In calling for the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for only those making under $250,000 Obama once again chooses to divide in order to concur the American electorate. By turning one group of Americans against another he seeks to get himself reelected. Obama came into office on a sea of hope and change and claiming he was a new kind of politician. He was going to bring us all together. While I did not vote for the man, on his inauguration day I watched and prayed that I was wrong about him. My goal, and I know that was the goal of every American, was to take our country back to when its people were able to reach for the American dream. If it was Obama’s policies that did it, then I would have gladly eaten crow and been overjoyed for the USA. However, sadly I was not wrong. This man’s policies and perspectives are not only disastrous but destructive to the nation. He is many things, a leader is not one of them.
Instead of a leader we ended up with a politician who takes no responsibility for anything. He whines and he complains. He deflects and denigrates. He presents budgets that are unrealistic and cause higher deficits. He kowtows to those that wish to destroy us. He thwarts laws passed by Congress, whether by misused executive orders or unconstitutional signing statements. He gives away our sovereignty to the United Nations and lets human rights abusing nations such as Russia, lead in some of the most dangerous parts of the world.
He divides this nation. We are not so much blue and red any more, but divided along the lines of those that earn, produce and invent versus those that believe it is their right to take others’ productivity. We are divided among doers and users. Remember though, this does not include those in need of a safety net. As citizens we owe our fellows a helping hand when the need arises. It is a selfish perspective of course….the there but for the grace of God go I philosophy (admit it)…..but when the President plays into the most base elements of humanity, by demonizing and scapegoating an entire group of people (in this case the financially successful), inorder to promote himself, it calls to mind the great haters of history.
He tells the electorate it is not their fault that they overbought a house they couldn’t afford; or that they spent too much on their credit cards: he tells them you are entitled to have someone else to pay for your pension and healthcare; he tells them that others should pay for their education and way of life. He talks about a cloudy, unknown group of people, who work in finance, that are greedy and don’t care about your future. He mentions the corporate CEO, the fatcat who is aligned with some mysterious shady cabal meant to keep the little guy down. He attaches himself to ancient conspiracies and hate filled theories. He derides old-fashioned morals and ethics. (This is not a discussion of social issues. We are talking respect for law and adherence to the three branches of government and the US Constitution.) He sides with those whose idea of right and wrong have no boundaries, who exist in a world of gray. He bullies and name-calls to try to get his way. He chides the afraid populace into blaming someone, anyone, but his administration for the problems associated with his policies. He attaches himself to jealousy, suspicion and bigotry. He seeks his survival in the most base of all human emotions. Someone needs to tell Obama, that there is no hope in hate.
Sadly historically, in America politicians use of divide and conquer is not new. Politicians have employed this modus operandi since the founding of our republic. For good or bad it really is an accepted part of Americana. But there is a difference this time. Myriads of political parties have risen and disappeared over the years with the notion that they demand the right to participate fully in the Untied States of America. They demanded the American dream. They just didn’t always agree on how to get there. This time it’s not about the right to try for the American dream. It is about the entitled right to the American dream without earning it. This time it is about taking the dream away from those who have earned it but do not meet the proper philosophical measure in order to keep what they have worked for.
In reality the one thing that past political contretemps did always agreed upon, is that the goal of any movement was to make the United States a better, more productive, more enlightened nation. Not in any of these political movements did one group demand payment or the product of the other. What they sought were their rights for what they believed was THEIR work product and THEIR property. That is the significant difference between Teddy Roosevelt’s progressives and the left-progressives of today. The United States was seen as a nation on the rise. The USA was a nation with an outlook for the future.
Not so anymore. Today there is an element of this nation that thrives on tearing this nation down and then trying to throw the parts to the wolves of the world. To kowtowing to evil and equating each nation on a level playing field. Cultural relativity sees no difference in a Syrian atrocity and that some in a wealthy society sadly go to bed hungry (yes, a major blight that does need fixing). They see no difference in the “socialist tyrannies” of Cuba or Venezuela and the fact that it is difficult for some people in the US to get to the voting booth. They see a right of a genocidal nation like Iran to have an atomic weapon yet condemn democracies for defending their right to exist. And they believe they are entitled to other people’s work product and earnings. Those who believe and carry this philosophy in their souls is the element in this society, that the President is trying to harness.
Yes there is income disparity. It’s part of a free-market system. One in which hard work, brains and drive pay off in material ways. Whether people like it or not, there is a sliding pay scale for different types of jobs. If you are a fast food worker you are not going to make as much as a doctor. If you are a secretary you are not going to make as much as that hedge fund manager. There are different requirements for each position, education, responsibility and hours at the job. No one stops you in this nation from becoming as much of a financial success as you want. All you need is the personal desire to get you there. Once on your way too, there is also no law that says someone whose already there, has to even let you in.
All you are entitled to in this world is the right to try to accomplish your goals. There is no rule that says anyone really has to help you or anyone has to allow you into the “club.” If you figure it out you get the “brass ring.” But that brass ring belongs to the producer and the producer alone. It doesn’t belong to the government and it’s not the government’s right to tell you how much of your money you can keep.
That is another part of the two views that divide this nation today. The one view, the President’s view, says that what you earn does not really belong to you but to society. That society through the government is the one that tells you how much of your work product you can keep. They believe in an unfettered right to tax in order to financially fix their monetary mismanagement. They believe in income redistribution. Meanwhile the other philosophy, the one the USA was founded on, is that what you earn is yours. Society only gets from you what you deem to be necessary. Government cannot take from the earner to pay for governments’ own malfeasance, missteps and monstrous incompetence. This is called fiscal responsibility.
It is why the President calls those who don’t want to pay taxes unpatriotic. Under his philosophy those who refuse to give up their wealth to the country are unpatriotic. (Of course he hasn’t offered to pay more than what the tax code requires of him.) He says the wealthy don’t pay their fair share, even though the top 10% already pay 90% of the tax base. It is a philosophical difference in outlook. Is what you make yours or the governments? Is what you earn yours to do with as you please or is the governments right to tell you how to spend your income? Is what you earn yours to decide whom to help through charitable giving or is it the governments right to decide you have enough things and to give your money to those THEY deem the most worthy?
These are the real underlying issues that face this nation in the coming months. It is a divide between two political philosophies that will set the tone for generations to come. In truth neither system is perfect. There really is a happy middle somewhere, only if people of good conscience are willing to seek it out. But that is not the choices we are given for November. These are not the choices the President himself has laid out before the American people. He has decreed those that don’t agree with him are not only unpatriotic, but selfish, unworthy of respect or humanity . He seeks to divide people along economic class lines. He creates class warfare where none need be. His philosophy in the end decides that the American dream is dead. His philosophy decides that the American people are incapable of taking care of themselves, deciding for themselves and thinking for themselves without the government directing their every waking moment. His philosophy decides that only those of a certain political bent, philosophy and education know how to run society and the rest of us are the serfs to their lords of the manor born.
Are you patriotic? Do you believe in the United States of America? Do you believe in the American dream? Do you believe in American exceptionalism? Do you believe that the people of this nation are adult enough to make their own decisions? Do you believe in bringing this nation together to solve our problems? Do you believe in hope over divisiveness? Do you believe in hope over hate? Answer these questions and then you will know for whom to vote for in November.