so-called liberals are still ranting and raving about how different B.O. is from 'dubya', but upon closer scrutiny of the two administration's policies, one can't help but feel sorry for all of the poor fools who actually thought B.O. was going to bring about change. those who have rushed to B.O.'s defense again and again have clearly failed to recognize the all-important difference between style and substance.
you see, the first thing that socialists attempt to do when defending their Caesar is to distance him from George W. Bush, easily one of the worst presidents in American history. seeing as how B.O. recently toured Europe (on the taxpayers dime, of course), i am going to use international diplomacy as an example of policy style and policy substance. it is true that B.O. has displayed much more panache than 'dubya' in regards to diplomacy, and the new administration has made good use of its media relations unit (some honest, simple folks might even call this a bit of propaganda) in regards to reaching out to Europe's population.
but this is all style.
'dubya' gave plenty of speeches to Europeans during his 8 years of unchecked power and, believe it or not, many Europeans adored him as not only an American president, but as a Muslim fighter as well. you see, contrary to the popular myth among the socialist youth of America that Europe is a haven of all things 'tolerant', Europe is still very much haunted by its Old World nationalism. the traditional conservative and pro-labor factions of Europe's Left and Right harbor no feelings of goodwill towards Islam and have heartily supported America's foolish wars in the middle of the Muslim world. there are over 490 million people living within the European Union, and the argument that Europeans suddenly respect the United States again because of B.O. is a feeble one at best.
now, if my socialist friends (both Republican and Democrat) were to cut through all the hype and buzz instigated by the administration's public relations unit, they would eventually find out what B.O. was trying to accomplish (substance!) in Europe. In short, B.O. was trying to persuade members of NATO, that relic left over from the Cold War that has done nothing but mire the United States in more of Europe's ethnically-charged wars, to pledge more money and precious lives to the failed war campaign in Afghanistan (and increasingly more so in Pakistan as well), just as 'dubya' did throughout his 8 years in office. This is not a change in policy. There is no substantial difference between B.O. shilling for the war campaign in central Asia and 'dubya' shilling for the war campaign in central Asia.
some of B.O.'s more ardent supporters will point out to his visit to Turkey, a gesture that they believe is aimed at spreading goodwill towards Muslims in the region. a fantastic speech, given in his characteristically melodious style (anyone who says that B.O. is not a great orator is simply low-balling it - go back to your ann coulter books!) touched on the foundations of their great republic and the intricate history between our two nations. unfortunately for those trying to separate B.O. from 'dubya', ole George gave a speech in Istanbul in 2004 that sounded almost identical. 'dubya' lauded Turkey's history and he praised them for being such wonderful allies and a staunch member of NATO for all these years.
what is quite remarkable about these two speeches is that they both found time to lament Turkey's sovereign refusal to take a more active role in "pressuring" Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, increase its participation in "rebuilding" Iraq, and taking a more active role (i.e. supporting Israel) in fostering a deal between Israel and Palestine. You see, during the Cold War, Turkey, a longtime (even ancient) enemy of Russia, had good reason to ally herself with the West, even if it meant being the United States' lackey. Since the fall of Marxism (which was responsible for all the death, starvation and horror that took place under the centrally planned, government run societies within the Soviet Union, China and southeast Asia) in Russia, the need that Turkey has felt for American and NATO protection has grown smaller and smaller, to the point where some Turkish factions feel the same way about NATO as some European and American factions do: that the alliance only serves to drag otherwise neutral parties into the asinine wars of other member states. Turkey most recently flexed its independence from the West when it rebuked America's request to use air bases for military operations in Iraq. the United States has been particularly irked by Turkish sovereignty lately, as the rhetoric of the past two administrations has ultimately shown. Obviously, we can conclude that the substance of the two leaders' policy towards Turkey is the same. The difference between the two Presidents is style. B.O. has sugar-coated his Imperial ambitions, 'dubya' flaunted his.
