Are Obama's Ideas Un-American?

If not un-American, the ideas that propel Obama's re-election campaign are certainly unprecedented.

It seems that one of Mitt Romney's top surrogates, John Sununu, recently gave us a guided tour of the life cycle of a political gaffe.

First, he wished that President Barack Obama "would learn how to be an American," and then he amended the comment with a "what-I-really-meant-was" clarification, and finally, he surrendered, as they almost always do, by saying, "I made a mistake."

But did he? You don't have to be a birth certificate conspiracy kook to ponder the question. After all, we're no longer debating whether government should just be huge or whether it should be ginormous anymore. We're not really wrangling over what levels of debt or spending are acceptable. The president's central case rests on the idea that individuals should view government as society's moral center, the engine of prosperity and the arbiter of fairness. Traditionally speaking, that's not a very American notion.

Surely, he's not the first president to think it, but he's probably the first to say it -- and he says it over and over again. Take Obama's recent remarks to a crowd in Roanoke, Va.: "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."

Supporters protested that Republicans were highlighting one line from the text, unfairly portraying Obama's comments as an attack on business owners (which they were). But the broader context of the remark is even worse, because it's the president's definition of "this unbelievable American system" that's the real problem.

Employing Obama's logic, one could argue that nearly everything the president uses in his everyday life exists only because of so-called profit-mongering and selfishness -- most often in spite of government. The Internet languished for years in obscurity because government is rarely sensitive to the needs of consumers. And does anyone believe that individuals working together voluntarily (maybe with the help of some fat cat private equity firms) would not have come up with similar technology -- or that they would be unable to build bridges or roads themselves?

Obama has it all backward. It is the charity of a prosperous free society that allows people to become community organizers or attain "free" health care. Washington rarely helps the free market prosper, but a prosperous private sector is what allows Washington to throw billions of dollars into unproductive but morally pleasing environmental projects and dependency programs favored by the president. Society needs the rule of law to function, not another parent.

Of course, Obama is not the first class warrior in politics. But has there ever been a major presidential campaign focused almost exclusively on ginning up class envy and fear (Teddy Roosevelt's third-party run excluded)? The attack on Romney also, almost exclusively, entails calling out the guy for being rich and then relying on the assumption that you can only get that wealthy by being corrupt.

Sununu's comment was crudely put and too personal, but Obama's ideas do conflict with the traditional understanding of individual freedom. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong about pondering foreign ideas; almost all of ours are imported, after all. Early on, we pruned them, codified them and worked those ideas to our advantage. Most politicians express them in various ways; few follow through and protect them. The president, though, is arguing for a pretty drastic change to our stated -- oftentimes unpracticed -- philosophical understanding of government's role in our economic lives.

So if not un-American, the ideas that propel Obama's re-election campaign are certainly unprecedented.

David Harsanyi is a columnist and senior reporter at Human Events. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    Traditionally speaking, that's not a very American notion.

    Traditions like racism and sexism?

    /FORWARD

  • JWnTX||

    Lefties are so predictable. They can't see anything valuable in American traditions. Yes, we've freed more people at a much higher cost than any other society in civilization, but look at all the racism and sexism. Yes, we created the most affluent poor the world has ever known, but look at the racism and sexism. It's rather pathetic.

  • Tamfang||

    Well, you know, racism and sexism don't exist anywhere else, or didn't until Americans exported it.

  • T o n y||

    Only Austrian economic theories and the radical individualism philosophy of a Russian expat are truly American ideas!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Did you actually read the fucking article, or was that just a knee-jerk reaction from your lizard brain?

  • SIV||

    It's Thursday.

  • T o n y||

    Yes, and my first reaction is to consider what a private sector-invented Internet would look like. I'm sure it would be just as free and open as a private-sector created highway system.

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you drive a Trabant?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So your answer is a non-sequitur?

  • ||

    It's a predetermined response, probably funded by the CIA.

  • The Hammer||

    Tony's existence is a series of non-sequiturs connected by strawmen. It's pretty much the only way to be an Obama fan.

  • The Hammer||

    His answer also contained a revealing tinge of jingoism.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    By the way...

    Private highways are common in Asia and Europe; in addition, a few have been built in the United States on an experimental basis.

