Barack Obama says it is all about the narrative. It has to be simple and easy for the voters to understand. That is why campaigning is so much more fun than governing.

Edward Luce, the Financial Times’  “chief US commentator,” understands the Obama narrative so well that he could easily hold a job on Obama’s campaign staff. That is probably one reason the FT editors will support Obama no matter what he does. They seem to have absorbed the idea there is no acceptable Republican alternative to Obama’s policies. All Republicans are extremists.(The main reason, however, is that Obama thinks and acts like a European. He is a postmodernist. The FT’s worldview is similar to the one held by the Nobel Peace Prize committee in the Norwegian parliament.)

Luce writes in the weekend edition of the FT (America’s Dream Unravels) that America’s relative economic and political decline has much to do with the polarization of American politics. It would be wrong to blame both parties, says Luce, because it is really the fault of Republicans. He quotes Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann, in their forthcoming book (It’s Even Worse Than it Looks):

“The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier–ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science. When one party moves this far from the center, it is extremely difficult to respond to the country’s most pressing challenge.”

And what should the response be? Luce’s “plan” is similar to that of Obama. It is to tax the rich and invest the money in education, research and development, and infrastructure. What they both ignore is that America is approaching bankruptcy and the money that can be raised from the rich is nowhere near enough to reduce the debt and at the same time launch a new spending program.

Luce says the authors could have added that Washington’s prolonged impasse has already damaged America’s competitiveness. That is because of the downgrading of America’s sovereign debt, after Congress came close to a voluntary default last year. Luce could, of course, have mentioned that Obama’s focus on expensive solar and wind power is causing electricity costs to rise for both consumers and business. (America is not alone in this regard. Germany has been forced to reduce solar feed-in tariffs by 37 % and Italy is expected to cut rates by 50 % soon.)

Luce also shares Obama’s view that America’s decline is caused by the top 1 % becoming a burden on the middle class. He says America has become an unmatched plutocracy, “given the growing role billionaires play in politics.” What Luce fails to do is explain how the emergence of companies such as Microsoft and Apple harm the middle class in America.

Luce even cites Alexis de Tocqueville in support of his “narrative.” That is because de Tocqueville said America’s success was related to its practical sense, and distaste for theory and philosophy. That pragmatism has now been lost because of Republican extremism. Again, Luce could have mentioned that de Tocqueville also warned that democracy would fail as soon as people discovered they could vote themselves benefits. That is exactly what has happened, because today about half of Americans are supported by government programs.

Luce says that America could do better if it allowed foreign engineering and science students to remain in the US after graduation. He says this is not happening because of the fear “it will let in the next Mohamed Ata.” Luce knows this is false. The real objection comes from the labor unions. Luce is undoubtedly aware that Steve Jobs complained to Obama about this shortly before he died. Obama said he could do nothing about it.

In today’s FT Luce echoes the liberal “spin” that if Obamacare is rejected by the Supreme Court it will help Obama in the re-election campaign (Obama’s Very Own Kennedy Moment.) That is because it will motivate the left-wing base in the same way the Tea Party movement helped conservatives in 2010. It is doubtful that Luce really believes this, because it would remove Obama’s only significant “achievement” and heighten the criticism that Obama cares not a whit about the Constitution.

In the investment business success usually comes from being a contrarian. The reason is obvious. When something is widely believed it is already reflected in the price, so there is not much profit left for the latecomers.

But, if something is obvious why is it rarely practiced? There are two basic reasons. One is it is easier to recite the opinions of others than to come up with new ones of our own. Another is there is safety in numbers. If we are wrong the consequences are less severe if everyone else is also wrong.

Many people have taken advantage of the tendency for people to seek refuge in a crowd. This is what Adolf Hitler wrote:

“Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”

One of Hitler’s top associates, to no great surprise, agreed with his boss. Herman Goering said:

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders…it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.”

