Obama's Progressive Vision: A World Without Political Opposition*

*Update and correction: My (very bad, not worth reading) post mistakenly quotes from and links to the president's first inaugural speech, not his second. —Peter Suderman


Let no one accuse President Obama of a lack of vision. In broad strokes, the president’s inaugural speech painted a picture of a modern progressive state, technocratic and competent, muscular in its efforts and far-reaching in scope, capable of intricate micromanagement when necessary but also willing to take big steps to fix the big problems that liberals deem in need of fixing, whatever they may be. Obama defended the entitlement system, talked up the value of public infrastructure and environmental action, and explicitly tied the nation’s greatness to its ability and willingness to undertake whatever grand—and presumably public—reform efforts Obama and his fellow liberals imagine.

The speech seems to have pleased President Obama’s liberal supporters even more than you might normally expect—in large part because they saw Obama as openly embracing their own brand of expansive, self-assured progressivism.  The New Yorker’s David Remnick describes it as “infinitely better, more self-assured, more politically precise than his first.” It was “Barack Obama without apology—a liberal emboldened by political victory and a desire to enter the history books with a progressive agenda.” The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber says the speech marked a departure for the president, and showed that Obama is prepared to defend liberalism as a worldview. In today’s Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne lauds the speech as a “case for a progressive view of government, and a case for the particular things that government should do in our time.”


I wouldn’t call the speech a case for progressivism so much as an attempt to assert its victory.

It’s true that Obama offered a vision of a bigger, bolder state. But what he didn’t offer was much of an argument for how to get there, or make it affordable and sustainable. There were no outright policy proposals in the speech, but there was an awful lot of spending squeezed between its lines. Yet except for a line about using technology to lower the cost of health care, Obama’s speech offered no hints about he’d pay for his expanded state; the words debt, deficit, and budget were notably absent from the text.

Nor did Obama make much attempt to win over his political opponents—to convince them that the goals he laid out were worthy. Rather, the speech instead suggested that the argument was over, that he had won, and that the opposition should simply fall in line. “There are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans,” he said. “Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.”

That’s not an argument for liberalism so much as a statement that Obama believes the argument is over.

I’m sure he’d like it to be, but as he knows all too well, it’s anything but. With a GOP majority in the House now and likely in 2014, the next four years may be as bitter and divisive as the first, and perhaps more so.

It’s not just Obama who knows this; his liberal supporters are equally aware. Indeed, that seems to be what frustrates many of them most: that a popular second term president should encounter any opposition to his agenda—especially from a disorganized and rag-tag band of lower chamber Republicans. You can hear it in the refrains of “Republican  obstructionism” and in the constant urging for President Obama to adopt a more combative stance with the Republicans in Congress. You can hear in so much of the commentary surrounding the recent fiscal showdowns, much of which amounted to little more than grumbling that the GOP should accept defeat and get out of President Obama's way. And you could hear it, ever so softly, in the president’s speech.

Indeed, that may tell you why his second inaugural is winning such plaudits from liberal pundits. What many of them seem to desire most is a government in which Obama and his fellow Democrats are unopposed, free to govern and spend as they please, unburdened of the task of fighting congressional Republicans, or convincing conservative skeptics. Obama’s speech didn’t just lay out a vision of a working progressive government, it offered a vision of a progressive establishment unopposed by argument, politics, or practical and fiscal constraints. And it let progressive pundits bask, if only for a brief moment, in the better world of their own imagination, one in which the government does many things—but not, apparently, contend with the opposition. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Redmanfms||

    What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

    Thus sayeth the Lord your God, Barack Obama.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.

    Am I free, or is my imagination joined to the common purpose?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply."

    The science is settled

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

    This statement is more applicable to progressives and their policies than it is to 'the right'.

  • LarryA||

    Unfortunately the laws of economics are still in full force.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    This is nothing less than the bitter fruit of "revisionist" history.

    Those who do not remember the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

    Human nature has not changed in 10,000 years, at least. This is why the same old bad ideas seem to keep getting dreamed up time and time again. Without a firm grasp on history, we have only our own flawed nature to guide us. The only way out of this trap is a comprehensive and unflinching understanding of the people who have come before us and the consequences of their actions and choices.

    This is of course precisely what the post-modernist perversions of history attempts to pervert and destroy. Those who have fallen victim to this, such as Obama and other leftists, are doomed to make the same mistakes that other leftists made in decades and even centuries past.