    Not that your simian brain could conceptualize conditions or lifestyles outside of the 3 meters of your own bubble of personal space.

  • ||

    That bubble must be occupied exclusively by methane, right? The amount of bullshit that streams from Tony's mouth makes it a certainty.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I can't wait until Tony dies and triggers our next Ice Age.

  • ||

    That'll take another Occutard-scale eruption of indignation. It'll cause the Sun to be blocked out for decades, and will likely bring about an ice age. Are you ready for Progress(tm)?

  • ||

    I can't wait until Tony dies and triggers our next Ice Age.

    FIFY

  • ||

    Bullshit....I lived in Europe for several years...they are by no means "common" and they suck!!!!

  • Brutus||

    The vast, vast majority of the internet is private, Tony, and it's wide open.

  • ||

    But it was invented by Al Gore. Don't be so clueless!

  • KPres||

    Uh, the internet is private sector. The websites are private, the ISPs are private, and the routers and modems are manufactured by private companies. That's pretty much the whole fucking internet.

  • Jesse James Dean||

    you are confusing the internet with the world wide web

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Only Austrian economic theories and the radical individualism philosophy of a Russian expat are truly American ideas!


    Only German/British economic theories and the radical collectivist philosophy from a Russian provocateur are truly American ideas!

  • Doctor Whom||

    Never mind the zombie apocalypse; the straw-man apocalypse is upon us.

  • ||

    Are strawmen like the sucky alternatives to scarecrows.

  • Doctor Whom||

    They're like the sucky alternatives to arguments, and that's why the Obots rely on them so heavily.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'll take that over a Cyberman apocalypse.

  • ||

    At least you can set strawmen on fire.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There are some very basic American ideals - individualism and risk-taking being two I consider at the top - and if someone's core ideology appears in conflict with those ideals, then call them un-American, for shit sake. You're not doing anyone any favors sugarcoating. And they're free to rebutt.

  • Rich||

    And they're free to rebutt.

    Now *that's* American!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I put that in there just for you.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The cornerstone of everything "American" is the supremacy of the individual--property rights, other civil liberties, a limited government subordinate to the rights of individuals, etc. Moving away from that has weakened us tremendously.

  • ||

    Individualism is for neo-Confederates and Halliburton. Why do you abhor brown people?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Awesome! Your "brown people" term brought up the FilipinoCupid.com ad on my browser!

  • ||

    Objectifying brown people via patriarchal-racist gazing? Just the sort of thing a crypto-fascist libertarian would do!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, I "objectify" myself all the time after viewing some tasty Filipinas.

  • ||

    Filipinas are brown people, you know. They're poor and helpless, and have to be patronized and helped along by the more enlightened hand of the caring progressive. Stop being so racist.

  • alittlesense||

    too much information.......

  • KPres||

    He's out!

  • Brutus||

    There's a racist motive for everything it seems. A couple of years ago I remember reading about how the almost complete lack of rape of Palestinian women by Israeli troops was, at the core, due to Israeli racism.

    It was then that I resolved to venture into the more African-American areas of STL and begin the racial reconciliation through the application of the healing balm of rape.

  • ||

    These people are not beholden to logic. Their bullshit just keeps getting worse and worse.

  • sarcasmic||

    These people are not beholden to logic.

    But, but, but they feel that it is true, therefore it must be true!

  • KPres||

    They're not beholden to evidence, either.

  • Loki||

    It was then that I resolved to venture into the more African-American areas of STL and begin the racial reconciliation through the application of the healing balm of rape.

    You owe me a new keyboard and monitor.

    +10 internetz

  • Doctor Whom||

    And they're free to rebutt.

    That's something for the central planners to decide.

  • Brutus||

    Is that a double date for Tony?

  • jacob the barbarian||

    only if he swallows

  • T o n y||

    I guess I can but I don't see what the big deal is about a big spooge mess. We're gonna take a shower after regardless.

  • Rich||

    It is the charity of a prosperous free society that allows people to become community organizers or attain "free" health care.

    This should be a question in the upcoming debates.

  • ||

    "That's the king of anarchism that gave us Somalia, good sir!"

  • ||

    *kind, too.

