As the Obama administration starts its second hundred days, the warnings of its early critics seem ever more prescient: this administration is devoted to expanding the power, scope, and role of the federal government, extending into nearly every aspect of people’s lives. The examples are countless.
But there’s an alternative explanation for all this, and it’s a bit radical.
Consider this: one of the basic tenets of libertarianism is distrust of government. And that distrust is proportional — the bigger the government, the greater the distrust. Hence the emphasis among libertarians on the primacy of state and local governments, and especially individuals, on matters not specifically reserved for the federal government. Perhaps Obama is trying to convince us all of the dangers of an overpowering federal government by demonstrating — as quickly and forcefully as possible — just how bad things can be.
— Banking. With the TARP bailout program, many banks found themselves indebted to the federal government. Some genuinely needed the assistance; others were pressured into accepting the funds to provide “cover” and help conceal which banks were in serious trouble. Shortly thereafter, those banks started feeling the pressure that came with those dollars. Bank of America was forced into buying up Merrill Lynch. It has now come out that Bank of America tried to back out of the arrangement when they got a good look at Merrill’s books, but were pressured by the federal government to complete the deal. It was the carrot of federal money with the big stick of federal power that pushed that deal through — but it ended up costing Ken Lewis his position as the Bank’s Board Chairmanship.
— The auto industry. Last fall, two of the Big Three automakers found themselves in such dire straits that they sought federal bailouts. General Motors and Chrysler are now feeling the heat. GM was told it needed to fire its CEO and Chrysler was pushed into accepting a new ownership — a partnership between the United Auto Workers union and Italian carmaker Fiat. And to speed things along, the government leaned on some of Chrysler’s biggest creditors — banks that had accepted TARP bailout money — to accept pennies on the dollar as part of the restructuring. That particular plan was shot down by a rebellion of some creditors.
— Health care. President Obama has made it clear that he intends to “reform” the health care business, and some of his more vocal and powerful supporters have openly stated that a part of the plan is to destroy the private health care industry.
Most recently, Andrew McCarthy — a 20-year veteran of the Department of Justice was invited to participate in a roundtable discussion at the White House as an expert on how to proceed in handling terrorism detainees. Mr. McCarthy declined the invitation in a scorching public letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. The key paragraph:
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President,
it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice
Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers
legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers
who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to
investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in
addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical
misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to
hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Mr. McCarthy’s point: if you agree to work with the federal government, you will soon find yourself working for the federal government — and if they choose to change the circumstances of that “partnership,” you better learn to live with it.
So, is Obama trying to present a comprehensive picture of the travesty of big government? No, that’s so improbable as to be essentially impossible. But it’s slightly more comforting than the thought that the President of the United States is doing what he is doing while sincerely believing that it is actually going to make America better.
