Say it enough times and it becomes so. That’s what the Obama administration has practiced. Perhaps Obama actually believes it too. If things don’t work out the way they like them, rewrite the results, re-frame the issue and its starting points and voila, it is what they say it is.
This started with renaming the recession Obama inherited as “the great recession.” That made it possible for him to justify his failing economic policy. His policy was not the problem. The problem was that it was the great recession heaped upon him by President Bush. He’s said it repeatedly, reiterated it regularly. So have his staff and his advisors, advisors more concerned with his place in history than with the country’s well-being, and so have all the lapdogs of his party.
But saying something doesn’t make it so, just as feelings aren’t facts. Yes. It was a severe recession. But his goal was a socialist economy, so he made moves (like taking over GM and killing the energy industry to bolster solar energy), which were wrong moves. He moved this way with Obamacare, a clear attempt at a Federal takeover of the medical industry more than an attempt to help people. That worked out great, didn’t it? Then he squandered a billion-dollar bailout. Oops, he said. I guess those shovel-ready jobs weren’t so shovel-ready. Almost simultaneously, those solar companies went belly up.
No matter what things are named or who is blamed for them, they still are what they are. Repeat that it was the great recession and Bush is to blame for it over and over again, keep saying it and have the media keep saying it and maybe some people will believe it. But a duck is a duck, no matter what it’s called. Obama’s socialist policies and his monetizing the debt, which he said he wouldn’t do, have caused the economic failure he still blames on Bush and the Congress. Even worse, his keeping interest rates at zero, his over-regulating small businesses and his overseeing of the infusion of illegal aliens have hurt the very people he would have us believe he wanted to help. Those actions drove down wages, discouraged business expansion and destroyed small business initiative and growth. Bush and Congress didn’t do that for the past eight years. The rich got richer due to stocks soaring, not from growth and prosperity, because the stock market was the only place to put money with zero interest rates.
Nice going, Barack. Say what you will, blame who you will, make up new names and try to rewrite things more favorably to you, but still they are what they are.
Finally, just a couple of things more. Calling turning back immigrants caught at the border a deportation is revising the definition of the word. So Obama really hasn’t deported anywhere near the number of people he says he has. Saying he created the jobs he has doesn’t speak to the types of jobs they are, many of them being part-time jobs due to Obamacare’s 29-hour rule. Redefining a job to say part-time jobs are jobs in the marketplace is a misnomer. While that started in Bush’s last year as President, it increased significantly with Obama. Regardless, his job count is still skewed for several reasons and his statements about his job creation are part of his revisionism.
Revisionism can be dangerous. At its worst, one could rewrite The Holocaust making it so it never happened. People have tried. Rewriting history to suit a particular narrative is nefarious. Obama’s people have played fast and loose with our history and with words. Continually saying something as if it is fact doesn’t make it fact. There’s a difference between revision, the actual correcting of things, and revisionism, the purposeful changing of what occurred to suit one’s own personal narrative. In Obama’s case, he’s used revisionism to rewrite his actions for his place in history. Hillary did it to try to get elected. Neither one will be successful since things really are what they are, not what any one person says they are.