How Would the World Vote?

Abuse of executive privilege and appointment of czars accountable only to the president are but the most conspicuous examples of the hostility the Obama presidency has shown toward the constraints on power that our Founders labored mightily to put in place.

Connecting known dots easily explains this hostility.  First elected to office in the infamously corrupt environment that is Chicago politics, Obama considered left-wing radicals Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky mentors and associated with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn -- facts carefully massaged during the 2008 campaign.

Some of these dots also explain the Obama administration's treatment of voter ID laws as a thorn in the side.  After his stint as small cog in the big machine of a state that elected the likes of Rod Blagojevich governor, how else would Obama consider laws designed to make sure that only (living!) U.S. citizens cast one ballot per person to be but obstacles to power to be overcome?

Which leads me to a related but entirely hypothetical question that turns out to be very instructive indeed: if Obama could (never mind how) get the world to vote in the U.S. presidential election in November, which countries would vote for him and which for Romney?  What lesson should Americans draw from the results?

In case this possibility seems utterly preposterous, keep in mind that such a crazy stunt would fit perfectly within the character of the most narcissistic president we've ever had.  Come to think of it, Obama would go after the Martian and the Venusian vote, too, while he's at it, to achieve truly universal approval.  No special wooing of the Venusians would be required, however, beyond the "war on women" propaganda.

Back on Earth, let's go through countries one at a time and see how they would vote.

Russia: Obama.  While the good old days of Soviet citizens marching in lockstep are gone -- the Charlotte convention was a good approximation -- it's a safe bet that Obama would get the nod from our former Enemy #1.  The reasons are simple: a weak America is in Russia's interest; they see Obama as a fellow-traveling socialist; and let's not forget that Obama told Medvedev over a hot mike that "[t]his is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

China: Obama.  Like Russia, China is happy to see a weak America unwilling or unable to challenge it in what the Chinese, who just launched their first aircraft carrier, consider their backyard.  Despite our ballooning national debt, China knows that America would never declare bankruptcy and default on its foreign debt.  Romney, on the other hand, has openly accused China of cheating and pledged to take decisive action.  Communist Party bosses will have to burn the midnight oil to calm fears of retribution and reassure the Shanghai Stock Exchange that Romney can be "managed."  No such efforts will be required under an Obama second term.  It will be back to business as usual.  American patent-holders beware!

Cuba: Obama.  It would surprise no one to see Obama decide during his second term that it's high time relations with Cuba be normalized, as part of his "legacy."  How he would sell this idea to a reluctant Republican Congress is a good question.  If he fails, Obama will just have to issue yet another executive order after an impassioned speech at the U.N. applauded by the usual suspects.  A Cuba czar to smooth the process is also a possibility.  What's one more czar?  Because the president is a smoker, he probably can't wait to light up a real Cuban cigar with the Castro brothers on the White House lawn, MSM stalwarts along for the photo op.  Saul Alinsky would be proud.

North Korea: Obama.  Newly promoted to the rank of marshal on a fast track besting Obama's, Kim Jong-un will need four quiet years to consolidate his death-grip on that impoverished country.  Obama will oblige by laying off talk of unification or any other potentially destabilizing policies.  While Obama probably figures he can let the Japanese worry about North Korea's nukes, a Romney administration is bound to overhaul America's foreign policy top to bottom, potentially spoiling the plans of North Korea's ruling elite to stay in power in perpetuity.

Iran: Obama.  The leadership in Tehran sees Romney's support of Israel as a serious threat and figures that the odds of war would be significantly higher under a Republican administration.  Recall also that the Obama administration stood by and did absolutely nothing during the Green Revolution of 2009-10, which started with protests in major Iranian cities disputing Ahmadinejad's victory over opposition candidates.  The Iranians may have watched Obama grim-faced at the U.N. the other day, but they secretly must have breathed a sigh of relief as he said nothing new.  Obama in his second term will likely pressure Israel not to undertake military action against Iran in return for (behind-the-scenes) oil-related "incentives" that might lower the price of gas in this country.

Syria: Obama.  The Obama administration proved time and again that it has no interest in doing anything about the bloody civil war in Syria, which began in March 2011 as part of the Arab Spring.  Some 20,000 civilians have died at the hands of government forces so far, according to various sources, with no end in sight.  Imprisonment of tens of thousands of protesters and widespread torture in government prisons appear not to trouble the Obama administration either, unlike previous ones including Jimmy Carter's.  America is staying out, and that's just the way the butcher Assad likes it.

