Statism’s Intentional Failures

Statism’s Intentional Failures, or Why Obama Hates the AZ Law

Statists have a racket going that too few people seem to have figured out.  Though many Americans oppose Obama and his allies based upon specific policy issues, they continue to be naïve about the tactics of these genuine enemies of freedom.  These power-hungry people seek to destroy our historical institutions and principles in order to remake America under an immoral collectivist ideology, but they must acquire more power over our lives and over the states in order to succeed.  As ridiculous as it sounds, their modus operandi involves the simple act of intentional failure.  While their consistent use of this approach demonstrates their low view of the intelligence of Americans, their success with this tactic suggests that they are on to something.

How To Seize More Power By Failing

Step 1: Intentionally let a problem become a “crisis” by either refusing to enforce laws or by enforcing laws that only worsen the situation.

Step 2: Insult every American’s intelligence by pretending to ride in on a white horse to save us from the problem that was in fact intentionally created by the same group of egregiously dishonest con men.

We see this simple statist pattern repeatedly in America, and astute readers may realize that this tactic is right up Saul Alinsky’s alley.  This approach has certainly been co-opted at times by statists in the GOP, but it is now the default MO of the Democrats in their relentless assault on American limited constitutional government.

The Broken System

The Broken System approach involves refusing to enforce good laws that would help solve a particular problem.  The statist knows that the problems associated with non-enforcement will ultimately snowball into something that he can label as a crisis, therefore nothing that could help the problem will be attempted or permitted.  When the problems predictably fester into something that can no longer be ignored, the statist demonstrates Obama-like audacity by claiming that “the system is broken.”  Remember, the statist has refused to enforce laws that would help the problem because he is using his own intentional failure to seize more power and freedom from the people he undoubtedly sees as ignorant proles.

The Broken System fallacy is perfectly displayed in the illegal immigration debate. We have enough laws on the books to close the border, deport those here illegally, and severely punish those who employ illegal aliens.  But the plain truth is that the statist has no intention of enforcing those laws.  The purported failure of those “mean” laws is intended to be used as a vehicle for the Left’s agenda to “fundamentally remake” our country into something that the founding fathers would not recognize.

The President opposes the Arizona law not out of concerns about racial profiling but instead because he knows that the law will work.  If Americans see the Arizona law working, they will reject Obama’s call for a full amnesty, which he euphemistically refers to as Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Exactly why does the President oppose the Arizona law?  Ignore his rhetoric; Barack Obama is always selling some new snake oil.  The President opposes the Arizona law not out of concerns about racial profiling but instead because he knows that it will work.  If Americans see the Arizona law working, they will reject Obama’s call for a full amnesty, which he euphemistically refers to as Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Don’t ever forget that so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform is nothing less than utter capitulation and amnesty.  Why does the President of the United States want this?  He simply seeks the vote inflation that comes with stamping out another 10 or 20 million poor and uneducated citizens.  It’s all about power to the statist.  They are willing to throw anyone and anything under the bus along the way.

Saved by the Antagonist

Another statist tactic involves passing laws that severely undercut the free market system.  When the economics play out just as anyone could predict, the statists claim that this “unencumbered free market” is out of control and that greedy corporations must be reined in.  They write restrictive new regulations that always seem to have special rules and exemptions for people and companies that donate money to these politicians.  Once again, the very people whose actions caused the crisis in the first place claim that they are here to save us.  This statist tactic very clearly played itself out in our debate over socialized medicine.

Government at many levels, though mostly the federal level, put so much onerous legislation and protectionism in place with regard to medical care that the system could not function properly.  Laws against purchasing insurance across state lines, refusal to rein in the trial lawyers (who positively own the Democrat party), and government imposed mandates on coverage constructed an artificial environment that was most decidedly not a free market.  Then, completely true to the original plan, when this system predictably fails to provide reasonably priced health care the statist steps in to take the system over, castigating the “greedy” companies that the statist claims caused the problem.

Another example of the Saved By The Antagonist approach is the housing crisis and subsequent financial meltdown.  On the front-end, the government and rabble-rousers like our current President strong armed financial institutions into making bad but politically correct loans to people who previously would not have qualified for a loan.  On the back-end, they used their control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to require that a certain percentage of purchased loans be so called sub-prime loans, creating a huge market for these bad loans.  Our financial crisis was clearly created by our federal government’s policies, but now people like the deeply corrupt Senator Chris Dodd – who has been called “the Senator from Countrywide Mortgage” – claim that it was all greedy bankers and that the people who really caused this are going to fix it with more market-skewing regulation.

Think about the reality of what is happening.  Imagine an old western movie.  A bad guy rides in to town, shoots the place up, and storms out of town after robbing the bank.  Then he pauses in the woods to change horses and clothes and rides into town telling the people how he can save them from such future problems if they just let him take charge of everything.  Our politicians do not even bother to change disguises when they pull this game with us.

Let’s learn from their failures, even the unintentional examples.  When they fail, we should replace them rather than giving them more power.  Let’s throw them out in November and hold their replacements’ feet to the fire every single day.