Dissecting Obama's Saddleback

This years presidential election has the potential of reshaping the Democratic party. Ever since the candidacy of George McGovern Democrat's have nominated a candidate with political principles and world views that don't connect with the voters. The two exceptions Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton became default candidates due to failure or corruption and by not portraying themselves as liberal standard bearers, Clinton after all ran to eliminate welfare “as we know it.”

In this current race for high office Barak Obama is set to replace an unpopular administration much the way Clinton and Carter had. Add to this is Obama's popularity with young voters and great communication skills. If Obama were to lose, to what can we point to as the one element that brought him down?

To kick off the general election John McCain and Barak Obama faced off in a quasi-debate in California (Saddleback) answering questions on policy and morality. No other forum before has ever given voters a more stark contrast of both candidates. Voters could see that more then anything else they are voting for different visions. If Obama were to lose with all of his popularity it can only mean that his outlook or the principles of the liberal wing of the Democratic party have been rejected. Unlike other rejections, this one in particular could be a watershed moment for the Democrats because if Obama can't win as a liberal, no one can.

Just what are the tenets of liberalism and why are they not palatable? The more identifiable is the one that cherishes welfare. Since the advent of Linden Johnson's Great Society program of the mid 1960's the United States has spent trillions on social programs on all levels of government. Programs in area's of standard cash handouts to families with dependent children to health care, education, food, hosing assistance, and unemployment. One of the first questions asked to Barak Obama in Saddleback was what if anything does he see as America's failure. His answer was providing for the poor. After all the years and funds directed to do just that why such an indictment? It's not enough to say that welfare is well funded, there is strong evidence that it is destructive. It's not a new argument or hard to understand. Either it is right or wrong voters at least have an inkling that it is true. But putting the affects of welfare aside, with all that has been redistributed from one class to another, does Obama have enough grounds be ashamed of America? Obama does mention the need and dignity for work but this is short lived. He also gives somewhat of a contradiction when he mentions that he was against welfare reform under Bill Clinton and subsequently saw that it was beneficial and he was wrong to oppose it. If Clinton was right to cut welfare then why be ashamed that we haven't done enough over the years to “provide for the poor”?

But providing for the poor is one of his missions as president as though this is a new idea put upon a rich and selfish nation. This he sees as America's greatest failure. And he doesn't stop there. He was asked whether or not he believed in evil to which he said he did. In identifying where evil lies he sites Rwanda genocide as one and the other the streets of America. No mention of Islamic terrorism, none. Not just Islamic, but terrorism of any stripe. Wasn't 9/11 an more poignant example of evil? Has he forgotten? Not only does he not see Islamic terrorism as evil but we should be “humble” about it when recognizing it in others. We are reminded of the arguments of moral equivalence during the cold war years when the left would excuse the faults of the old Soviet Union by pointing out our own. Not only moral equivalence but moral relativism, where there is no right or wrong short of genocide or, for that matter, “American Streets.” As an aside, if genocide gives America a need to intervene in other nations as Obama has hinted in Darfur and Bosnia, then why is it not okay to topple Saddam Hussain for that very reason? Why is Iraqi genocide ignored totally? Couldn't he say he was against the argument of Weapons of Mass destruction because of faulty intelligence, but glad we went in if only to remove a genocidal regime?

If there is a defeat of Barak Obama it is time for the Democratic party to shed it's postmodern, class struggle outlook. They are not ideals rooted in reality, as pointed out in providing for the poor (been there done that) and the need to give America's enemies the benefit of a doubt by drawing attentions to our shortcomings. The one thing about Obama is that there is nothing unique in his politics and has given the voters a chance to once and for all make clear what they think of liberal politics. Democrats would be wise to retool in the event of a vote of no confidence.