It is not just scoundrels who think this way. The German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, also had little respect for public opinion. He wrote:

“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”

The Greek philosopher Plato also had little faith in majority opinion. People were too inclined to be influenced by demagogues. And he had proof, because the citizens of Athens killed Socrates.

Goering feared education. He said “every educated person is a future enemy.”

But education does not keep us from embracing wrong ideas. Wall Street, in the late 1990’s, was willing to pay high prices for just about any company involved with the Internet. When the Internet bubble ended it was replaced by the housing bubble. It was widely believed house prices could only go up. After all, there is only so much land and the population is always increasing.

In spite of all this, democracy is good because the alternative of tyranny is worse.

During the Obamacare hearings both sides understood it was important to appeal to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s attachment to the concept of liberty.

The administration’s lawyer argued that people were not free if they become sick and lack health insurance.

The opposition lawyer said people are not free if they are forced to buy insurance they do not need.

There are two concepts of liberty. The administration’s attorney was arguing in favor of positive liberty. The other lawyer was speaking on behalf of negative liberty.

When people have contrasting visions they speak past each other. They are like ships passing in the night.

James B. Stewart writes about the Obamacare debate in the New York Times (Commerce, Health Care and Broccoli.) Stewart and the paper he works for are committed to the concept of positive liberty. Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law professor, says the arguments of the Obamacare opponents are “silly.” He is referring to the distinction between activity and inactivity. People are involved in healthcare whether or not they have insurance. Laycock noted that one hundred law professors from many of the country’s major law schools have signed a statement arguing that “there can be no serious doubt about the constitutionality” of the insurance mandate.

It does not matter if a thousand lawyers signed a petition of this kind. Law professors believe in positive liberty (and so does Barack Obama.) Our Founders, who wrote the Constitution, believed in negative liberty. It is two ships passing in the night.

The Financial Times once again writes editorially that the Supreme Court should vote to uphold Obamacare (US  Health Reform.) Although it is a flawed piece of legislation it “does nothing to transgress the spirit or letter of America’s constitution.”

The FT says healthcare is very different from other sectors of the economy because the roughly 50 million uninsured “impose large costs on everyone else” when they need medical care. There is, therefore, no need for a so-called limiting principle. If the court decides Obamacare is legal it does not mean the federal government can require people to buy burial insurance or eat broccoli.

Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard (Losing Case Would Diminish Obama) that Ronald Reagan knew his opponent, Pat Brown, was in trouble in the race for California governor when he told school children Reagan was an actor and we know an actor killed Lincoln. When Barack Obama last week referred to the individual mandate as the “personal responsibility clause” it was convincing proof he knew his healthcare legislation was in danger. (Obama repeatedly claims America is not about what we do as individuals, it is about collective action. We are all in this together.)

The vision of our Founders was quite different from that espoused by Obama and the FT editorial writers. Government existed so that individuals could pursue happiness in their own way. The opposing collectivist vision was clearly described by Obama in this year’s State of the Union speech. Americans are soldiers in an army that is struggling to reach specific national goals.

It is this difference in vision that has shocked liberals, in the wake of the Supreme Court debate about Obamacare. Chris Mathews of MSNBC News reacted this way:

“I was totally unprepared because of the way people talked. I always thought, intellectually it might be a problem but I never heard it discussed politically as a prospect, that they actually might get his major achievement just ripped off the books.”

When our Founders devised the system of checks and balances it reflected their conviction, based on their study of history and antipathy to king George, that concentrated power would always be abused. Two governments were therefore better than one. Police power belonged to the states, and federal power was limited to the enumerated powers in the 10th Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy alluded to the possibility healthcare is different from other activities people become involved with, but he also said if Obamacare is approved he was convinced the federal government would be tempted to do similar things in other fields.

Modern liberals are obsessed with politics. Because for them politics has become a secular religion they refuse to even consider their opponents might have a valid point of view. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times stated this openly the other day. She said reporters had no obligation to be objective when writing about Obamacare because opposing views were so flimsy they deserved to be ignored.

