Guest Post: Why President Obama Was Reelected

Tyler Durden's picture

Via James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

It’s a safe assumption to make that the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of the United States Presidency will be talked about for decades to come. In history textbooks, 2012 will be referred as a momentous election year when the nation came together and collectively decided to stick with a president through the thick. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and other “transformative” presidents before him, Obama will be praised for keeping the country together in the midst of economic difficulty. In sum, he will be called a popular figure who triumphed over America’s old guard and lead the nation into a new era of solidarity and renewed social tolerance.

The lavishing has already begun with prominent voices on the left like Paul Krugman declaring the “new America” has made Obama their champion. It’s being said in major newspapers across the world that this new incarnation of the American experiment is much more attuned to the struggle of minorities and the downtrodden. They went with a President who will use the divine power of the federal government to lift the disenfranchised onto the platform of dignified living.

Like most of what passes for accepted history, this is downright propaganda. The country as a whole wasn’t frightened over sudden change by throwing out the incumbent. It wasn’t a declaration of a new, more diverse America. Shaping a new destiny wasn’t on the casual voter’s mind on November 6th.

There is a rational explanation for the President’s reelection which doesn’t invoke a deep or complex meaning. The only way to explain the outcome is in the simplest and direct prose: the moochers prevailed.

Obama’s winning tactic was to do what any respectable man does when he wishes to have something; he bought it. From cell phones and contraceptives to food stamps and unemployment benefits, the Obama administration kept the money flowing to ensure a steady turnout on Election Day. The coup de grâce was painting his opponent as a second coming of Dickens’ Scrooge that was ready to cut the voters from their trust funds.

The campaign made no attempt to hide this tactic. In an online video, celebrity Lena Dunham was tapped to extol the virtues of government-supplied birth control. The advertisement was aimed at a younger generation already guaranteed access to their parent’s health insurance till they turn 26 (and then morph simultaneously into full grown, self-sufficient adults). The video was a great demonstration of the campaign strategy but it was topped by one woman from Cleveland, Ohio who exemplified the public trough mentality on camera. Commonly referred to as the Obama-phone lady, this woman was so enraptured by her “free” cell phone and other welfare entitlements, she was determined to “keep Obama in president” to use her exact words. Though clearly dimwitted, Ms. Obamaphone was a phenomenal orator of the President’s message of goodies in exchange for votes.

Though it worked splendidly, Obama’s strategy was not brilliantly crafted from the minds of experts. It was the same bread and circus routine employed by the Romans and applied to modern demographics that relish in a victim-like mentality.  Women, the youth, blacks, Hispanics, and the elderly were all catered to through subtle patronization and outright payoffs.  It was the same tactic employed by the Roosevelt administration when the New Deal got underway. As journalist John T. Flynn wrote of the popular 32nd president:

It was always easy to sell him a plan that involved giving away government money. It was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes.

The 2009 auto industry bailout was Obama’s great tribute to Roosevelt. By infusing two auto giants with the federal government and still maintaining the appearance of their private ownership, the President convinced a majority in the battleground state of Ohio to put him back in the White House. Criticizing the auto bailout was the last nail in the coffin for Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations.

None of this is to say the election of Romney would have meant the much needed axing of the welfare state and state-subsidized dependency. The army of bureaucrats tasked with cutting checks in the name of kindness would still work to expand their budgets. The wealthy interests the former Massachusetts governor looked to appease were welfare queens in themselves and would likely receive all the state coddling money can buy.

Obama won the election by catering to the worst of all human traits: envy. He demonized the rich while promising to take more of their income and give it out in the form of entitlement payments. Under his presidency, the attitude of the takers will continue to swell as they clamor for more privileges. Anybody who speaks out against the Robin Hood scheme will be called an unconscionable xenophobe and a hater of the poor. The protestant work ethic will slowly be choked into submission through deliberate iconoclasm launched by the political class and their pet media pundits.

The opponents of capitalism will keep blaming money and greed for all the ills of society. They will also keep wearing fashionable clothes and coordinating protests on their smartphones while drinking caffeinated drinks that cost the same as some third world country’s average salary. They will scoff at hard work when it’s the sweat and labor of generations before them that has created the living standard they enjoy today. Under their tutelage America will be brought into its final form of, as right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh accurately defined it, a “country of children.”

Economist Thomas DiLorenzo sums up the key to Obama’s victory in this pungent bit of fine wisdom:

Every time Romney made one of his “let’s get the economy going again” speeches extolling the virtues of hard work he terrified the millions of welfare bums and parasites and motivated them more than ever to stand in line for hours to vote for Santa Claus Obama, their “savior” from having to work for a living.  (It’s always the low opportunity cost class that has the “luxury” of spending half a day or more standing in a line).

