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.'s picture

Lots of rich folks mooch off the government. That costs me plenty. I have no problem with those who mooch off daddy provided that daddy earned his money legitimately.

yrbmegr's picture

Well, if we're going to reduce it to those terms, I guess there are more moochers than sociopaths in this country, so the moochers prevailed.

Diogenes's picture

The moochers vote for the sociopaths and both prevail. The decent honest hard working people get their pockets picked and their rights taken away again.

Everybodys All American's picture

Bernanke printed and the people bought the illusion of recovery.

sickofthepunx's picture

because he got more votes

Dr. Engali's picture

You are only partially right James. The parts that you are leaving out is that the republicans had nothing to offer but Obama lite. The only debate where Mitt shined was the first debate , on the third debate Obama might as well have been his teleprompter. He just agreed with everthing Obama said. So why change horses for a guy who offers nothing different? But that is not their major error,....that took place in the primaries with their behavior there and the treatment of Ron Paul afterwards, That action stripped them of 10% of the republican vote.....10% a number that would have put the election in their hands by over 2 million votes.

UGrev's picture

and this is another big part of it. 

krispkritter's picture

I call him 'Obama-White'...could not count the number of Ron Paul signs around here earlier in the year. I saw one Obama sign 3 weeks ago, it was gone the next day. I think the GOP, God Offal Policians, missed by a country mile and paid for it in this election. Didn't give a dime to any of them except Paul...

Dr. Engali's picture

The funny thing is I know a lot of life long democrats who were Ron Paul supporters. Many of them were auto workers. My dad worked 35 years for Chrysler in Ohio and always voted straight ticket democrat. At 83 this was the first year he supported  a candidate that wasn't on the democrat ticket. As a result of the primaries and what they did to Ron Paul he and mom stayed home and didn't vote. Shocked the shit out of me.

knukles's picture

Same out here in CA.
A bazillion stayed away who'd have voted for RP.

Note my preceeding post.

Conax's picture

The sad part is they didn't even have to nominate Dr. Paul, all they had to dooo was let him speak at the convention, add a 'smaller gov't' and  'anti war' planks to the platform and treat him respectfully.

But no, they called him names and cheated him of votes and so forth.

Pissed everyone off.

knukles's picture

And so ever very true.
One of my best friend has been a life long democrat, and sick and tired, fed up, feeling deeply betrayed, she wanted to vote for RP.

And she too commented about how he'd been treated... as a bit of advice about trusting the R's. 
And she knew that because she'd had enough interest in RP to watch and pay attention to the R convention.
And this from a life long hard core D.

There were tons of folks lined up behind the guy...
Tons of nontraditional R voters, who'd have pulled the lever for him, but Oh Fucking No....

I am mad at my R friends

The R's reelected O and now I gotta live with this shit.  They oughta pay my increased taxes for me.

hidingfromhelis's picture

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!  This was the Republicans' election to lose, and they pulled it off with flying colors.

Overfed's picture

I think Ro-money and the RNC lost a whole lot more than that over their treatment of Ron Paul.

I firmly believe that it cost them some Senate seats and statewide elections as well, just on anti-Republican party sentiment due to their obvious fraud, backstabbing, and chicanery.

Totentänzerlied's picture

"He just agreed with everthing Obama said"

You don't say.

LawsofPhysics's picture

"Elected"?!?!  LMFAO!  No one was elected, obama was reinstated.  Stupid fucking sheep.

krispkritter's picture

Same Shit, Different Politician. Why bother changing the stationery?

machinegear's picture

To expand, voting has been opened up to those who are not qualified. Those who are not the household head or own no property or not a citizen or have been convicted of serious crimes or heck, are even dead, can now all vote. Are these sheep? No. They are self-destructive people that have been purposefully allowed to participate in our electoral system with the sole purpose of destroying a once great nation.

Thulsa Doom's picture

Senators elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures was the beginning of mob rule and the centralization of power at the federal level. It was the state politicians' desire for power that kept the Feds in check. There are no more checks left.

machinegear's picture

Couldn't agree more. Direct election of Senators meant the States lost their representation at the Federal level which in turn meant they also lost their independence.

Thulsa Doom's picture

The genius of recognizing the lust for power as a human flaw and using that flaw to keep competing powers in check was rejected in favor of the naive dream that democracy works. The framers were practical and realistic people.

Totentänzerlied's picture

Their self-destructiveness is not my concern. Their other-destructiveness is only my concern because they have been allowed to vote and made it my concern.

williambanzai7's picture

Yes, that is a good term to describe it. Reinstatement with a back up Plan B.

I'll tell you something, for all the talk about Romneys financial street cred, the real players on the street looked at him as a second stringer. In a word, he ain't no Henry Kravis. He was their back up Plan B.

in4mayshun's picture

With voting machines, no election will ever be above suspicion ever again. In Ca, a tax measure appeared to be losing late in the evening but lo-and-behold, passed miraculously overnight. Why would a welfare state's citizenry who voted for a president because he gives them stuff, also vote themselves higher taxes?

