Michele Walk, Associate Editor
Ideology: Moderate | Writing From: George Washington University
Disagreements on policy are not only an American tradition but central to the functioning of our democracy. Rational, reasonable differences on how best to run the country can be expected and such discussions are patriotic and essential to healthy political society. As happened while George W. Bush was President, the opposition is more than entitled to voicing their disagreements.
However, the ultra-conservative right is taking their opposition to Obama too far. Newsmax.com, a conservative media outlet, published an editorial on Tuesday that implicitly argued in favor of a military coup to unseat President Obama. Newmax took the column down on Wednesday morning, but it has been partially archived by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters. The following is a direct quote from the article:
“Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for ‘fundamental change’ toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.”
There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don’t even know where to begin. First, it’s treasonous. Not only is this disrespectful to the very office of the President itself, it is an affront to the dedication and intelligence of our men and women in uniform. Disagreement with the President of the United States does not, under any circumstances, warrant an undemocratic military overthrow – period. While I have the highest regard for our Generals, they have no business acting as unelected executives. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that that our brilliant, patriotic military leaders – one of whose fundamental jobs it is to safeguard our Constitution – would ever be dumb enough to advocate in favor of an undemocratic coup. The author, John L. Perry, states that a coup would not be an “ideal” situation, but it is clear that Perry wouldn’t mind if it happened.
I campaigned against Obama and disagree with almost all of his policies, but newsflash to the extreme right: Obama is not a Marxist, he is not Hitler, and he is not trying to destroy the Constitution. I understand that some believe that Obama’s policies are radical and have serious reservations about many of his proposals. I have serious reservations about many of his proposals. However, to suggest that he is a Marxist and is trying to undermine the Constitution is blatantly false – the man is a Constitutional lawyer, after all. But yes, he is a big-government liberal, much more so than most recent Presidents. And yes, he has proposed plans that would raise taxes (cap-and-trade, healthcare), increased government regulation of the economy, and has instituted protectionist measures. Should people be voicing their concerns about these policies? Absolutely. But are they designed to inspire a proletariat revolt against the bourgeoisie, as Marx proposed? No! For heaven’s sake, the Whole Foods-shopping, Blackberry-using, Ivy-educated Obama is the epitome of American bourgeoisie culture!
Last fall, I tirelessly campaigned against Obama in three states. I disagree with most of his policies, and would much rather have a President with a more centrist approach. But for heaven’s sake, the radical right needs to shut up about Obama being a “Marxist” and advocating coups. They’re making the millions of Americans who have reasonable objections to Obama’s policies look like fools, and I’m sick and tired of it.
Just the other day I had a conversation with a college-educated multi-millionaire who tried to convince me that Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya and an atheist commie. I’m still confused to how you can be a Muslim atheist.
Om, obviously is part of his secret terrorist plot to destroy Real America. Didn’t you know that all brown people have bombs strapped to their chests? Jeez, get with the program. Also, watch out for those Mexicans — they’ll steal your jobs.
/sarcasm
Johnson, Carter and Clinton never got this type of backlash And Clinton, too, was a democrat who promoted universal health care. Go figure. Wonder what the difference is.
Good job, Michele
I think I appreciate this article more than any of your others.
Michele, I agree especially with you last line (see also my ‘Birthers, Be Quiet!’ article)
Ms. Walk reveals a certain lack of sophistication at a critical point in cementing her argument, which undermines it. She implies that Obama couldn’t possibly be motivated to undermine the Constitution, as he is qualified by academe as a constitutional scholar himself. Michele–look around. Isn’t it the clerics themselves who undermine the Church? Isn’t it the jurists who claim to uphold the law who every day subvert it? Isn’t it the esteemed professors of the Ivy League who have so overturned education that we don’t recognize it anymore? Those leading our institutions are misleading them–therein is the problem At some juncture, the people must speak…
Old & Decrepit, I agree wholeheartedly that “the people must speak. However, please point me to something specific that Obama has done that directly subverts the Constitution. As I said before, I disagree with a lot of his policies. But to say he is actively trying to destroy America and bring about a Marxist revolt is just silly.