With Obama’s reelection comes the onward march of American society’s degeneration into that of the lazy, bitter masses forever on the lookout to loot a hapless minority still trying to make an honest living. The coming brave new world will be filled to the brim with self-righteous individuals eager to shuffle around the Earth’s gifts to achieve some kind of equality. In the process, none of them will produce a lick of good outside of satisfying their own disturbed need to dominate. It will be rule of the inept over the capable. Barack Obama will lead the way. He will be replaced in four years with someone that follows the same doctrine. The collective age of the country will continue to collapse till it reaches just shy of an unclothed infant wailing for succor. Except it will be grown men doing the crying and no one around to feed him because the sensible among us has already left.

The people have spoken and made it so.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
blunderdog's picture

I had an argument with a doctrinaire liberal friend about this just the other day--as usual, you've got a simplistic perspective that probably doesn't have anything to do with most folks' decision process.

The big issue in her mind wasn't birth control, but abortion.

Romney is a devout pro-lifer, and she was concerned about him packing the Supreme Court with justices who'd want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Tom of the Missouri's picture

Did you explain to your smart friend that overturning Roe vs Wade would do almost nothing to prevent her from getting her next abortion?  At least if she were to live anywhere but Utah or Alabama, that is true.  And even then she could drive a few miles to a nearby blue or partially blue state to have her kid chopped up.   Abortions btw were still widely available everywhere even when it was illegal everywhere and rarely done with coat hangers in back alleys.  Can you say discrete family doctor.  I knew of someone in youth who went to the local Catholic hospital for a DNC procedure to solve her woman problem by her family doctor. He then gave her a prescription for b.c. pills.  She was 15.   Has anyone ever heard of the marijauna and heroin markets?  Roe vs. Wade is about one thing, which is the bastardization  and destruction of the Consitution of the United States by leftist and nothing more.   The country is filled with idiots that should not be allowed to vote.  See my earlier post on women voting.

geekgrrl's picture

Wow, not only are your facts completely wrong, you're openly misogynistic. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote? Wow, just wow. Stunning.

But you're right. Women will get abortions anyway, they'll just be of the back alley variety. Some might find the odd doctor to help, but one of the big reasons for Roe v Wade was to help eliminate deaths due to botched abortions with coat hangers. Not that I think you'll bother, but you might want to do a little research on the difficulties many women face in getting abortions before you spew your prejudice on a public board.

Fortunately, you look like an older fellow and I don't think you're going to be around much longer. Sometimes that's the only way change happens, especially for older people who are unable to come to grips with a changing world. This is especially true when traditional privilege is challenged: male privilege, white privilege, etc.

Harbanger's picture

He's probably an older guy who believes women don't always vote in their own self interest.

geekgrrl's picture

No, he's just a misogynist. There's no need to candy-coat it.

Since 45 percent of men voted for Obama, it would seem that according to that logic, men don't always vote in their own self-interest either. What's his point, that a vote for Romney would be in womens' self-interest? I would love to know what empirical justification he has for that. In my opinion, all Romney would have done differently than Obama is accelerated the transfer of wealth from the poor to the already obscenely wealthy.

geekgrrl's picture

LOL. The replies on this thread are telling, as are the downvotes without any justification.

I am coming to the conclusion that most ZHers are pussies who dump on women because they a) can't get it up, and b) have an axe to grind against women. (As for b, see a).

I'm right here if any of you chuckleheads want to respond, but I think it is much more likely you'll hide behind the anonymity here.

yochananmichael's picture

pre RvW 17 states had legalized abortion. If it were overturned, likely 30-40 states would. 

do you care about facts?

geekgrrl's picture

I have a friend who is an abortion doctor. She has a bulletproof vest. Believe me, I know the facts. If you have money, you can of course travel wherever, even out of country if need be. It's usually poor women who are trapped, and if the Christian right had its way, there would never be another abortion in this country.

I don't think abortion being illegal in 10-20 states is a positive thing, and again, coat hanger abortions will happen in the absence of medical facilties. What facts, exactly, are you claiming I don't care about?

geekgrrl's picture

Three downvotes and nobody has the courage to state their convictions.


Louie the Dog's picture

I went to college in Florida in the 1960s.  Coeds that got pregnant went to Alabama for abortions. 

geekgrrl's picture

What facts, exactly, might you be referring to?

blunderdog's picture

You're obviously a crazy idiot, but no, I made a better point: I pointed out that it didn't really make sense to make a choice of President on the basis of his personal opinion about abortion.

     Roe vs. Wade is about one thing, which is the bastardization  and destruction of the Consitution of the United States by leftist and nothing more.