    Most leftists aren't really evil, they're just ignorant of the world and ignorant of themselves.

  • Ace Sullivan||

    Word

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

  • BarryD||

    Let's hope for the most bitter, divisive 4 years ever. That's our best hope, in fact.

  • ||

    I hope for that every year.

  • BarryD||

    The real problem in DC is too many Hamiltons, and too few Burrs.

  • Sudden||

    I am stealing that for future use.

  • Mensan||

    I'm stealing it for present use.

  • tarran||

    It's amazing how mindnumbingly stupid his speeches are. I don't know whether to laugh at him for being so stupid as to think they would resonate with the American people, or to tremble with fear at the prospect of the American people being so stupid that the idiocy he spews is convincing to them.

  • BarryD||

    These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

    I do wish I owned a gun shop right now, though.

  • IceTrey||

    I wish I had gotten online immediately after seeing the shooting on the news and ordered a ton of Pmags and ammo. Could have made a killing (pun intended).

  • ||

    Hindsight is 20/20.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Don't be so sure. My local FFL sounded borderline suicidal the other day when I was in there. Background checks are taking two or three hours, during which he has to stay on the phone the whole time, and he only makes $20 off a transfer for a web order or private sale... $7-10 an hour isn't going to pay the rent. And he can't get anything in stock to sell at a profit. If he raises his transfer fee, he'll probably lose business from all the gun-tards screaming PRICE GAUGER!!!! who are as economically ignorant as any leftist.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Who's that?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not GRoPa, the other one. He doesn't like GRoPa much either, thinks he skirts the rules by not having a commercial location with inventory.

    I found 22lr bricks at the Waterfront Dick's, btw. They only let me buy 6.

  • Hyperion||

    It's amazing how mindnumbingly stupid his speeches are.

    That's exactly appropriate for his target audience.

    I'm not exactly sure when we decided that instead of fighting the spread of communism, we should embrace it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Never forget that Fascism was in vogue in Western Europe and America before Hitler started steamrolling the Poles and Czechs.

  • Hyperion||

    I think that communism had a pretty good following in the US during the 1920s, also.

  • IceTrey||

    Go to Salon.com and see his constituency. Their ideas on the proper function of government border on the evil.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Border?

  • Hyperion||

    Yeah, border is a pretty cautious term here. Especially with the comments I have been reading from these proglotards on other sites over the past few weeks. There was one that went something like this:

    Don't outlaw gun shows. Use them to congregate all the gun nuts into one place, so we can just round them up as they go out the door.

    And the person posting that was dead serious.

  • Brutus||

    The quantity and vehmence of the rhetoric on the Left has astonished even me, a jaded old man. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see violence soon.

  • Alec Leamas||

    "And the person posting that was dead serious."

    And that's the neat thing about having the guns in the first place. Given the attempt, the person posting that would likely simply be dead.

  • Hyperion||

    They don't get that. They think that the government has bigger guns and therefore, can just do their desire, unopposed. Which is why the Soviet Union and later the US, so easily defeated the ragtag band of tribes in Afghanistan.

    These people live in a fantasy world, where everything plays out like a Hollywood movie. They never pause for a second to ponder the folly of their imagination.

  • Killazontherun||

    Have vector will brain splatter.

  • Alec Leamas||

    They're actually really weird when committed to print. A sort of tossed together word soup of feel good words that manage not to say anything of moment.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's amazing how mindnumbingly stupid his speeches are.

    There all meaningless drivel. Written and spoken for an immediate emotional effect.

    Trying to divine meaning or a road map of is future behavior from them is like trying to understand the life philosophy revealed in the lyrics of a pop song.

  • IceTrey||

    You know what they are? It's Neuro-linguistic programming! The way he said "WE the people" over and over. It hypnotizes the sheeple.

  • ||

    As if a one party TEAM BLUE state isn't a wet dream for them. Obama just stroked all his supporters off with that speech. Even if he acts on none of it, they will still love it.

    Remember, for TEAM BLUE, (stated) intentions mean everything. Actions and results mean nothing.

  • Tman||

    And one need look no further than the enormous list of broken promises he made to TEAM BLUE in his first term.

    Gitmo? Business as usual.

    Gay Marriage? Not his problem anymore.

    End the war in Afghanistan? Giant fucking mess.

