Vote Obama! The Robert W. Whitaker Effect

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Ladies and
gentlemen, the unthinkable is happening in the United States,
and I would like to thank everyone who voted for Barack
Obama and his Leftist congressional colleagues in the 2008 election
cycle. The popular outrage against Bill Clinton in 1994 paled
in comparison to the round of spirited debate that has been generated
by the "progressive" proposals currently circulating
in Washington D.C. From cap-and-trade, to "stimulus"
packages, to healthcare "reform," the Left has tipped
its hand, believing it has a mandate from the American people
to quickly ram the last vestiges of socialism down its throat.
Obama may have been disingenuous on the campaign trail — with
the exception of a few "gaffs" such as the Joe the Plumber
remark — but he has exposed himself since taking office, and we
owe it all to John McCain and Sarah Palin.

The McCain/Palin
ticket differed little from the Obama/Biden in form, and only
minimally in substance. Palin was certainly a wildcard and in
some ways an anti-establishment addition to a statist ticket.
Heck, her husband at one time possibly supported Alaskan independence.
But without question, if McCain had won, the United States would
have continued on its slow plodding course toward national socialism,
though many conservative Americans would have felt secure because
the man who held office had an "R" behind his name.
See George W. Bush. Americans may be shocked by our current headfirst
plunge into third-world communism, but it has spurred the American
conservative spirit, a process that has only been possible because
Obama won in 2008. This is why conservative Americans should embrace
the Robert W. Whitaker voting strategy in future elections.

Whitaker,
a populist conservative who spent some time in the Reagan administration,
wrote an interesting treatise on American politics in 1976 titled
A
Plague on Both Your Houses
. The book attacked the liberal
elites of both the Republican and Democrat Parties, but it was
his critique of the common policy of "choosing the lesser
of two evils" that should have garnered the most attention.

Whitaker
wrote: "Today's populist uprising is against both new establishment
excesses in the name of social progress and its fake opposition
which pushes military-industrial interests in the name of free
enterprise and patriotism. We hold to those ideals. It is to professional
liberals and professional conservatives who use those ideals that
populism says, u2018A plague on both your houses!' Beyond the populist
reaction lies a new age. Our failures today are due largely to
the fact that out policies are geared to fatten the establishments
rather than to solve our problems."

He later
outlined the limited political "choices" that "populist"
Americans had in the Democrats and Republicans. The two had essentially
morphed into a statist coalition using populist rhetoric to enhance
their own power and economic muscle. Thus, he argued Americans
should not choose "the lesser of two evils," but a true
third-party candidate or the greater statist or "establishment"
candidate of the bunch. That way, things would reach a boiling
point more quickly and the de-legitimization of the political
process could be corrected by Americans who truly believed in
populist ideals. Professional politicians be damned.

Of course,
that was 1976, but his statements still ring true in 2009. Americans
have been duped to think that "R" or "D" makes
a difference, and that if only (insert your favorite Republican
or Democrat here) had won, things would be better. The real battle
has become statism vs. liberty. Obama is, hopefully, the tipping
point. He is the culmination of 100 years of progressive infiltration
of the American political system, but Americans need to avoid
the trap being set by the major parties, particularly the Republicans.

Returning
Republicans to power in Congress in 1995 and to the executive
mansion in 2001 resulted in fourteen years of higher debt, greater
spending, a housing bubble, suppression of civil liberties, and
out-of-control government. We should have expected no less. They
are and have been part of the establishment and most are statists.
And Leftists have been disappointed in Obama's resistance to their
socialist agenda, regardless of how bad the Right has portrayed
it. He has pushed the envelope, to be sure, but as the selection
of Van Jones as the "Green Czar" illustrated, the Left
wants much more. Obama has betrayed Leftists on the war in Afghanistan,
the dismissal of Jones, and the elimination of a "public
option" from health care "reform." Leftists vote
Democrat and continually get left in the cold.

Voters who
wish to see "change" should remember this lesson. The
only real choices are third-party candidates at the federal level,
or if none exists, vote for the person you don't want to
win or simply don't vote. This will again hasten the de-legitimization
of the political process. The forty-five percent of the total
voting population who choose not to vote in federal elections
are making a solid statement against the federal leviathan. At
the same time, Americans should be concentrating their efforts
at the state and local level. As I pointed out in Decentralization
for Socialists
and Why
the Tenth Amendment?
the state offers the only hedge against
cultural, religious, or economic centralization and ultimate annihilation.
The states are not perfect but definitely closer to the location
of power, and that is precisely what both the Left and Right want:
greater control over the direction of the government.

So, in future
elections, if a third-party candidate does not suit your political
philosophy, vote for the individual who least resembles
your ideology and then bolster your power by selecting state and
local candidates who will push a state rights message. The Right
should be privately cheering Obama's election. He is quickly bringing
down the Democrat Party. Just don't let the Republicans swoop
in and take credit. They need to go, too. Vote Obama and bring
down the federal leviathan!

September
17, 2009

Brion McClanahan,
Ph.D. [send him mail],
is the author of The
Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers
and a
history professor at Chattahoochee Valley Community College in Phenix
City, AL.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare