The suggestion that Barack Obama can be persuaded from running in 2012 probably results from a failure to understand his motivations.
When Dick Morris suggested, last week, that Harry Reid might visit Barack Obama and persuade him to quit because he was dragging the Democrat Party into the trash heap it came as a surprise, to say the least. Morris is an extremely savvy guy, not prone to making serious mistakes when it comes to political analysis. His past predictions have always been on target. So why would he make such a statement? The only answer that appears reasonable is that Morris has misunderstood what we are dealing with.
The last time that I am aware of anyone doing anything remotely similar was when a delegation from both parties visited President Nixon, post Watergate, and informed him that he would have to step down or face impeachment. Nixon was a highly controversial person, who was accused of wrongdoing on numerous occasions, but the one that stuck was his attempt to cover-up the Watergate break-in; something that he was certainly guilty of. Nixon was also accused of being obsessed with power, but he wasn’t crazy. When he was given the opportunity to resign with a modicum of dignity he took it. Barack Obama is not another Nixon.
What most sets the two apart should be obvious; while Richard Nixon was a slippery politician who engaged in questionable actions and got in over his head, he was, at bottom line, a man who had a foundation, however flawed, in the basic rules of the game. He accepted them and followed them when confronted. Obama is different, and apart from his obvious narcissism, it is obvious the he does not agree with the rules and will break them whenever he can get away with it. His statement contesting the Constitution as a document of “negative liberties” that restricts government instead of stating what government “must do” provides us with the blueprint for his personal view of government. He expects it to confer power, preferably on him and he, does not agree with the concept of a limited government. Follow this up with his wholesale abrogation of federal bankruptcy law in the restructuring of Chrysler and General Motors just to provide a most obvious example. Add in the numerous cases documented by David Limbaugh inCrimes Against Liberty or by David Freddoso in Gangster Government and you see someone who believes that the rules don’t apply to him, or perhaps that there aren’t any rules at all. .
Aside from the above, when you look at the man’s career, you see someone who has accomplished nothing except run for successively higher political office on the back of what has become a propaganda machine trumpeting his supposed intelligence and abilities which all came to nothing when he reached the level of his own incompetence. His lack of accomplishments should have been a key indicator to the voting public; he was all ambition with no ability. He could have survived for decades in a legislative position; you can hide lack of ability in a legislative body,[1] but you can’t when you an executive. As Harry Truman said “the buck stops here.” But it is obvious that Obama is someone who doesn’t care whether or not he is competent. He wants what he wants, regardless, and the consequences to everyone else, including the rule of law, be damned. It should be obvious to all who are watching the political scene that he wants nothing more than another four years of glamour and power as the center of national attention, regardless of what he does to the nation and its people. His solutions to the nation’s present problems have not worked, nor did they work for FDR, but he insists on repeating them, probably assuming that this time he will get a different result.
Considering that we are dealing with someone who apparently is fixated on power, what would be the likely outcome if Harry Reid were to broach the subject of stepping out of the race for the good of the party? There are two likely possibilities. The lesser of these would be for Obama to suffer a breakdown, and blame Reid and other high profile Democrats for deserting him in his hour of need. After all, his personal popularity is at an all time low, and appears to be heading for a crash landing. Obama always blames others for his personal failings, so this would be a logical outcome, but it doesn’t sufficiently fit his personality. The second and more likely result is a fit of intense rage similar to those shown by certain 20th century authoritarians. It has appeared to some observers and more so of late, that Obama is not the cool, emotionless intellect that some would have us believe. Rather, he is a man possessed by an intense rage that he keeps under a tight rein in public. What he does in private is a question outsiders cannot answer. Either of these results would demonstrate why Obama is not emotionally qualified for political office, but that fact flies in the face of his likely personal belief; that no one but himself is qualified and no one else should be allowed to govern, or as he would prefer, rule. Remember, Obama has essentially had everything given to him on a proverbial silver platter. As with most spoiled brats, he isn’t going to give that up without a fight.
Which brings us to the recent matter of North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue suggesting that congressional elections be suspended in order to “help the country recover.” It should be noted that there is no precedent for suspending elections and no constitutional authority for doing so. President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the War Between the States, and refused to follow Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney’s contrary order in the case of Ex Parte Merryman. Taney’s position can be summed up in this quote from the case opinion.
The only power, therefore, which the president possesses, where the “life, liberty or property” of a private citizen is concerned, is the power and duty prescribed in the third section of the second article, which requires “that he shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed.” He is not authorized to execute them himself, or through agents or officers, civil or military, appointed by himself, but he is to take care that they be faithfully carried into execution, as they are expounded and adjudged by the coordinate branch of the government to which that duty is assigned by the constitution.
It should be noted that Chief Justice Taney essentially stated that the President has no power to suspend the right of habeas corpus, but did allow that it might be done through congressional action. Yet, when we consider that Obama is one of those people who believes that the Constitution exists to serve his personal will, or if it doesn’t, then it should be disregarded, it is not much of a stretch to consider him trying to do so, not to suspend Congressional elections, but rather, the presidential election. It would, after all, be unlikely that he would suspend congressional elections with the Republican Party able to thwart his actions through its present control of the House of Representatives. The fact that Speaker John Boehner has been less than proficient in doing so may change if there is an attempt by the executive branch to assume absolute power.
As a number of commentators have pointed out, the Democrats frequently give advance notice of their intentions. And, this is not the first time the possibility of suspending elections has been discussed as an ultimate goal of Obama. If the economy becomes significantly worse with a worldwide recession resulting from European financial failures, it would provide a perfect excuse for someone hell-bent on obtaining dictatorial powers. The possibility does exist and should be taken seriously. Meanwhile, the grass roots American constitutionalist or limited government activists should increase their intensity and take nothing for granted. You can bet that they will need to in the face of opposition that recognizes no limits.
[1] Anyone who doesn’t believe this should just look up the record of Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. She has been called by at least one Houston area radio personality ‘the great Texas embarrassment” which proves that everything really is bigger in Texas.
There are several reasons why Dick Morris’ prediction is off-base. First; the Democratic Party is fractured enough as it is. The current reelection strategy of running against a ‘do-nothing’ Congress isn’t maintainable because it is the democratic led Senate that can’t’ get their act together. Looking only to the short term, they cannot approve a budget or any other legislation because too many democratic members find liberal positions indefensible in their states.
Second; for POTUS to decline to run would place the Democratic Party at an even more significant disadvantage. With 13 months until election, the DNC couldn’t’ get all the T’s crossed and the I’s dotted with time enough left to really mount a presidential challenge from scratch.
Third; the author says; “…when you look at the man’s career, you see someone who has accomplished nothing except run for successively higher political office on the back of what has become a propaganda machine trumpeting his supposed intelligence and abilities…” I’ve said this in the past that Barack Obama’s record suggests he is as sociopath. He runs for office after office, losing interest as soon as he discovers that the office he has attained doesn’t confer the ‘power’ he craves over others. He was unsatisfied at his ‘reach’ in every office he has held.
Now he is President and finds he must still accede to others. Being deferential to anyone else is an anathema to him. Barack Obama is not about to relinquish his hold on power. Dick Morris is incorrect. I would almost expect Barack Obama to manufacture a reason to suspend elections before he would suffer to lose one.
What I want to know from you, Mr. Laib, is do you really believe that Obama might suspend elections?
Editor’s note: This comment was edited to delete a personal attack on the author of the above column and allegations that he was calling for armed rebellion.
Yes, Professor Ward, I am serious. Obama’s actions, as documented, prove that he does not believe in rule of law.
It appears that you, also, do not. I, on the other hand, do believe in the rule of law, which is why the issue of who holds office should be settled in accordance with the Constitution.