More Obama foreign policy gaffes on eve of G20 (or how the Queen got her 2nd iPod)

If you loved the return of the Churchill bust and the Gordon Brown parting gift of 25 DVDs found at your local Wal-Mart, you’ll be tickled pink to hear of the latest adventures of the Man Who Will Make the World Love Us™.

The Wall Street Journal has the details of President Obama referring to our special relationship with England, momentarily breaking a rule of protocol by neglecting to refer to the United Kingdom instead, leaving Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland out of the equation. Sure, just one mixed-up reference, not that big of a deal, right? And Bush was such an idiot, right? It’s still going to raise a few eyebrows across the pond, as it equates to a British leader speaking of their special relationship with Texas.

Although it’s not really a foreign policy gaffe, the media team also blundered by scheduling the President’s only open event at 5 in the morning when no one is watching, as well as denying media access to important events like first-time bilateral chats with foreign leaders, offering instead brief canned remarks. Sure, not that big of a deal, right, except when this is the President’s first major overseas conference, you might want to be a little more savvy with how it plays back home.

But that’s not even the icing on the cake. Besides the meetings with the heads of Australia and Canada, both members of the British Commonwealth. President Obama is only other leader granted an audience with the Queen. Protocol is to be strictly observed, and the Queen has found it important to find the time to meet with most of our recent Commanders in Chief. So what gift did our world-wise President deem wise to give to this regal ceremonial head of state?

An iPod.

And apparently she already has one. I couldn’t make this up if I tried. As MM says, Dohbama strikes again. Yeah, I know the Queen also got some songbook as well. That doesn’t take away from the sheer tackiness of the gift, and compounds the previous DVD and bust blunders. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Obama’s auto task force grabs greater control over industry

A piece in the L.A. Times today (heads up from Patterico) examined the greatly expanded control of the auto industry by Obama’s task force. As the article notes, the auto task force moves from a role of making sure tax dollars are spent responsibly to actually setting industrial policy. For example, the task force decided that the Chevy Volt wouldn’t be competitive in the marketplace, that GM was making too many large vehicles, and that Chrysler needed to merge with foreign car maker Fiat.

If you think that sounds like Soviet-style central planning, you’re completely right, and I don’t believe it’s much of a hyperbole to say so. Defenders of the administration continue to repeat how they “inherited” this crisis (won’t be able to use that one for much longer) and how there is precedent for these kinds of actions. What I see , however, is that the earlier efforts were attempts at greater regulation, but never central policy making by a government bureaucracy, which is what we are beginning to see now.

There is a fundamental arrogance in thinking government alone can chart the right path. No matter what whiz team of brainiacs you put together, never will they be as astute to the needs of the people as the people themselves. In a free market system, the marketplace determines the value of certain ideas and products, not a dream team of analysts. The free market is where the rubber meets the road and where highfalutin theory submits to the instructive force of reality. In contrast, to assume that one group is more qualified to nanny the rest of us is to pursue a tunnel-vision approach to economic prosperity, and more importantly, requires we give up a substantial amount of self-determination. If you foster an attitude of “we know best, now sit down and let us take care of you,” what else can follow from that but massive ineptitude at best and tyranny at worst?

Patterico is right when he chastises the Times for trying to portray criticism as a partisan issue. It’s a question we fundamentally need to answer in this country – are we willing to forsake the principles of limited government that this country was founded on to achieve a momentary sense of financial security? If you believe in those founding principles, then the answer must be no.

Update: Just saw this story about Secretary Geithner being willing to throw out more CEOs. The corporate fatcats don’t deserve a whole lot of sympathy, but understand that what you’re witnessing is a power play to centralize more decision-making. I liked what one of the commenters on the article had to say: “Great. We have a man who has never run a for-profit company, who cannot even fill out his own income tax properly, now firing the heads of large manufacturing firms.” One thing you can be sure of – if Michael Moore loves it, it’s probably a bad idea.