In reviewing the presidency of Barack Obama, then, a historian may only consider Obama’s recorded words and actions. Such only such verifiable evidence can count was what Obama may have thought, believed, or wanted.
Analyzing Obama’s words, the reader can conclude that he engaged in a political tactic of moving his agenda forward by leveraging it against an identified political opponent. The metaphor of lever is accurate: the negative pressure created by Obama’s attacks on various groups was equal to the forward moment it generated for his goals.
He created energy for his proposed tax reforms by accusing “lobbyists” and “special interests” of having manipulated the tax code - this, despite the fact that Obama, as a self-described “community organizer” had been both a lobbyist and a representative of special interests.
Same technique is seen in his effort to reduce incentives for employers to move jobs out of the United States, as historian David Limbaugh writes:
Obama’s assault on the private sector began early in his term. His main tactic was pitting people against people and groups against groups with unprecedented stridency. He couldn’t just push for a “fairer” tax system; he first had to vilify lobbyists, “special interests,” the wealthy, and corporate America. When he called for an end to tax breaks for U.S. corporations doing business abroad, he blamed “a broken tax system, written by well-connected lobbyists on behalf of well-heeled interests and individuals.”
Obama was not successful in his attempt to motivate companies to move jobs or capital invests back into the United States.
Consistently, he demonstrated that he did not like, understand, or trust the country, its people, or its Constitution. His efforts manifested a lack of respect or esteem for the ordinary citizen of the United States. As a self-identified progressive, his actions displayed an ideology in which government experts override the ballots of the voters.
Obama’s expertise, however, failed to deliver. Even when much of his agenda was put into place, either by legislation, or by executive order, the results were disappointing, as David Limbaugh reports:
President Obama has repeatedly acknowledged that he expects to be judged on his economic performance, and that if he does poorly the people will not re-elect him. So let’s take a look at his record. On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law his $868 billion dollar stimulus bill, promising it would “save or create” — a ludicrous, immeasurable metric — 3 to 3.5 millon jobs by the end of 2010 and keep employment below 8 percent. In fact, unemployment greatly exceeded that the entire time, often surging past 9 percent.
The Constitution orchestrates a system in which decision-making is deliberately slowed, and in which the power of the government is limited. Laws tells citizens what they may not do, but the Constitution tells the government what it may not do.
Obama’s vision of government tolerated no limits. In his inaugural speech in 2009 , he claimed that the government could “heal the planet.” He could not endure a worldview in which government was limited so that society could act freely, and so that individuals could enjoy their personal political liberty.
Indeed, in some cases, Obama’s ideology called not only for government to overrule individual liberate and the organic functioning of society, but even for the diminishing of society. To that end, his policies were in some cases designed to reduce the standard of living in the United States.
Typically, a leader is expected to act in the best interests of his nation. Yet Obama was willing to inflict hardship on American voters, as measured by rising prices, falling wages, lower per capita net worth, and government-created shortages of various commodities.
