Back in October I wrote that in some ways Obama resembled no one so much as Salvador Allende. Admittedly, this was one of about ten analogies I made trying to figure out the man who would only speak in platitudes and vague catch phrases, but it is the one which seems to be enjoying recent attention, so I thought it was time to revisit it. And, strangely enough, recent events make it seem a much better analogy than it seemed back in October.

Now, let me start by saying that I have not abandoned my belief that congress is trying to use Obama to enact their agenda, nor that they, and their party proxies, had some role in selecting Obama as something of a catspaw for congress. And he does have the feel of an empty suit fronting for congress. However, I also think he is not entirely aware of this, and, despite congress' beliefs, does have an agenda of his own. I don't know if he will succeed in enacting his agenda, nor do I know if congress with abandon him once polls start to drop, but in looking at Obama in isolation, without thought of congress' plans, he does have some very Allende-like qualities.

For those who did not read my original post, allow me to reproduce it here, as it is short:

People keep comparing Obama to Carter or Clinton or, thanks to his eloquence and cultish appeal, to Hitler. I would offer up an alternative, and one that may have some appeal to those alive in the 70's. Obama is our Salvador Allende, a technocrat socialist, elected to office with an acquiescent legislature, following a period of ever greater government power, who would use that power to rapidly socialize the state. To anyone familiar with the massive damage Allende's "reforms" did to the Chilean economy this is a frightening prospect. (Sadly, the Pinochet government had enough problems of their own that many on the left pass the blame from Allende to Pinochet, allowing Allende to become something of a martyr of the far left.)

Actually, the parallels become rather disturbing when you look into it. Allende's predecessor used powers similar to those granted in Kelo to nationalize a large part of the farmland of Chile, setting the stage for even more sweeping nationalization of farm land and industries. That predecessor, Montalva, was a nominal conservative who had nonetheless engaged in many left-leaning reforms, including education reform and a sweeping reform of pharmaceutical distribution.

Like any analogy, it is obviously an imperfect fit. And even were it a perfect fit, it would be no guarantee that history will follow the same pattern. South American nations have, with some exceptions, followed a more tumultuous course than those of the United States, and the constitutions of various nations differ enough that even the same circumstances are unlikely to produce the same outcomes.

But still, to see an Allende-like figure following our own nominally conservative president who enacted many leftist policies is a bit frightening.

Nothing that has come since has really caused me to reconsider any of those statements. If anything, what has happened since the inauguration has convinced me that it was actually a pretty good guess as to Obama's intentions. (Guesses were really all we had in October, 2008 as he would not tell us what he really believed, and his miniscule record only told us he supported abortion more strongly than NARAL and liked to vote "present" on many other matters.)

Let us look at Obama's proposals.

First, he wants to enact a cap and trade plan. On the surface, it seems the usual "green" policy, but we need to be wary. Once the government involves itself in every firm, as will be needed to monitor "carbon emissions", and enacts regulations telling them how much carbon they may emit, how much more work is it to completely direct industry? As with most "green" laws, environmental legislation tends inevitably toward the government regimentation of industry.

Second, he has promised the first steps in enacting socialized medicine. Again, this is coming through the back door, or two in this case. First, the cost-effectiveness studies buried in the "stimulus" bill, and then through the plans to provide insurance to the supposed 46 million uninsured.

Third, the constant rumors of bank nationalization. While they are coming form third parties, it is hard to believe that so many could be broaching the topic without some official hints in that direction. (And, just like Allende, the socialist reformer has a model from his, supposedly conservative, predecessor, who nationalized AIG.)

All of which has the familiar feel. It is nothing but a slower version of the very familiar South American nationalization schemes which have plagued businesses trying to operate in the southern hemisphere for decades. Granted, our nation is not yet ready for full nationalization, but they are already being indoctrinated into thinking nationalization is appropriate in medicine and maybe banking.

More disturbing, but strongly supporting my analogy, is Obama's continued reliance on class envy and crisis mindset to force through his agenda. Not only is he scaring people to push through his "reforms", but he is implying the blame rests with Wall Street, criticizing CEO salaries, promising to impoverish those making more than $250,000 and so on. And more, he is also playing the Allende-like reformer card, offering to provide medical care and houses for everyone. By pinning blame on the rich and offering to effectively redistribute their wealth to the poor, he is definitely falling into the socialist mode.

But what makes him so Allende-like is not just the socialism, but the way he promises to pay for it. He is not just an agitator, he is a technocrat. He will introduce "efficiencies" to pay for this, and he offers up huge masses of numbers to prove it will work. Rather than just say "kill the plutocrats and take their goods", he tosses out imaginary numbers showing how he can promise the moon and deliver*, cutting the deficit while expanding the budget. And that technocratic policy is where he truly resembles Allende**.

I suppose time will tell. We will have to see if he manages to ram through all his reforms, or if falling popularity cuts the support he needs. But if he manages to hold on, and to enact all that he hopes, I have a feeling the results will be just as disappointing here as they were in Chile***.

------------------------------------------------------------

* This is why I am skeptical of the FairTax as well. Along with all of my technical objections, the tone of the presentation is disturbingly technocratic. They use a lot of numbers (most quite speculative) to "prove" they will keep the same level of spending while cutting taxes and eliminating bureaucracy. As their solution has enough complications of its own, the idea of eliminating bureaucracy is absurd, and as their savings all come form promised lack of a bureaucracy, the whole thing falls apart. But that is the topic for other posts, which I wrote quite some time ago.

** His off the cuff comment about a civilian "security force" sounded frightening dictatorial as well, but he wisely dropped it as soon as he saw the angry response.

*** That is the most disturbing part of Obama's agenda. Almost everything he proposes has been tried many times for over a century in other nations, and has yet to succeed. Why does he think this time will be any less of a failure?

---------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

This topic actually deserves a bit more attention. While putting this together I noticed how many of Obama's ideas followed the thinking of various nationalization schemes in other nations. However, work intruded and I am afraid I didn't have the time to go into all the detail I wanted. But as I think this is an interesting topic, I figured it better to post a quite imperfect essay and correct it with a better one later rather than wait and say nothing for the moment.

So, should I find time, I am going to come back tot his and write something much more elaborate when work distractions are not an issue.