In a just released interview with right wing spinmeister Breitbart, Walker doesn't acknowledge the existence of an opposition party. He doesn't care if most Americans disagree with what he has planned for popular government programs polling says people support overwhelmingly.
Carrying out the rest of his divide and conquer agenda, he would separate the states into miniature country-like entities, with their own transportation, infrastructure, workforce, and environmental laws. And he wants a tough punishment base system of social safety nets that would make anyone down on their luck wish they were never born:
It's hard to be accountable under a one party system, you think?Walker said that if he’s elected president in 2016, he’d aim to severely cut back on the size and scope of the federal government—and he touted his experience battling the unions in Wisconsin.
“For me, what I learned from what we did four years ago in Wisconsin, is you got to strike early” ... I’d like to take huge chunks of the federal government and send it back to the states. For years people have talked about Medicaid—that’s a good start, to block grant that. But I’d take major social service programs, I’d take transportation and infrastructure, workforce and development, environmental protection, and heck I’d take education and instead of spending each of those down from Washington where the federal government skims off huge chunks of money and sends pennies on the dollar back to the state governments, why not keep those dollars back in the states where states can be more effective, more efficient, and certainly be held accountable to the hardworking taxpayers?
The closer this guy gets to the presidency, the more nervous I'm becoming. Here's audio of his comment:Right now, at the federal level, we have a federal government that’s too big to fail. We need a government that’s small enough to succeed.
Former Nixon counsel John Dean wrote an entire expose' on Walker, because yes, that's how obvious Walker has been about his intentions. Walker isn't just a "conservative without a conscience," as Dean has written, he's a "double high" authoritarian, shaping the country around his singular vision of power. Dean wrote this back in March of 2012, believe it or not:
And "slick" is too kind a word to use; liar works just fine, according to Dean:My focus here is on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who strikes some who have written to me as a distinctively prototypical authoritarian politician; what social science has labeled as a “double high” authoritarian; and the type of person which I described in my book as a conservative without conscience.
There are many examples of Walker’s harsh and uncaring treatment of those whom he does not believe to be entitled to equality.
Desirous Of Personal Power: As governor, Walker sought to remove civil service jobs, in order to make them political appointments, and thus subject to his control. Most strikingly, he has sought to undercut the public-employee unions so that he would not have to deal with them, thus increasing his power. He has increased his personal power over some fifteen state agencies, and I suspect that he is just getting started. Walker’s push to get Act 10 passed into law was done in about as authoritarian a fashion as you will ever see, outside of a dictatorship.
His lying is notorious. Politifacts Wisconsin finds Walker to be an accomplished falsifier. I watched a video of a Walker speech at the Goldwater Institute. He’s slick; fast-talking, confident, and dishonest—I watched him distort facts with which I was familiar. He spoke in mostly half-truths. About twenty-five percent of the population has, in varying degrees, (a) disposition to follow a double high authoritarian, many blindly or simply because it assuages their fears. And, of course, these are aggressive followers who can attract others who are unaware of the nature of the person they are electing, thus enabling an authoritarian leader like Walker to gain ever-growing control. Good luck, Wisconsin.
I said a couple of years ago that Walker's moves very much are that of a backer of the Confederacy in the 1860s. No national interest other than defense, no common, uniting goals, and a whole lot of oligarchy and white supremacy.
ReplyDeleteAnd he doesn't care about the outcomes on anyone but his inner circle. That mentality won't win in anywhere that's not filled with angry old white guys, which is why he'd be wiped out in a general Election if the GOP were stupid enough to nominate him, but it'll pay the bills on the wingnut welfare circuit.