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.
Toolshed's picture

Oh yes! The republicans have been soooooo much more respectful of the Constitution than the democrats! Puhleeez!!! Both parties have been using the hapless document for toilet paper for quite some time now. Isn't it time to stop the my party is better bullshit and start to recognize who the real enemy is?

TomGa's picture

This has nothing to do with party politics. The Republicans are just as bad.  Republicans are not, however, in power at present. Every one of these un-American pols needs to be denounced, ostracized, and cast out of this nation.

Diogenes's picture

"The Constitution of the United States stands in the way of what Barack Obama wants to do."

Not anymore.

lostcause's picture

 How come know one is discussing the major voter fraud that occurred in Oh and Co. Many counties had over 100% of eligible voters voting for Obama. There were several counties in Ohio where Obama had received 99% of the vote.  Below is another example in Philly.

jomama's picture

i would be if you had more proof?

SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

OK.  Let's give Romney Colo and OH.  Oh wait...............HE STILL LOSES.

Yardfarmer's picture

@lostcause at least one person is able to cut through the lies and MSM propaganda long enough to speak the obvious. once again the emperor has no clothes and only the little boy sees it! the evidence is rapidly mounting that this election was a sham, stolen and thankfully some are perceptive and courageous enough to realize it. aside from the transparently obvious manipulation of the MSM chearleaders foremost of which is CSNBC, the hacked and corrupted algorithmic software of Scytl and SOE swung the actual numbers to Obama. the fix was in for Obama. and the gambling oddsmakers who get the skinny from the organized crime cabalwith its connections to the WH and who Nate Silver gets his oracular percentages from had it right from the beginning. as if the statistical massaging of the BLS, the total immersion televised electoral propaganda wasn't enough, they threw in the 90 minute Obama/Christie Hurricane Sandy photo op for good measure. Not to worry though, they had it all backstopped with Scytl and nothing was allowed to escape their grasp even Obama/Clittons Benghazigate which should have been enough to sink every incumbent from Truman. The worst part was the insidious and cynical admission of the actual numbers though which had Romney ahead or at least in dead heat so necessay to the illusion of free and fair election. Dial up Bev Harris at among a host of other sources.This election follows the covert schemas of  9/11 and the fianancial engineering propelling this once nation into a black hole of economic and social destruction

blunderdog's picture

Because that's how we do national elections in the USA.

Let it go, already.  This was all handled back in 2000, remember? 

JohnFrodo's picture

Romney lost because America saw him as a Goodfella's inspired bust up artist. Huntsman could have won.

sunnyside's picture

A Paul/Huntsman ticket would have been a good one in my opinion.'s picture

The Huntsman campaign was used as a vehicle to make Ron look like an insane xenophobe through the use of a false flag video. Remember this?



therearetoomanyidiots's picture

A Romney/Paul ticket would've won easily, because all you fools who stayed home pulling your puds instead fo the lever would've voted.'s picture

Ron Paul would not have shared the ticket with Romney. He didn't even vote for the man.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

OK great, and what did that get us?'s picture

What would a Romney victory have gotten "us?" You may be fond of that flip flopping fellow but I'm not.'s picture

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Why promote evil? And what can one do when the candidates are equally evil?



President Bill Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley summed up our political system perfectly in his book "Tragedy and Hope," writing:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Pessism is the refuge of the lazy.'s picture

Doesn't your willingness to vote for an evil candidate indicate that you are the pessimist?  Are you too lazy to try to live your own life without asking Mitt Romney to give you a hand up with his Romneycare and "assault" weapons bans?

booboo's picture

Cause Obama will get a pass from the tribal witch doctors (Sharpton and Jackson) when it burns to the ground. Someone has to keep the folks in the plantatation slave housing and off of Scarlets lawn.

uncle reggie's picture

"Moochers prevailed."

What insightful analysis! Seems like there's an extra serving of pure bullshit on ZH today. I like to hear the arguments of those spouting the corporate, crony capitalist gospel, as many here do, but I've already seen too much for one day.  

Divine Wind's picture


Uncle Reg,

Precisely what solution, outside of capitalism, do you propose that does not involve me supporting worthless street scum and lazy fucks?



therearetoomanyidiots's picture must be one of them there, OWS guys...sucking the Obama ass.   Obama says to all of you..."You sure got a pretty mouth..."

Mad Mohel's picture

Hope all you bitchez like peas!

Divine Wind's picture



I stopped voting when I asked for ID to buy cold medicine but it was not required to cast a ballot.

