Obama: The People Do Not Understand

by Walter Scott Hudson

Skimming the State of the Union address from last night, these tidbits stood out:

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades, the burden of working harder and longer for less, of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

…

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn’t, or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.

Actually, many people are angry because they do understand why Wall Street gets bailed out while Main Street is bowled over. Many people are angry because they do understand why they work harder and longer for less. Many people have woken up to the hidden tax of inflation perpetuated by the Federal Reserve System and enabled by Congress. Many people are wise to the good cop / bad cop routine bankers and politicians have played with the purchasing power of their dollar. Many people get that printing fiat currency ad infinitum and racking up the national debt is unsustainable and tantamount to a regressive tax against the poor and middle class. Many people understand, as President Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation’s goods, services and information.

Fortunately, many people understand such job-creation is illusory. Who is left to cover the cost of maintenance once these projects are complete? Where will these jobs go after completion? By touting this “accomplishment,” President Obama counts on people not differentiating production from subsidization and not understanding the fact they pay for the Recovery Act with the reduced purchasing power of their dollar.

[Healthcare] is a complex issue. And the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering, “What’s in it for me?”

This is an amazingly arrogant sentiment. Obama here presumes the only reason people are skeptical of his proposed health care reform is because they do not understand it. Aside from demeaning the intellectual capacity of the electorate, Obama’s presumption precludes the possibility people do understand his proposed reform and simply disagree with it on principle.  Equally disturbing is his implication Americans only care “what’s in it for them,” precluding the possibility people are concerned how expanding their own entitlement might result in effects beyond today and themselves. Does it not stand to reason, if Americans were truly fixated on narrow self interest, they would overwhelmingly support their own entitlement? Does it not stand to reason opposition to such entitlement reflects concern over long-term sustainability?

Put another way, Obama’s sentiment might read, “I know it’s hard for you folks to comprehend, but I’m trying to take care of you.” Such an attitude is unbecoming a public servant. The burden is not on President Obama to explain his plan, and on We the People to listen, but on him to listen to us.

Left Wing Poll Indicates Democratic Base Helped Brown

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC conducted an exit poll in Massachusetts Tuesday night which indicated the lack of a “public option” in the last known Senate version of the health care bill contributed to Scott Brown’s victory. 82% of respondents who voted for Obama in 2008 and then Brown on Tuesday stated they support the public option. 86% of Obama voters who stayed home from the polls also stated they support the public option. Over half of respondents in both categories, those who voted for Brown and those who stayed home, said Obama is not doing enough to deliver on the change he promised during the campaign.

Forgetting for the moment this poll was conducted on behalf of three “progressive” organizations, including MoveOn.org, what should we take away from it? It may be a mistake to disregard these numbers. When taken in consideration alongside reaction on record from Democratic supporters to the exclusion of a “public option,” along with the presence of a sizable faction within the left-wing which has demanded an outright single-payer system, it seems sensible to speculate a disillusioned Democratic base is perhaps as responsible for Brown’s victory as an emboldened libertarian uprising. This makes sense when compared to the model established in Republican support when the GOP was the majority; the failure of Republicans to live up to their articulated ideals led to disillusioned conservatives who withheld support and essentially enabled Democratic victories.

If one can move past an inherent suspicion of the source, these numbers offer some sobriety to the elation following Brown’s historic ascent to the Senate. While it is true, as articulated in the above shown video from Minnesota Majority, that Scott Brown’s victory “was a referendum on freedom,” it may also be true it was a referendum from some quarters to the contrary. Understanding this, at least accepting it as a possibility, may be key to crafting successful campaigns throughout this year.

The greatest danger in the wake of Brown’s victory, in this writer’s opinion, is assuming an air of manifest destiny. Candidates for liberty must pursue an aggressive campaign which forces statist opponents toward the center, depriving them of support from their entitlement-hungry base. Speaking from the perspective of the Republican Party, the sentiment has been oft expressed that Republicans have not distinguished themselves from Democrats, been “me too” luke-warm alternatives, and thus enabled the message to be crafted by opponents. There is an opportunity this year to turn that phenomenon on its ear. Brown’s victory offers evidence.