  • tarran||

    And does anyone believe that individuals working together voluntarily (maybe with the help of some fat cat private equity firms) would not have come up with similar technology

    They did. Several times.

    The most interesting of which was Fidonet.

  • mgd||

  • ||

    The president's central case rests on the idea that individuals should view government as society's moral center, the engine of prosperity and the arbiter of fairness.

    No one, and I mean NO ONE, sees government that way, not even Dear Leader.

  • Overt||

    Don't be so sure.

    Look at what he says in that speech. "All these great things are possible because we work together".

    You aren't successful because you were smart or hard working, you were successful because of magic togetheriness. And what are the examples of togetheriness? Why government programs like roads, moonshots, GI Bills and schools.

    He truly believes that any good in society is credited to- and only to- the society, manifested in the government.

  • ||

    Oh, I have no doubt that Obama and his progressive sycophants would just love for people to view the government in that way. But no one does. Even the leftiest of lefties thinks government should pass laws based on what they perceive as society's moral center, as distinct from government being the moral center.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Even the leftiest of lefties thinks government should pass laws based on what they perceive as society's their moral center, as distinct from government being the moral center.

    Your position would have more support if they didn't turn to the courts so often in order to get what elections wouldn't give them.

  • ||

    No, you're making my point. If someone has to use the courts to force their morality on everyone else then not only is their morality not society's moral center, but it's not the government's either. If the government were the moral center, no one would have to sue to get them to change things, they'd just do it.

    Political animals (both left and right) who want the government to be a moral center for society do so only because they want their personal views imposed on everyone else.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If the government were the moral center, no one would have to sue to get them to change things, they'd just do it.

    You do understand that courts need a case in front of them and they can't "just do it" without one, right?

    The whole leftist idea that the courts should drag the rest of us kicking and screaming into a more enlightened era cuts your argument off at the knees.

  • ||

    Hardly. The government can "just do it" anytime they like with the legislature.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yeah... legislatures are elected. If the leftists want something that society as a whole doesn't, the legislative part of the government is useless to them. However, the federal judiciary is not elected and it's much easier to find a group of a few judges who will give you what you want than a group of a few million voters.

    There are countless examples of the left turning to judges when they can't get what they want at the ballot box. They want the courts -- part of the government -- to define what is legal and moral.

    If society overwhelmingly said "No abortions after three months, period" you really believe that the leftiest of lefties thinks government should pass that law? Really?

  • ||

    Jesus, no. My whole point was that government is NOT the moral center, won't ever be the moral center, and can't be the moral center.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Well, your initial point was that the left didn't see government as the moral center, which flies in the face of its many attempts to have the courts be just that and which is different from what you now say your point is, so I'm out.

  • ||

    No, no, you misunderstood. My point was there's a distinction between the government being the moral center and the government acting as a proxy for some political faction's moral center. The left doesn't want the government to BE the moral center, which is what I quoted originally. They want the government to enforce the left's morals.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Yeah, it was outrageous. Nothing can be taken out of context nor can calls of racism be asserted in the attacks and rebuttals the President gets. It was a travesty of a speech on so many levels. I'm too annoyed at the moment to even muster a comment.

  • KPres||

    "Look at what he says in that speech. 'All these great things are possible because we work together'."

    This is rhetorical mastery. "Working together" carries the connotation of voluntary interaction for most people, so that's what they think when they hear him say that. But what he really means is working together under the threat of state penalty.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In so far as Christianity can be American--even Obama's Christianity is un-American.

    "You don't have to be a birth certificate conspiracy kook to ponder the question."

    Frankly, I think this is one of the reasons why the Birther thingy has managed to hang on for four years.

    People are reacting to Obama's un-American ideas. They hear him say the un-American things he says; they watch him do the un-American things he does, and they start looking for explanations.

    "Why is he so un-American?", they ask themselves. "Maybe it's because he's not American" is what they come up with.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, saying that if you have a business, you didn't build that?

    That isn't just un-American. It's anti-immigrant, too!

    Do you have any idea, Mr. President, what all the Vietnamese people who immigrated to Little Saigon went through to build their businesses and become prosperous Americans?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....Background

    Obama just spit on the American dream, on millions of immigrants and their families, on all the hard work they did to make it here in America...

