By: Brooks A. Mick
Obama is feverishly raising a herd of goats. Scapegoats, that is.
CEOs of auto companies and banks are called in and spanked like naughty children, attemptingâ€”and probably succeedingâ€”in making the general public think that any problems are the fault solely of the CEOs, for example. Lots of scapegoats added to the herd.
But the scapegoat-in-chief, of course, is George W. Bush. Obama misses no opportunity to mention that he â€œinheritedâ€ an economic mess, and heâ€™s insinuating today that accounting practices of the Bush administration were dishonest.
An Obama surrogate, Chuck Schumer, is spreading falsehoods about the Hoover administration, claiming that Hoover did nothing and thus allowed the Great Depression to occur. The facts are, of course, that Hoover tried big spending and that tariffs against foreign goods were imposed, policies already implemented or proposed by Democrats. FDR merely expanded upon the big spending of Hoover, but his own chief financial economic advisor lamented that it didnâ€™t work. Chuck Schumer, as other Democrats do, pretends that it was the big spending of Roosevelt which ended the Great Depression.
The reality, regarding George W. Bush, is that he is hated by the Democrats for two main reasons: 1) He had the temerity to pursue the war on terror and double down with The Surge in Iraq despite their vehement opposition; and 2) He implemented many of their own desired policies, thus preventing their taking credit for them! He increased spending on education, even allowing Teddy Kennedyâ€™s name on the bill, but had to be demonized because he inserted some accountability into the bill. He instituted a Medicare drug bill, but had to be demonized because it didnâ€™t set the jackboot of big government firmly enough on the neck of drug companies and physicians. He also grew government revenue, a primary Democrat goal, but had to be opposed because he did it by tax cuts rather than tax increases.
And Bush had to be opposed because he came close to exposing the Democratic schemes that were slowly eroding the economic health of the country. For five years, he attempted to reform the ever-worsening finances of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was stymied by Barney Frank and by Chris Dodd, the latter threatening filibuster. When a bill was introduced into committee in 2005 to reform these mortgage institutions, every Democrat voted â€œnay.â€ Because Bush was often too gentlemanly and polite to call out the Democratic weasels who were gnawing away on the countryâ€™s economy, and especially because of the mainstream mediaâ€™s studiously keeping the lid on any stories that might harm Democrats, the Democrats got away with ruining the financial stability of the country, they managed to blame it on Bush, and then they convinced voters they should be put I charge of solving the problem.
George W. Bush may just be the most gigantic scapegoat in history. Given the tendency of textbook authors to lean way left and spin all â€œhistoryâ€ to favor Democrats and demagogue Republicans, his image may never recover.
Given the timidity and lack of mental discipline of Republicans (the latest being Governor Sanfordâ€™s remarks that are being spun to mean he called Rush Limbaugh an idiot), George W. Bush can expect no great help from his party. He may remain the supreme scapegoat for a long, long time.
And whatâ€™s with this new directive from Obama to relate the economic situation to terrorism? Is that just a mechanism for blaming Bush if a terrorist attack occurs after Obama changes our counter-terrorism policies? Heâ€™s continuing to grow his herd of scapegoats.
Just a little change of subject here: There were some who thought the poor economy, the lack of money in the treasury, would constrain Obama from implementing his far-left radical agenda. They were clearly wrong. There are some who think that the failure of his economic policies or a terrorist attack will cause the people to turn against him. I wouldnâ€™t count on either happening. First, the general populace has already demonstrated a profound ability to ignore substance and vote for the slick talking, as with Bill Clinton and Obama. Second, the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt suggests that 8 years of failed policy and a Japanese attack did not convince the voters to turn against FDR. Such occurrences may not cause the current citizens to turn against Obama. Indeed, disasters seem to empower the left wing in this country.
Itâ€™s going to be interesting. What was the old Chinese curse about â€œinteresting times?â€