This FASCINATES me.  How do you figure?  The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the Founders didn't give a damn about the issue.

FeralSerf's picture

What is it about the Tenth Amendment that no one seems to understand?

blunderdog's picture

The Feds get called in when the rights of the PEOPLE are in conflict with the rights of the STATE GOVERNMENT.

What's so hard to understand about the role of the Supreme Court?  The Founders created it for a reason, you know.

murpheus's picture

blunderdog, my wife gave me the exact same argument.  She's 46 and I can't imagine abortion will be part of her reality in the near future.  Once again, we canceled each other out.  Arrgghhhh!


blunderdog's picture

Dump her before she drags the country down the tubes. 

Do it now before Obama gets his "Give all the Money to the Bitch after the Divorce" program implemented.

adr's picture

Everyone voting for Obama is a moocher, including the Jews hoping for four more years of ZERO prosecutions for financial fraud. That is like giving a 8 year old kid the keys to Disneyland.

The wealthy already know that they will be able to hide their income from taxation. Their great compassion for the poor comes from the need to keep the poor complacent so they can continue to vote thugs like Obama into office over and over, for their own benefit. They know the middle class will be robbed to pay for welfare, the only group that threatens the domination of the Fifth Ave set.

The wealthy set only contributes to charity out of greed. If the tax deductions for charity were removed, nearly all of the contributions would dry up. That is why they hold the belief that government should step in and do something about the poor. They don't want to take the responsibility of helping. Let them eat cake.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Sorry, but that's just a crock.  Many who voted for Romney may have seen it that way, but the large majority of those who voted for Obama  did so because they wrongly believe he is not in the pocket of Wallstreet.   The whole moocher versus productive class debate is a Randian fantasy that is believed only by the cult members on Fox, etc who you obviously listen to.

adr's picture

So there are no moochers?

That's a fairy tale if I ever heard one.

Do you ever think the majority of blacks even know anything about Wall Street? Fuck 80% of them can't even find the state they live in on a map.

LetThemEatRand's picture

There are plenty of moochers.   Most of the real moochers that you are thinking of don't vote.  Remember, 1/2 of the country doesn't even show up.     Sorry to bust your Randian world view, but this election had nothing to do with productive class versus moochers, except in the fantasy world of Fox News who tried to paint it that way.  I see you are easily convinced by propaganda.  You should think for yourself more.

DeadFred's picture

Moochers, welfare queens, bums- so unPC! They prefer to be called the motivationally challenged.

blunderdog's picture

I suspect a lot of the "moochers" are retirees on Social Security (and Medicare) who were concerned about Ryan's agenda and didn't find Romney's placating speeches sufficiently reassuring.'s picture

Retirees on Social Security have been made dependent involuntarily. Their wages simply disappeared from their paychecks before they ever received them. Getting some restitution for that theft is hardly mooching. And recall that Social Security beneficiaries who have recently retired will not get back as much as they paid in even if they live well past the average life expectancy.


Social Security Now Takes More Than it Gives


But there are actual moochers and looters in the world who take far more than they've ever given if they've given anything at all. Dick Cheney and the Obamaphone lady spring immediately to mind.

blunderdog's picture

I put "moochers" in scarequotes for a reason.  A lot of folks can't distinguish between a deadbeat who's spent his entire life gaming the system for personal benefit (like Dick Cheney) from a person who for one reason or another came into difficulty and became unable to maintain their own survival expenses (like a triple-amputee veteran).

I believe (based on discussions with my parents and several of their friends) that *many* elderly folks who were traditionally Republican-leaning didn't want to turn out for Romney/Ryan because Ryan had expressly stated he wanted to "voucherize"/end Medicare.  There are a fair number of OTHER Republican-friendly voters who weren't thrilled by Romney's pledge to dismantle Obamacare as soon as he took office.

They tend to turn out.

Obama may be horrible, but anyone with a passing familiarity with the shared reality can see that he hasn't done very much over the past 4 years.  Voting for more INACTION would be appealing to a lot of folks, rather than take the chance on a potential "radical" like Romney who wants to start cutting off checks.

Please note: I don't care much.  I thought both candidates were equally strong offerings that there was just no need to make a choice of my own.  I'm sure if Romney had won he'd have done just as good a job as Obama will.

acrabbe's picture


you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. it's not like 80% of blacks are illiterate monkeys. showing your ignorance with that comment i'm afraid...

geekgrrl's picture

Yes, there are moochers. The Fed, JPM, Citi, and MS, and all the other firms that collect interest on the dollar.

I think your prejudice is clear, and I actually find it surprising to see you express what appears to me as open hostility towards blacks.

