Comments on: Reading Obama 4

By: tweaver7777

tweaver7777 — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:51:27 +0000

President Obama was being vague, not tricky (probably. at least). I’m not sure we’ve accumulated enough information to really know what Obama intends as far as new regulations and market oversight. I suspect that he himself will not wade in too deeply, but also that he may well green-light whatever Congress comes up with. For the most part, his rhetoric suggests that he understands that market oversight has limits…but, again, this could mean just about anything. We’ll have to wait and see.

By: CarlPham

CarlPham — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:30:49 +0000

Obama is not tricky here, he’s simply indulging in fantasy. The difficulty with suggesting that the private economy should be “watched” and guided is not that this is subversive of freedom or whatnot, but that it supposed the existence of wise “watchers” who are smarter than the actors in the private economy. There are no such creatures among us. If there’s one thing the 20th century history of “planned” and “scientific” economies has shown us, it’s that there simply are no human beings smart enough and capable enough to “watch” the private economy. Obama’s problem is not political trickery, but rather his indulgence in magical thinking, the disconnect of his ideas from factual reality.

By: Robdog

Robdog — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:27:40 +0000

I agree complety Mr. Frum, I thought the same thing when I heard the speech. To you as well as to “factbased” below, if you consider Obama’s words in context of the larger liberal theme of bigger government and more stringent controls on citizens in every aspect of their lives (especially the financial sphere via higher taxes), the most objective viewpoint is one which indeed concludes that Obama’s words are … “tricky”.

By: bobo2119

bobo2119 — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:14:27 +0000

I fail to see how Obama’s comments were tricky. I don’t see him plotting to socialize our economy and control all economic activity.

Characterizing his comments as tricky is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The duplicity of Republican rhetoric is tricky. I think calling a program “Blue Skies” when it allows increased pollution and “No Child Left Behind” when the program results in poorer education and unthinking conformity is tricky.

Descriptors such as “Pro Life are beyond tricky considering that the Republican policies are Pro Birth, not Pro Life. We wouldn’t have a war in Iraq today if Republicans were Pro Life. Republican policies are anything but Pro Life.

I think using the word “Conservative” is tricky when the Republican Party has endeavored to rob citizens of their constitutional freedoms under the guise of the “Patriot” act. Now, “Conservative” and “Patriot” are pretty tricky words, aren’t they?.

What exactly do Republicans conserve anyway?

By: senorlechero

senorlechero — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:36:39 +0000

TEST. I am just posting a test because I have been able to post one comment, but when I try to post a comment on another post I get an error message. So, please ignore this post (which I’m sure will not be difficult)

By: fact based

fact based — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:22:19 +0000

Your attitude of holding an inaugural address up to the standards one would hold for a budget document or a legislative proposal is silly, no inaugural address would meet that criteria. As to your specific point Obama and his economic team have spoke specifically of the need to address regulation of the financial services industry none have spoken of the need to do that for “the whole private economy”. The ambiguity is in your head not the words or actions of Obama and his economic team. Someone looking for MORE regulation might well read obama’s words and a sign that Obama will LIMIT regulatory reform to the financial markets. Then again an objective observer would try to read the details of future policy from an inaugural address.

By: sewells1951

sewells1951 — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:35:37 +0000

I understood Obama to be talking about markets in general rather than making specific comments about specific markets. I believe that he intended his comments to apply to markets universally. At root, I think what he has in mind a sort of checks and balances approach to financial regulation.

But, after decades of corporate welfare and the current round of losses being socialized and profits privatized I will not be surprised to see tax rates at 50% for pretty much everyone.

By: CaliforniaDan

CaliforniaDan — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:31:06 +0000

The sentence should have ended with the word “control”. There was no need for the implication that the nation “favors only the prosperous”. Will “The Left” ever discard the class warfare prism through which they view life in America? My goodness, think of how many millions (100+?) of Americans have investments in the stock market, either through individual stock purchases, mutual funds, or their pensions. This is not about “us vs. them” but rather how do we stabilize a system that works for the good of all of us.

By: Johnnyrat

Johnnyrat — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:55:01 +0000

David keep up the good work!

By: atgpac

atgpac — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:33:00 +0000

Hello Mr. Frum,

I’ve not had time to parse President Obama’s inauguration speech. But a quick read reveals a reworked campaign speech with a touch more rhetorical flourish and a dash of historical antecedents. I agree that there is much reading between the lines. Tricky, indeed.

Thanks for starting this website. Conservatism is in need of better branding and more competition in the marketplace of ideas. With that in mind, did you read Peter Berkowitz’s piece, titled “Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution,” which was published January 2 on wsj.com? Berkowitz writes that McCain lost because he “proved incapable of crafting a coherent and compelling message.” Let the crafting begin.

Cordially,
Chad Snee
Troy, Ohio