    Shame on you, Mr. President.

  • ||

    He's spit on millions of immigrants over the last 4 years, why should Friday have been any different?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    His biggest anti-American statement came early - "I do believe that at some point, you've made enough money."

    I mean holy shit, how did he say that and still get elected?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Be careful. I know people who BELIEVE this to be a fair point of logic. How big does your house have to be! Not too far off from their minds, you know, is the hope that legislates the size of your home and caps salaries.

    And don't tell me they don't think this deep down.

    I think with this speech, if there was any doubt about how Obama thinks (and he's clearly a left-winger), the lines are clearly drawn.

    I have my pitchfork, metaphorically speaking (don't want to upset the sissy liberals), ready to draw lines in the sand.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I know similar people. Example, one woman resents the money that J.K. Rowling has made. She was on welfare, wrote a book about a boy wizard, and is now a multi-millionare. No coercion involved, she just wrote a book that became a phenomenon, and this woman resents that???? F'd in the head, they are.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Reminds me of a saying: A leftist and a capitalist are walking down the street and come upon a large house with a late model luxury car parked in front. The capitalist said "wow, I wish everyone could live like that!". The leftist said "no one should live like that."

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Quoted for truth.

    My concern is this thinking is on the rise.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Do we have any evidence that Obama does, in fact, think and therefore have ideas?

  • ||

    Maybe that's why his educational records are sealed!

  • sticks||

    we paid for his education, right? so why can't we see his records.

  • ||

    In fact, we should be able to compel him to release those records.

    Why do you hate America, Mr. President?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Me too, as a Canadian, I'm curious to see just how smart this guy was in school. Up here, we know PM Stephen Harper was an outstanding student. He plays the piano too. If he was liberal, the CBC would be all over that with a "look how cool our guy is!"

    Instead, I never saw a report and had to find that out on youtube.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    His educational records are sealed because circle-the-wagons secrecy is a Liberal reflex. They often accuse Republicans of this, but i habe always found that one of the better ways to tell what the Liberal Left is doing that it is ashamed of is to track what they accuse their opponents of doijng.

  • ||

    That would explain why the left will find any excuse to yell "Racist!"

  • Old Mexican||

    The president's central case rests on the idea that individuals should view government as society's moral center, the engine of prosperity and the arbiter of fairness. Traditionally speaking, that's not a very American notion.


    It's not even a logical notion. Government takes by threat of force, therefore it cannot be the moral bedrock of society.

    The government takes by threat of force, therefore it cannot be the engine for prosperity, unless you want to tell me that burglars make the world go 'round.

    The government steals, imprisons and kills at the most trivial of provocations, therefore it cannot be the arbiter of fairness.

    So far, the president has been able only to showcase his banality, his poor grasp of logical thinking and his lack of philosophical principles.

  • coma44||

    Bingo!

    Thanks for that OM

  • sarcasmic||

    He appeals to peoples' emotions. I mean, what he says feels right, so it must be right. Right?

    (Know who else appealed to peoples' emotions?)

  • Loki||

    Sally Struthers?

  • ||

    Robespierre?

  • Tamfang||

    Tinkerbell?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    He has also displayed a tin ear, a positively infantile lack of sophistication, and his Golf game.

    In four years.

  • Registration At Last!||

    Obama's "vision" of government may not be what our actual government is, but there is no theoretical reason that our government couldn't become like his "vision."

    Our government could get out of the mass-incarceration business, the occupational-licensing business, the global-military-hegemony business, the middle-class-welfare-state business, and the what-are-you-doing-in-your-bedroom business, and refocus itself on the provision of public goods as its over-arching mission, even without reducing its revenues or its scale.

    If our government was "refocused," current revenues could provide a host of public goods in transport, telecom, education, public health, and public amenities. By redirecting our spending from global empire and the drug-war gulag archipalego, all the "deferred maintenance" on our infrastructure could be cleared in one swoop.

    Obama is not the man to do this. He is hardly willing to begin this. Romney is no better. But it is, in theory, possible, and such a transformation would "make good" on the president's heretofor empty rhetoric.

  • BC||

    If our government was "refocused," current revenues could provide a host of public goods in transport, telecom, education, public health, and public amenities.