Ms. Walk: Sotomayor, for one. her qualification for the Supremes seemed to be, above all, a willingness to uphold the anti-constitutional practice of affirmative action. Another is the list of subverters and revolutionaries who populate the Czar-cabinet. they’re the ones who will bring us the revolution with a small “r”. Because they escaped the vetting process, and are accountable to Obama only. His very conduct of the role of president could be seen as unconstitutional. He’s less interested in defending the sovereign United Sates than he is in defeating global warming, and amnesthetizing illegal immigrants. Let’s warm up the military coup, not discourage it. How did the American Revolution happen anyway? People playing by the rules? It’s high time we started enforcing the Constitution, especially on those who TAKE A VOW TO UPHOLD IT. O & D
Calling for a military coup is not treason. I suggest you read the constitution’s definition of treason again.
“Disagreement with the President of the United States does not, under any circumstances, warrant an undemocratic military overthrow – period.”
Do yourself a favor. Replace “President of the United States” with “King” and see how far that would have got you in 1776. This country was founded by a violent, bloody revolution, and I fail to see how discussing the idea again takes anything away from our democratic process. The government should fear its people every day, so that they need not fear their government.
Our military swears an oath to the constitution, not the President. They have a duty to the American people to uphold that constitution even if it means going against elected officials.
Obama has made many “Marxist” comments during his time in office and before, including his famous “spread the wealth around.” His plan for the economy has involved nationalizing everything in sight and attempting to expand the power of the federal reserve so it can serve as a regulator.
Obama has wiped his ass with the constitution even more than Bush did, and that’s saying a lot. It’s absolutely shocking to see someone burn through so much political capital in such a short amount of time.
I absolutely cannot wait for this one-term president to finish his term and go down in history as the most ridiculous waste of time ever elected to public office. I thought Bush’s legacy was going to be bad, but this idiot is nothing but Bush foreign policy + Marxist economics (or Leninist if you prefer).
Tim,
It’s easy to thrown around such ridiculous labels from the comfort of living in a free country. Your tacit approval of the kind of hyperoblic rhetoric that wants to overthrow our President is duly noted. At any rate, fantastic article Michelle.
Wow Tim, you really have a grave misunderstanding of Marxism.
Or Leninism. Leninism is defined by a belief in the necessity of using a vanguard to achieve the Revolution, since the people don’t know what’s good for themselves; it is further defined by an authoritarian and secretive party structure, advocacy of the use of force in overthrowing the government, and the belief that the peasantry and proletariat should unite. It should furthermore be noted that Leninism marks a huge divergence from orthodox Marxism. But that’s not the point — the point is that you’re just throwing around scary words, not really understanding what they mean.
Phrases such as “spreading around the wealth” aren’t Marxist — they’re egalitarian. Marxism is a criticism of the basic tenets of capitalism which springs mainly from the belief that capitalism makes people see each other as means to an end (that end usually being money) rather than other human beings in and of themselves. It’s far more complex than I feel like discussing here, but if you want to gain a more appropriate understanding of what Marxism actually is, I’d recommend reading the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts rather than the Communist Manifesto.
Also, Tim, there’s a fundamental difference between attempting to separate from a government in which you have no representation in the legislature and which is ruled by a monarch — i.e. a government that is undemocratic and not really a republican form of government — and encouraging the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of the United States.
Were the military to overthrow a democratically-elected president of the United States who — by the way — still has above a 50% approval rating, I would expect that most Americans would be horrified. Let’s not even get into the long-term damage this would do to America’s democratic institutions and the possibility of the peaceful turnover of power.
And, Tim, as a general rule, the structure of a revolution determines the structure of the government that comes after. If the government is overthrown by a military group operating without any democratic institutions, the result will likely be a government defined by its lack of military institutions (I point to the Bolshevik Revolution as an example). By contrast, if the revolution is not only defined by a commitment to democratic principles, but also makes use of representative bodies, the resulting government will likely be a republican one (for example, the American Revolution).
