Obama’s “Leadership” Style is Classic Liberalism: No Vision + Utter Incompetence = Total Failure

[Sandra]

Could Barack Even Handle the Mayorship of McDonald-Land?

Obama’s “Leadership” Style is Classic Liberalism: No Vision + Utter Incompetence = Total Failure

 
 - Kelly O'Connell  Sunday, July 31, 2011

Things are so bad now in America that we have to ask­Could Barack even pull-off being Mayor of McDonald-Land? Barack’s critics have been proven essentially correct in their initial analysis, that he had no leadership experience nor any apparent bent towards such. But consider to the degree in which his lack of leadership has been factually established in every scenario so far. Therefore we can say that not only did Barack bring no leadership skills into his presidency, but he has developed none after 2 years of experience. How pathetic! Therefore, Obama is a continuous threat to bring America down by the very next emergency or disaster he encounters.

What we see in Barack’s childish failure is not only predictable but utterly inevitable given Obama’s ideology­socialism as Trojan horse of Marxism. It is the thesis of this article that despite the wildly arrogant, quasi-religious claims of modern liberalism, aka socialism, that literally no track record exists of its historical success. And this is ultimately why Barack has failed­he simply has no vision of success for America because none can emerge from his Marxist beliefs. Instead, the only success he can deliver is America’s capitalist collapse and rebirth as a socialist or communist undertaking.

I. Fall of the Cult of Obama

Regarding that elusive 40% of Americans who supposedly still support Barack ( Obama’s approval numbers hit all-time low)­Who is this army of sub-literates? How is it possible they have not received the message that the Obama administration has only created degradation­symbolized by an unfertilized, sterile egg?

The fact is, Obama has failed, either actively or passively, on literally every single project or decision he has ever made, unless aping the hated, sacred scapegoat George W. Bush’s policies. But even Obama’s most intrepid backers must secretly wish they had supported anyone but him. Whatever achievements Barack can claim can only be done with asterisks attached.

For example, Barack “achieved” socialized medicine through dishonesty, mischaracterization, subterfuge and arm-twisting, done against the popular will. Or consider Barack’s reaction to the Gulf oil spill, in which he continues to embargo drilling in the interest of “safety” after dithering for months as the broken well hemorrhaged petroleum. Yet he could protect America’s unions, even while shrugging as beaches were fouled. Overall, Barack will probably go down as the single most anti-business president in history.

Mika Brezinski of MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, recently summed up the obvious, as this headline indicates: “Dems Say Privately Obama Is Invisible, Not A Leader.” ( video) Said Joe Scarborough:

I have got to clear this up. Mika heard two days ago on Capitol Hill Democrats all saying the same thing. And that is, this president has been invisible, he is not a leader. They said this all behind closed doors. Democratic leaders, Democratic rank-and-file. In fact, 40, 50 of the most powerful Democrats on the Hill. I will just stop right there. The complaints were all the same. The president has vanished. He has left us here alone again like he did with health care. Where is he? Now, they didn’t call him a loser, but they sure as hell didn’t call him a leader.”

II. Typical Socialist Leadership

What is “typical” socialist leadership? This is easy to deduce. History shows only one kind of Marxist leadership­brutal power-grabbing done by unlettered and illogical rebels who don’t care how badly they destroy an economy to help “the people,” or how many are murdered along the way.

Bear in mind that Karl Marx is the single most influential thinker in the history of socialism. Yet he never really outlined what an effective economy would be or what the best kind of leadership would look like. This in turn left a gap where many different leaders have claimed to be representing socialism or Marxism, but have done whatever they felt like. Invariably, socialist/Marxist/communist leaders merely made lip service to his ideals which, in themselves, were unachievable.

Typical leftist leadership is a study in falling productivity, hypocritical speechifying, inane and counter-productive government programs, and invariably, human rights disasters. It is almost a rule of thumb that those who rise to the top of socialist regimes are the most unfit to lead. Further, most have been murderous psychopaths.

Sadly, today’s leftists have fallen in love with inane and clearly demonic Marxism, as described in Jamie Glazov’s United In Hate­The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror. One author describes this love by modern day liberals with murderous tyranny,

So, like moths to the flame, the hard left is drawn to totalitarian dictators in a bizarre death cult. From Walter Duranty’s New York Times covering up Josef Stalin’s forced famine in the Ukraine to Noam Chomsky’s denying Pol Pot’s atrocities in Cambodia to Shirley MacLaine’s deification of Mao at the height of the Cultural Revolution and Norman Mailer’s pilgrimage to Cuba, the left’s genuflecting at the feet of mass murder goes on.

One need not go far for a current-day example: In the past few years, Hollywood’s Sean Penn has circled the globe to support Iraqi terrorists, the mullahs of Iran and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

But what kind of a person looks at the history of leftism and says, Yes­We need more ideas taken from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky & Mao! Does the murder of between 150-200 million innocent souls last century in Marxist regimes really not come onto the progressive radar screen when fomenting for more socialism?!!

III. Marxist Leaders

What is the record of the very best, most prominent leftist leaders? Having already outlined the failure of all prominent Marxist leaders, in an article I previously authored: Great Highlights in Marxist “Leadership”: Or, When Change Turns Mal..., I offer a brief look at Pol Pot, butcher of Cambodia as another example. Pol Pot’s spectacular, murderous failure merely represents the whole enterprise quite splendidly.

Pol Pot

Cambodian dictator Pol Pot (aka Saloth Sar), was born May 19th, 1925 in Kampong Thum province, Cambodia, according to Ben Kiernan’s The Pol Pot Regime. Father to the infamous Killing Fields immortalized in Academy Award winning movie of the same name.