    Not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K? IT IS TO LAUGH.

    Halve the deficit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Yet despite these and many, many others, his minion still line up behind him like the good little useful idiots they are.

  • entropy||

    Heh. They say Nixon got elected to end the war in Vietnam, twice.

    Obama only got elected to end Afghanistan once, because 4 years later they just forgot about it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Obama just stroked all his supporters off with that speech. Even if he acts on none of it, they will still love it.

    Yep, that's exactly right.

    And if he's true to form he'll betray their trust soon.

    And then he'll just coo some more sweet nothings at them and all will be forgiven again.

  • Hugh Akston||

    "If there was hope, Suderman wrote, it must lie in the Republicans, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, fifty-four percent of the House of Representatives, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."

  • ||

    How many people, do you think, that are full-bore TEAM BLUE supporters and cheerers of everything that Obama does, read Orwell and think of themselves as against the tyranny that they ask for every day?

    Delusion isn't just a river on Ceti Alpha V.

  • ||

    Heh, my wife is always on about this. She points out the many movies and tv shows about the fight for freedom written by, made by, and acted in by statist shitbags.

    If only cognitive dissonance caused physical pain.

  • JWatts||

    "If only cognitive dissonance caused physical pain."

    That line is fraking hilarious.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    Cognitive dissonance?

    They are zen voodoo masters of doublethink.

  • JW||

    It’s true that Obama offered a vision of a bigger, bolder state. But what he didn’t offer was much of an argument for how to get there, or make it affordable and sustainable.

    See; intentions, matter only.

  • Hyperion||

    Indeed, that may tell you why his second inaugural is winning such plaudits from liberal pundits. What many of them seem to desire most is a government in which Obama and his fellow Democrats are unopposed, free to govern and spend as they please, unburdened of the task of fighting congressional Republicans, or convincing conservative skeptics

    That is utter bullshit. First of all, these people are not liberals, please stop calling them that. They are a lot of things, but liberal is not one of them. Unless it means they are liberal with other peoples money.

    Second, they don't want a government where Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress are unopposed, they don't want a Congress, period. They want a dear leader, a dictator who can, without any limits, just silence the opposition through any means necessary, and implement the worst possible dystopian nightmare imaginable. And with todays technology, it could be far more oppressive and tyrannical than anything the world has ever seen before.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

  • pmains||

    they don't want a Congress, period

    That Seidman article that was panned here recently said as much. He whined that the Senate wasn't representative enough. Later, he lamented that the obstructionist House had to originate appropriations bills. The whole system is so obviously silly and arbitrary that he didn't even bother to engage the historical arguments which paint the system as a logical outcome of centuries of Anglo-American experience.

    Now, why would we want an unrepresentative body that should probably be done away with to exercise MORE rather than less power? Because that was the argument he needed to make in order to denigrate his political enemies given the current circumstances. Give the GOP the Senate and the Dems the House, and he argues on the other side. In light of his mendacity and hypocrisy in that column, you can rest assured that he would make said argument with no hint of introspection or guilt about being a filthy little opportunist.

  • IceTrey||

    Those guys love to ignore the damage done by the 16th and 17th amendments.

  • Calidissident||

    Agree on the 16th, but the 17th amendment is totally overrated in terms of limiting government. In practice, the state legislatures do not pressure the senators into protecting state sovereignty. Hell, the state legislatures were the ones who pressured Congress into passing the amendment and then they approved it. And that was almost 100 years ago. There's no reason to think it would work any better today.

  • DarrenM||

    That Seidman article that was panned here recently said as much.

    I'm beginning to thing Leftists are the modern day version of Monarchists.

  • ||

    Thank you Hyperion. I was stuck at a restaurant playing designated driver for my wife and her buddies trying to keep up on my iphone. I could not comment but you nailed it. This is exactly what they are and what they want.

  • Hyperion||

    Those people are the enemy, make no mistake about it. They get absolute power, like they want, and those of us opposed will not fair any better than what many Russians or Chinese faired in their great progressive revolutions.

    Of course they have to disarm us all first. They are trying to do just that.

  • Zeb||

    "liberal with other peoples money."

    That's what I always figured they meant by "liberal".

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It’s not just Obama who knows this; his liberal supporters are equally aware.