Surely, socialists, it should be apparent that there is no real change in foreign policy. Sugarcoating the tips of the all the bombs we drop is just the same as deciding not to sugarcoat the bombs we drop. The bombs will still kill people. Putting on a coat of sugar just costs more money.....Which brings me to my next expose on the striking similarities between B.O. and 'dubya': rampant government spending and intervention in the domestic American economy.
It should be no secret to anyone that the Bush administration spent more money than any other president in the history of the American republic. failure to recognize or admit this important fact will only prove that your socialist belief system is hiding something - something dark, perhaps unknown, perhaps sinister. Aside from the aggressive imperial wars abroad that alienated potentially good friends and trading partners, 'dubya' embarked on a massive spending spree with the aim of enhancing the well-being of the welfare state.
The Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Labor, Commerce, Defense, State, and, of course, the Department of Homeland Security - a vile and unconstitutional bureaucracy that has only served the needs of the state to expand itself, ignoring the Bill of Rights in order to spy, cajole, and intimidate American citizens in the name of providing order, progress and stability throughout the very land that our ancestors struggled to tame without machines or computers - all received massive amounts of welfare from the federal government.
Social Security (by far the most expensive welfare program in Washington, it is also the most inefficient) was revamped and Medicare/Medicaid (the second largest expenditure in Washington) got a huge boost in terms of subsidies and resource allocation, including the subsidization of pharmaceutical companies. Now, in case you are somewhat naive, S.S. was created during the Great Depression and has, since that time, been nothing but a black hole as far as taxes and results go. ask your folks how much they expect to receive from S.S. at the time of retirement and they'll tell you: nothin'!
i feel it is pertinent to highlight a recently finished 10 year study done by the World Health Organization on government spending for health care. By far and away the biggest spender per citizen on health care was the federal government of the United States. Given that America's health care system is becoming increasingly more expensive and inefficient, one must be forced to ask the question 'how is this possible?'. the answer is simple: the rising costs and lower quality of health services is directly caused by federal spending and intervention in the health care market. the heavy regulations and politically-connected subsidies doled out within the market by the government squeezes out competition and, ultimately, serves to benefit politically connected corporations by creating a government-regulated monopoly within the health care market. thus, as B.O., just like 'dubya', continues to increase spending and subsidies within the health care market, so goes the rising costs and lowered quality of goods and services.
the same thing can be said for all of the other markets in the United States. as government spending increases within a given market, costs rise, quality decreases and monopolies are formed under the guidance of the federal government. the federal departments then, are nothing more than government agencies that have organized the free market into various cartels, dictating their demands to large corporations through regulatory laws (which, remember, squeezes out the little guy through various fees and programs).
i want to take the time now to point out what has happened to our failing auto industry. American car companies suck; there is no getting around it. they produce low quality cars that cost too much money. foreign automakers such as Toyota and Honda, on the other hand, produce infinitely better products at waaaay lower prices. how is this possible? well, there are no politically connected labor unions running foreign companies. they do not receive subsidies from their respective governments. thus, they have an incentive to create better cars, pay real wages (labor unions' wages usually end up on the taxpayer's dime), and keep prices low, otherwise they would be doomed to fail. the federal government has recently decided to run General Motors itself. the government simply seized power and promptly fired the CEO. this is the epitome of big government and big business being in bed together. this is government running a company in the private market. if we judge government programs by their merit, we are forced to conclude that the only way GM will be able to compete is if all competition is banned from the market. this is the road to fascism, and we are cruising!
in this way, socialist friends, B.O. and 'dubya' are exactly the same, substance and style be damned. if you cannot find facts, raw statistical data, or historical comparisons to refute my position, you can always pout your way back to the HuffPo discussion boards and bag on Sarah Palin and her family; but if you desire real change and a better future for yourselves and your family, this is the place to start.
this is considered unfinished because i was going to write more on implicating conservative socialists in all of this madness, but time is money these days, and i have a gang of homework to complete. rest assured though, i'll rant on them at a later date.