After Scott Brown, Beware Foxhole Conversions

by Walter Scott Hudson

Glenn Beck has taken to declaring on his radio and television programs his unwillingness to trust the political conversions of incumbents to something resembling a Tea Party paradigm, especially the closer we get to the 2010 mid-term election. His is a sensible position. As the recent touting of President Barrack Obama’s “it’ll be on C-SPAN” broken campaign promise reminds us, politicians lie, especially in an election year.

In the wake of Scott Brown’s historic ascent to Massachusetts senator, the point becomes more relevant than ever. As Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia said when the results were in, “In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process.” Webb went on to call for a halt to that process until Brown can be seated in the Senate. Indeed, the message to Congress from the people of Massachusetts, a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1, is clear and likely indicative of the tide to rise in November. There is little doubt many incumbents will recognize this and adjust their rhetoric accordingly. However, it is hard to argue such conversion will be based on anything other than the same self-interest which has guided their conduct so far.

This writer highly recommends marking January 19th as the point beyond which no shift in incumbent behavior will affect voting decisions.  Look at records. Look at what has been said and done to this point. Incumbents have clearly shown us who they are and what they believe in. The message of Brown’s victory ought not be “shape up or ship out.” It is far too late for that. Every kid caught with their hand in a cookie jar is “sorry.” Once the deed is done, the punishment may not be justly commuted. Forgive any incumbent whose repentance is coupled with a refusal to run for reelection. Short of that, don’t buy it.

Why Sarah Palin Is Hated

by Walter Scott Hudson

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her debut as a Fox News contributor this week, appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s Tuesday program. O’Reilly’s first question was about the hatred leveled toward her. “It’s almost funny that these people feel you’re such a threat to them,” O’Reilly stated. “You’re a politician. You’re a mom. You’re an American. What’s the threat?”

Palin answered, “It’s not about me. It’s not about me personally, who I am… They don’t like the message. They don’t like the common sense conservative solutions that I represent…”

That is only the tip of the iceberg. Of all political personalities, Palin is perhaps the consummate focal point around which America contends to define its identity. Palin is remarkable for sharing three traits – she is an American of average pedigree, who has audaciously pursued higher levels of civil service, and kept advancing despite volleys of arrows flung her way. This combination – average, ambitious, persistent – is terrifying to both the established political class and a willful underclass which wishes to be led by a government “smarter” than them.

The central precept around which this nation was formed, “that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” runs contrary to a dominant aspect of human nature. People want to be led. People desire leaders greater than them. It makes them feel safe. It makes them feel cared for. It makes them feel liberated to engage in endeavors of less import than that incumbent upon genuine freemen. This statement, that many folks wish upon themselves tyranny, is politically incorrect in our ostensibly free and democratic society. But it is demonstrably true. Consider, during the 2008 presidential election, Sarah Palin had the greatest amount of executive experience of any other person listed on either ticket. Yet, the chief criticism levied against her was a lack of “qualification.” What manner of qualification is one expected to have for an executive office, if not executive experience? Perhaps we should look to the victor of that contest for the answer. Barrack Obama, a man who proudly boasted among his qualifications time spent as a “community organizer,” sailed to victory on two words – hope and change. He stood tall, chin raised, gaze fixed upon a Utopian future which would manifest from the creative force of his divine vision. He convinced the electorate he was smarter than them, better than them, and able to dictate the direction of the country better than they could.

People wanted to anoint someone great, someone worthy, someone they could trust to steer while they took a nap. These same people, upon beholding an unpretentious hockey mom from Alaska, found themselves utterly terrified. She’s average. She’s *gasp* … representative!  If she were to come to power, it would be no better than if a neighbor did. How could they comfortably cede their civic responsibility to someone unable to demonstrate their right to rule through pretense and gimmick?

