Addressing a partisan crowd during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia, President Obama hymned the praises of government as the provider of all good things, while rebuking business owners for their supposedly misplaced belief that they “build” wealth as individuals:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
In Obama’s collectivist reading of U.S. history, it was through government intervention — not individual initiative — that “we created the middle class.”
“We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people,” he insisted. “You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”
Like most people of his ideological bent, Obama either cannot or will not distinguish between society — which is created through peaceful commerce and other forms of private cooperation — and the state — an anti-social artifact built on conquest, coercion, and confiscation of wealth. Government produces nothing; it is an exercise in pure consumption and, usually, the destruction of capital. As Nietzsche famously said, everything the State has is stolen.
Barack Obama — whose brow has never been moistened by the sweat of honest labor — knows literally nothing about creating wealth and value. As a politician, however, Obama is deeply committed to “community organizing” — that is, the creation of government-focused coalitions devoted to the forcible redistribution of the wealth that is created through the exertions of private producers.
Speaking as a state legislator in a 2001 radio interview, Obama distinguished between his variety of “community organizing” and the work of civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s. The earlier efforts, he pointed out approvingly, sought to overcome the “negative” concept of liberties — that is, freedom from state control and protection against abusive of individual rights by government agents — but was too wedded to the idea of pursuing its social revolution through the courts.
As Obama pointed out, “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society…. [O]ne of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.” (Emphasis added.)
As a paladin of the parasite class, Obama characterizes his tax policies as a matter of “ask[ing] for the wealthy to pay a little bit more” — as if an official demand backed by armed government agents were akin to Oliver Twist’s plaintive request for a second helping of porridge, and that the shake-down needed to fund Washington’s redistributive designs would only apply to the “wealthy.”
(Cross-posted from here.)10:36 am on July 16, 2012 Email William Norman Grigg