Civilian National Security Force

President-elect Obama called for a Civilian National Security Force (CNSF).  He did this on July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs. What does this mean? What is a CNSF? Those that have lived or know of people that have lived in totalitarian regimes certainly know what this means. 

The very thought of a CNSF send chills down the spine and cause hairs to stand up on the back of the neck. It sounds eerily similar to community-volunteer police groups that a government may establish to suppress, identify, and punish dissent. At a minimum it pits one segment of the population against another. The community-volunteers of this ilk are typically mediocre types that see this as a means to attack the more successful, free-thinking citizens.

However, Mr. Obama did not call for a rag-tag neighborhood crime watch group. No, he spoke of creating a CNSF that was just as powerful and just as well-funded as our military forces. That would total almost $500 Billion a year. Is that what he means? If not, then why did he say it and what indeed does he mean? You can fund a KGB, a Gestapo, and a Stasi with that kind of money. Even at lower level funding, the proposal is alarming. Cubans, for example, know all too well that Castro's Committee for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) caused great damage and divided families.  

Barack Obama must explain the precise nature of the domestic danger that he sees that cannot be addressed by existing federal, state, and local police enforcement, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Otherwise, we can and should question his motives and repel any version of a CNSF.

Children of the '30s

The 1930s conjures images of bank runs and the prevalent unemployment lines of the Great Depression.  The face of FDR and the advent of the New Deal also come to mind.  To the collage we can add the Dust Bowl and gangsters such as Capone, Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde.  The '30s also witnessed the rise of Hitler.  

On the milder side, the decade is remembered for Babe Ruth's called World Series home run, the creation of Snow White and the epic Gone with the Wind. Polaroid photography, Monopoly, jet engines, drive-in theaters, the parking meter, and canned beer were all born in the '30s.  What was not born in the 1930s was a U.S. President.  John McCain's loss closed out that possibility.

Not having a president born in a given decade may not be significant but it is rare indeed.  It has happened only twice since the 1730s.  The only other decade to miss out was the 1810s. The most fertile? The 1800s and the 1910s - four presidents each. There is still a chance for those born in the 1950s and this was the first election where someone born in the 1970s was constitutionally eligible to achieve the presidency.

Here's the list. The Presidential order is noted in parenthesis for those who are obsessed with chronological skips (Reagan was skipped by four younger men) and leapfrogs (JFK jumped ahead of four older men):

1730s: Washington (1); Adams (2)

1740s: Jefferson (3)

1750s: Madison (4); Monroe (5)

1760s: Quincy Adams (6); Jackson (7)

1770s: W.H. Harrison (9)

1780s: Van Buren (8); Taylor (12)

1790s: Tyler (10); Buchanan (15); Polk (11)

1800s: Fillmore (13); Pierce (14); A. Johnson (17); Lincoln (16)

1810s: none

1820s: Grant (18); Hayes (19); Arthur (21)

1830s: Garfield (20); B. Harrison (23); Cleveland (22 and 24)

1840s: McKinley (25)

1850s: Wilson (28); Taft (27); TR (26)

1860s: Harding (29)

1870s: Coolidge (30); Hoover (31)

1880s: FRD (32); Truman (33)

1890s: Eisenhower (34)

1900s: LBJ (36)

1910s: Reagan (40); Nixon (37); Ford (38); JFK (35)

1920s: Carter (39); H.W. Bush (41)

1930s: none

1940s: Clinton (42); W. Bush (43)

1950s: not yet

1960s: Obama (44)

1970s: not yet 

Heard at Grant Park

Change.  It was the one-word theme of the Obama campaign. Lawns, buildings, bumper stickers displayed that word to show support for a presidential candidate and his tag line. There was no need to ponder annoying questions such as: what, how, why, where, when.  The who was always known and that was all you needed to know.

Change was the campaign theme and the throngs celebrating at Grant Park in Chicago on Tuesday night left no doubt that it worked.  Change won.  So, what exactly did Mr. Obama say about change that evening?  After all, it was the winning card, his fifth ace. He used the word precisely four times.  

Early during the extravaganza he said that "in this election change has come to America". Change already happened.  

Second, there was an "America can change" throwaway.

 

Then, referencing 106 year-old Ann Nixon Cooper, Obama offered the keen insight that Ms Cooper "knows how America can change".  Things have changed in 106 years. Really?  