Kimberley Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal that the left is “scrambling to spin any humiiliating court loss” as a potential political gain and some Republicans seem ready to accept this phony argument (The GOP’s Health-Care Eeyores.) The mistake is to confuse politics with the real issue, which is the Constitution and liberty, says Ms. Strassel. In that sense Republicans have already won, because the entire court’s attention was on the Constitution’s structural limitation on governmental power.

Those who think America is about individual freedom can make the case that the collectivist Barack Obama cannot be trusted with a second term.

David Brooks writes in the New York Times that American history can be seen as a series of centralizing events (Step to the Center.) Obamacare is an important part of this trend.

Brooks says he agrees with the insurance mandate component of Obamacare, but he thinks the administration made “a disastrous error” by centralizing so many of the cost-control elements of the health care system. It is perfectly acceptable to say the national goal should be universal coverage, but the implementation should occur at the local level. That is because it is impossible for central planners to anticipate and manage all the problems that can emerge in a complicated health care system.

Generally speaking, we should examine ideas based on the merits, and disregard the source. On the other hand, our opinions are inevitably influenced by our experiences and who we are. Michiavelli’s draconian approach to conflict resolution was undoubtedly influenced by the never-ending wars in Italy. If Thomas Hobbes had lived in a more peaceful time he might have developed a less morose attitude toward human nature. In Brooks’ case, we might consider his tendency to split the difference, in order to be the token conservative on the Bill Maher show.

In any event, it is hard to understand why a devout Burkean like Brooks would make no reference to the constitution. Conservatives of the Burke persuasion have respect for tradition, whereas progressives supposedly base their decisions on scientific analysis. That is why modern liberals view past experience as an obstacle to national goals. Justice Ginsberg recently told Egyptians the U. S. Constitution is no model for them, because it is obsolete and archaic.

Central planners operate through bureaucracies. Bureaucrats tend to believe in a one-way information flow. Directives flow down, and there is a reluctance to consider objections from implementers at the grass roots level. A good example is the attempt by a local FBI agent to convince his superiors that they should be concerned that a Muslim at a flight training school only wanted to learn how to take off. One reason bureaucrats react this way is that if a problem exists a decision must be made. The incentive system does not encourage decision-making, because the tendency is to punish mistakes and to reject rewards for good judgment.

The Obamacare planners want to improve efficiency and lower costs by creating so-called Accountable Care Organizations (ACO’s) The idea is to move away from fee-for-service medicine to outcomes-based medicine. This has stimulated vertical integration in the health care industry. In today’s Wall Street Journal there is a front-page article (Health-Care Rivals Battle for Patients in Pittsburgh) about the struggle between Highmark, an insurance provider, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC.)

A stage-four breast cancer patient at UPMC is concerned she may no longer be treated there because Highmark is acquiring a hospital-chain of their own (West Penn Allegheny Health System.) UPMC, which has its own insurance arm, may no longer be willing to treat patients who get their insurance from Highmark. This kind of local issue may not have been on Nancy Pelosi’s mind when she said Obamacare had to be passed so we can find out what is in it.

The Wall Street Journal, in a lengthy editorial about Obamacare, writes that a leaked strategy memo reveals the White House wants to emphasize the law’s effect on “real people and real benefits” and downplay legal precedents and “the individual responsibility piece of the law” (Liberty and Obamacare.)

It is in this context we should consider Linda Greenhouse’s piece in yesterday’s New York Times. She, and her newspaper, are loyal soldiers in the Obama army. They do what they are told. Ms. Greenhouse says the arguments against Obamacare are only words. In fact, so is the Constitution. It is not words that count, it is the impact of those words on real people.

Ms. Greenhouse, however, considers Nancy Pelosi’s words as evidence the law is constitutional. When asked about this, Ms. Pelosi looked astonished and said: “Are you serious?”