Phillip Short’s Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare describes a mediocre Cambodian student from a politically connected family sent to study radio tech in France. Instead he focused on communism. Pol Pot is the most brutally efficient dictator of all the Marxists since he killed 1.7 million Cambodians, or 21% of the country’s population­a larger portion of the total population than any other communist tyrant. This occurred through the Killing Fields, a logical extension of Pot’s typically Marxist decision to create a “new economy.” He drove peasants off their land, and city-dwellers from urban areas, into forced labor, reminiscent of Mao’s harebrained Great Leap Forwards, which influenced him, as described here:

Evacuees from cities & towns, described as ‘new people’, & the peasants, the ‘old people’, suffered together as virtual slaves, forced to work day & night cultivating rice or working on ill-conceived or abortive irrigation schemes in return for insufficient, communal food rations. Much rice that was grown was used to feed the communist Khmer Rouge; little was leftover for workers. Deprived of adequate nourishment & health care, & forced to work to the point of exhaustion, hundreds of thousands died from starvation or disease Executions were continuous. Those murdered were removed from their village & typically killed by a blow from a hoe. Some dug their own graves before dispatch; the bodies of others left where they fell.

Pol Pot himself described his anti-capitalist reign of Marxist idiocy:

We are building socialism without a model. We do not wish to copy anyone; we shall use the experience gained in the course of the liberation struggle. There are no schools, faculties or universities in the traditional sense, although they did exist in our country prior to liberation, because we wish to do away with all vestiges of the past. There is no money, no commerce, as the state takes care of provisioning all its citizens. The cities have been resettled as this is the way things had to be. Some three million town dwellers and peasants were trying to find refuge in the cities from the depredations of war. We evacuated the cities; we resettled the inhabitants in the rural areas where the living conditions could be provided for this segment of the population of new Cambodia. The countryside should be the focus of attention of our revolution, and the people will decide the fate of the cities.

Genocide aside, one could easily make a comparison between Pol Pot and Obama. First, both were questionable students whose political connections allowed them scholarships to universities for which they did not qualify. Both became Marxists who used socialist activities to enter politics. And each used doctrinaire commitment to the dictates of Marx to end up leading countries in roles so far above their heads that the only logical result was total failure and the suffering of millions. Most importantly, both men lacked any kind of constructive vision of a capitalist democratic republic, and so could only deliver chaotic decision-making, mysteriously ominous and threatening speeches, and an overall failure of leadership.

IV. What Marxists Believe

Quite simply, followers of Marx believe the following: That the rich have more than the poor only because they steal their money from the lower classes. Since there is no God, it is up to great humanists like Marx to help the poor get their rightful portion. In doing this through government confiscation and wealth redistribution, justice will be restored and a paradise on earth created­the only heaven mankind can ever know. (I have also detailed this in If Obama were a Marxist, what would he believe?)

Human development goes through several phases, the Dialectic of History. Mainly the medieval feudal phase gave way to capitalism. But since this is unstable it will fall by force of its own moral weight. The next phase is socialism, or where government owns all production and delivery of goods and services. But socialism also ends and private property is abolished. Government owns everything, and a classless society is established where a helpful anarchy reigns. Each person has all they need, no one is in want, and all men live in harmony since the moneyless state ends all wars. And because revolution must occur for mankind to be brought into paradise on earth, and therefore “saved,” any action which brings this on­no matter how bloody, is justified.

To illustrate, remember Marx’s memorable phrases: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” And, “A spectre is haunting Europe ... the spectre of communism. Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to gain.”

V. Exactly Why Modern Liberal Leadership Always Fails

There is no mystery why modern liberalism, aka socialism, fails. Or why it can never achieve any success. The reasons are transparent.

First, the entire theory opposes and denies human nature. So, for example, communism assumes that if Marxist leaders grimly instruct the people that they must work, irrespective of pay, and support others irrespective of other people’s output; people will cooperate. But they never do. Second, no detailed theory was every proposed by Marx to replace the elements of capitalism. So socialism always tends towards chaos from lack of a working model.

Third, in Marxism’s rejection of religion, the politicians and the state itself, are made into default gods. This explains the massive cults of personality. But the rejection of a Ten Commandments means mere humanistic standards take the place of unyielding rules, such as: You Shall Not Murder, creating antinomianism, aka lawlessness. Not coincidentally, mass murder has been typical in Marxist countries. And, fourth, since Marxist beliefs are essentially religious in nature, no evidence can disprove them, and therefore nothing ever changes­no lessons ever learned. So, for example, a Great Leap Forward is always inevitably followed by a Cultural Revolution.

VI. Conclusion & Warning

To look at Obama’s spectacular incompetence is to see into the empty core of Marxism itself. We no longer need be fooled by Obama’s many strange aspects or failures, and certainly not his body snatcher-esque attempts to fit in as a “capitalist,” Christian,” or “patriot.” For, as Thomas Kuhn points out in his Nature of Scientific Revolutions, we can actually know whether a theory is likely to be correct against all other options. Kuhn carefully outlines how we should best choose a true theory over the false. This is simply the single explanation that covers the most known facts, compared to the other theories.

In this case, more of Obama’s character, shortcomings, screwups and statements are explained by the socialist/Marxist ideology than anything else. Therefore, Barack Obama is a doctrinaire Marxist. We must accept this and gird our loins to respond, or risk suffering the collapse or coup of the greatest country ever known to mankind. My fellow patriotic Americans, there is now no more room for error or time to avoid the obvious conclusion.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38994