Opinion
President Barack Obama speaks during a visit to Bladensburg High School in Bladensburg, Md., April 7, 2014. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque) President Barack Obama speaks during a visit to Bladensburg High School in Bladensburg, Md., April 7, 2014. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)  

Why President Obama wants the economy to fail

Photo of John Jordan
John Jordan
Board Member, Hoover Institution
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      John Jordan

      John Jordan is CEO of Jordan Winery, co-founder of Labrador OmniMedia (creator of Tastevin, a tablet-based restaurant beverage list software), and is a member of the Hoover Institution’s Board of Overseers at Stanford University.

The President is no economic illiterate, despite what conservatives think. He understands basic macroeconomics just fine, thank you – but with a twist.

Mainstream Democrats worship at the altar of the New Deal. It’s an article of faith that massive government spending pulled America out of the Great Depression. (With all respect to Paul Krugman, the truth is more complicated, but that’s not within the scope of this article.)

The president’s view of spending, deficits and debt is not merely Keynesian theory run amok. Its origins and objectives are far more terrifying. Where the traditional Democratic playbook for economic downturns was provided by Keynes and first made policy by FDR, the Obama template comes straight from Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky, the father of  “community organizing,” hails from the president’s Chicago and is revered by today’s fashionably leftist university faculties. His 1971 Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals distills and updates Karl Marx’s Das Kapital for the 20th century, as a how-to manual for exploiting the darker corners of human nature. Alinsky repackaged such Marxian terms as “bourgoisie” and “proletariat” into 20th century American idiom as “Haves,” “Have Nots” and “Want Mores.”

More ominously, Alinsky advises identifying an “enemy” and elevating and manipulating “symbols” to better unite and direct the passions of the community to be ‘organized.’ Even worse, he addresses the central question of civil society – “do the ends justify the means?” – only in the context of “goal-setting.” Moral absolutes appear to have no place in his system, only controlling the political process matters without regard to the sanctity of the individual, the rule of law, and the rights of those who disagree.

In that context, the President’s own statements and economic policies compel some alarming conclusions.  Namely, that bloated federal spending does not serve the classic Keynesian purpose – to ameliorate and ultimately end economic slumps inherent in free-market economies.  Rather, it is an extension of Alinsky’s construct: to sharpen and exploit those downturns as means to achieve the objectives of the ‘organizer.’

Chronic deficits, massive increases in the national debt, and persistent joblessness are part of President Obama’s plan for the “transformation” of America. You read that right: they are not a problem, but rather necessities as part of a broader plan to make America conform to their notion of ‘fairness.’ That America will be much poorer overall and that a far greater percentage of her people dependent on the government, which is a success in their eyes.

Just what does the destruction of economic growth and opportunity “create” for Mr. Obama and his allies?

First, it creates a bigger government workforce – and thereby, larger public employee union memberships and dues collections.  Not hard to figure where those dues go at election time.

Second, it creates greater “fairness,” as the President defines it – dragging everyone down to the same level. In 2008, then-Senator Obama told ABC’s Charlie Gibson that he supports raising capital gains taxes for the sake of “fairness” – even if it reduces federal receipts – adding on another occasion, “I do think that at a certain point you have made enough money.” No mainstream Democrat worth his or her salt would reduce revenues and thereby the ability to finance bigger government. Obama’s primary interest in tax policy, by contrast, is redistribution, not maximizing revenues.