In today’s Times the lead article is about how America is approaching energy independence because of Obama’s friendly policies toward the oil and gas industry (U. S. Inches Toward Goal of Energy Independence.) Below the headline it says “friendly policies help oil and gas industry lift output as consumption falls.” As Daniel Henninger wrote in WSJ a few days ago, what Obama has done in the last three years is being wiped out by the media, because inconvenient truths are seen as obstacles to his re-election.

Obamacare is a great leap forward in the direction of tyrannical government, because if the Supreme Court goes along it means the government in Washington,DC, will have police power, which now is held only by individual states. The principle is that whenever individuals act, or fail to act, they impact interstate commerce in some way. The WSJ points out this was not anticipated by the Founders. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45 that the inclusion of the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The clause was designed to eliminate tariffs among the states. What could be harmful about that?

In the Financial Times today Philip Stephens explains why conservatives around the world support Obama’s re-election (Obama Gets the Conservative Vote.) He might as well tell us why the FT backs Obama, even though it is a business newspaper. The other day the FT said it was “infantile” for Republicans to argue that producing more oil might actually lower the price of oil. The FT would never say that Ms. Greenhouse is being infantile when she says the Constitution and the arguments against Obamacare are only words. Are we to believe that the debate that begins next Monday will feature a fencing duel between the two sides?

The rest of the world cannot identify with America because America is different. Obama wants to make us more like the rest of the world, so it makes sense that Europeans can relate to him.. But, Arnold Schwarzenegger said he left Austria because his fellow 18-year olds were talking about what they would do when they retired. Unfortunately, he ended up in California, which has become much like Europe. America is still a magnet for ambitious and talented people around the world, but our attraction will diminish as we inch closer to Europe.

Europeans and others should be careful what they wish for. As America’s economic decline proceeds our ability to support a strong military will diminish. Then it will only be about engagement and diplomacy. Will Europeans feel more secure then?

It is not very often that someone from the media writes that bias in journalism is justified, because there is really only one side to the argument. This is what Linda Greenhouse does today, in a New York Times article (Never Before.) This is her opening paragraph:

“Journalistic convention requires that when there are two identifiable sides to a story, each side gets its say, in neutral fashion, without the writer’s thumb on the scale. This rule presents a challenge when one side of a controversy obviously lacks merit. But mainstream journalism has learned to navigate those challenges, choosing evolution over’ intelligent design, ‘for example, and treating climate change naysayers as cranks.”

This is quite an admission. Journalists are no longer bound by the outdated convention of having to give equal time to both sides.

Ms. Greenhouse says there is no need to be objective in the Obamacare case, because the opponents of the Affordable Care Act relies on an argument that “is so manifestly weak it does not deserve to win.” There is just no there there, says Ms. Greenhouse.

Ms. Greenhouse is correct when she says that just because the healthcare mandate is “unprecedented” does not make it unconstitutional. The brief against Obamacare, filed by former solicitor general Paul D. Clement, uses the word “unprecedented” 10 times. But, this argument is a two-edged sword, because it means previous Supreme Court decisions can also be discounted. Just because the court, in 1942, said a farmer in Ohio could not grow wheat for his own use does not mean this is what the Founders intended. We can revert to the original document, and its amendments, whenever we decide to do so.

Ms. Greenhouse says those who do not want to eat broccoli can eat brussels sprouts instead. That argument is “so analytically weak that it dissolves on close inspection,” to use Ms. Greenhouse’s own words. There is nothing to prevent Congress from saying that the health benefits of broccoli are so great that those who refuse to eat broccoli impose an ‘unfair medical cost”on taxpayers. The defenders of Obamacare claim that’ uncompensated consumption of health care” places an unfair burden on taxpayers.

Ms. Greenhouse refers to the Gonzales vs. Raich case, which upheld Congress’s authority to criminalize the private, non-commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purpose. In my opinion, this case is not nearly as important as the United States vs. Lopez case (1995), which said the commerce clause does not give Congress the power to regulate the carrying of hand guns near schools.

