Obama’s Fascist “Partnership” With Big Business

As President Obama was gearing up for the budget battle with Republicans that would eventually lead to this Fall's partial government shutdown, the president issued a threat to American big businessmen that could have been uttered by any fascist dictator: “Do as we government officials say, or else.”

Of course, Obama didn't actually say that word for word. What he actually said is that he wants to "partner" with American big business to achieve his domestic policy goals:

As The Daily Caller's Neil Munro reported on September 18:

President Barack Obama told business leaders today that he wants close cooperation between his government and their companies.
“We want to be a consistent partner with you on a whole range of issues,” he told the D.C.-based Business Roundtable, an association for the CEOs of major U.S. companies. . . .    
The proposed partnership would have CEOs lobby Congress for passage of Obama’s goals, including passage of a Senate bill that triples the rate of immigration to add 33 million immigrants over the next decade, and passage of a budget that doesn’t cut Obamacare’s federally-run health-care system, Obama suggested. . . .
“It is going to be important for all of you, I think, over the next several weeks to understand what’s at stake and to make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way you can”, said Obama.

Obama was referring to the economic consequences of a government shutdown, but his words carry much broader implications than immediate economic concerns.

A partnership implies a voluntary agreement between legally equal participants geared toward a common goal.

But there is no legal equality between a government that holds prosecutorial, tax, and regulatory powers—the power of the gun—over its private business “partners.” In the kind of “partnership” Obama “proposed”, what choice do these Business Roundtable executives have but to “lobby Congress for passage of Obama’s goals?” What choice do the businessmen have but to do any of the government’s bidding—”on a whole range of issues”—when the government can hold its legal powers over the heads of the businessmen? Just look at the regulatory meat grinder that JPMorgan is being put through.

There are, to be sure, businessmen who gleefully relish into such "public-private partnerships." They are the kinds of businessmen who flourish in a mixed economy (a mixture of economic freedom and government controls)—the kind that seeks to "succeed" by government favor, rather than open competition in a free market. But that does not change the nature of the game. It is the government that always calls the shots, whether or not the government officials are doing the bidding of select businessmen or some other special interest.

Obama is, of course, not the first president to "partner" with big business. But he has been the most brazen at cashing in on the powers that government has accrued over the private economy over the last century. As Munro notes:

Obama is not a socialist, because he does not believe the government needs to own companies and factories. Instead, he’s a progressive who believes the nation’s economy and society should be managed by government experts, not by the varied preferences of individual CEOs, parents and workers.

Obama, though, is definitely a socialist in terms of deep fundamentals. He understands that there is a backdoor means of attaining socialist goals, just as certain 20th European leaders understood. As Adolph Hitler said of his brand of national socialism: "The decisive factor is that the State . . . is supreme over all, regardless of whether they are owners or workers. . . . Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

Obama, of course, is not Hitler. But can anyone honestly say that Obama would disagree with Hitler? There is a political system that features the kind of unholy alliance between government and big business Obama speaks of, although the Left is not honest enough to name it. So-called “progressives” were fascist a hundred years ago and they’re fascist under Obama.

Obama’s not-so-veiled threat to the Business Roundtable should serve as a warning to Americans: We are heading down a dangerous road. The liberty of businessmen to act on their own judgement in pursuit of their own values—and, ultimately, the liberty of the rest of us to do the same, “whether they are owners or workers”— is “what’s at stake.” If America is to reverse the trend toward its own brand of national socialist fascism, Americans must demand an end to the kinds of “close cooperation” proposed by Obama. Instead, to restore and guarantee our full liberty, we must move toward the separation of economics and state, also known as laissez-faire capitalism.

Related Reading:

Fed Up With the Political Status Quo? Discover the "Unknown Ideal"