Via Pundette, an interesting theory. I want to resist the kind of feverish conspiracy theories that gripped the Right during the Clinton years, but I don’t think the idea that someone so committed to the most radical Boomer ideologies would intentionally fluff a crisis to usher in one giant nanny state is all that farfetched. I mean, isn’t Obama supposed to be the smartest guy in the entire world? Smart enough to dupe “the smartest guys in the room”?
He’s definitely not doing the economy any favors with his “stimulus” plan. Mark Steyn was doing his regular gig on Hewitt this afternoon when he said something that made me think, “Oh, so that’s what I was thinking.” It’s so weird when that happens.
And so when [Europe] see[s] this protectionism that’s in the stimulus package, they realize oh, my God, he has got, he is not interested in solving our problems. He’s not even interested in solving America’s problems. He’s got some entirely different agenda altogether.
As fun as it is to play the pony-tailed Lone Gunman, I think that Pundette’s instinct is right. “Willing tool” is probably as accurate as we’re going to get at the moment. He owes a lot of people for carrying him to the White House. He’s a kept man.
It has always been a tool of the would-be dictator to foment societal unreset and instability as a means to gaining total power.
@ Yevgeny
Disaster socialism, courtesy of Naomi Klein et al !
If you want more developed and articulated conspiracy theory type stuff, try this page on Cloward-Piven strategy
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
The basic idea is that the system for supporting the poor is diffusing the anger and destructive tendencies that arise out of poverty, which prevents riots and overall unrest. So, the goal is to jam the system that helps poor, in order to unleash unrest. Alinsky, of course, is the inspiration.
It is pretty much a radical version of Rahms never-let-good-crisis-go-to-waste, except that instead of merely taking advantage of crisis, the crisis is manufactured.
Yeah, yeah, I know… It sounds like kooky stuff. And it is, in some ways. But, the more things fall apart, the more I start to wonder.
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
– William Butler Yeats
Of course I know about that one, but who was in the grip of it? Especially, who of “the Right” was in the grip of it?
It seems to me that to speak of “the Right” is to speak of persons with a fairly coherent “convervative” philosophy.
Take my one sister, for instance. She’s somewhat conservative, but it’s also on many levels an incoherent conservativism … and she remains prey to certain “liberal” bug-a-boos and shilling such as worries about “Big Oil” and “selfish CEOs,” etc.
She also believed, and may still believe, that the Clintons had something to do with Foster’s death. But, it wasn’t due to her conservativism (such as it is), but rather her visceral dislike and *distrust* of them.
You know, all of those rumors that Vincent Foster as murdered &etc. The kooky stuff.
So, if this “Theory of Omama” is close to reality, then the Obama years are going to be far worse than the Carter years.
Carter, and far too many politicians of the time (especially the Democrats) didn’t have faith in America … they *believed* that the Soviets would prevail, and perhaps that they *ought* to prevail … but, bad as he was, I don’t think he was consciously working to destroy the country.
Of course, then came Ronnie the Great!
April: “I want to resist the kind of feverish conspiracy theories that gripped the Right during the Clinton years …”
Did I miss something?
I think I can safely say that I yield to no man in the depths of the despite I had for Clinton from the first time I saw his image and heard his voice, but I was never in the grip of any conspiracy theory, fevered or not. Dang! I never have any fun!!!