Obama on 60 Minutes: Wants to "emulate" FDR and a "willingness to try things."

In an interview with 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft, President-elect Barack Obama shed some light on to his political thought: "what you see in FDR that I hope my team can-- emulate, is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence, and a willingness to try things. And experiment in order to get people working again."

This kind of nonsense would be easily dismissible save for the fact that it's absolutely dangerous. I expected him to be elected and to be very liberal, but the idea that he actually said this really does scare the hell out of me. It's either extremely ignorant on his part or a legitimate attempt to fundamentally change this country.

One of the biggest problems about liberalism is that liberals usually tend to oversimplify economics. They do not understand, or choose to ignore, the unintended consequences and secondary effect of any governmental program or action. For example, Welfare was supposed to be a great thing, but it actually helped cause the breakdown of the black family as the father's role as breadwinner and provider was usurped by a government check doled out on the 1st and 15th of every month. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) actually dissentivized (or dis-incentivized) two-parent households and working single mothers. No one had the foresight to predict this consequence. A well-intentioned piece of legislation was instrumental is tearing down the family structure of ~12% of our nations population!

Messing with an economy as interconnected and difficult to comprehensively understand as ours will always have huge consequences, that's a fact. These consequences aren't limited to the economic realm -or corporate America-either, as seen above. (note: You can thank my favorite politician, Newt Gingrich, for forcing welfare reform on Clinton after he vetoed it twince, I think, in the form of Temporary Aid to Needy Families TANF).

In this case, Obama is saying he understands there will be unintended consequences when he and his cohorts in Congress meddle with theeconomy, but he's OK with that. In other words, governmental action is better than a reclusive government. This violates one of the primary axioms that has made the US so unique and successful: Maximizing economic freedom.
Obama's tinkering with the economy is also a gross violation of individual freedom. If a "rich" person's taxes are going to go upbecause of the actions of the Congress and President, there must be ademonstrable clear and present issue that needs rectifying. Arbitrarily raising taxes based on whimsical language like "a willingness to try things" is an assault of freedom on those wageearners and wealth-creators. Any limitation on our freedom (taxation) is only justifiable if the ends are legitimate. "Experiment[ing]" on such a grand scale is not legitimate in the slightest. Every action our government takes should be prudent, slow and the bare minimum(unlike all the recent bailouts).

Words have consequences! His comments may seem trivial, but for a man who voiced his intentions of "creating 5 million 'green collar jobs'", we probably should believe him

Finally, I will not grant ANY of Obama's "points" about FDR, whoselegacy of wealth redistribution helped propel this country down thepath towards socialism. In my view, his legacy was bailed out by thewar, which reenergized out industrial means. But, that's for anotherdebate. Take away from FDR that many of his programs lived out theirpurpose- do we really need a Rural Electrification Administration tothis day-despite that its "name has been changed to protect how guiltyit is?" Was Reagan right, or what, when he said, "Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a governmentbureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on thisearth!"?