Historical Parallels: Then and Now…Economic Conditions and the Obama Phenomenon(Historical data obtained from Wikipedia)
History shows us that countries have an unusual tendency to put into power dangerous leaders during times of economic trials.
Take the country of Chile for example. Chile elects in 1970 a communist president in Salvador Allende. He only garners 36% of the popular vote, barely 1% more then his closest opponent. Not sufficient for a win so the decision goes to the Chilean Congress to choose. Traditionally the candidate with the highest popular vote is selected by Congress. The Chilean Congress agreed to select Allende only upon him signing a “Statute of Constitutional Guarantees” as they doubted Allende’s allegiance to democracy.
Allende tried 3 other times to win the presidency. But on his 4th try Chile’s economy was in the tank as it was experiencing 34.9% inflation. He ran on a “Change” platform. His soothing words to the economically suffering Chileans got him elected and he immediately began to implement his changes.
Like Obama he wanted a Nationalize Health Care and he did. He didn’t stop with Health Care however; he went on to nationalize large-scale industries (notably copper mining and banking), the educational system, and a plan of land seizure and redistribution.
The US government has already started down the road of bank ownership. Obama may have seen this coming as evidenced by being the 2nd largest recipient of money from Freddy Mac and Fannie May. Communist Allende’s asset redistribution plan was that of land; Obama’s is the redistribution of Capital Income and Ordinary Income.
Allende put forth his plans and it did bring change to Chile. Chile went up to 140% inflation in 1972 but it got worse the longer he held office. In 1973 inflation was at 503%! So if you think things where bad with double digit inflation during the Carter years imagine how triple digit inflation would be!
The average Real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 was a negative growth in Chile; and the government’s fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined. The combination of inflation and government-mandated price-fixing, together with the “disappearance” of basic commodities from supermarket shelves, led to the rise of black markets. The Allende government announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments.
Allende’s domestic policies sound a lot like Obama’s domestic policies and look what it did to the Chilean economy in less than four years! Do we really want to take a chance with those kind of failed economic stategies here in the U.S.? Not only did those “Changes” destroy an entire country’s economy it also wiped out a democratic republic that had been in existence for almost 50 years!
The Chilean government was modeled after that of the United States but even so, the election of the wrong man to it’s top office led to grave consequences for the nation.
Other “changes” where accomplished by Allende as well in foreign affairs. In 1971, Chile re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba, rejecting a previously-established Organization of American States convention prohibiting governments in the Western Hemisphere from establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. Shortly afterward, Cuban president Fidel Castro made a month-long visit to Chile. The visit, in which Castro held massive rallies and gave public advice to Allende.
Allende opened diplomatic relations with Cuba, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), and Albania, and befriended the Soviet Union. Don’t we know of one of the candidates wanting to have a more standard communication with some of those same countries?According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB bureaucrat, regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to “exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy”. According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile’s army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively. Why is it that so many of the countries that don’t like us prefer an Obama Presidency? Do they anticipate a more “posistive reaction” to their “influence?”Does that sound a lot like the Obama doctrine of sitting down with the enemy without preconditions? Kind of makes you wonder just what the Obama Doctrine could get us into doesn’t it?
Let’s not make the same mistake that Chile did. At least with McCain we know what we are getting. The unknown with Obama is too much of a risk especially when his political stump sounds so much like Salvador Allende’s did back in 1970!
How about the German experiment with Hitler? In the early 1930s, the mood in Germany was grim. The worldwide economic depression had hit the country especially hard and Germans lacked confidence in their government. These conditions provided the chance for the rise of a new leader, Adolf Hitler, and his party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazi party for short. Sound a lot like today’s sentiment of many Americans?
Hitler was a powerful and spellbinding speaker who attracted a wide following of Germans desperate for change. He promised the disenchanted a better life and a new and glorious Germany. The Nazis appealed especially to the unemployed, young people, and members of the lower middle class. Does this sound a lot like America’s very own Obama?In January 1933 Hitler was appointed chancellor, the head of the German government, and many Germans believed that they had found a savior for their nation. Will Obama be in 2008 what Hitler was to Germany in 1933?
Just as Allende’s rise to power brought down a democratic republic in Chile, Hitler’s rise to power also brought an end to the post WWI democratic republic that had been established in Germany.Let’s take a look at what contributed to Vladimir Ilich Lenin’s rise to power: WWI was dragging on. A great many people felt that the Czar was out of touch with the people and were unhappy with the war. Sound familiar? Lenin, a superb speaker, he could hold audiences at rapt attention with his powerful speeches (New Generation). People became convinced of his socialist views. (Haney) Do we know of anyone during the 08 election that also fit’s this description?Lenin hatched a plan with the Germans to get him into Russia to rally the people into revolt against the Czar. In return Lenin would end the war with Germany. Lenin was able to fan the flames of revolt among a people who were hungry and tired. He preached a message of hope via land and wealth redistribution. Many bought into his dream and many died. Lenin was named president of the Society of People’s Commissars (Communist Party). The war with Germany was ended immediately (his battle cry had been “Bread not War”). Russia lost the bread basket of the Ukraine to Germany. Land was redistributed, and factories, mines, banks and utilities were all taken over by the state. The Russian Orthodox Church was disestablished. Doesn’t Lenin’s deal with the German’s 90 years ago sound very similar to Obama’s deal for ending the war? We also see Lenin’s political theme of asset redistribution and nationalization of industry and social services in the Obama platform. Again in Lenin we see a dangerous man gaining power during economic national weakness.I hope that Americans do not vote for the kind of “change” that these other nations had to suffer through. I hope that we can make a sober choice even in the midst of our economic woes. Seeing the devastating repercussions that can result from an unknown and untested leader I am urging my fellow Americans to take a second thought before casting a vote for Barrack Hussein Obama.Bruce Alford; Los Angeles, California