Tyranny is more efficient

Obama is one with Thomas Friedman: tyranny is so awesome when a guy wants to get something done. Our president suggests that an excess of liberty may not work in today's world:

"If this pattern continues, you're going to see an inability on the part of America to deal with big problems in a very competitive world, and other countries are going to start running circles around us," Obama warned.

Charles Hurt, NY Post, writes:

What he is saying is that other governments around the world -- those tyrannical states that do not share our respect for the minority -- are better forms of government, better equipped to compete in this modern world.

This is a frightening new side of Barack Obama.

Frightening, yes. New, not at all. Stanley Kurtz was all over Obama's Alinskyist thuggery and distaste for dissent before the election. Back in April, we found this remark ever so revealing: when asked what he found "humbling" in his first hundred days as POTUS, Obama answered:

Humbled by the — humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful, but we are just part of a much broader tapestry of American life, and there are a lot of different power centers. And so I can’t just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want or, you know, turn on a switch and suddenly, you know, Congress falls in line.

He still has not accepted this reality. From Jennifer Rubin:

Hurt writes: “His casting aspersions on the very genius of the American government because he can’t get his way is cause for alarm.” But it is nothing new. The Obami have little patience for opposition or dissent, whether it comes from town-hall attendees, Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, or the U.S. Senate. They have mastered the art of the Friday-afternoon news dump on major developments (e.g., KSM’s civilian trial), have stiffed congressmen and an independent commission on inquiries regarding the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case, and won’t release data on Guantanamo recidivism. They need not answer to anyone, it seems. And they have little or no patience with the process of lawmaking so long as they get a bill, any bill, to tout as a win.

It is the impatience of a president frustrated with the pace of democracy, unwilling to explain what his administration is up to, and annoyed that the country no longer falls at his feet. He can no longer inspire or convince with rhetoric so he rails and pouts. Perhaps we should have elected someone with a superior temperament. [emphasis added]

Take that, you effete-elite connoisseurs of the first-class temperament, the perfectly creased pant, and Reinhold Niebuhr pseudo-intellectualism. You know who you are. And thanks for doing your part in electing a man who is the exact opposite of George Washington, the president who wouldn't be king.

Most recent posts here.