President Obama claims to be a serious student of Realpolitick. If this were so, he would have predicted that most businesses would seek to avoid compliance with his Affordable Care Act (ACA).
And the remedy would have been simple: Require all employers to provide insurance coverage for all of their employees, regardless of their fulltime or part-time status.
This, in turn, would have produced two substantial benefits:
- All employees would have been able to obtain medical coverage; and
- Employers would have been encouraged to provide fulltime positions rather than part-time ones.
The reason: Employers would feel: “Since I’m paying for fulltime insurance coverage, I should be getting fulltime work in return.”
If the President ever considered the merits of this, he apparently decided against pressing for such a requirement.
Obama is one of the most rational and educated men to occupy the White House. So what accounts for this failure to expect the worst in people–especially his self-declared enemies–and prepare to counter it?
Niccolo Machiavelli’s brilliant assessments have repeatedly proven invaluable to understanding the failures of the Obama Presidency. Once again, he provides a shrewd insight into what may be the central reason for all of them.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Writing in The Prince, his classic work on the realities of politics, Machiavelli states:
I also believe that he is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the times, and similarly, he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times….
On this depend also the changes in prosperity, for if it happens that time and circumstances are favorable to one who acts with caution and prudence he will be successful. But if time and circumstances change he will be ruined, because he does not change the mode of his procedure.
No man can be found so prudent as to be able to adopt himself to this, either because he cannot deviate from that to which his nature disposes him, or else because having always prospered by walking in one path, he cannot persuade himself that it is well to leave it.
And therefore the cautious man, when it is time to act suddenly, does not know how to do so and is consequently ruined. For if one could change one’s nature with time and circumstances, fortune would never change.
Obama is by nature a supreme rationalist and conciliator–not a confronter nor an attacker. And his career before reaching the White House greatly strengthened this predisposition.
From 1985 to 1988, Obama worked as a community organizer–setting up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization. Such activity demands skills in building consensus, not confrontation.
He then taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years—as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, teaching constitutional law.
University of Chicago Law School
Law professors spend their time in clean, civil classrooms–far removed from the rough-and-tumble of criminal defense/prosecution.
If Obama had accused President George W. Bush of conspiring with Al Qaeda–as Republicans have repeatedly accused Obama–retribution would have been swift and brutal.
In short: Obama–who believes in reason and conciliation–is paying the price for allowing his sworn enemies to insult and obstruct him
Obama Mistake No. 6: Failing to closely study his proposed legislation.
Throughout his campaign to win support for the ACA, Obama had repeatedly promised: “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”
But, hidden in the 906 pages of the law, was a fatal catch for the President’s own credibility.
The law stated that those who already had medical insurance could keep their plans–so long as those plans met the requirements of the new healthcare law.
If their plans didn’t meet those requirements, they would have to obtain coverage that did.
It soon turned out that a great many Americans wanted to keep their current plan–even if it did not provide the fullest possible coverage.
Suddenly, the President found himself facing a PR nightmare: Charged and ridiculed as a liar.
Even Jon Stewart, who on “The Daily Show” had supported the implementation of “Obamacare,” ran footage of Obama’s “you can keep your doctor” promise.
Jon Stewart
The implication: You said we could keep our plan/doctor; since we can’t, you must be a liar.
As a result, the President now finds his reputation for integrity–long his greatest asset–shattered.
All of which takes us to the final warning offered by Niccolo Machiavelli:
Whence it may be seen that hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil….



1991 IRAQ WAR, 2003 IRAQ WAR, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CNN, D-DAY, FACEBOOK, FLAMETHROWERS, GENERAL CURTIS E. LEMAY, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, NAVY SEALS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, PREDATOR DRONES, REPUBLICANS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. AIR FORCE, VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER, VIETNAM WAR, WALT DISNEY, WORLD WAR 11
NO “VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER” IN IRAQ
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 11, 2014 at 9:02 amWith forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) launching a blitzkreig throughout Iraq, President Barack Obama seems to have caught the “Victory Through Airpower” disease.