    I wouldn't be so certain. Everyone thinks their ideology is the one truth - they'd be idiots to think otherwise - but the left seems to have this extra gene that tells them that they are so obviously correct that any analysis that might suggest the contrary should be shut down. The right generally seems to like to argue, the left generally seems to like to silence.

    As for Obama's supposed popularity, half the country voted against him. He's not just shutting out House Republicans.

  • Hyperion||

    half the country voted against him

    That half doesn't count. They won! Now they get to do anything that they want.

    That's the way they really see it.

  • Alec Leamas||

    They not only get to do what they want now, they get to engineer things so as to bind future governments to their policies - to create enough statist inertia to win once and forever with no chance to scale it back.

  • Hyperion||

    They may very well get that with their army of freepers. But they can't sustain it.

    They really do believe that they are the chosen ones who can finally implement this utopia of equality and social justice that they envision, overcoming all of the aspects of human nature.. But they will fail, just like all before them.

    It is truly incredible how smart they imagine themselves to be, while being so completely ignorant.

  • juris imprudent||

    What they never seem to realize is that once the state arrogates all that power, it will eventually be in the hands of conservatives. Proglodytes really do seem to think that they will be in power for ever, which may be the most astonishing delusion of all.

  • ThomasD||

    It's not (honest) conservatives they should fear so much. A true conservative would be one who used the power to dismantle as much of leviathan as he or she could.

    While they would be as prone to overreach as anyone they would not be nearly so dangerous as the pretender who seeks out the concentrated power of the state with full intention of wielding it to his or her total benefit.

    Ants find the sugar.

  • IceTrey||

    Well, he got one third of the eligible voters.

  • Michael||

    Everyone thinks their ideology is the one truth - they'd be idiots to think otherwise - but the left seems to have this extra gene that tells them that they are so obviously correct that any analysis that might suggest the contrary should be shut down.

    Over the holidays I got into a somewhat feisty debate over some political issues with a relative that is a hardcore progressive Obama supporter. I brought up an anecdote from a recent, very humbling experience wherein a close lefty friend of mine admitted to me that while he still considers himself a progressive overall, my friendship with him has led him to become skeptical of just about everything. She responded to this by claiming that skepticism is at least one thing she and I share in common, and that she's always viewed herself as a devoted skeptic. I told her this was a dubious claim since the most prominent trait of a true skeptic is the ability to question their own convictions. Deafening silence followed.

  • Alec Leamas||

    I think she meant skeptic as in skeptical of "the establishment," which could never include something like a program requiring intergenerational transfer payments.

  • DarrenM||

    The right generally seems to like to argue, the left generally seems to like to silence.

    I suspect the reverse would be true if the places were reversed. But at the moment, it's the Left that is the real danger to the everyday freedoms we take for granted.

  • DWC||

    We need to stop calling progressives "liberals". They are not liberal in any genuine sense of the word. Just because the right tried to turn liberal into a dirty word in the culture war does not de-legitimize the true, original meaning of the word. There is a reason why the original libertarians referred to themselves as classical liberals. Liberal does not mean leftist or progressive.

  • crazyfingers||

    Yeah, good luck winning that semantics game.

    To call them "progressives" is ten times more offensive anyway. I call them what they are -- fascists.

  • Proprietist||

    Progressive has a possitive connotation. It means you support progress, whatever that means. I don't think that can be turned into a dirty word as easily as "liberal."

    It also has uses. Since progressive is an economic term regarding distribution of wealth and economic mobility, most of the Left's policies are actually regressive in effect. They encourage conglomeration of wealth and power while throwing the poor into a cycle of substandard dependency. They crush the middle class with debt and regulate the middle class's small businesses out of existence in favor of the politically connected megacorporations of the wealthy, who can afford the regulations, tax accounting and access subsidies and loopholes their smaller competitors can't.

    I call statist Leftists regressives. Nothing can be more insulting or provocative.

  • DrAwkward||

    Progressives are also curiously loath to admit to any progress ever being made.

    In fact, racism, sexism, homophobia are worse than ever before!!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They're reactionary stasists.

  • juris imprudent||

    Remember the concern is only with the intent to progress, not the results.

  • Ted S.||

    They're antigressives. Or neosocialists.

  • Hyperion||

    Progress towards a dystopian nightmare.