Every two years for the last 20 we have heard the cries of the inner city trash complaining about disenfranchisement, though picture ID is essential in order to draw from many of the entitlement programs upon which they survive.

I fully believe this is nothing more than another shuck and jive cover to keep vote fraud a viable part of the electoral process.

Every aspect of the system is so fully gamed that it is no longer worth my time.


sunnyside's picture

Um, didn't you get the memo?  You are no longer allowed to use the phrase "shuck and jive".  It denotes your latent racism and obvious hatred to all people of color.  Now, kiss Jesse's ass (Sr, not Jr) and make a donation please.


Divine Wind's picture



I have a stack of them next to my toilet.



therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Ah...and hence the REAL REASON Obama won...

orangegeek's picture

Obama has the WH and Senate, but no House.  And Barry doesn't like compromise.


It's going to be fun to watch.


Barry reports to Wall Street/Defense contractors and he knows it.  And when these markets turn down hard, like they did in 2010/2011 in Europe, Barry will have some essplaynin to do.


Gimleteye's picture

Offering the takers hard work and self-sufficiency is a loser. Instead, all conservatives who live in the blue states and are able to do so should make plans NOW to move to the red states. This will lower the population of blue states, cutting their share of votes in the electoral college and increase the population in the red states, increasing their share of the elctoral college. Romney lost by 66 EV, 11 red states gaining just  6 EV(pop per CD is 700,000 approx) would prevent a democrat from ever gain the presidency. A side benefit would be to remove makers from the blue states, hastening their fall. DeFacto Secession.

hawk nation's picture

Its too late for that. America is over as it was established

905ozs's picture

Lol, whilst down here in south Africa we have our own tribulations, sure, sitting here pretty much "free" to chart ones own path (on the beach, 25c, a quality to life of sorts) it feels like I think 1950's USA.

But you Americans are so screwed.
How come most of you (not the illuciated ones on ZH I add) are so plainly dumb?

Sorry, but it is what it is...the Romans, the Brits, even the Dutch had a go for 300 years +, sadly, the US Dream WAS JUST, THAT A DREAM, didn't last even 100 years.
You know where the Rothschild Inc live and breathe, but you sit...WAITING TO BE CULLED.
Baaah bloody baah :)
Head down folks.

Divine Wind's picture




Perfect center-of-mass shot. Your corner of the world is looking particularly appealing these days.

Ban KKiller's picture

Mr. Romney lost because he represented the "no science, no math" class as eveidenced by this writer. The dead Repbulican Party represented men who are strangers to vaginas, minorities,  the working class, immigrants and white guys over fifty who don't watch Faux News. In short, the Republicans got the Faux News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh group of dividers who think that only white people are Americans..who think that only white people work, who think that only white men over 50 are responsible...and the list goes on. I voted for Gary Johnson....not that he was the best but he was the least worst. We all know banksters, big corps and the Fed rule Amerika. Going out now to my free ATM, my free gas, my free food. All right down at the "free everything store". Don't have one near you? According to Faux news there are those places everywhere that voted for President Obama. Ha! 

sunnyside's picture

If given the chance, I would bang Megyn Kelly right in front of my wife AND her divorce attorney.

jplotinus's picture

Let me see if i have this right. The article was composed by:

James E Miller
of the Mises Institute
of Canada.

Okay, Mr Miller of Mises of Canada,

We know what sort of society you dislike and we know what you think about social welfare.

Thank you for sharing.

Does anyone here wish to attach themselves to a political party espousing what Mr Miller/Mises/Canada dislikes?

If so, I applaud your desire to do so. I think you should field candidates, run ads, hold rallies, just so long, that is, as everyone brings their lunch, pays for their own signs and so on.

Of course, one of the signs they should hold aloft should be:


I wish you and your candidates best of luck.

alangreedspank's picture

LVMI is unpolitical in the sense that they'll happily bash any president for its market intrusive policies, regardless of the party.

I've been reading their stuff since 2006.

Totentänzerlied's picture

"Does anyone here wish to attach themselves to a political party espousing what Mr Miller/Mises/Canada dislikes?"

You mean the Republican and Democratic parties?

Doctor Moreau's picture

Articles like this piss me off.  I'll never understand why anyone would think living on welfare and getting food stamps equates to some kind of awesome life.

Hate to break it to you but regardless of what you think, even in an Obama administration, it still takes hard work to find the American Dream.

Welfare and food stamps?  Sounds like the American Nightmare.

What else are we suppose to do with those folks?  Kill 'em?

alangreedspank's picture

I don't think you need to assume living off welfare is awesome to have that opinion. What matters is what those recipients think and how politicians use their fears to control them and extort votes from them. These people think without an expensive welfare state, they'll starve (which is of course complete bunk).

