A Toxic Cloud

I think we are in danger of reaching some kind of impasse when we seek to quantify ‘evil’. First and foremost, in fairness we must acknowledge that which precipitated our drive to unseat the Iraqi dictator. Without it, I doubt we would have even considered our subsequent Iraqi adventure. Right or wrong, our desire to exact some measure of revenge is what motivated much of what would follow. To Bush’s eternal credit, it was always 9/11 - an attack on Americans on American soil - that lent credibility to everything he tried to accomplish on the global stage.

Let’s stipulate (what many still believe) that President Obama is not a Trojan Horse determined to destroy the U.S. as a viable entity; that he genuinely has the best interests of the nation at heart and wants to be the one to lead it into a Promise Land, independent of Middle Eastern oil and, at the same time, rescue the planet (along with Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore, and Palme d’Or winner, Michael Moore) from the evil Republicans, apocalyptic ‘global warming’, pandemic, and/or nuclear war.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that, by clamping down on carbon emissions and by breaking the stranglehold of ‘Big (American) Oil', the best minds, entrepreneurs and investors in our country will rise to the occasion and begin developing alternate energy sources. In the process thousands, if not millions, of new lucrative jobs would be created. It would amount to the country coming together and making a commitment akin to deciding to conquer the moon. Perhaps there were those who pooh-poohed it back when Kennedy first proposed it. I can’t remember. But I think that most of us were cool with it. I remember staying in a lodge in Austria on the Mond (moon) See when the live pictures were first being sent back to earth (“One small step…”). My Dad, a scientist himself, was so excited. Everyone in the room was. And we, as the only Americans there, were looked upon as VIP’s.

The problem with Obama’s plans as outlined is two-fold. First, his vision for America is one that only he can see. True, it is vague enough so that each individual can fill in the blanks with his own wish list of desires. On that basis alone, he can expect to maintain some degree of core support. Second, there are, however, enough of us who essentially distrust his motives which throws everything he says and does under a toxic cloud of suspicion. A nation can chart its course confidently only when it can be certain that stability (It can’t happen here) or the lack of same does not become an issue. Financial markets function as a barometer – a harbinger – of future economic activity. So far, they’ve given the President a decisive thumbs-down. It’s not that Obama lacks consistency. It’s just that everything that he proposes appears to run counter to what people were expecting.

What is Obama’s mandate that allows him to disrupt, transform and lay waste existing institutions and templates that have worked flawlessly for so long? Is it the largely self-inflicted banking collapse? Is it the hyped-up and mostly unsubstantiated threat of ‘global warming’? Or is it the imagined grievances of a vocal minority that refuses to appreciate the sacrifices our country has already made to atone for past sins? None of these warrant the immense dislocations that can be expected should Obama’s agenda proceed unopposed. By fashioning himself as a messiah or mahdi - as a primal event (black swan, if you wish) - he runs the risk of becoming a tyrant; an oppressor; an ‘evil’ – not unlike Batchelor’s Twelvers - that will be opposed by all who are slated to suffer undeserved consequences.