One of the main reasons that we have the Second Amendment in our Constitution is exactly out of this fear: the vast majority of Americans feared a standing army not only because they were concerned that it might be used to oppress them, but also because they were concerned that it would be use to overthrow civilian authority and impose a military dictatorship.
Essentially what these calls are is simply a large minority of the Republican Party whining about how they didn’t win the last presidential election, rather than attempting to lodge legitimate complaints about how this country is being run or organizing properly for the 2010 midterm elections.
“His plan for the economy has involved nationalizing everything in sight and attempting to expand the power of the federal reserve so it can serve as a regulator.”
Damn, where to start?
First of all Tim, the Federal Reserve does serve as a regulator; it always has. If you don’t like that, then that’s too bad. But you sound either uninformed or disingenuous when you say that Obama wants the Fed to serve as a regulator (I guess there is a third option, you could be both).
Now lets take a look at your other point, which can be rephrased as such: run for the hills, Obama is taking over everything is sight!!!!
As someone who continuously clobbers people over the head with the fact that you’re learning economics, you display a remarkably simple view of it in your comment. There is a reason Obama bailed out the banks and the automotive sector (more the automotive sector in a bit), and that reason is pretty simple: if the banks were to collapse that would have triggered a staggering depression. Most economists agree at this point that the collapse of Lehman served as a catalyst for the financial downturn. Now imagine if more financial institutions were to collapse. I really don’t feel like going into the details as I’m sure we can all figure out the consequences.
We can talk all we want about “personal responsibility” and “letting banks fail,” but it’s not as simple as that. The way our economy is setup it is absolutely depended on the financial sector (hence the increased volatility of out economy). Until this economic structure is changed, we won’t be able to let any important financial institutions fail as the externalities are just too great.
Now for the automotive sector, the other section of the economy under communist influence. Yes, we could have let them go down, and GM just recently emerged from bankruptcy, but to advocate such a view is to display a lack of understanding of Keynesian economics and the importance of timing. The economic mood around the time when the Big Three were begging for money was pretty bleak. People were loosing jobs left and right, and most consumers had very little faith in the stability of the system. Dropping the bankruptcies of two out of the three automakers into this environment would have been disastrous. Jobs would have been lost, consumers would have retreated even further into savings, thereby creating a downward spiral of more lost jobs. Welcome depression.
But let’s ignore all of that. It’s much easier just to call Obama a Nazis-communist-Muslim (the only such creature in the history of the world).
art
I don’t lack understanding for Keynesian economics any more than a modern physicist rejects Aristotle’s arguments for why objects fall towards the earth or Ptolemy’s arguments for where the planets lie in our solar system. I am aware of the theories and hypotheses, and I am further aware that they have long since been analyzed and rejected, as have the theories of the other mentioned scientists.
The answers to modern scientific questions cannot be answered by outdated theories. The answers, if they are to be found, are in ideas that contain the rigor necessary to understand and model the modern economy.
GM was bailed out because otherwise, the unions who put Obama in office would be angry. This was a political move, not an economic one.
If it hadn’t been bailed out, the stockholders and debtors would have lost their asses when a foreign firm bought them for pennies on the dollar and revitalized them into a competitive, modern car company. Will that happen anyway? Maybe. But if big labor continues to drain GM, it has no future.
The Fed is a central bank, not a regulator. Obama’s plans sought to expand the role of the Fed far beyond anything it has ever done since its inception. To suggest anything else is a blatant lie.
First of all, the Fed is a central bank and a regulator (if you don’t believe me, please look at their charter). If it hasn’t felt as such in the resent years, its because Greenspan was a free market guy who didn’t believe in regulation.
Now for this notion that Keynesian economics has been disproved and rejected. This is blatantly false. Yes, Chicago had the upper hand for a while, but people are starting to realize that just because things are elegant doesn’t mean they are right (even Posener is back-tracking). Further, to suggest that new evidence doesn’t support the Keynesian view of economics is to channel Rip van Winkle. Were you asleep when the field of behavioral economics was created?
art
ps I’ll leave the issue of GM aside since you clearly don’t believe that timing has any impact on the economy.