Living on welfare sucks, that's why I'm against the welfare state. Makes people believe they are dependant and need it while taking away the need to be proud of earning your own income.

Doctor Moreau's picture

I think there are plenty of other reasons why people voted Obama.  I find pulling the welfare card in every instance to be lazy analysis. 

During the economic crisis all we ever heard about was "perception" and "confidence" as in to lack such is far more dangerous than the cash crunch itself.

In a shit bag economy, tell me how you are suppose to inspire confidence or give people hope?  Is it by having homeless starving to death?  Is it by having more families and kids on the streets?

I'm far from a welfare apologists, but then again I think we should put prisoners to work.

I pray these welfare programs are band aids, and if and when viable jobs return to the masses, it'll go away.

I'm sure zerohedge knows better, however.

alangreedspank's picture

Welfare is not a band aid, it's one of the root causes of poverty. There's still plenty of well paying jobs out there, pipe fitters, welders, IT, etc. all requiring minimal education and assuming you did not sign for a 500,000$ mortgage but that's your problem and certainly not the poor's lol. The welfare state takes the will out of people to take the leap.

And a lot of people who THINK the welfare state is good voted for Obama. They may not be moochers themselves, but they sure condone the system.

blunderdog's picture

    pulling the welfare card in every instance to be lazy analysis.

It's not analysis.  It's really closer to a LIE.

Lots of folks hate blacks and use "welfare" as a rationalization.  It's not a good system and we really should have a discussion about a better approach to dealing with the folks who are unable to provide for themselves, but 9 times out of 10 when you hear bitching about "welfare" it's bitching against the inner-city blacks portrayed on the teevee, and not the po' toothless whitefolk in rural trailerparks in the red-states, DESPITE the fact that the population sizes are worth examining before bringing up the subject.

alangreedspank's picture

And lots of folks hate jews and use "banks" as a rationalization.

blunderdog's picture

Yep.  Can alternatively use Hollywood and/or "the media."

Doctor Moreau's picture

Articles like this piss me off.  I'll never understand why anyone would think living on welfare and getting food stamps equates to some kind of awesome life.

Hate to break it to you but regardless of what you think, even in an Obama administration, it still takes hard work to find the American Dream.

Welfare and food stamps?  Sounds like the American Nightmare.

What else are we suppose to do with those folks?  Kill 'em?

adr's picture

I vote for Kill 'em. Hands down.

With all the government programs you can live far better than you can on any job that pays less than $60k.

How many jobs pay more than $60k today?

If you have a family of 4 with a household income of $60k you can't qualify for any government program. You must pay for health insurance, at least $4k a year. You can't qualify for SNAP, HEAP, WIC, EIC, Sec 8, and a myriad of other programs.

SNAP will give you about $400 a month.

HEAP caps utilities at $20 a month, go ahead and keep the house at 70 in the summer and 80 in the winter.

WIC gives you 2 gallons of milk for free every week, and can be compounded on top of SNAP for an extra $250 a month.

You can get subsidized internet and cable and free cell phones.

You'll need to wait for it but in most cities all residential buildings must be made available for low income housing. Your neighbor may be paying $900 for rent, but yours is capped at $200.


After all is said and done, your family have far more disposable income from your $15k a year job than the family of four living off $60k

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

You are a  fool...and clearly have no idea what you're talking about...unless you expect the publicly educated "idiot culture' to be disappointed they don't have self-reliance and the positive self-affirmation of people that truly know what liberty is. 


The american poor in this country have flat screens, cigarettes, malt liquor, condoms, cars, cell phones, plenty of nummy gubmint cheese.   


The poor in say, Africa, or those shit holes in the middle east, or undeveloped india are picking peanuts out of elephant shit, living next to open sewer trenches  just to stay alive. 

adr's picture

The enemy of liberalism is math.

You can't make the math work to keep the country going, even as hard as Krugman tries.

I tried explaining to an Obama voter how we can't keep spending.

I said, "What happens when you put more stuff on a credit card?"

I got an answer of, "I pay more."

Then I asked, "The minimum payment right, because of interest?"

"yes" was the response.

I then asked, "What would happen if the minimum payment on your credit card was bigger than the amount of money you make in a month?"

"Uh, I couldn't pay it." was the response.

I then said that that is called a default. When that happens it means nobody gets paid. The USA already owes more than the amount it brings in and the people who were giving us more credit are no longer doing so. When the USA defaults, the moochers don't get paid.

The response was, "That wouldn't be good."