Obama, Tito and Saddam

You may be a bit young to remember Marshall Tito, who led the former Yugoslavia for many years before the communist bloc collapsed under the oppressive weight of the failures of socialism.  Tito was not always the favorite of the Soviets under whose thumb Eastern Europe remained for decades, but they let him stay.

Tito remains in our memory as much for what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito than anything he did, specifically, while the ruler.

You see, Tito was our generation's specific, first memory of what happens when a strong ruler, good or evil, leaves the scene after holding multiple warring factions together.  We have seen it over and over, whether intentional (Saddam Hussein and Muhammar Khadafi) or not.  A leader with multiple factions leaves the scene, and we soon realize that leader had his finger in a metaphorical dike.

The war following Tito's departure and the split-up of Yugoslavia into Serbia, Bosnia and the other countries now on the map was horrific.

Now, when Rand Paul spoke in the debates about nation-building not being such a great idea without knowing what will follow, without knowing who takes over or whether the outcome will be even worse, he was speaking of Syria.  Syria is potentially another such area, as we can readily see, where removal of the dictator Hafez Assad may actually cause turbulence as bad or worse for the Syrian people -- and the world.

Barack Obama is not exactly the same kind of leader.  In fact "leader" is a bit of a stretch, particularly as he plays out the remainder of his term, and I use the term "plays" intentionally.  He is a freely-elected president of a country that has lots of factions, even if "warring" isn't exactly the word that comes to mind.

But I did get to thinking, and you may also want to, about the analogous situation when Obama leaves office, if there is a Republican president.  I say that because the left in the USA, the people who have voted Democrat and put Obama into office, is just as fractured and could end up with those parties just as warring, possibly without the weapons.

Unions.  Blacks.  Hispanics.  Government bureaucrats.  Women.  Immigrants, legal and illegal.  Sharpton followers.  These all celebrated and blindly followed when Obama was nominated and elected.  Though he has accomplished nothing that has improved their lives, though more are unemployed and on food stamps than when he took office, that doesn't seem to matter.

But Obama will be gone by January.  And the raw differences among these groups that may have been kept bubbling below the surface may well be aired when they start chirping for their own needs when a Democrat is no longer in the White House.  When blacks start asking where the jobs are and are told they've been taken by illegals, how will that go over?  Where will the unions head for their needs, and will their needs be at odds with those of other special-category groups?

I'm just thinking that, absent a president whom these groups were unwilling or afraid to attack if they didn't get their way, all this contention and animosity, now framed by a still-rotten economy, may air itself loudly when they are willing to attack, both a president they may not like, and each other when one gets a concession the others don't.

It may be a stretch but it is indeed something that will not surprise me if it were to happen.  After all, it has happened often enough when someone holding down opposing factions leaves the scene.
  
Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.