EDITORIAL: Barack Obama in his own words - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Jun. 06, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Barack Obama in his own words

'An ominous tone of authoritarianism'

Around this time in the presidential election cycle, Democratic candidates traditionally start "running to the center."

With a wink and a nod to their core, far-left constituencies, the candidates in effect say, "For the next five months I'm going to sound like a small-government Republican, talking about tax cuts and free enterprise and a strong defense and cutting back the welfare rolls. But don't worry, this is just to have a calming effect on all those oxen we're going to get back to collectively goring next year."

Most Popular Stories

LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?

LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes

LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada

EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform

EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'

EDITORIAL: Internet sales taxes

FROM OUR READERS: In the dark about the new light bulbs

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Letting the looters vote on who's for lunch

LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?

EDITORIAL: Water, water everywhere

The rhetoric then shifts to the right -- until the day after the election, of course.

We hope our congratulations are not premature, but it's worthy of note that, so far, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama does not seem to be taking this path. If Sen. Obama is elected president, it will not be because he has disguised the fact that he is a dyed-in-the-wool collectivist.

According to a transcript of the graduation speech Sen. Obama gave at Wesleyan University last weekend -- he filled in for the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy -- this career politician (who lives in a house worth $1.65 million, made more than $4 million last year, and who wears very nice suits, indeed) advised the young graduates: "You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and the other things that our money culture says you should buy. ... But I hope you don't. Not because ... you have a debt to all those who helped you get to where you are today, although I do believe you have that debt to pay. It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

This was not a slip of the tongue. It was written out in advance. Nor is it likely this well-educated man does not know what he has just said. And while this doctrine follows quite logically from the direction in which the Democratic Party has been trying to take this nation in great leaps in 1913 and 1933 and 1965, it still represents a vast sea-change from the traditional American notion that we deserve to succeed and prosper based on our own, individual choices and efforts.

Of course it's meritorious to voluntarily help the less fortunate. But what the candidate has just said is that we cannot be "saved" by our own merit and labors if we do not force our neighbors to behave properly, as well. And that -- conversely -- so long as our neighbors work hard and do well, those of us who choose to sit around drunk or watching the soap operas all day are also to be saved -- "collectively."

Do we have this wrong? In a recent speech in California, the candidate's wife, Michelle, said, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. ... Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual -- uninvolved, uninformed."

Campaigning in Oregon, Sen. Obama recently said, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. ... That's not going to happen."

"Not going to happen?" asked Investor's Business Daily in a June 2 editorial. "Require? Demand? Never allow? If you detect an ominous tone of authoritarianism, so do we."

Yes, let's acknowledge the context. Sen. Obama in his Wesleyan address was trying to convey some sense of vision and idealism to young people about to start off into the world. And he did warn against pursuing "only" the big house and nice suits. Of course there are higher virtues than seeking wealth for its own sake.

But Sen. Obama is not trying out for a job in the clergy. He seeks to become the chief executive officer of a secular state with enormous power to impose collectivism by force, should it fall into the hands of the wrong person. That's relevant context, here, too.

Sen. Obama thundered to the Wesleyan grads that, "At a time when our ice caps are melting and our oceans are rising," (Really? Is Miami gone?) "we need you to help lead a green revolution."

Yet, disturbingly, he made not a single passing reference, not a cursory tip of the hat, to the fact that graduates who seek jobs in commerce and industry -- manufacturing and transporting and selling the goods that fill our ports and rivers and highways, raw materials and finished products that make our lives longer and better and happier than those of half-naked savages huddled in some distant jungle hoping the panthers don't drag off the baby tonight -- are doing a "public service," as well.

In fact, the capitalist system is wonderful in the ruthlessness with which it rewards only those who can provide the public with a product or service they're willing to voluntarily pay for, faster or cheaper or better than anyone else. And while someone with the talent to be a surgeon or a physicist or an engineer is free to spend her day collecting soda cans, capitalism -- without forcing her choice -- reliably indicates to her which job is more valuable to society by the mechanism of the salary each job commands.

Is it really possible Sen. Barack Obama -- who has had virtually no experience working in private industry, in a factory, in a mine, on a farm or ranch, in a store -- does not know this?

At the very least, as he expresses the "hope" that today's graduates "don't" chase after financial success, one might think he would express a passing word of gratitude to all those taxpayers out there who continue to labor to make $50,000 or more -- since those are the taxpayers who provide the vast bulk of the confiscated tax loot that our congressmen regularly turn into porkfat to purchase their re-election.

