I’ve been persuaded that Barack Obama’s domestic policy agenda is designed to do one thing – foster chaos and crisis.
Knowing his relationship with ACORN and the agenda of the Cloward-Piven strategy behind it, nothing else makes sense. It even explains why his promotion of a national health-care strategy was designed to fail.
Most Americans still can’t conceive of the notion that a president of the United States would actually want to promote policies that could never work in the conventional understanding of the word “work.”
But if your ultimate goal is greater and greater state control of the population and the economy, which Obama’s ultimate goal surely is, then it all begins to make sense.
In short, the state intrudes and intervenes in the lives of an ever-increasing number of people and businesses. It disrupts the economy and demoralizes the populace, stripping them of freedom and increasing their dependence on government. When this happens, crises occur. And these crises represent opportunities for even more power grabs by government.
I think most people reading my columns understand this principle and agree this insidious strategy is behind just about everything Obama does on the domestic agenda.
But what about foreign policy?
Is there an application for the Cloward-Piven strategy in international affairs?
I believe there is. And I think we are seeing some tell-tale signs of it in action in the Middle East.
First of all, on foreign policy, the Washington elite favor internationalism. This is true not just of Obama, but the Republican elite, too. It has been true of all our presidents following Ronald Reagan – George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama. The policies of internationalist interventionism is supported by John Boehner, as we saw in his unconditional and enthusiastic support for Obama’s plans to attack Syria. It is supported by John McCain and Lindsey Graham. It is supported by Mitch McConnell. And it is supported by many others on both sides of the aisle.
What’s the goal of international interventionism? It is to promote a global one-world order – or New World Order, as George H.W. Bush candidly explained a long time ago. Like the Cloward-Piven strategy for promoting statism with crises at home, you can think of international interventionism – not as a last resort but as a first resort – as the Cloward-Piven version of foreign policy.
It doesn’t matter if the war is “won” or “lost.” Either outcome leads to more interventionism by multinational coalitions that have nothing to do with the national security interests of the U.S.
Until very recently, you could easily predict what the U.S. was going to do in any foreign escapade based on the interests of Saudi Arabia. The U.S. military has virtually become a mercenary army of the Saudi oil sheikhs. That was not good, but it was predictable and understandable.
But something has changed recently.
When Obama faced serious opposition domestically to attacking Syria at the behest of the Saudis, he changed directions.
He didn’t just back down on the planned attack. He also did a 180-degree turn on Iran. Now he’s talking to Iran. He is proposing a cutback on sanctions against Iran.
This has been a major shock to the Saudis – not to mention the Iranians.
The Saudis fear Iran’s Shiite mullahs more than Israel does. And the Iranians hate the Sunni Saudis who control the holy places in Mecca as much as they hate Israel.
So, what’s going on here?
Why is Obama apparently turning away from Saudi Arabia after bowing and scraping to its leaders since he entered office?
It’s because Obama doesn’t have what we would call a coherent foreign policy at all. It’s simply about fostering crises that only international authorities can resolve. He is not concerned with the national security interests of the U.S. He is not concerned with shedding some American military blood in pointless conflicts that actually make the world more unsafe. He is not concerned that foreign leaders are confused by his actions.
It’s the Cloward-Piven strategy taken to the world stage.
|