    I'd like to see some evidence of this, given that government's current involvement in these areas is, almost without exception, a clusterfuck on stilts.

  • Registration At Last!||

    Kneejerk nonsense. Our government executes at a high level of competence with airports, seaports, railways, roadways, facilitating communication hardware, primary education, water and sewer, public parks and other amenities. Bringing these systems to the state-of-the-art is well within its abilities -- but only if the public and the political leadership are committed to it!!! (Which they are not at present.)

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Where, exactly, does the Federal government display these talents? On their own showing, they can't even make money running a brothel.

  • Registration At Last!||

    Was this something on the news wire I didn't hear about?

  • Raistlin||

    Aparently. Look up the Mustang Ranch in Nevada.

  • fish||

    ...and she's gone!

    Thanks for playing Mary!

  • Vogon's Poet||

    RAL, you really needs to get treatment for that case of raging case of rectal cranial inversion.

  • Registration At Last!||

    I think the state of computer technology had something to do with it. The cost, market penetration, and functionality of computers had to reach a certain point before personal computers were ubiquitous enough to create the internet as we have known it since the mid-1990's.

  • MikeT||

    Mostly, the reason the Internet didn't happen earlier is because of ATT's monopoly, a monopoly that was regulated and maintained by the government. This meant that, on the one hand, ATT was prohibited from actually making the computer and Internet revolution happen even though they had the technology, and on the other hand made it nearly impossible for others to compete. And despite that, much of the technology underlying the Internet was developed by private companies and universities.

    Once ATT's monopoly was broken up in 1984, the market slowly started recovering and you started being able to get more diverse voice and data services at lower costs. By the mid-90's, there were enough telecom competitors that Internet-based businesses and services became feasible.

    Europe clung to its telecom monopolies even longer, and ended up late to the Internet party. However, some countries in Europe managed to break up their monopolies more effectively and now have more competition and lower prices for Internet and mobile services than the US, showing again that markets and competition lower prices.

  • Brian from Texas||

    I'd say Obama's policies are un-American to the extent that they are not the right policies for this country if it's ever to get back on its feet. Do I personally think Obama hates America like so many of my fellow Libertarians/Constitutional Consevatives think he does? Actually I don't. I don't believe anyone who rises to become President of the United States can possibly hate his own country. And I think Obama genuinely believes, in his dillusional arrogant head, that his policies are what is best for this country.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You know who else thought his policies were what was best for his country?

    OK, maybe he doesn't hate America, per se. He just hates federalism, individual initiative, markets, and other things that have traditionally been associated with America.

  • ||

    This is why stupid people are more dangerous then evil people. A villain will eventually perceive that his plan isn't working and take a new tack. But stupid people think doing the same stupid things over and over will somehow bring about their desired outcome.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    MS, there is an old Russian saying: "Better to have a smart enemy, than a stupid friend."

  • ||

    True, dat.

  • BigT||

    "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. ... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "

    - C. S. Lewis

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    During the speech I kept praying for the vaudeville cane to yank him off the stage.

    Obama is soooo 'whatever' now.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Its Rufus T. Firefly. If your going to be witty, get it right.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    JackandAce, fuck you.

    I know it's 'T.' THAT'S the point you idioto.

    I can't stand asssholes like you.

    Get an imagination.

    Reminds me of when I took an Italian course and the teacher explained the Versace was pronounced "ce" and not "ci" as in Versa-chee. It's Versa-che (soft ch).

    A student took the teacher to task and told her she was wrong and that it was Versa-chee.

    Idiots. All of you.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "The president, though, is arguing for a pretty drastic change to our stated -- oftentimes unpracticed -- philosophical understanding of government's role in our economic lives."

    Really? Lets see...government intervention in health care. Oh wait...that had been done before. Regulations on the industry...oh right, Obama did not invent that. Wars on foreign soil...sounds like a good Republican to me. Funding EPA and Planned Parenthood, oh yeah, so did W. So did Reagan. Making sure citizens have equal access to vote...right, a founding father type of idea.
    Yeah, he's really un-American.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Did I mention to go suck on a lemmon, smart ass?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Ouch. 'Lemon.'

  • Jackand Ace||

    No problem...I do that all the time.
    Just a big Groucho fan.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Wow. You took my uncharacteristically offensive attack in stride. Points to you.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Nah. I was a pompous ass. Groucho would have sided with you.
    Points to you for calling me on it.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    We should all take a moment to celebrate the REAL Rufus. T.

    Moment of silence.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."
    Groucho

    Sounds like you and I would not agree on much, except for maybe sentiments like the one above.
    Peace

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Perhaps but I am pragmatic.

    A couple of my friends are liberals. I respect them enormously. I just don't get this growth in the reliance of government to help us along.

  • ||

    I agree that un-American is over the top criticism. Frankly there are plenty of things to fault about BO without resorting to that kind of nativist and zenophobic rhetoric.

    And I agree that the GOP has been guilty of the same things as Obama. But I'm not sure it's totally relevant. Hating Obama does not require us to love Bush. We can still keep our "a pox on both their houses" position without doing an "on the other hand" digression every time we criticize someone. Obama is the one now holding the reins. He is the one that will come in for the most faultfinding.

  • TindWeee||

    lol not like he was born in America anyways lol.

    www.New-Anon.tk

  • T. Durden||

    Isn't this a little like Newton saying he stood on the shoulders of giants? In a successful society with history no one takes complete credit for the way things are. Where would America be without Enlightenment thinkers for example?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Not to libertarians...all credit for anything good goes to the free market. And things bad, well, that was because of suppression of the free market.
    Its fairly simple.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I don't see the connection you're trying to make.

    Obama isn't pontificating about America's Enlightenment (itself an offspring of Athens, Rome, Christian thought and the Renaissance) heritage - all of the West shares in that.

    It GOES WITHOUT SAYING we don't live and exist, and progress independent of one another.

    What Obama is saying is, "Jefferson, you eccentric you, you didn't write the Declaration of Independence on your own. Someone else wrote that for you. Cicero!"

    It's just dumb. Jefferson always acknowledged his inspirations but it doesn't detract that HE ALONE wrote the fucking document.

    It's putrid paternalism of the worst kind.

    Thank you and good night. I am Rufus J. Firefly. Not relation to Rufus T.

  • T o n y||

    Yes that rhetoric is dumb, and it's also not what Obama said, but it's how the rightwing stupid machine preferred to interpret what he said.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Tony, you presumptuous twit. Spoken like a true liberal. Let me get this straight, A) you presume me to be "right-wing (mostly because I hold different views from you) and B) People who take issue with Obama's comments waited UNTIL AFTER the "right-wing machine" to form an opinion?

    I think therein lies the truth of your own thinking.

    What he said was CLEAR, Tony. Nothing was taken out of context. He said what he said.

    What are you attempting to defend?

    It was a dumb speeh, filled with silly little, childish, mootish notions of how you don't do squat without the government behind the scenes.

    Know what else, Tony? That's the same garbage lines I hear from union hucksters who come on my commercial properties to hassle me or how the Italian mob used to extort money out of newly arrived immigrants. "You know, you wouldn't be able to sell that cheese if it weren't for the Don's wagons, Luigi. You're not alone so pay us!"

    It's putrid, bully rhetoric. I refute and reject it outright. I arrived at this conclusion on my own.

    Get it?

    You know, I own a business, Tony. And you know, I don't find that the government helps me AT ALL, Tony.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    While it's fun to shoot holes in Tony's pro-government-over-all-else arguments, it's also frustrating that he's still here.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Seriously. I wouldn't be considered a true-blue libertarian by some here, but Tony's blanket acceptance that the state is the best assurance against man's volatile and vile nature is astonishing and ludicrous at the same time.

    He has no faith in mankind; just faith in excessive legislation. To him, that's rationalism.

    Just go back to Huffington. They'll get you there.

  • ||

    spending are acceptable. The president's central case rests on the idea that individuals should view http://www.maillotfr.com/maill.....c-3_9.html government as society's moral center, the engine of prosperity and the arbiter of fairness. Traditionally speaking, that's not a very American notion.

  • Tamfang||

    And does anyone believe that individuals working together voluntarily (maybe with the help of some fat cat private equity firms) would not have come up with similar technology -- or that they would be unable to build bridges or roads themselves?

    Yes. Yes, people do.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement