Denver Post: Obama doesn't trust Americans

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Harsanyi: Obama's lack of faith

By David Harsanyi
Posted: 07/21/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

With midterm elections approaching, President Barack Obama has gone on the charm offensive, claiming Republicans are demonstrating a "lack of faith in the American people."

Faith is often defined as having confidence or trust in a person or thing. In this case, though, faith means adding another $35 billion in unemployment benefits to the infinite intergenerational tab — sometimes referred to as the budget — and mailing out as many checks as possible before Election Day.

Yet, the jab is revealing in other ways. To begin with, what mysterious brand of public policy has Obama employed that exemplifies this sacred trust between public officials and the common citizen?

Was it the administration's faith in the wisdom of the American parent that persuaded it to shut down the voucher program in Washington, D.C., and continue the left's decades- long campaign denying school choice for kids and parents? Or was that just faith in public-sector unions?

Was faith in American industry behind the Democrats' support of a stimulus bill that was almost entirely predicated on preserving swollen government spending at the expense of private-sector growth?

Is this hallowed faith in the citizenry also what compels the administration to dictate what kind of car we will be driving in the future, what kind of energy we will be filling these "cars" with and what amounts of that energy will be acceptable?

Is faith in American know-how why Washington funnels billions of tax dollars each year to its handpicked industry favorites rather than allowing the best and brightest to — please pardon the pun — organically figure out what the most sensible energy policy is, as we have in every other sector?

It must be that deep confidence in conscientious Americans that persuades the left to fight against the rights of gun owners who most often want nothing more than to defend life and property.

The same faith in Americans surely precipitates the administration's defense of censorship (even book banning) to ensure that the citizenry is protected from the despicable reach of political ads funded by corporations. People, you see, are too gullible and too uninformed to withstand the force of Fox News — much less Wal-Mart.

Similarly, that faith has led to the 20-year explosion of paternalistic regulations (often with the help of Republicans) that propose to regulate everything from the size of candy to tanning salons to fast-food restaurants to the pressure in your showerhead. A faith that the American citizen has the self-control of a deprived toddler.

It was faith in the American people that led to health-care legislation that denies you the right to buy insurance outside of state lines, or to have any useful portability, or even enjoy the same tax break that corporations are afforded. The left has so much faith in Americans that it has to force you to purchase a government-approved plan.

One only needs to propose the idea that citizens be allowed to allocate a portion of their Social Security retirement funds — extracted from their paychecks and deposited in a faith-based government account — to witness the level of faith many on the left have in your decision-making abilities.

Republicans may not have faith in the American people, but in this instance, Obama is probably confusing faith in people with faith in power. Because as hard as one tries, it is difficult to find any instances of choices expanding under this administration. That's the true test of confidence in the citizenry.

Then again, progressives regard government as a moral enterprise. And in church, you gotta have faith.

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com and follow him on Twitter here.
 
Obama's comment hits at the most fundamental difference between the leftist viewpoint and the conservative viewpoint; human nature.

Obama is expressing a naive view that human nature is generally good. Therefore incentive structures do not matter because people will ultimately do what is right, in his estimation, for the greater good.
 
Disagree. Liberal thought is based on the belief that humans cannot make good decisions for themselves - that they need an oligarchy of elites to decide things for them. It also presupposes that humans are not charitable, but instead greedy, and therefore the government must steal in order to provide for those in need.
 
The problem of evil is a big one for liberals. If human nature is good and perfectible, then how do you explain greed and other evils? The typical understanding under the leftist view is that it is not due to any inherent evil in humans (internal factors), but in misguided institutions and/or circumstances that cause people to be evil (external factors). This is supported by another assumption of human nature as mailable. The call for more regulation is a logical response in this view in order to change these institutions and prevent these negative circumstances so as to bring out the best in human nature; to let humans realize their full potential. These efforts are directed by those who have achieved a greater degree of "enlightenment"; the elites.

Humans are, ultimately a variable to be altered; a means to the end of a Utopian society, under most any leftist view.
 
Disagree. Liberal thought is based on the belief that humans cannot make good decisions for themselves - that they need an oligarchy of elites to decide things for them. It also presupposes that humans are not charitable, but instead greedy, and therefore the government must steal in order to provide for those in need.

if this is so, according to the liberals, than how does it work when you put humans in charge of humans, by that thought the humans in charge of the other humans will impose their greed and evil, unless liberal politicians are some sort of immortals. I don't make no sence
 
if this is so, according to the liberals, than how does it work when you put humans in charge of humans, by that thought the humans in charge of the other humans will impose their greed and evil, unless liberal politicians are some sort of immortals. I don't make no sence

That is why they see it as necessary for the elites to run things. Those elites have supposedly freed themselves (or at least removed themselves to a great degree) from the institutions and circumstances that lead to that evil in others. These elites are, in a sense, more "evolved" and enlightened and should therefore be put in a position to change those institutions and circumstances to work toward the enlightenment of the whole of society, ultimately progressing toward a Utopian vision.
 
if this is so, according to the liberals, than how does it work when you put humans in charge of humans, by that thought the humans in charge of the other humans will impose their greed and evil, unless liberal politicians are some sort of immortals. I don't make no sence
See, you're using logic to argue the point instead of just recognizing that liberals are your betters and they care.

It's all about power with these people.

Liberalism can be boiled down to the words of the first liberal - Judas Iscariot:

John 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which should betray him,

12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
 
Liberalism can be boiled down to the words of the first liberal - Judas Iscariot:

Are you sure - the 'first' liberal - Judas? Certainly there were other 'evil men' before Judas who could wear that title. Antiochus Epiphanes is an excellent choice, Ramesses II a possibility. Cain certainly could be in contention.

How about finding the first conservative for us as well Foss. Moses - Abraham - Perhaps conservatism can trace its roots back further... Adam? Although that whole 'original sin' thing will probably get in the way of choosing Adam.
 
Are you sure - the 'first' liberal - Judas? Certainly there were other 'evil men' before Judas who could wear that title. Antiochus Epiphanes is an excellent choice, Ramesses II a possibility. Cain certainly could be in contention.

How about finding the first conservative for us as well Foss. Moses - Abraham - Perhaps conservatism can trace its roots back further... Adam? Although that whole 'original sin' thing will probably get in the way of choosing Adam.
You accidentally put quotes around 'evil men.' :rolleyes:

Judas' quote so clearly captures liberal thought that it always bears mentioning.

And no, I'm not interested in doing busywork for you. Why don't you look it up yourself.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top