Egypt: Obama.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the new jihadist kid on the block and as such will need time to consolidate power, turn Egypt into an Islamic republic under sharia law, and eventually exert a level of influence in the Middle East comparable to what Mubarak was able to achieve.  Romney's support of Israel is bad news for Egypt's bosses as much as for Iran's.  They'd much rather have four more years of "leading from behind" under Obama to complete Israel's encirclement and achieve its eventual destruction.  An Egypt-Iran alliance is not far-fetched at all.  Can Iraq and Jordan resist pressures to join while America sits on the sidelines looking helpless?

Mexico: Obama.  During a recent interview, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos criticized Obama for failing to keep his promise to pass an immigration bill during his first year as president.  Ramos reminded Obama that "you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform."  Mexico I'm sure has cheered this abysmal failure on the part of the administration.  While the "Fast and Furious" scandal means no more free guns for Mexican drug lords (woo hoo), continued lax border enforcement under an Obama second term means the north-to-south flow of cash from Mexicans working illegally in the U.S. will continue uninterrupted.  This money, to the tune of millions of dollars a year, adds significantly to Mexico's economy.  Romney's immigration policy may well change all that.

I should hasten to add that the list of Obama's international supporters probably would include European nations that are genuine democracies such as France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece.  They would support Obama and not Romney largely because of concerns that a new administration would pressure them through the IMF and the World Bank, where the U.S. holds a dominant position, to implement urgently needed austerity measures.  Keep in mind also that the above countries are socialist nanny states, whose philosophy of government Romney has made clear he utterly abhors.

Who would be in Romney's corner?

Israel surely belongs at the top of the list of nations that would love nothing better than to see America return to what it was under Reagan as leader of the free world.  Britain and Germany probably feel the same way, as do former Soviet bloc countries admitted into NATO ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall such as Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria.  The world's largest democracy, India, almost certainly worries about Iran's nuclear ambitions and would strongly prefer a Romney administration; one Islamic state armed with nukes, Pakistan, is bad enough.  Obama's dithering foreign policy must also be of concern to Japan as it stares down North Korean missiles.

So, as Americans get ready to go to the polls in November, they have two choices: vote as anti-American regimes would if only they could, or elect a new leadership committed to restoring American exceptionalism.  It's as simple as that.

I sincerely hope Mitt Romney makes something like this point in an upcoming debate.

Abuse of executive privilege and appointment of czars accountable only to the president are but the most conspicuous examples of the hostility the Obama presidency has shown toward the constraints on power that our Founders labored mightily to put in place.

Connecting known dots easily explains this hostility.  First elected to office in the infamously corrupt environment that is Chicago politics, Obama considered left-wing radicals Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky mentors and associated with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn -- facts carefully massaged during the 2008 campaign.

Some of these dots also explain the Obama administration's treatment of voter ID laws as a thorn in the side.  After his stint as small cog in the big machine of a state that elected the likes of Rod Blagojevich governor, how else would Obama consider laws designed to make sure that only (living!) U.S. citizens cast one ballot per person to be but obstacles to power to be overcome?

Which leads me to a related but entirely hypothetical question that turns out to be very instructive indeed: if Obama could (never mind how) get the world to vote in the U.S. presidential election in November, which countries would vote for him and which for Romney?  What lesson should Americans draw from the results?

In case this possibility seems utterly preposterous, keep in mind that such a crazy stunt would fit perfectly within the character of the most narcissistic president we've ever had.  Come to think of it, Obama would go after the Martian and the Venusian vote, too, while he's at it, to achieve truly universal approval.  No special wooing of the Venusians would be required, however, beyond the "war on women" propaganda.

Back on Earth, let's go through countries one at a time and see how they would vote.

Russia: Obama.  While the good old days of Soviet citizens marching in lockstep are gone -- the Charlotte convention was a good approximation -- it's a safe bet that Obama would get the nod from our former Enemy #1.  The reasons are simple: a weak America is in Russia's interest; they see Obama as a fellow-traveling socialist; and let's not forget that Obama told Medvedev over a hot mike that "[t]his is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

China: Obama.  Like Russia, China is happy to see a weak America unwilling or unable to challenge it in what the Chinese, who just launched their first aircraft carrier, consider their backyard.  Despite our ballooning national debt, China knows that America would never declare bankruptcy and default on its foreign debt.  Romney, on the other hand, has openly accused China of cheating and pledged to take decisive action.  Communist Party bosses will have to burn the midnight oil to calm fears of retribution and reassure the Shanghai Stock Exchange that Romney can be "managed."  No such efforts will be required under an Obama second term.  It will be back to business as usual.  American patent-holders beware!

Cuba: Obama.  It would surprise no one to see Obama decide during his second term that it's high time relations with Cuba be normalized, as part of his "legacy."  How he would sell this idea to a reluctant Republican Congress is a good question.  If he fails, Obama will just have to issue yet another executive order after an impassioned speech at the U.N. applauded by the usual suspects.  A Cuba czar to smooth the process is also a possibility.  What's one more czar?  Because the president is a smoker, he probably can't wait to light up a real Cuban cigar with the Castro brothers on the White House lawn, MSM stalwarts along for the photo op.  Saul Alinsky would be proud.

North Korea: Obama.  Newly promoted to the rank of marshal on a fast track besting Obama's, Kim Jong-un will need four quiet years to consolidate his death-grip on that impoverished country.  Obama will oblige by laying off talk of unification or any other potentially destabilizing policies.  While Obama probably figures he can let the Japanese worry about North Korea's nukes, a Romney administration is bound to overhaul America's foreign policy top to bottom, potentially spoiling the plans of North Korea's ruling elite to stay in power in perpetuity.

Iran: Obama.  The leadership in Tehran sees Romney's support of Israel as a serious threat and figures that the odds of war would be significantly higher under a Republican administration.  Recall also that the Obama administration stood by and did absolutely nothing during the Green Revolution of 2009-10, which started with protests in major Iranian cities disputing Ahmadinejad's victory over opposition candidates.  The Iranians may have watched Obama grim-faced at the U.N. the other day, but they secretly must have breathed a sigh of relief as he said nothing new.  Obama in his second term will likely pressure Israel not to undertake military action against Iran in return for (behind-the-scenes) oil-related "incentives" that might lower the price of gas in this country.

Syria: Obama.  The Obama administration proved time and again that it has no interest in doing anything about the bloody civil war in Syria, which began in March 2011 as part of the Arab Spring.  Some 20,000 civilians have died at the hands of government forces so far, according to various sources, with no end in sight.  Imprisonment of tens of thousands of protesters and widespread torture in government prisons appear not to trouble the Obama administration either, unlike previous ones including Jimmy Carter's.  America is staying out, and that's just the way the butcher Assad likes it.

Egypt: Obama.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the new jihadist kid on the block and as such will need time to consolidate power, turn Egypt into an Islamic republic under sharia law, and eventually exert a level of influence in the Middle East comparable to what Mubarak was able to achieve.  Romney's support of Israel is bad news for Egypt's bosses as much as for Iran's.  They'd much rather have four more years of "leading from behind" under Obama to complete Israel's encirclement and achieve its eventual destruction.  An Egypt-Iran alliance is not far-fetched at all.  Can Iraq and Jordan resist pressures to join while America sits on the sidelines looking helpless?

Mexico: Obama.  During a recent interview, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos criticized Obama for failing to keep his promise to pass an immigration bill during his first year as president.  Ramos reminded Obama that "you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform."  Mexico I'm sure has cheered this abysmal failure on the part of the administration.  While the "Fast and Furious" scandal means no more free guns for Mexican drug lords (woo hoo), continued lax border enforcement under an Obama second term means the north-to-south flow of cash from Mexicans working illegally in the U.S. will continue uninterrupted.  This money, to the tune of millions of dollars a year, adds significantly to Mexico's economy.  Romney's immigration policy may well change all that.

I should hasten to add that the list of Obama's international supporters probably would include European nations that are genuine democracies such as France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece.  They would support Obama and not Romney largely because of concerns that a new administration would pressure them through the IMF and the World Bank, where the U.S. holds a dominant position, to implement urgently needed austerity measures.  Keep in mind also that the above countries are socialist nanny states, whose philosophy of government Romney has made clear he utterly abhors.

Who would be in Romney's corner?

Israel surely belongs at the top of the list of nations that would love nothing better than to see America return to what it was under Reagan as leader of the free world.  Britain and Germany probably feel the same way, as do former Soviet bloc countries admitted into NATO ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall such as Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria.  The world's largest democracy, India, almost certainly worries about Iran's nuclear ambitions and would strongly prefer a Romney administration; one Islamic state armed with nukes, Pakistan, is bad enough.  Obama's dithering foreign policy must also be of concern to Japan as it stares down North Korean missiles.

So, as Americans get ready to go to the polls in November, they have two choices: vote as anti-American regimes would if only they could, or elect a new leadership committed to restoring American exceptionalism.  It's as simple as that.

I sincerely hope Mitt Romney makes something like this point in an upcoming debate.