Lastly, Obama wondered that if our children were to live as long as Ms. Cooper,  "what change will they see?" If you want to see change, it is best to invest in a time machine or a Hubble Space Telescope.

At Grant Park, the President-elect distanced himself from his twenty-one month campaign bluster, choosing it best to manage the expectations of the Obamistas.  To make sure his adoring fans don't expect too much from him, he equivocated:  "We may not get there in one year or even one term".  Not only is he not saying where he intends to go, he says that, wherever it is, we may not get there anytime soon.  Being wary of Obama's undeclared intended destination, that may not be so bad after all.  

"There will be setbacks and false starts", he confessed.  Interesting, that admittance for failure was not part of the "Yes we can" mantra and "fired up, ready to go" pep rallies.  However, to my relief, he did say "I will always be honest with you". 

A Center-Left Shift?

Does the Barack Obama victory signal that the United States has veered from a center-right political posture to center-left?  Mind you, I am referring to the population at large here, not the press, media, academia, or the intelligentsia - whatever intelligentsia means.  The answer is "no". The electorate has not shifted.  To be sure, President-elect Obama is certainly on the far left lane of the liberal highway.  The American voters are not on that toll road.

A look at economic and foreign policy campaign pronouncements by Obama elucidate the unchanged position of the voters.  An electorate that has true left leanings would have enthusiastically embraced a bevy of tax and spend promises.  Nothing produces a greater "thrill up the leg" of a leftist than a politician unabashedly promising to tax abundantly, gather the tax revenues in Washington, and then spend rabidly on programs that bear the liberal good housekeeping seal.  

Ah, but the perceptive Obama knew that if he campaigned as a "tax'em and spend it" guy he would get trounced.  So, what to do? Easy - run as a tax cutter with a class warfare edge and say that you will cut taxes on 95% of workers, taxpayers, world citizens, large farm animals -- whatever it takes.  He ran as a supply-sider in drag.  But that was not all.  

Obama also promised to "pay as you go", saying that he would reduce spending in tandem with tax cuts. He offered to personally go line-by-line on the budget and cut spending on programs that are not to his liking.  Yes, Barack himself will go line-by-line with a magnifying glass and a red flair pen.  A true fiscal hawk!  Doesn't sound like a leftist, correct?  To say what needs to be said to win means disguising your true impulses and intentions. 

On foreign policy, Mr. Obama continued to extend an  Iraq withdrawal deadline and heave fog on the conditions of a pull-out. In the gallery. the leftists pined for a "we're out in three months promise". However, he could not say what the left wanted to hear and have any chance of winning. He compounded his nod to the center-right by proclaiming that he intended to redeploy Iraq-stationed troops to Afghanistan rather than bring them home. Leftists were in a tizzy, but the polls moved in his favor. Obama even proffered the possibility of an uninvited military excursion into Pakistan (must pronounce pawh-kis-tan to be an Obamista in good standing) to ensnare Osama Bin Laden, perhaps allowing for the proper reading of Miranda rights and a court-paid attorney to keep the agitated leftists within his orbit.  You gotta say what you gotta say to get elected.

Obama moved to the political center to win.  That is totally different from having the country lurch to the left.  Assuredly, Obama wanted to stand atop the Sears Tower and scream out his leftist tenets with the fervor of a Red Sox fan trapped in a Yankees body.  Disciplined,  Obama held back because he knew that to achieve the changes he truly wants he must first be elected. To get elected meant accurately drawing a measure of the voters' political stance and, in turn, promising a vague definition of change in a non-threatening manner.

The Republicans can learn two things from all of this: (1) the party tent needs to expand;  (2) it would be a monumental error to believe that the electorate has moved left.  Republicans need to bury their claws deep into the tax issue as if their party's future depends on it - because it does.  By the way, did anyone catch what the new "middle-class" tax rate may be after Obama's tax cut?  If you didn't, it's because he did not say it.  Lamentably, no one in the media bothered to ask him.  

Why Did McCain Lose? Here are 10 reasons.