In today’s Wall Street Journal David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey also mentions the Raich case (The Supreme Court Weighs Obamacare.) The writers say the court’s judgment upholding federal control of the local cultivation of marijuana is “often incorrectly cited as support for the individual mandate.” Ms. Greenhouse would probably say this opinion has no merit because it is only held by “cranks.”

Ms. Greenhouse concludes by saying the “most depressing news item I’ve seen lately was the report of a Bloomberg News national poll indicating that 75 % of people expect that the Supreme Court’s health care decision will be influenced by the justices”politics.” She says it’s up to the court to prove them wrong. This merely shows Ms. Greenhouse is a naive ideologue who apparently has never seen the movie Casablanca.

The Financial Times argues editorially that the Supreme Court should consent to Obamacare because “a government must be able to forge national solutions to national problems” (Healthcare on Trial.)

I have often attributed the FT’s support for Barack Obama to his embrace of the European social model and his preference for engagement, rather than confrontation, in foreign policy. In addition, he has been viewed as an antidote to America’s alleged lingering racism.

It is obvious, however, the FT does not understand the American political system and they did not bother to submit what they write to their Washington,DC, staff before the editorial was printed.

The FT says if the healthcare mandate is struck down other federal mandates, such as the requirement to buy car insurance, could also be challenged. There is no federal mandate to buy car insurance. Both health insurance (prior to Obamacare) and car insurance is regulated at the state level. States have police power and the federal government does not. The federal government is limited to the enumerated powers specified in the constitution. One of those is the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Obama administration is claiming that people who refuse to buy health insurance are interfering with interstate commerce.

Apparently, America’s system of separation of powers seems strange to Europeans. But, it is important to remember that our Founders implemented European ideas they liked (such as John Locke’s emphasis on property rights) and rejected what they did not care for, primarily the centralized power exemplified by the tyrant, king George, and the state religion (Church of England.) Decision-making should be spread around and made closer to the people, they reasoned. Accountability was enhanced if people knew that in most cases state and local officials were responsible, and in other instances complaints should be directed at federal officials.

If Obamacare is upheld the federal government would have police powers comparable to those held by the states. The federal system would be disrupted and confusion would follow. If the Obama administration wants the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare it must come up with a limiting principle. What is left that the federal government cannot do?

The reality is there are other ways to broaden health insurance coverage for Americans. It can be done through a system of direct taxation. Congress chose to take the mandate route because it is more politically palatable.

The FT says taxpayers should not be burdened by forcing them to pay the healthcare costs of people who refuse to buy insurance. This ignores the fact that Obamacare forces young, healthy people to pay the healthcare bills of older, sicker people. One could argue that this is also unfair.

Rising gasoline prices is an obstacle Barack Obama needs to deal with in order to win re-election.

It is amusing to observe the contortions of Obama’s supporters in the media, as they seek to defend him against the Republican claim he is responsible for the fuel price rise.

Bryan Walsh writes in Time magazine that Republican candidates are lying when they say Obama has done everything possible to shut down energy production in the U. S.(Gas Prices and the Big GOP Lie.)

Walsh’s first line of defense is that no president, regardless of ideology, wants gasoline prices to go up in an election year. “When gas prices go up, it hurts everybody. High gas prices are like a tax straight out of your paycheck,” said Obama in a speech last month. Walsh says we have the unusual spectacle of a president who came into office “on fire for clean energy” who is now boasting that oil and gas production has risen for three straight years.

This is not much of a defense. Walsh is saying Obama is a politician who changes his tune in an election year.

The second argument is better. Walsh says oil is a global commodity. Gas is expensive because oil is expensive. There is not much a president can do about that in the short term.

