Please note: if your email program makes this article look funky in any
way. Just click HERE<http://www.empowernetwork.com/adrianfrank/blog/the-ocean-waves-are-fr...> to
see the original blog post at Empower Network.Republican or Democrat.
Conservative or Liberal. Few Would Argue with the Veracity of this
Commentary
by adrianfrank<http://www.empowernetwork.com/adrianfrank/blog/author/adrianfrank/?id...>
| on November 2, 2012
-
-
Charles Krauthammer tells it *like it really is*. I don’t care where
you’re positioned politically or ideologically; you will love this short
and concise article.
…and I would be *very* surprised if anyone disagrees with it, but lets hear
it if you do (leave comments below)!
Charles Krauthammer does a beautiful job of making this nothing but a
commentary about the way things are in this, the largest political stage in
the world: the United States Presidential race. This is in stark contrast
to the sales pitch that is the typical, propaganda-ridden, biased
mainstream news article.
Krauthammer shows that he truly has the pulse and heartbeat of U.S.
Presidential politics over the past several decades.
I truly enjoyed this article, and I *fully believe* you will too!
Without further ado…
Enjoy:
[image: Charles Krauthammer]
Charles Krauthammer<http://www.washingtonpost.com/charles-krauthammer/2011/02/24/ADJkW7B_...>Opinion
Writer
The choice
By Charles Krauthammer<http://www.washingtonpost.com/charles-krauthammer/2011/02/24/ADJkW7B_...>, Thursday,
November 1, 4:22 PM
“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard
Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack
Obama in 2008<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR200...>.
And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a
50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological
agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably
regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the
preceding revolution.
Thus, Republicans railed for 20 years against the New Deal. Yet when they
regained the White House in 1953, they kept the New Deal intact.
And when Nixon followed LBJ’s Great Society<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/history/...> —
liberalism’s second wave — he didn’t repeal it. He actually expanded it.
Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/environmental-protection-agenc...> (EPA),
gave teeth to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and
institutionalized affirmative action — major adornments of contemporary
liberalism.
Until Reagan. Ten minutes into his presidency, Reagan declares that
“government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
Having thus rhetorically rejected the very premise of the New Deal/Great
Society, he sets about attacking its foundations — with radical tax
reduction, major deregulation, a frontal challenge to unionism (breaking
the air traffic controllers for striking illegally) and an (only partially
successful) attempt at restraining government growth.
Reaganism’s ascendancy was confirmed when the other guys came to power and
their leader, Bill Clinton, declared (in his 1996 State of the Union
address) that “the era of big government is over”<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou...> —
and then abolished welfare<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories...>,
the centerpiece “relief” program of modern liberalism.
In Britain, the same phenomenon: Tony Blair did to Thatcherism what Clinton
did to Reaganism. He made it the norm.
Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological
course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor
did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congress<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/obama_address...> he
declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He
would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.
Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the
future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced country — control
pricing and production, and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.
And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the
nationalization of health care. His $830 billion stimulus<http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43552>,
by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected
government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars
onfavored companies<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/energy-dept-e-mails-on-solyndr...> and
industries in a naked display of industrial policy.
And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by
executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR201...>,
but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be
built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work
requirement. Obama’s new Health and Human Services rule does that by fiat.
Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it —
just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA
regulates fracking into noncompetitiveness.
Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into
dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm —
as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/tens-of-thousands-descend-on-l...> of
the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic,
rioting.
An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social
democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree.
The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative,
risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding
to the supervised life of the entitlement state.
If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a
passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a
center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.
Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could
guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest
government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and
efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory —
a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.
Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important
of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the
relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social
contract.”
That was Charles Krauthammer’s Washington Post article verbatim. But, in
case you want to see it in its original form at the Post’s website, you may
click here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-choice...
Wow, right? Did you enjoy that as much as I did? I suppose you can’t
answer that, perhaps, because you don’t fully know how much I enjoyed it!
LOL
Anyhow, I love how the guy writes. Masterful articulation. Saying so
much, yet remaining concise, and to-the-point.
I wanna be just like Charles Krauthammer “when I grow up”. (I’m 36
already). I’ve always enjoyed writing, and feel I’m pretty good at it in
my own right. But I can always get better, yeah?
Thanks for reading. Hope you enjoyed this, and please leave your comments
in the comment section below.
God bless you!Adrian and Jocelyn Frank
CEO/Owners of Adrian Frank Consulting
Cell: 206-261-7348
eMail: adrianfr...@gmail.com, jocelyntranfr...@gmail.com
www.BeEmpoweredHere.com <http://www.beempoweredhere.com/>WATCH this FREE
Video. FIND your way to making $1000 PER DAY (I’m not kidding). DISCOVER
the WEIRD marketing tricks of the Empower Network HERE<http://www.empowernetwork.com/truestory.php?id=adrianfrank>
!