  • andarm16||

    We definitely need to "take back" the word Liberal. Problem is, this theft so long ago, that only historians remember that a liberal was someone who opposed state intervention, and mercantilism

  • DarrenM||

  • Brutus||

    "The superficial distinctions of Fascism, Bolshevism, Hitlerism, are the concern of journalists and publicists; the serious student sees in them only he one root-idea of a complete conversion of social power into State power. When Hitler and Mussolini invoke a kind of debased and hoodwinking mysticism to aid their acceleration of this process, the student at once recognizes his old friend, the frmula of Hegel, that “the State incarnates the Divine Idea upon earth,” and he is not hoodwinked. The journalist and the impressionable traveller may make what they will of “the new religion of Bolshevism”; the student contents himself with remarking clearly the exact nature of the process which this inculcation is designed to sanction."

    Albert Jay Nock, "Our Enemy, The State"

  • LarryA||

    “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein

  • Hyperion||

    We need to stop calling progressives "liberals"

    I've been saying this for years. They are collectivists, which has been called many things throughout recent history. Communists, Socialist, and then they change it to progressive, because the other terms got a bad name.

    The liberal thing is what is most curious to me. If you were a liberal, really, would you want to be associated with these authoritarian assholes?

  • T o n y||

    You're delusional.

  • ||

    then they change it to progressive, because the other terms got a bad name.

    ...except the term "progressive" began in the early 20th century around the time of TR and Wilson, when Socialism and Communism were still trendy and had no taint of massacre.

  • andarm16||

    even the taint of massacre, (even at a level that would make Hitler look solidly minor league) hasn't stopped socialism from being trendy

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    When I start a grindcore band, "Taint of Massacre" shall be its name.

  • Juice||

    That was the era of the anarchist terrorists, who were from this communist, anti-capitalist camp. TR became president because of the actions of one of these people. There were strikes that turned into riots with shots fired and dead people and the like. TR said that anarchists (communists) were the biggest threat to the nation. Prominent communist activists and writers were deported. Progressives and communists of this time were not really allies per se.

  • ThomasD||

    Progressivism was a backfire started to check the advance of movements deemed most threatening to the ruling class interests of the day - communism/socialism.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    But There is no problem that another government program won't solve

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think I finally found some roommates for Episiarch.

  • ||

    But I already have a roommate. Your mom.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Zing!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh geeze, I'm sorry to hear that.

  • ||

    So am I.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Jesus Christ you're fucking worthless. This is Tulpa-level banter Epi.

  • ||

    He started it!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Your mom started it.

    And when I say 'it' I mean sex. Sex with some weird dude.

    Your mom has sex with dudes. 'Cause she's a slut.

  • ||

    This is not news to me. In fact, I think she had sex with your mom last night.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That ain't right.

    I think it's time we cage these elderly sex-beasts.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm guessing there's probably already a website devoted to caged blue haired nymphos.

  • juris imprudent||

    Rule 34, and no way I'm looking for an actual link.

  • pmains||

    $25/night for a couch? I'll stay in a fleabag Motel before I do that, tyvm. It's probably the same price and at least I get my own bathroom.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yeah but, placenta sculpting!

  • Sudden||

    That's just fucked up. I mean, have they no shame, othering post-menopausal women like that?

  • BuSab Agent||

    What the fucks up with that? Placenta is just all-around nasty...it's like the worst features of roadkill and alien all mixed together. Throw that shit AWAY! By all that's holy DO NOT eat it, or smear it on a piece of paper or what ever the hell else stupid thing you can think of. Just throw it the fuck away! /rant

  • ||

    But will that motel "enlighten" you to the joys of anal sex?

  • AlmightyJB||

    So you think it's fun to stay at the YMCA?

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Like the vast majority of the American people, I neither watched nor give two shits about what Clown said at his Inaugural.

  • Sudden||

    How could you not watch?!?!?! The man just showed how much he cares about teh peophul. Remember, you can't spell scare without care.

  • Frank Smith||

    Anakin: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interest of all the people, and then do it.

    Padme: That's exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree.

    Anakin: Well, then, they should be made to.

    Padme: By who? Who's going to make them?

    Anakin: I don't know. Someone.

    Padme: You?

    Anakin: Of course not me. But someone. Someone wise.

    Padme: Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.

    Anakin: Well, if it works.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    What the fuck is that from?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Padme and Anakin sound like foreign names. Probably some Bollywood movie. Imagine that dialogue set to an over-the-top musical number.

