A litmus test for Obama

A lot of predictions have been made about what Obama will really do and whether the outcome will be good or bad. His defenders have often said that “he wouldn’t do that” or “his programs won’t result in this or that negative result”.

It is the definition of “useful idiot”, those who claim their messiah won’t do something bad, but when he does, they say it was good like they thought so all along. We’ve seen it already with the “spread the wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber.

So anyone care to offer some examples?

Mine is the Fairness Doctrine. At the first opportunity with some supposed egregious comment or whatever from a right wing talk show host that they can demagogue, Obama will reinstate it, quickly followed by Congress passing a beefed up version.

Typical leftist response to the suggestion that he’s going to do that has been derision. But I predict that he will do it within his first term and if at all possible before the 2010 elections. I’d like to nail it down better, but I can’t see them being so bold so quick; they must necessarily be opportunistic.

The Obama organization has already demonstrated its propensity for strong arming its critics, and Rohm Emmanuel is one of the worst of the Chicago thugs moving to D.C. The first of two things a potential tyrant does is seize the means of communications and the FCC makes it almost a piece of cake since the press is already in the tank.

(The other thing of course, is to ban firearms, making the public more dependent on government for their self-defense. But that may prove to be more problematic while maintaining a façade of constitutional law.)

Isn’t that the very definition of confirmational bias?

I would be surprised and disappointed if the Fairness Doctrine was reinstated. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Obama realizes how important free speech is, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Most secularists I’ve spoken to don’t care if dumb people speak their mind, as long as they preach to the choir and don’t try to shove their opinion down my throat.

If they wanted, could they abolish the right to bear arms?

That seems somehow paradoxal, since the arms should be the security against such measures.

Well, almost. “Useful idoit” implies the manipulation by leaders of those with confirmation bias. And it’s much more intuitively expressive.

So often “shoving an opinion down my throat” means presenting an opinion to someone else who might listen too it. Free speech is not limited to the preaching to the choir.

Jakob, bless your heart. You have a perfect understanding, except that a constitutional amendment would be required to repeal the 2nd Amendment and abolish the right to bear arms. But in many locations the Constitution is merely ignored (as it is on so many other legal issues today in the US).

Sorry, I should’ve been more clear. When I say “shoving an opinion down my throat,” I mean things like outlawing abortions. You can protest abortions, but don’t try to make a law that forces your opinion on me.

Yes, theocracy. Can’t buy beer on Sunday etc. As a libertarian I’m dead set against them as well. But right now big government socialists are by far the greater threat right now. We need to defend liberty from encroachment by both.