Obama: The People Do Not Understand

January 28, 2010 at 7:20 am | Posted in Political | 13 Comments

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.

13 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Obama’s sentiment might read, “I know it’s hard for you folks to comprehend, but I’m trying to take care of you.”

    Bingo, but in the end it is is really the special intereste who he is really going to take care of.

  2. [...] Read more at Fightin’ Words [...]

  3. You don’t have to be Nostradamus to sense which way the political winds in this country have shifted.

    President Obama ran on a slogan of “Change You Can Believe In” and what has he accomplished in his first year in office? He has appointed tax cheats to cabinet positions and bailed out Wall Street fats cats. With his Democratic majority in Congress he rushed through an “emergency” stimulus bill with earmarks that has yet to be spent. His administration has increased the budget deficit by 1.3 trillion dollars, the largest since the end of WW II. His administration watched unemployment rise above 10% while he spent his political capital trying to force a government takeover of one sixth of the U.S. economy. He dithered about sending more troops to Afghanistan, gave rights to terrorist suspects, attempted to close Guantanamo, and bring the terrorists to the United States. He apologized for America to the world and bowed to foreign leaders. His promise of transparency was tarnished by the backroom, Chicago style deals to secure support for a health care bill that the majority of American citizens don’t want.

    Is it any wonder that Obama’s party lost elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts after he campaigned for Democrats in those states. The President has frittered away his veto proof majority in the Senate by losing the seat once held by ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy. Other members of Obama’s party are changing parties or deciding not to run for re-election, and Republican challengers are leading in polls prior to the November mid term elections.

    By any standard, President Obama’s first year in office was a failure. But it was Bush’s fault, right?

  4. [...] Walter Scott Hudson commented that President Obama’s remarks about health care in Wednesday night’s speech [...]

  5. great sentiment.

  6. Last night Obama calls for fiscal restraint. Democrats erupt and Republicans sit on their hands. I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of small government, individual liberties, and fiscal restraint. Last night Republicans were offered just that and refused it.

    It’s not clear to me what they stand for anymore. As far as I tell, they want 1) business to operate with as few restrictions as possible to make as much money as possible and 2) Democrats to fail passing anything.

    Of course, this serves as a great disservice to the electorate. There are plenty of terrific conservative ideas, especially to fix health care, and yet we don’t see them being promoted. The only reason I can see why is because crafting decent legislation will help the Democrats’ cases for reelection. I sincerely hope Republican opposition is more evidence-based than this, because I’m beginning to lose faith in their ability to govern at all.

    • “Last night Obama calls for fiscal restraint. Democrats erupt and Republicans sit on their hands. I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of small government, individual liberties, and fiscal restraint. Last night Republicans were offered just that and refused it.”

      In some cases it is because the offer is not credible. Obama’s offer to freeze some government salaries after they already have their raises this fiscal year (US gov’t fiscal year runs from October to October) means that after running a $5 trillion plus total deficit (including entitlement shortfalls), he is offering to maybe save $4 million 10 months from now. His faction has already spent on everything they wanted, so it is easy for them to say, “No more (until next year).”

      On the other hand, you are also correct. For many Congressional Republicans, they have not been calling for “restraint” because they believe in it, but because they are in the minority and know they will not get what they want. A RINO can now safely sponsor a bill to cut back government because he/she KNOWS it cannot possibly pass and that Democrats voting it down will look bad. This is an old game and getting stale. Many of the Republicans currently opposing Obama’s spending policies were among the same people voting for Bush (II)’s spending policies. In some cases they were spending on different things and in many cases Obama is spending even more, but money is largely going to the same people for the same pay-offs it always has.

      Limited government is not a party line issue. There are Republicans who really support limited government, but there are many who at best pay it lip service. We need a sea-change in both parties. Republicans may be feeling good now about the MA election, but we are the same party voters rejected in 2006,2008. We need to return to our roots and run real limited-government candidates with real conservative (meaning “to conserve”) track records. Then we will not only gain ground in this year’s elections but might actually deserve it.

  7. Peter Schiff economic analysis of the State of the Union address:

  8. [...] The People Do Not Understand January 29, 2010 ancavge Leave a comment Go to comments Walter Scott Hudson Figthin’ Words January 28, [...]

  9. REALLY nice job on this!

  10. Great article, by the way, and great analysis.

    Obama’s camp (which does not represent all Democrats) has the fundamentally wrong idea of what government is FOR and people are beginning to realize it. I have been very interested of late to see left-leaning organizations like the ACLU distance themselves from Obama. The ACLU has worked hard on a lot of civil liberties issues supported by limited-government conservatives (e.g. warrantless wiretapping and steady opposition to PATRIOT Act), so I track them on a regular basis. It is nice to see them move away from “us vs. them” a little bit more.

    Even if Obama shoves his policy through on the national level, state opposition will be fierce. A bill in the MO legislature to nix Federal health-care takeover had almost half the legislature as cosponsors the moment it was filed. A resolution rebuking MO’s US representatives supporting the takeover passed handily here with little debate. States are starting to get the idea that this Administration intends to leave them with nothing.

    • Thank you. I agree it is good to see folks, regardless of their position on the left-right spectrum, holding to principle on the more important liberty-authority spectrum.

  11. [...] a transcript of said speech if you’d like to try playing the game anyway. And of course various bits of commentary. And a fact check on parts of the speech as [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.