  • Frank Smith||

    Only the greatest movie of all time (Star Wars Episode II Attack of the Clones)starring the greatest actor of all time (Hayden Christensen)

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    someone watched that?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, I remember that from the Marvel Star Wars comics that came out in the 79s.

  • Mensan||

    I always new Darth Vader was evil, but it wasn't until that scene that I realized he was a progressive.

  • Ted S.||

    Personally, I always old Darth Vader was evil.

  • Len Bias||

    "It’s true that Obama offered a vision of a bigger, bolder state. But what he didn’t offer was much of an argument for how to get there, or make it affordable and sustainable."

    We already know how he intends to get there and make it affordable/sustainable.

    Step 1: Spend as much money as possible, and promise to spend even more.

    Step 2: Pay for as much as possible with printed money from the treasury.

    Step 3: Get enough people hooked on spending, so they will vote to have their taxes (or other people's taxes) raised to support it.

    Step 4: Either this works, or see step 5.

    Steo 5: If the above doesn't work, and it all comes crashing down, blame the free-market, libertarianism and BOOOSH and use this as an excuse for more statist policies.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No you silly goose.

    He's going to use the magic of the multiplier. Every progressive economist knows that the more government spends, the bigger the economy gets and the tax receipts grow as a result.

    So the deficit isn't the result of too much spending, but rather too little. All we've got to do is increase government spending by a couple a three trillion dollars a year and we'll have so much surplus we won't know what to do.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Oh, there's plenty of money. Last week, Teh Krugman told us that we've basically solved our debt problem for the next decade.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • General Butt Naked||

    What is a drain on their parents' bank account, Alex?

  • Sudden||

    The only comment that verged into anti-gay territory was a scrawl reading “traditional marriage is awesome.”

    According to Mr. CoKehyeng, the four-word phrase prompted a visit from Ryan Flanagan, the university’s director of student affairs.

    “He saw that it wasn’t inciting hate speech at all, so he let that one slide,” said Mr. CoKehyeng.

    Someone forgot to write "Hate Speech is Free Speech is Protected Speech". Can't stand this bullshit about "hate" speech.

  • cw||

    I wonder if writing "gay marriage is awesome" within a Catholic chapel at a Catholic college would demand a visit from the diversity fascist.

  • Sevo||

    “He saw that it wasn’t inciting hate speech at all, so he let that one slide,” said Mr. CoKehyeng."

    So the thought-police gave it a pass? Oh, goody...

  • Mensan||

    Liberty at BU did this last year. The university removed the wall when the comments started criticizing campus housing.

  • Michael||

  • Paul.||

    But what he didn’t offer was much of an argument for how to get there, or make it affordable and sustainable.

    "affordable" and "sustainable" are racist code words.

  • Sevo||

    At least he didn't promise "freedom from want"; the most idiotic political comment I've ever heard.

  • Juice||

    Stalin and Mao freed millions from want.

  • DarrenM||

    Stalin and Mao freed millions from want.

    They also made them all equal.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Me and my stale ideas oppose statism, socialism, and every other immoral, self-destructive theory this scumbag and others like him want to impose on me.

  • ||

    " What many of them seem to desire most is a government in which Obama and his fellow Democrats are unopposed, free to govern and spend as they please, unburdened of the task of fighting congressional Republicans, or convincing conservative skeptics. Obama’s speech didn’t just lay out a vision of a working progressive government, it offered a vision of a progressive establishment unopposed by argument, politics, or practical and fiscal constraints."

    In other words, they have the idealistic view of a ten year old.

  • Ted S.||

    It's not idealistic. It's craven.

  • sasob||

    What they desire most is a king and a royal court.

  • JWatts||

    And a dungeon of course. No castle is complete without a dungeon in which to imprison the naysayers.

  • waaminn||

    Really? Who comes up with all that crazy stuff? Wow.

    www.PrivoWeb.tk

  • Guy Laguy||

    The JOOOOS

  • EnglishCuckoo||

    Two words in Obama's speech made my spine stiffen. In the UK, Common Purpose is an uber-progressive semi-secret organisation whose motto is 'Power beyond Authority'. They run training programmes for anyone who shows 'promise' within the public sector (local government, health, education etc) and are at the forefront of enforcing PC-ist, Progtard-Thinking, Diverse-and-Equal dominant policies in all institutions they can reach. Most members of the current Shadow Government are graduates of CP, as are all senior Labour Party local councillors, most social workers and the majority of education leaders. A major give-away to identify these progressive fifth columnists is to listen for someone who, when asked a question which displeases them, begins their answer with the word 'Look'. Totally nonsensical, but evidently part of their training.

