat a GENERIC Republican candidate in a presidential race!
And yet with all of these cards in favor of the Republicans, the advantage has only gone to the heads of the hard-core right in the GOP. Recently this area of the GOP lost its most entertaining toy when the issue of Obama being born in Kenya imploded on everyone. So the hard-core right has picked a new toy for the presidential season. They are now saying President Obama is a Communist.
When you check President Obama out against an actual Communist, you will see how childish and sulky is this charge. First of all, go ahead and imagine you have invited Fidel Castro for dinner. Then imagine you have invited President Obama for dinner. The first thing you will notice would be the entirely different atmosphere in the imagined two dinners. The second thing you will conclude: President Obama would have never have been elected president in anything other than an American community that is capitalistic-democratic.
But if this hard-core charge on the right prevails of Obama being a Communist, the GOP will surely be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2012.
Obama will certainly then use judo on his opponents just as he used the same judo techniques against those who accused him of being a native Kenyan in 2008. Simply, he will throw his opponents to the floor by the weight of their own blather. He will specifically say to the election-deciding independents: “Who are you going to back in this election? A guy who’s on the job like me or those hysterics on the floor who are calling me a Communist?”
I am too cautious to bet on many things, but I will bet any money that if the Republicans reduce their opposition to calling Obama a Communist, Obama will win the 2012 election with a big-government mandate that will make his 2008 landslide look like chicken feed in comparison.
It is not just radio talk show host Michael Savage who is calling Obama a Communist these days, but it is all of his Merry Men as well. But just by good luck, I had a breakfast with a couple of guys who called themselves unabashed Liberals recently that taught me what Obama’s actual problem is. It is not Communism that is Obama’s problem. It is Liberalism.
From now on, I will try to explain that a Liberal like Obama as president is just as catastrophic on the American free enterprise system as would be any Socialist or Communist president.
The problem is that this degree of Liberal is just as viscerally opposed to capitalism as would be anyone on the left of the political spectrum. Surely this was proven at the end of the 2010 Congressional Election when Obama practically lost his left hand in the elective slaughter. Understandably, his advisors then pleaded for him to make a conciliatory speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a group he had mysteriously and self-destructively battled throughout the first two years of his term.
Finally Obama – only because he had acknowledged he received a “shellacking” from voters in 2010 – agreed to make that conciliatory speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
He visited them. He stood at their podium. He took a deep breath before their members.
But oh! Oh! Oh! Something then broke down in his planned presentation. It was just too much for Obama to see all those capitalists in one room together.
Too much capitalism!
So he went into a frenzy. The frenzy did not flood into his tone or voice or into his posture. But you could see the frenzy isolated from his characteristic poise in his quotes that were printed in the next morning’s newspapers.
Basically, he said to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that he could not tolerate anyone who worked to gain a profit. And the more profitable a person was, the less Obama could stand him. This especially went for any profit-making insurance company people or corporate jet owner who was in the audience.
Probably I agree with Obama with one aspect of his concept of capitalism. Capitalism is a high-yield, high-risk economic proposition. In contrast, anything left of capitalism is lower risk and lower yield. In socialism, there is really no risk and no social mobility. In any western socialistic country, anyone who is born poor will stay poor. The young sons and daughters who are born poor in a Western socialistic country will always live as cabbages and will never have any hopes to live as kings and queens.
In fact, the two adamant liberals with whom I had breakfast saw all of this well. I equally can see the hurly-burly of robust capitalism is in flat contrast to the flatness of any community that is left of capitalistic. There are also many leaders who are tough enough to stand and lead on top of a society filled with hurly-burly and robust free-market economics.
Unfortunately we have also discovered there are other leaders who only comfortable leading an economy that is flat beneath their feet, and presently they are leading America.
Chris Sharp- Commentary
Chris Sharp is an Educator and a prize-winning professional writer. He has recently published a new book titled “Dangerous Learning: The New Schooling in California..” His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.