I prefer clarity to agreement, and Obama’s second term is getting increasingly more clear

I trace back to Dennis Prager one of my favorite expressions:  “I prefer clarity to agreement.”  Too often, agreement can be like Tacitus’s definition of a Roman peace (“they make a desert and call it peace”).  In the years since Obama’s election, I’ve frequently argued that, with a weak American president, the world might get some necessary clarity.  (For example, in January 2011, I said apropos Obama’s retreat from the world stage, “The clarity that emerges when the strong man is gone might be helpful.”)

Looking at the headlines, it occurs to me that Americans are getting a lot of clarity about what today’s Democrats really stand for, while the world is getting a lot of clarity about what a post-American world looks like.  The following links all tie into this post’s theme about the clarity that Obama has wrought.

The end of the filibuster,* although weakening minority power in the Senate, may bring about a very useful clarity, both because it forces the two parties to own the legislation they pass, and because it enables Republicans to have an easier time getting their judicial picks confirmed.  History shows that, with the exception of the past year or two, while Democrat judicial picks got confirmed easily, Republican judicial picks did not.  Republicans will now be able to get judges on the bench with a simple majority.

Obamacare reveals Obama for what he is:  not a glorious tyrant, in the mold of Louis XIV or Henry VIII, but a petty bureaucratic Leftist.  You and I knew that early on, of course, but the rest of America is catching on to this reality . . . so there’s clarity for you.

The young and the poor just got a dose of clarity today:  Even the wealth transfer that is Obama’s core (but don’t call it redistribution) was done incompetently, with low-income, especially young low-income people finding that they’re in the increasingly expensive Obamacare market without a subsidy net.

I hope John Fund is correct when he says it can still be repealed — but that will happen only if the American people have learned their lesson and vote Republican in 2014, and if the Republicans don’t prove that they’re as complicit in Big Government as we currently suspect.  (And in that regard, the end of the filibuster may also bring some welcome clarity for conservative voters.)

Peter Wehner comes right out and says it:  Obamacare is finally causing people to see the President and the Democrats for at least some of what they are — failed technocrats.  But again, the question remains whether we’ll get intelligent action in clarity’s wake.

Angelo Codevilla thinks the same is true with Obama’s appalling agreement to allow Iran to continue building its nuclear program; namely, that it forces clarity (or, as he phrases it “reality’) on the world:  “But let us look on the bright side: There is value in leaving no doubt about reality.”

Certainly the Israelis now know where they stand.  Keith Koffler’s faux quote passes the Homer Simpson test.

And finally, even the media is getting a little tired of being pushed around.  This tiny rebellion won’t stop the media’s slavish devotion because, even if media members have had it with the man, they still support the cause.  However, to the extent the media consuming public watches this little tiff, it might produce enough clarity in some that they start backing away from the cognitive dissonance that enslaves them.

Clarity . . . it’s a good thing.

_________________________

*Thanks to Earl for pointing out that I’d forgotten those three very important words.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. lee says

    Class 1 (2012): 8 Republicans, 23 Democrats, 2 Independent
    Class 2 (2008): 13 Republicans, 20 Democrats
    Class 3 (2010): 24 Republicans, 10 Democrats
    32 Republicans, 33 Democrats, and 2 Independents will remain.
    Up for reelection are:
    13 Republicans, and 20 Democrats.
    To have a simple majority, Republicans need to retain all 13 seats, plus win another SIX Democrat seats. Doable. A SUPERMAJORITY of 66 is mathematically impossible: they would need to retain all 13 seats, plus ALL the Democrat seats plus one additional.
     Here is who is up for reelection in 2014:
    Democrats:
    Carl Levin, Michigan
    Chris Coons, Delaware
    Cory Booker, New Jersey
    Dick Durbin, Illinois
    Ed Markey, Massachusetts
    Jack Reed, Rhode Island
    Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia
    Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
    Mark Begich, Alaska
    Mark Pryor, Arkansas
    Mark Udall, Colorado
    Mark Warner, Virginia
    Montana, Max Baucus
    Kay Hagan, North Carolina
    Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
     
    Tim Johnson, South Dakota
    Tom Harkin, Iowa
    Tom Udall, New Mexico
    Al Franken, Minnesota
     
    Republicans:
    Jeff Sessions, Alabama
    Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma
    Jim Risch, Idaho
    John Cornyn, Texas
    Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
    Mike Enzi, Wyoming
    Mike Johanns, Nebraska
    Pat Roberts, Kansas
    Thad Cochran, Mississippi
     
    RINOS:
    Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
    Lindsay Graham, South Carolina
    Susan Collins, Maine

  2. Danny Lemieux says

    Lee and Book, this will never happen as long as there are conservatives out there that insist that they will pick up their marbles and go home if their Republican candidates aren’t quite conservative enough for them.
     
    This is the best thing the Democrats have going for them at this time and it may just work for them.

  3. Matt_SE says

    IIRC, there are 6 Dem seats in red states that are vulnerable. According to an article at Breitbart.com ( http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/26/ObamaCare-Puts-IA-CO-MI-Into-Play), the Obamacare debacle has put 3 new seats into play: Iowa, Colorado and Michigan.
    That increases our odds of taking back the Senate. So much so, that we may be able to sacrifice seats to get rid of the worst RINOs — McConnell and Graham (Collins is as good as we’re going to get from Maine, I’m afraid).

Leave a Reply