Walsh says Obama should take some credit for more efficient vehicles. But, it takes a long time to redesign cars, so whatever gains have occurred in the last three years are probably mostly due to regulations previously in effect. Obama has arranged a deal with automakers to raise efficiency standards to 55 miles by 2025 (from 29. 6 in 2011), but that will obviously not affect prices this years

Walsh says the “phoniest knock” is that Obama has thrown up huge roadblocks to domestic oil development. If that is his secret policy he has done a poor job, says Walsh, because production has risen from 5. 18 million in 2005 to 5. 5 million barrels per day last year. This does not qualify as an argument, because all the gains have come from private or state lands. Walsh could also have mentioned that Obama tried to slow production in North Dakota, when he allowed the Justice Department to sue three oil companies because of the death of six ducks.

Against the charge that Obama has not done enough to open federal land for exploration Walsh says the industry is sitting on many onshore drilling permits and have millions of acres under lease in the Gulf that have not been used yet. This is not a good argument, because few permits have been granted in the Gulf since the BP accident. Walsh also should know it makes no sense to drill on acreage unless there is a high probability it contains oil. The fact is the best prospects have not been made available for drilling.

Finally, Walsh claims that even if Obama opened “every coastline and every available square mile of the country to drilling” U. S. production would only account for a small part of the global bucket. This argument is really bad, because it ignores the effect of increased drilling on our balance of payments and the job situation in America.

After the BP spill Obama encouraged the Brazilians to step up the pace of drilling offshore so we could buy more of their oil. This made no sense at all, because if drilling is risky in the Gulf it must be so also offshore Brazil.

It may be that Obama does not want gasoline prices to go up in an election year, but he did select an Energy Department head who said he wanted U. S. gasoline prices to rise to European levels, in order to encourage development of alternative energy. He has just stated he does not think this way in an election year.

We should be thankful that Walsh at least did not mention the much abused talking point that the U. S. has only 2 % of the world’s oil reserves.

It might seem fanciful to link atheism with the loss of jobs in America.

When traditional religion lost out to secularism in our culture the ability to moralize was diminished. Politics helped to fill the void. That is why today lying has become not only acceptable, it is considered proof of commitment to a morally correct viewpoint. The secular creed that has attracted the most fanatic followers is environmentalism.

There is little doubt that human activity has some effect on the environment. The question is how much and what practical steps are available to deal with this problem. The industrial revolution has been supported by cheap energy. Should we feel guilty whenever we get behind the wheel of a car?

Barack Obama says his Republican opponents are “flat-earthers” because they think the solution to high gasoline prices is to drill for more oil. That is yesterday’s fuel, he says. But, Obama also complained that the ATM machine is responsible for the loss of jobs. So, it is not easy to tell who is a Luddite.

Although Obama wants to shift away from yesterday’s fuel in order to concentrate on wind and solar he is also attempting to take credit for the surge in domestic production of oil and natural gas. His opponents say it has increased only because it comes from private or state-controlled land. Production, and new leases, have declined on federal land. Actually, Obama continues to look for ways to curtail production of oil and gas. Today, the New York Times writes that the Department of Agriculture is considering requiring an extensive environmental review before issuing mortgages to people who have leased their land for oil and gas drilling (U. S. May Restrict Mortgages on Properties Leased for Oil and Gas Drilling.)

The Times article says that “full environmental reviews from the Agriculture Department or other agencies would also add new wrinkles to President Obama’s plans to expand domestic drilling, the experts said.” This statement is very odd, because it suggests that Obama has no control over his own cabinet.

The Times story says the head of the Agriculture Department’s New York office has already stated it will no longer be financing homes with gas leases. Officials said this notice is in response to a series of articles in the Times last October, which said that storage of hazardous waste on a property could harm resale value.

