The most recent example of President Obama’s preference for politicization of issues is not new. He has been reacting this way since his first term. But as Obama prepares to go to Roseburg, OR, a town that would prefer he stay home, Obama’s MO is front and center once again.
And it is this penchant for politicization by President Obama about which Jonah Goldberg reflects in his good piece, “Why Obama Prefers Politicization To Actual Politcs.” Here are some of the reasons why as espoused by Goldberg. From Townhall:
[…] “Of course,” Obama said Thursday night, “what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere, will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”
This was a nice Aristotelian flourish. “Man is a political animal,” Aristotle said, and it is through politics that we decide how we should all live together.
But ultimately Obama was just paying lip service to an ideal he does not live by. He’s not about to try building consensus on gun policy among people of good faith. He’ll take the same approach he’s taken throughout his presidency: He’ll delegitimize opponents of his sweeping agenda as irrational, self-interested enemies of decency and progress.
As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York recently noted, Obama has a long history of trying to shut down disagreement by accusing his critics of politicization. He accused Republicans of trying to politicize abortion, the U.S. relationship with Israel, the Iran deal, Benghazi and the scandals at the IRS and the VA. Just last week he insinuated that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s disagreements with his Syria policy (or lack thereof) are influenced by the fact that she’s running for office.
The common denominator in all of these cases is Obama’s unimpeachable certainty that he has a monopoly on all the good arguments and all the best motives. Now he even claims the exclusive right to politicize issues when it suits him.
Ohmygosh, how true is that? Obama attacks anyone he claims is “politicizing” an issue, but cannot WAIT to do the same himself. And with his ego, he is certain that he, alone, in all the world, is right. Obama reminds me of a Cheryl Wheeler song, “Frequently Wrong, But Never in Doubt.”
Back to Jonah Goldberg’s Townhall piece:
[…] “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” Obama said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
The disingenuousness was breathtaking.
One can forgive the average American, not to mention the typical White House correspondent, for not knowing how Britain and Australia dealt with gun violence. But Obama knows. Both countries employed massive gun confiscation programs (programs that depend on national gun registries so the government can find them). The British in effect banned handguns. Obama may consider that a reasonable, common-sense approach, but he knows full well that millions of Americans don’t.
Virtually none of the proposals on his gun-control wish list — more comprehensive federal background checks, closing the gun show “loophole,” etc. — would help bring down the homicide rate. It’s not just a tautology to note that most gun crimes are committed by criminals — with guns obtained illegally. Enforcing existing laws or restoring stop-and-frisk policies in big cities would save more lives than shuttering gun shows.
Nor would his proposals have prevented the deaths at Umpqua Community College. Typically, mass killers don’t buy guns at gun shows. And a 2013 CNN analysis found that a comprehensive background check system wouldn’t have prevented any of the most heinous mass shootings in recent years, save one: The Virginia Tech shooter should have failed a background test but didn’t. That murderer — like the Tucson, Sandy Hook and, most likely, Umpqua killers — had serious mental health problems. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
And that’s the thing with all this politicization by Obama, and other Democrats like Hillary Clinton: none of these proposals would have made a damn bit of difference in these killings. It is just an opportunity for the Democrats to assail once again the Second Amendment and try to make it harder and harder for good, law abiding Americans to arm themselves.
It also begs the question: why? Why would the US Government want Americans to be defenseless, especially considering the rise of violence in a number of cities. And why would the US Government want to take away the ability of Americans to feed their families and themselves? That seems to be the end game for this Administration, and Hilary’s too, if she wins. Of course, that is an assumption on my part, one based on her claiming that the NRA is comparable to “Iranians and Communists.” So you can see how I made that leap…
A friend of mine on Facebook posted a comment he saw about this whole gun control discussion and the Government. The author (unknown) asks a good question, I think:
“So you want a government that says they don’t have the manpower to round up 12,000,000 illegals in the country to try and take over 310,000,000 guns from over 110,000,000 owners? Just how do you propose to do that without inciting another war?”
Indeed. But the War of Words targeting lawful gun owners has already begun, and not just with this most recent event. Oh,no. You may recall Obama mentioned gun control during his “eulogy” at the funeral for the Emanuel AME victims in Charleston.
One thing is clear: there are very few (any?) issues that President Obama will not politicize if he thinks he can get something out of it. Even the deaths of innocent people are not out of bounds for him. And that says something…
This is an Open Thread.