One of the favorite mantras that Barack Obama repeated during his campaign, was the mindless slogan, "Change We Need."  Of course, this slogan resonates with liberals, but for most Americans that dislike change for the sake of change, the phrase is presumptuous.  It could be rewritten to state, "Change Most Liberals Need."

Certainly, the electorate helped Obama to initiate the change he believed in and needed, because he will transition from the Senate, and be inaugurated as the 44th president on Jan. 20, 2009.  Hard to believe, isn't it?  One can only wonder why Obama craves transformational change, when he's a business as usual Chicago machine style politician.  Unlike Obama, most Americans love this great country as it is, warts and all.

Most Americans resent busybodies that tell them how to to live their lives, when Americans are already among the most altruistic and optimistic people on earth.  Obviously, there are imperfections in this nation, yet American ideals have inspired humanity for over two centuries.  Moreover, Americans are wary of coercive change that tends to infringe on life, liberty, and happiness.

During the primaries and national campaign, Obama tried to move to the center by repudiating his prior associations and chunks of his sparse voting record.  He ran as a change agent reformer, yet he hasn't reformed a thing in, or out of government.  As a legislator, he appeared to be allergic to voting yes or no on most new laws that were debated at the state and national levels.

In order to govern, Obama will need Republicans and the American people.  Consequently, it would be unwise to roll out a leftward agenda during wartime and economic uncertainty.  One wonders how a permanent campaigner, who easily gets bored and constantly changes his mind, can actually govern.  His soaring rhetoric might collide with the hard ceiling of reality.  He could then crash and burn if he doesn't confront the multiple challenges we face at home and abroad.

Of course, if Obama surprises us and cuts taxes on all income earners, and maintains a robust national security apparatus, it would partially satisfy conservatives.  However, it would anger liberals, lobbyists, and the liberal media that helped get him elected.  If he sides with the Pelosi/Reid Congress and hikes taxes to fund his trillion dollar entitlement extravaganza, it would have an adverse impact on the economy, national security, and a federal government mired in debt. 

Obama's concept of justice is to punish hardworking successful Americans, and then transfer their money to less ambitious folks that pay little, or no taxes.  That "justice" would resurrect class warfare, encourage moral hazard, and promote a welfare state.  He had best tread carefully here because that vision would alienate most Americans and shift the economy into reverse.

Obama's selfish proposals would restrict our freedoms, because he has bought into the recycled ideology of coercive income redistribution (spread the wealth).  Notice how freedom and personal responsibility are often MIA from his interviews, press conferences, and speeches.  It's amazing how an educated man can be so tone deaf and unaware that the top five to ten percent of income earners generate most of the investing, saving, and spending that spurs growth.

Obama's domestic policy positions embrace government as the answer to life's problems, instead of the last resort that our founders envisioned.  Our founders created an adversarial, limited government as the defender of individual liberties, and they understood that government shouldn't rescue us from ourselves.  Moreover, Obama's views run counter to the classical liberalism of JFK and Truman.

They endorsed a leaner government that helped facilitate free markets, and they also promoted a muscular foreign policy.  JFK cut taxes, which triggered more revenue and economic expansion.  By contrast, Obamanomics would encourage people to constantly ask (or demand) what their country can do for them, rather than what they can offer the nation.

Will Obama learn from history, or will he get stuck in neutral, or reverse?  Obama hopes to alter the behavior of rogue dictators through diplomacy, a strategy that has gotten free societies almost nowhere over the past 20-30 years.  He stubbornly thinks that one more stab at socialism might make it work, although it's been a colossal failure for a century.

Most Americans want a responsible government that sticks to a few things it does best, and most of the time stays off their backs so they can pursue their voluntary dreams.  They prefer unelected judges to interpret the law and render impartial justice, and refrain from crafting, or enforcing laws from the bench.  Americans want the federal government to live within its means, just as they must do.

Americans understand that universal human rights are natural and don't emanate from the state.  Most Americans realize that individuals, families, and communities are effective problem solvers and best serve human needs.  Most Americans want to fail, or succeed through their own efforts, sometimes with a little help from others.

In the final analysis, Obamanomics represents the antithesis of America's best traditions of character, free enterprise, and liberty.  An Obama administration might try to impose an all encompassing nanny state on us, similar to the grandiose schemes of FDR and Lyndon Johnson.  That isn't the regressive change that Americans, or even other nations expect from a great nation.  However, there might be a silver lining in this scenario of social engineering.  As their cherished values come under siege, Americans would battle the unchecked power of a liberal leviathan that distrusts the common sense and decency of most Americans.