The Democratic party is divided about the extent to which domestic production of fossil fuels should be discouraged. Harold Ford Jr., a former Democratic congressman from Tennessee and now a professor of public policy at New York University, writes in the Wall Street Journal that Obama’s achievements may be overshadowed by his inappropriate energy policies (A Tax and Energy Plan to Re-Elect Obama.) Ford says the administration should approve the Keystone pipeline. More of U. S. federal land and offshore areas should be opened for oil and gas development. About New York state Ford says this:

“But in New York, residents are missing out on shale’s potential as environmentalists tie regulators in knots and use half-truths and hyperbole to convince local officials to ban hydraulic fracturing.”

The Times once again demonstrates that it is a tool used by the Obama administration to promote its policies.

A few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal wrote that “some energy companies, state regulators, academics and environmentalists have reached a consensus that natural gas drilling has led to several incidents of water pollution–but not because of fracking” (Faulty Wells, Not Fracking, Blamed for Water Pollution.) The problem is related to poor well construction, and specifically to poor cementing alongside the well casing. In Pennsylvania, where one such incident occurred, Chesapeake Energy has conceded poor well construction may have played a role. The company said changes will be implemented that will add $500,000 to the cost of a well.

The Obama administration’s re-election narrative is designed to work best in states where there are upscale professionals concerned about the environment. States like Virginia and North Carolina are more likely to support Obama than Ohio or Indiana, where there are more industrial workers. The environment takes priority over job growrth. That is how political decisions are made in America.

The emerging debt crisis remains Barack Obama’s greatest vulnerability, far surpassing the concern about rising gasoline prices.

The Washington Post has a lengthy article about the debt discussions that took place last summer (Obama’s Evolution: Behind the Failed ‘Grand Bargain’ on the Debt.) The authors say that when the so-called grand bargain with House speaker Boehner coillapsed Obama “no longer seemed divided.” His goal was now unequivocal: to win a second term.

Actually, Obama had signaled what his priority was much earlier. In a long interview with Ron Susskind, author of The Confidence Men, Obama had complained that governing was messy and it was hard to describe it in a clear narrative that the public can understand. What Obama was saying is he was eager to get back into a campaign mode.

There is a line in the Washington Post story which explains the dilemma Obama is forced to deal with it. It is his Hamlet-like personality. (The analogy is not perfect, because Hamlet was in many ways admirable. His indecision came from a strong desire to do what was right.) The Post line is this;

“He was caught between his own aspirations for historical significance and his inherent political caution.”

It is not easy to be heroic while haunted by fear of failure.

Obama is now trying to devise a clear campaign narrative, which essentially ignores what has happened in the last three years. Daniel Henninger picked up on this theme in an article he wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal (The Magician.) At home and overseas, said Henninger, Obama has “erased three years of rough spots from the hard disc of politics.”

The rough spots were inevitable because of a combination of naivete (inexperience), personality, and contradictory goals.

Obama wanted to be a transformational president, even though his theme in 2008 was that he would also rise above partisanship and unite America. These were obviously contradictory goals. Obamacare was pushed through against united Republican opposition and remains unpopular with the public.

Obama said he would engage, rather than confront our enemies, and negotiate solutions to global problems. His lack of success is perhaps most obvious with respect to Putin’s Russia. Russia (and China) oppose Iranian sanctions and Russia protects Syria in the UN and sells weapons to the Assad regime

Obama’s “green initiatives” have been conspicuous failures. He is reduced to arguing that oil production has increased on “his watch,” even though he has fought hard to restrain both oil and natural gas production in America.

The economic recovery has been disappointingly slow, especially in light of the fact that 40 % of federal spending is borrowed money.

The greatest threat to America is looming bankruptcy. Last Friday the Congressional Budget office said Obama’s tax and spending policies will add $6. 4 trillion of deficits over the next decade. Debt held by the public would total $18. 8 trillion by the end of 2022.(The comparison is with $5. 3 trillion of publicly held debt at the end of 2008.) This understates the problem by several orders of magnitude, because it does not include money owed to Social Security or the unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security.

It is no surprise, therefore, that Obama would prefer the campaign narrative to focus more on free contraceptives than on the exploding debt problem.

.