Smells fishy.

adr's picture

There were probably a couple million ballots that weren't counted in this election to make sure tax proposals were passed, certain judges getting elected, etc.

I noticed a lot of weird things in Ohio. Candidates that were up by 10% in polls losing. Tax proposals that were easily defeated five times in a row by margins of greater than 20% passing by 1%.

There were more than a few polling places that ran out of ballots, yet we are told turnout was lower than 2008. Then you have the confirmed reports of precincts in Cincinnati allowing non registered voters to cast ballots that were counted.

Navigator's picture

Here's a serious article on why President Obama was reelected.

Dr. Engali's picture

That's about as poor an analysis as the current post.

Rainman's picture

OBL must be spittting up his goat stew with laughter....surrounded by his 17 virgins. WINNING !

HurricaneSeason's picture

I thought they get 40 virgins, but times are tough and I suppose virgins are hard to find.

knukles's picture

He's surrounded by 40 virgin tranny goats.

Keep it in perspective.
All promised was virgins... didn't say what kind.
Even if they were Tijuana "My seester, she bean a virgin many times, senor.) Virgins would still be  a virgin

Eat your goat dick stew, Obie

williambanzai7's picture

What a fine simplistic analysis, as if the so called rich don't have their sticky fingers in the same public till...

At this point you really have to be an idiot or a propagandist not to see who wins either way. And BTW, they did.


Cynthia's picture

Yes, WB, there are quite a few people getting rich off of the warfare as well as welfare state. But this is rarely mentioned because most people have a big, glaring blind spot for seeing socialism for the rich.

williambanzai7's picture

Not just the warfare. Pharma, energy, food yadda yadda...not to mention every conceivable manner of bailouts and government contracts. It's all one big jackpot for the plutocrats and people like this guy only care to mention the little ants chasing the shitty scraps like it is all by their grand design.

waterhorse's picture

yes, that's why I rated it as a "1".





stant's picture

small and mid size biz will have the next to last word on this, and then bond and dollar vigilantes

Long-John-Silver's picture

Obama's plan to cut unemployment.


Any business that employs people that work for 29 or more hours a week must provide Obamacare for them. The solution is to hire two people to work 24 hours each a week. This equates to 6 eight hour days split between two employees and you don't need to provide any benefits for them at all. You also save paying 8 hours of overtime to a single employee. The advantages for the government is in reporting the unemployment figures. Twice as many people will be employed so unemployment will be reduced even if the people working only receive half the wages they did before and have no benefits at all.

Urban Redneck's picture

It works.  Switzerland has only a 2.9% unemployment rate, the last time I checked.  But the people at the BOTTOM of the pyramid who get stiffed on hours (60% time) because their employers don't want to pay social security might think otherwise.  The question is- are the people who voted for this stupidity in the US actually smart enough to learn from their mistakes?

Overfed's picture

The answer to that question would be no.

blunderdog's picture

No individual citizens "voted for" the health-insurance program as passed.  It was a Congressional bill.  Folks could only vote for supporters or opponents.

FWIW: the "liberal" demand was for a single-payer public health-insurance program, like most of the rest of the civilized world. 

NO ONE who paid any attention would EVER have come up with the idiocy that became "Obamacare."  The "We Love Obamacare" supporters were just useful idiots who thought something like, "well it's a step in the right direction."

johnnymustardseed's picture

Obama won because republicans have the soul of FOX News. David Frum nails it,  "the GOP is rapidly becoming the party of yesterday’s America."

"Those who would urge the GOP to double down on ideology post-2012 should ask themselves: would Republicans have done better if we had promised a bigger tax cut for the rich and proposed to push more people off food stamps and Medi­caid? Would we have done better if we had promised to do more to ban abortion and stop same-sex marriage? If we had committed ourselves to fight more wars? To put the country on the gold standard? Almost half of those surveyed on voting day said they wanted to see taxes raised on Americans earning more than $250,000. Exit polls do tend to oversample Democrats, but the tax result is consistent with other polling that has found that even Republicans would prefer to raise taxes on the rich than see cuts in Medicare"

Benjamin Glutton's picture

what an idiot....


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.


Imho, fear prevailed because fear reigns supreme. Americans are under assault from all directions and simply voted for the party that they believed would inflict less pain.


What you have purposefully overlooked is that the majority do not feel free enough to vote their conscience or for what may be best for their country because doing so will only deliver a mandate to the other major fear party.



Everybodys All American's picture

There will be no change in democratic leadership until the whole entitlement mess falls on it's face. Until the pain is felt by every citizen. Until all the money is bled from the system. Until all hell breaks loose the electorate will choose the democrats who promise more free stuff to the citizenry.

RationalPrepper's picture

While not a perfect president, I couldn't help but think of this quote from Reagan:  "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

And now I wonder...have we lost it?  I think the answer might be obvious.


Thulsa Doom's picture

Only place left to go is Firefly-class ship "Serenity," captained by Mal Reynolds. Live like a free man and you will be a free man.

Overfed's picture

Unfortunately we're all stuck here on this rock with various flavors of nanny-state totalitarianism.