I have argued this before more than a few times. It goes like this: if Barack Obama is as intelligent as his myrmidons claim, how is it that he does not understand basic economics? How can he continue to make decisions that do not stimulate the economy but seem to continually stimulate the growth of government? A cynic would have to consider the possibility that Mr Obama is not as naive as he is dangerous.
Writing at Townhall, Austin Hill presents himself as such a cynic in an article titled Obamanomics: Naive, Or Intentionally Destructive?. Mr Hill details the moves by the Obama administration to illegally force concessions by creditors for Chrysler (I blogged about it here and here) to the intentional benefit of the UAW; seemingly a quid quo pro payoff for bolshevik union support. More importantly, as both Hill and I pointed out, these actions are dangerous to the rule of law and to the likelihood of any credit recovery.
After pointing out how the president has strongarmed, then publicly demagogued, the recalcitrant creditors, Hill gets to an important closing point about Obama’s ideologically blinded naivete:
Was it his naivety that prevented him from seeing the obvious – – that the hedge funds, and those Americans who had invested their personal money in those funds – – were the very thing that has kept Chrysler afloat in the first place? And is he so naïve to think that he will, to use his terms, “get credit flowing in America again,” while using his office to ruthlessly steamroll over the top of contracts, accounting rules, legal precedents, and law itself? Does he really think that he will “save” the U.S. economy and get banks lending again and get people with money to invest in new businesses and begin producing new employment opportunities, by denying legal rights to investors?
President Obama has now demonstrated to the world’s investors that rules and laws don’t matter – – his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process.
If Obama’s objectve is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a “more fair world,” he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford.
Read Hill’s entire column here.