In that regard, we are at odds, as I support minorities of all kinds.'s picture

In Atlas Shrugged Rand vilified business owners who use the force of government in order to sustain their own failed businesses. But you wouldn't know that because you've never actually read Rand's works.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?  Imagine lots of people who think correctly that anyone who follows Rand is an intellectual lightweight and probably a sociopath.'s picture

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Rand presents evil business owners who use government intermediaries to mooch from the people in a most unfavorable light. Do you disagree with that premise?

LetThemEatRand's picture

Unfortunately, I read it and I disagree with your assessment beyond the most simplistic black and white treatment of the issue.  Her entire philosophy is based upon a child's view of humanity and a worship-complex of industrialists.   She simply failed to see that industrialists ALWAYS find ways to cheat.   The ones that don't inevitably lose out to the ones that do, unless there are rules and regulations to keep them in check.   She misses that fundamental truth which makes her entire religion a false one.  But please do have the last word on the subject.   Like a good religious zealot, you probably can quote page and verse to make your point.  I on the other hand have had as much of this topic as I can stomach for one day.'s picture


She simply failed to see that industrialists ALWAYS find ways to cheat.   The ones that don't inevitably lose out to the ones that do, unless there are rules and regulations to keep them in check. 

But it's government regulation which confers Too Big to Fail status on some corporations and hands them billions of dollars. That corresponds to Rand's vision and not your own. The free market did not enact TARP.

Let them all fail's picture

Well technically it is that those large banks are so massive and so destructive that they could temporarily crash our markets if they were to fail. The government gave them this status by bailing them out, which is disgusting, but you seem to think that all regulations are bad. Hell, fuck the glass-steagall act and its government backers. Rand didn't even live by her own philosophy later in life....Basing your philosphy off that (very well-written) book is liking basing your philodophy off the bible...its religion, use your own god-damn brain to for your own opinions.'s picture

Glass-Steagall was not simply repealed. It was replaced by a larger piece of legislation called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. So you can't blame lack of regulation for the results.


Rand didn't even live by her own philosophy later in life....Basing your philosphy off that (very well-written) book is liking basing your philodophy off the bible...its religion, use your own god-damn brain to for your own opinions.


Rand was forced to participate in Social Security. Like the rest of us it was not her choice.

Why do those who misunderstand Ayn Rand always claim that those who find some value in her works are basing their life on them? I've spent far more time listening to the Beatles than reading Rand and yet I do not live in a Yellow Submarine. There's nothing wrong with being well acculturated.

Bay of Pigs's picture

His whole thing is to attack the messenger. 

And it's always on Millers threads. Like clockwork.

AnAnonymous's picture

But it's government regulation which confers Too Big to Fail status on some corporations and hands them billions of dollars.

Nope. Competition requires one rule at least. No rule, no competition.

This is this rule that allows people to cheat.

'Americans' with their big feet. Very clumsy.

Government issue regulations but they are not alone. Business issue their own regulations and that allows cheating.

A business can issue regulations on quality and cheats on them.

But as 'americans' know they owe their success to the State and that some 'americans' are not unsure that the State will keep serving them as it used to, well, time to ban the State. Wont work as 'americans' who are still well established will keep pushing up for the State.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


'Americans' with their big feet. Very clumsy.

Chinese citizenism citizens with their tiny pee-pees. Very funny.'s picture

Does Chinese citizenism still require girls to bind their feet? Nothing creepy about that!

akak's picture

No, but it does require all of its subjects to bind their mouths ... and their thoughts, especially along political lines.

In Chinese Citizenism, thought-binding is a ruling class thing.'s picture

Oh, that's right. The Chinese don't bind the feet of little girls anymore. They abort them in an effort to comply with government polices. What was I thinking?

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


Oh, that's right. The Chinese don't bind the feet of little girls anymore. They abort them in an effort to comply with government polices.

Ah, ah, don't forget that the aborted female fetuses are then composted.

Chinese citizenism citizens are all about the environment.'s picture

US developed rice has been combined with human DNA. We've reached peak nowhere else to hide citizenism.


The rice with human genes

akak's picture

Genetic blobbing-up is an 'american' middle class thing.

Hayek FA's picture

Government makes rules and regulations to allow their favored industrialists to cheat.


Please try to keep up.

Bay of Pigs's picture

And who do you listen to Mr Know it All?

You really are a miserable prick, and about as half as smart as you think you are. 

Harbanger's picture

The Counties in the swing States had more ballots cast than regitered voters.  That's how the Democrats won!  with the help of Acorn and voter fraud.

voltaic's picture

Fox News still pumping Acorn? That was disbanded two years ago and is no longer an organization. Go read a reputable news site and get away from repeats of Glenn Beck.