Not a word of thanks for our labors, Sen. Obama -- for the labors of those who built the Wal-Mart and the McDonald's, even if they did so in hopes of being able to afford a big house and a nice suit ... just like yours?

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	43 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Bob Skilnik wrote on June 27, 2008 04:29 PM: Not my thermostat. Paolo wrote on June 15, 2008 01:11 PM: It is true that Democrats campaign by sounding "centrist." I'm not so sure they really go far left once they get elected. Bill Clinton, for example, governed in a manner virtually indistinguishable from a so-called "conservative" Republican. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to campaign as "conservatives", full of small-government rhetoric, then (like Democrats) maintain the welfare-warfare state once elected. The two major parties, in other words, are indistinguishable. Republicans contradict themselves, even in their rhetoric, when they claim to be (simultaneously!) believers in "smaller government" AND maintaining a global empire with troops stationed all over the planet. Amazingly, they don't seem to be even vaguely aware of this colossal contradiction. Genius wrote on June 14, 2008 10:34 AM: It really doesn't matter any more who is President. Both candidates are controlled by CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). They both are after the same thing, but from different positions to make it look like you have a "choice" -- which you really don't. Both want a Global Facist Government, more commonly known as the New World Order. Both want total control on behalf of the CFR over your entire life. steve Bourg wrote on June 08, 2008 06:47 PM: Message to Mark: You're dead-wrong about Bush raising the power of the federal govt. The Constitution gives the C-in-Chief the powers to conduct a war: simple as that. And the war against the Jihadists is NOT an easy one. the MSM wants people to believe Bush has over-reached his authority, but this simply isn't true. It's a shame the MSM has so much influence on the minds of the sheople, but it's even more of a shame that the MSM wants a Dem in the White House so badly that it affects all their news reports. steve bourg wrote on June 08, 2008 06:40 PM: Brilliant, simply brilliant. Thank you to LV Review/Journal. Barack Obama is almost anti-capitalism. And that's an attitude poised for action with a willing Congress, to ruin our economy, or at least begin a decline that will be hard to reverse. We need less govt, and more of our hard-earned paychecks, not the opposite. Good god, we're in trouble with so many people believing Barack has answers that will help! mark wrote on June 07, 2008 09:37 PM: Fred wrote on June 06, 2008 11:59 AM: It’s interesting to hear republicans espousing individualism and free markets while the Republican Party, in the last 7 years, has done more to solidify power in the federal government and the executive branch. I don’t see John McCain changing that either. The Republicans party is moving us towards 4 year dictatorships and telling us to fear Marxism. Funny. The candidate who didn't lie to the American people, told the truth and represents real freedom for all is Ron Paul and we can all see how well he's doing.... Joseph wrote on June 07, 2008 03:44 AM: There's a little food for thought here. But authorial flourishes that betray ignorance ('Really? Is Miami gone?') and antiquated insensitivity ('...half-naked savages') reveal the uneducated alarmism at the heart of the piece. redmanrt wrote on June 07, 2008 03:21 AM: Maybe his rhetoric is worse than his bite will be. Even before he takes office he will be confronted with reality when he is briefed. I think (or hope, I'm not sure which) he has the capacity to learn. Hillary, her mind in the straitjacket of megalomania, does not. occam wrote on June 07, 2008 12:18 AM: The US is no longer a true capitalistic democracy. Only the top 40% of taxpayers actually pay net taxes after adjusting for services received from government. Now add those adult non-tax payers who vote and are who are solely dependent on the government for existence, and you have situation where the overwhelming majority of the electorate who pay none of the cost of government are deciding how the taxes are spent. This is socialism, we are there now, but most of use don't realize it even though most of us in one way or another are already dependent upon government directly or indirectly. The more the liberal Democrats create social programs and increase the number of citizens dependent on those programs, and the more the Democrats create laws that direct subsidies and tax breaks to special interests groups favored by Democrats, and the more the Democrats regulate industry to the benefit of their constituencies, the more dependent constituents they create, and the more deeply socialistic we will become. A society where the majority of the electorate who have no responsibility for the cost of government and who depend upon that government for their existence, and are in the position to increase the support they receive from government can not endure. Eventually there will just not be enough net tax payers to support the majority who are dependent upon those taxes. Ron Adolph wrote on June 06, 2008 07:37 PM: "Will Obama run to center?" You gotta be kidding! That would be alot more than a marathon. Read All Comments