  • Sevo||

    Uh, got a cite for those claims?

  • Hyperion||

    If he don't, then I am gonna continue thinking that the Limeys are just worthless inbred retards, and that there is no conspiracy theory that can save face for them.

  • EnglishCuckoo||

    Classy. And it's 'she' not 'he'.

  • EnglishCuckoo||

    The official CP version of their own project:

    http://www.commonpurpose.org.u.....-authority

    The main organisation leading the fight to expose them:

    http://www.stopcp.com/index.php
    [Check lower right for link to membership lists]

  • John C. Randolph||

    Sounds like a re-hash of the Fabians.

    -jcr

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    ROMNEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT TOO!!!!!!

  • andarm16||

    +1

    This can't be said enough. Romney would have made the exact same speech!!!

  • Hyperion||

    I just want to say how proud I am of my fellow Reasonoids for not feeing the trolls. Please let the trolls fade away into oblivion and wallow in the misery of their shallow and meaningless existence.

  • Hyperion||

    Feeding, damnit.

  • BuSab Agent||

    It would be nice if we could charge them a fee.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    "What many of them seem to desire most is a government in which ... Democrats are unopposed, free to govern and spend as they please, unburdened of the task of fighting ... Republicans, or convincing conservative skeptics."

    In a word, California.

  • juris imprudent||

    As California goes...

  • section9||

    ...so goes Detroit.

  • IceTrey||

    They just had him on tv repeating "WE the people" over and over. It's Neuro-linguistic programming! I forgot that's his schtick.

  • John C. Randolph||

    painted a picture of a modern progressive state, technocratic and competent,

    So we're talking about the same brain-dead conceit as Woodrow Wilson.

    -jcr

  • ||

    As I've repeated many times. "Yay government!" is never going to be as cool or as appealing as "Question authority".

    While it's true that many people feel very comfortable and happy following a movement in "solidarity", being the government footsoldier in a larger cause simply will never appeal to people in the way that freedom, independence, and individual liberty does.

    You can't suppress the human desire for autonomy and make us all into ants no matter how many speeches you make, marches you march, or slogans you shout.

  • section9||

    With due respect, I call bullshit.

    Look how the anti-Iraq War movement vanished into the ether (with the notable exception of Cindy Sheehan and a few others).

    What Hitler understood is that the Broad Masses can be whipped up into a frenzy if directed to hate The Other. That's how you got the Holocaust and Operation BARBAROSSA.

    It was posted above that Postmodernist Proggies appear to feel no sense of irony when they read 1984, then put the book down and slavishly support a guy whose aims coincide closely with those of Big Brother and the Inner Party.

    One would like to believe that artists, writers, actors, actresses, directors, sculptors, university professors, and scientists would make the perfect lovers of Liberty and would be at Ron Paul rallies. One would be wrong.

    All of Hollywood and the Academic community was in the Torchlight Parade past the Fuhrer's balcony. The human desire for autonomy that you claim to exist has obviously been compromised in the need for so many people to belong to the Bund.

  • bonesteelwarren||

    Botton line: Obama openly declared war against The Constitution and against anyone who disagrees with him.

    The only remaining question is: What are we gonna do about it?

  • Theosdad||

    The speech was also interesting in what it did NOT address as well. Missing were references to the cost of this vision, the stubbornly high unemployment rate, and how this vision of a utopian society will impact economic growth.

    There are a couple of ways to interpret these omissions. First, one could take from this that these issues are no longer important, relevant, or worthy of expansive government solutions. Alternatively, it could be assumed that these are not problems at all, that when such a perfect state of affairs is achieved, that these conditions are just part of the deal.

    But, as the thesis of the piece asserts, the speech was did not aim describing anything to me; it was designed to rally support from those who already support him. If there was any intent to get a reaction from people like me, it was intended to demoralize and maek me feel marginalized.

    It did not work. He still has opposition.

  • Corday dArmont||

    Borg Drone 14678 of 1065754,

    The GOP must compromise through surrender. Resistance is futile, all Republicans will be assimilated.

    We are the Borg/Progressives.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement