Second terms are not the friendliest to Presidents, the potential for scandal and inner party opposition expands, the days after the inauguration, a President's Political Capitol receeds into the sands of History.
What is the "Mandate of Heaven" that Democrats think they have?
|Superstorm Sandy, Benghazi, Spy Drone taken by Iran...|
- The right to rule China is granted by Heaven.
- There can be only one legitimate ruler of China.
- The right to rule is based on the virtue of the ruler and his good performance as a steward for Heaven.
- The right to rule may be passed down from father to son, but only on the conditions established above. Once the Mandate is lost, the will of Heaven towards a successor will only be known by the working out of the imponderable force of events in human history.
- Legitimization of the ruling house in the eyes of the people who come under its sway.
- Times of divided rule require some rationalization after the fact to establish which ruler can claim truly to have the Mandate.
- The rulers put checks on their own behavior, and are encouraged to invest in the well-being of their subjects.
- The rulers necessarily fear rebellion, possibly because they believe in active intervention from Heaven, and/or possibly because they know that misbehavior will give positive sanction to attempts by others to overthrow them..
Since democrats believe in the above, what other stories are there for Second terms?
I wonder if President Obama has ever heard the story of King Pyrrhus of Epirus?
Or heard the term "Pyrrhic Victory?"
And from Plutarch:
Consequently, Pyrrhus found himself obliged to fight another battle, and after recuperating his army he marched to the city of Asculum, where he engaged the Romans. Here, however, he was forced into regions where his cavalry could not operate, and upon a river with swift current and wooded banks, so that his elephants could not charge and engage the enemy's phalanx.
Therefore, after many had been wounded and slain, for the time being the struggle was ended by the coming of night. But on the next day, designing to fight the battle on level ground, and to bring his elephants to bear upon the ranks of the enemy, Pyrrhus occupied betimes the unfavourable parts of the field with a detachment of his troops; then he put great numbers of slingers and led his forces to the attack in dense array and with a mighty impetus.
So the Romans, having no opportunity for sidelong shifts and counter-movements, as on the previous day, were obliged to engage on level ground and front to front; and being anxious to repulse the enemy's men-at‑arms before their elephants came up, they fought fiercely with their swords against the Macedonian spears, reckless of their lives and thinking only of wounding and slaying, while caring naught for what they suffered.
After a long time, however, as we are told, they began to be driven back at the point where Pyrrhus himself was pressing hard upon his opponents; but the greatest havoc was wrought by the furious strength of the elephants, since the valour of the Romans was of no avail in fighting them, but they felt that they must yield before them as before an onrushing billow or a crashing earthquake, and not stand their ground only to die in vain, or suffer all that is most grievous without doing any good at all.
After a short flight the Romans reached their camp, with a loss of six thousand men, according to Hieronymus, who also says that on the side of Pyrrhus, according to the king's own commentaries, thirty-five hundred and five were killed. Dionysius, however, makes no mention of two battles at Asculum, nor of an admitted defeat of the Romans, but says that the two armies fought once for all until sunset and then at last separated; Pyrrhus, he says, was wounded in the arm by a javelin, and also had his baggage plundered by the Daunians;
And there fell, on the side of Pyrrhus and on that of the Romans, over fifteen thousand men.
The two armies separated; and we are told that Pyrrhus said to one who was congratulating him on his victory, "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." For he had lost a great part of the forces with which he came, and all his friends and generals except a few; moreover, he had no others whom he could summon from home, and he saw that his allies in Italy were becoming indifferent, while the army of the Romans, as if from a fountain gushing forth indoors, was easily and speedily filled up again, and they did not lose courage in defeat, nay, their wrath gave them all the more vigour and determination for the war.
Let's roll the clocks back to November 6, 2012 -- at a moment where most Republicans from different states put up with a lot of crap from their own side (and the continual Tarkin Doctrine and Emmanuel Goldsteining of our Moderates), did President Obama give a bomfog speech? Or campaign with a plan for his Second Term?
"As for the election just passed, a sophisticated campaign operation and dedicated supporters helped to re-elect President Obama. One thing that didn’t get Obama re-elected was a clear, second-term agenda. He is unique among American presidents for having been elected twice without a defined agenda.
"Obama’s lack of agenda, let alone a mandate, represents an opportunity for Republicans. Beyond attempting to raise taxes and signing executive orders, what is Obama going to do over the next 4 years? Recall that he barely did anything at all in 2012. The answer, is that 2012-2016 will be a lot like 2012.
"Also keep in mind that second-term, off-year elections are generally unkind to a President’s Party. This time, they could be especially so because we are arguably headed for difficult economic times given Obamacare’s looming implementation, proposed tax increases, and ever more in the way of regulations."
The Obama Administration (like Nixon's non-ironically) only thought as far as November 6th, and not what comes after 1/20/13. Maybe President Obama knows more about the Mayans then we do.
No plan and politicking during the "Fiscal Cliff," negotiations -- that is not the way to make or keep friends from the opposition to help.
"A sickly economy and lack of an agenda gives Republicans an opportunity to make 2014 a big year. In contrast to a rudderless Obama, if Republicans become real government reformers, 2014 could in fact be exceptional. Here is the plan to do just that:
"Congressional Republicans should pick out significant government programs that are not working. Obviously, that will be incredibly easy. Then they should lay out specific cost savings from those failed programs.
"For the next two years, the Republicans should hold a monthly press conference[s]... wherein they explain:
- The original purpose of the Non-working Program,
- Who was originally supposed to have benefited from the Non-working Program,
- The GOP’s Reformed Program,
- Why the Reformed Program is better for the Nation,
- How much the Reformed Program will save taxpayers, and
- How many teachers per year could be saved if Democrats would join Republicans in saving taxpayers this money.
Can anyone argue with Fiscal Conservatism (which is basis of the Tea Party crowd)?
Once upon a time, Democrats, Liberals and progressives were Reformers instead of Jacobins. That will be another post.
The Game (or Mandate of Heaven) of 2013-14 is simple:
The Party that goes against Corruption and Helps the Taxpayers, wins.
My question: Can anybody explain what is the Obama Administration's Second term Agenda? Or the Obama Doctrine?