The other side of the hatred coin comes from members of a political class which regard Palin as a streaker through their secret society. They trembled  when she burst onto the scene in St. Paul with her folksy conviction toward principle and inexplicable desire to represent public interest. For that, she had to be shut down. If the public at large began to get the idea they could be led from someone among them, rather than by a demonstrably superior elitist, the entire political-industrial complex from which many derive a tidy stream of wealth at the expense of the taxpayer might be threatened. Thus the masters and many of their slaves found common cause. So they have worked as hammer and anvil to crush both Palin and the potential sea change she represents.

While readers may find this assessment discouraging, there is cause for hope. For all the hatred Sarah Palin has attracted, she has also gained support. As previously stated, she serves as a focal point around which we contend to define our national identity. In reaction to Palin, to her rise, her fall, and her tenacious resurgence, one is left with little choice but to side for or against self-government. Are we to be represented by those among us, who think like us, bleed like us, respect and worship like us? Or are we to be led by a polished image of transcendent royalty?

Here at Fightin Words, the call has gone out to all liberty-minded citizens to actively and relentlessly engage in the caucus process this year, shape party platforms, and provide humble candidates to elect this November. Stepping forward now, regardless of our background or “qualification,” will undoubtedly draw fire similar to that aimed at Palin. The first off the boat to storm the beach are the first to fall. But the cause can and will succeed, as our forebears’ did, if enough of us exhibit that character described by Palin in her Wednesday interview with Glenn Beck.

Real people… sincere people, people who are almost reluctant to serve… [willing to] run for office, and able to put their lives on the line in service to their country, their states, [and]  their communities.

It starts with caucus, folks. Get out there and do it.

Negro: The Other “N” Word

I was content to ignore the controversy surrounding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his apparently audacious 2008 evaluation of Senator Barrack Obama as a viable presidential candidate due to his “light skin” and lack of “Negro dialect.” Then I turned on the radio Monday morning and heard talk radio host Mike Gallagher having a nervous breakdown over George Will and other conservatives who have defended Reid’s remarks. While I recognize Gallagher as a well-meaning conservative voice, he is also my least favorite. Gallagher consistently engages in blindly partisan commentary so two-dimensional it has the effect (albeit ad hominem in nature) of discrediting his valid points.

I, like Obama, am a light-skinned black man with no discernible Negro dialect. So, if anybody should be offended by what Reid said. It should be me. I am not. Here is why:

He was right!

Is it racist to make the political observation that a candidate’s demographic and personal characteristics will have an effect on their viability? Commenter Nancy Morgan puts it bluntly, “Reid knows, as do most Americans, that if Obama’s skin was black as coal and he spoke ebonics (sic), there would be absolutely no chance he could be elected President.” Likewise, if he were a woman from Alaska with a rural dialect, there would be absolutely no chance he could be elected President. Even if these observations are indicative of racist or sexist attitudes, the person making the observation is not the source of the discrimination!

To call out Reid as a racist in this instance justifies the same kind of silly alarmist mock-offense the other side uses when they play the race card. The reaction of Gallagher and others seems no less ridiculous to me than when liberals accuse conservatives of being racist for stating uncomfortable truths. Here, let me find one quick (googling), here we go: “Black males are nearly eight times more likely than whites to suffer from AIDS.” What does that do for you? Offended? Am I racist against myself now?

There is legitimate racism in the world which should be confronted and denounced. That task is made more difficult by inflating an offense as slight as Reid’s. This gaff was far more reflective of Reid’s antiquated vocabulary than genuine racism. We already have an N-word. We refer to it as the N-word, as in the one we all know is bad. Since when is it one of two?

Let’s be honest, shall we? This is a political play made during a controversial legislative process. I would love to see Obamacare derailed as much as the next guy. But this is not how to do it. What offends me is the legitimizing of disgusting racial politics which conservatives should be above.

Another thing, what is the point proved by rehashing the Trent Lott travesty? How can one argue both that Trent Lott ought not have been driven from office and that his removal serves as valid precedent for running out Reid? If it was wrong the first time, it’s wrong now. Are we not grown up enough to move past this kind of but-Mom whining?