1. Eight years of one party control of the White House. Since 1952, only once has a party extended control of the executive branch beyond eight years, when George H. W. Bush succeeded eight years of Ronald Reagan.  The electorate's desire for "change" comes in eight years intervals when it comes to the presidency.
2. Presidents Bush's communication ineptness.  This only compounds reason #1. Immense credit is due to George W. Bush for keeping the homeland safe following the 9/11 attack. After all, protection of its citizens is the main reason for the existence of government. However, President Bush exhibited a profound communication deficiency, especially during his second term. He failed to effectively communicate the driving principles behind his worthwhile policies - and many of his economic policies were very worthwhile. He equally failed to better explain his administration's blunders, whether real or alleged. This made Bush wholly unpopular and far too easy to hang around McCain's neck.
3. Financial crisis.  To be clear, it may have been likelier for the Vatican to adopt the Origin of Species as core reading for its faithful than for an incumbent party to overcome the concussive effect of the mid-September financial market upheaval that descended upon the country.  It may seem a distant memory, but McCain was leading in many polls prior to the crisis. 
   
4. Failure to assign proper blame to the Democrats for the financial crisis.  Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and other democrats evaded much deserved criticism.  They were in bed with and actively protected the disastrous policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why were they able to evade?  The mainstream media, totally in the tank for Obama, preferred to join, nay lead, the anti-Republican chorus and McCain and his surrogates did not figure out a way to succinctly explain Democrat culpability to the nation.  
5. Right wing of the Republican Party was not politically smart.  Registered Democrats far outnumber registered Republicans.  This advantage is true in the so-called battleground states.  There is absolutely no way that, given the Bush drag factor, McCain could simultaneously please the outer 10% right wing of the party (the "social conservatives") and still convince sufficient Independents and moderate Democrats to vote Republican.   Whether or not one sympathizes with the social policies of the outer 10% is not the point.  The point is that, from a political astuteness point of view, they just need to grow up.  To win, McCain should have felt free to move to center, and even slightly left of center, to garner the votes he needed.  
6. McCain did not connect the Obama blemish dots. Wright, Ayers, Rezco are not isolated Obama encounters. Questioning Obama's judgement on this was a mistake. There was no error in judgement.  Despite his denials, Obama knew perfectly well who these individuals were and chose to associate with them.  Add to the list Frank Marshall Davis and Obama's affiliation with ACORN.  McCain simply failed to look into the camera and clearly explain Obama's disturbing closeness to Wright and Ayers, two radicals who have an axe to grind with the very essence of what makes this country great. This should have been done early in the campaign.
7. On foreign policy, insisting that Obama is naive.  Big mistake here.  There is nothing naive about what he plans to do. His desire to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejan, Chavez, Castro and other unsavory, if not criminal, leaders does not, repeat not, stem from naivete.  He knows who these people are, and frankly does not view them in the negative light that the adjective naive suggests.  Dangerous is the proper description. My belief is that Obama romanticizes Castro (as many liberals do), thinks Chavez has been demonized by Bush (many Hollywood types hold this view), and he thinks that the whacko from Iran will somehow fall under his spell.  Newsflash! - I don't think that Ahmadinejan fully buys into the Oprah "he's the One" rapture.
8. Fundraising.  This is a no-brainer.  Obama raised $670 Million to McCain's $350 Million. He did this by breaking his pledge to accept public funding, mumbling something about "raising, spending, and winning with big cash in order to gain power to then clean up the system".  I get it and so should you. This means that now that Obama is in power he will try to slam the door on anyone that dares raise big cash in 2012 to defeat him. "Let's close the loophole after I slip through it".  Nice touch. More on the "slammin' the door shut" tune when Warren Buffet is discussed in a future posting.
9. McCain should have placed greater focus on the political freedom tie to economic freedom.  This relationship will be the guiding theme of Freedom Watchtower. For now, I will just say that political freedom is inexorably linked with economic freedom.  Simply said, the more economic freedom we have, the more political freedom we will enjoy.  We lose economic freedom in direct proportion to the siphoning by government of our hard-earned dollars.  McCain improved in his messaging during the final two weeks of the campaign when he found his Joe the Plumber voice.  Truth is, many people sniffed out Obama's "spread the wealth around" ideology several months ago and the McCain campaign should have pounced on and hammered this all summer long. 
10. McCain did not upbraid Obama on his class warfare rhetoric.  This is among the most disturbing aspects of Obama's leftist hymnbook.  It pits one group of American against another group based on their 1040s.  So much for "unity".  Class warfare is dangerous and can exert major damage on the nation as we know it.  McCain should have calmly but tersely scolded Obama for this and made it a staple of his message.  Americans would have caught on.  McCain could have followed the chastise with an explanation to the people that he will be especially vigilant in making sure that all Americans enjoy equal opportunity and that he will not punish success as a matter of policy, or otherwise.