ISIS has thrown the American-trained Iraqi Army into a panic, with soldiers dropping their rifles and running for their lives.
This has led Republicans to accuse the President of being about to “lose” Iraq.
As a result, Obama has shipped at least 300 American “advisors” to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad.
And on August 7 he authorized “limited airstrikes” against ISIS forces in Iraq, to prevent the fall of the Kurdish capital, Erbil
“Earlier this week, one Iraqi cried that there is no one coming to help,” said Obama. “Well, today America is coming to help.”
By August 10, the United States announced a fourth round of airstrikes Sunday against militant vehicles and mortars firing on Irbil.
Yet giving that order will not alter the balance of power in Iraq. It didn’t work for America in the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq.
Both wars opened with massive barrages of American missiles and bombs. The 1991 war saw the first use of the vaunted “stealth bomber,” which could avoid detection by enemy radar.
The 2003 war opened with an even greater bombardment to “shock and awe” the Iraqis into surrendering. They didn’t.
Baghdad under “shock and awe” bombardment
Nor did air power prove effective on the Iraqi insurgency that erupted after American forces occupied Baghdad and much of the rest of the country.
That war had to be fought by U.S. Army regulars and Special Operations soldiers-–especially Navy SEALS. It was a dirty and private effort, marked by nightly kidnappings of suspected Iraqi insurgents.
Here’s where fantasy became fact for America’s military–and p0liticians.
Victory Through Air Power is a 1943 Walt Disney animated Technicolor feature film released during World War II. It’s based on the book–-of the same title–-by Alexander P. de Seversky.
Its thesis is summed up in its title: That by using bombers and fighter aircraft, the United States can attain swift, stunning victory over its Axis enemies: Germany, Italy and Japan.
Although it’s not explicitly stated, the overall impression given is that, through the use of air power, America can defeat its enemies without deploying millions of ground troops.
The movie has long since been forgotten except by film buffs, but its message has not. Especially by the highest officials within the U.S. Air Force.
Although the Air Force regularly boasted of the tonage of bombs its planes dropped over Nazi Germany, it failed to attain its primary goal: Break the will of the Germans to resist.
On the contrary: Just as the German bombings of England had solidified the will of the British people to resist, so, too, did Allied bombing increase the determination of the Germans to fight on.
Nor did the failure of air power end there.
On June 6, 1944–-D-Day–-the Allies launched their invasion of Nazi-occupied France.
It was the largest amphibious invasion in history. More than 160,000 troops landed–-61,715 British, 73,000 Americans, and 21,400 Canadians.
Allied air power bombed and strafed German troops out in the open. But it couldn’t dislodge soldiers barricaded in steel-and-concrete-reinforced bunkers or pillboxes. Those had to be dislodged, one group at a time, by Allied soldiers armed with rifles, dynamite and flamethrowers.
This situation proved true throughout the rest of the war.
Starting in 1964, the theory of “Victory Through Air Power” once again proved a dud–in Vietnam.
From 1964 to 1975, 14 million tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia–-more than five times as many as it dropped in World War II.
Yet the result proved exactly the same as it had in World War II: The bombing enraged the North Vietnamese and steeled their resolve to fight on to the end.
The belief that victory could be achieved primarily–-if not entirely–-through air power had another unforeseen result during the Vietnam war. It gradually sucked the United States ever deeper into the conflict.
To bomb North Vietnam, the United States needed air force bases in South Vietnam. This required that those bombers and fighters be protected.
So a force to provide round-the-clock security had to be maintained. But there weren’t enough guards to defend themselves against a major attack by North Vietnamese forces.
So more American troops were needed–-to guard the guards.
North Vietnam continued to press greater numbers of its soldiers into attacks on American bases. This forced America to provide greater numbers of its own soldiers to defend against such attacks.
Eventually, the United States had more than 500,000 ground troops fighting in Vietnam–with no end in sight to the conflict.
If American troops once again face off with Iraqis, “Victory Through Air Power” will prove as hollow a slogan as it has in the past.
Share this: