Obamaâs Elizabeth Warren Moment
by Aaron Ross Powell
Our presidentâs channeling Elizabeth Warren. Speaking in Roanoke, Obama hit all her governmentâs-the-reason-we-have-nice things notes. âIâm going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way,â he said. âWeâve already made a trillion dollarsâ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.â
Why should the wealthyâwho already pay quite a lot, mind youâpay a little bit more?
Because [the wealthy] want to give something back. They know they didnâtâlook, if youâve been successful, you didnât get there on your own. ⦠Iâm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you somethingâthere are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
About this, Obamaâs right. Lots of very smart people arenât rich. (Iâll assume thatâs what the president means by âsuccessfulâ and roll with it, while remaining totally aware that there are myriad ways to define âsuccessâ that donât involve accumulated wealth.) Lots of hardworking people arenât rich, either. Which means getting rich, while often involving both smarts and hard work, depends on other things, too. Such as background, family, networks, opportunities, and just plain luck.
Back to Obama:
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.
Again, true. Every successful person in this county benefited from the help of someone. None of us are capable of getting far at all entirely on our own.
The confusion for Obama and his fellow progressives comes in locating that âsomeone.â Because for Obama, âsomeoneâ isnât friends, family, colleagues. Itâs government.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we donât do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
At some fundamental level, Obama simply doesnât understand that âweâ are not the state. For him, acting together simply is the same thing as legislating, regulating, and taxing. Thatâs why he can say with a straight face such inanities as his fire service line above. He appears unable to comprehend voluntary, cooperative, non-governmental coordination. The government doesnât run bookstores, but we donât each have our own Barnes & Noble or Amazon.com.
And while heâs right that there are some things we probably canât do without government (or, at least, canât do as efficiently without government), that class of activities is vanishingly small when compared to all the things Obama wants government to doâand wants you and me to pay for.
The argument against paying more taxes or creating more federal programs is not that we all should keep our money even if it means accomplishing nothing and having no nice things. Rather itâs that if we kept our money and had fewer federal programs, weâd accomplish more and have more nice things. Without the state stifling innovation, hindering entrepreneurs, wasting resources, and crowding out private action, we would get even more done together.
Of course, this doesnât mean we havenât each gained something from Obamaâs welfare/warfare state. But the fact that we have doesnât do much to support the presidentâs call for higher taxes. After all, even an abusive parent can give birthday presents.
Thereâs a certain class of argument that sounds utterly convincing to those already convincedâand entirely preposterous to those not. Obamaâs remarks exemplify it. In order for his argument to get off the ground, Obama has to assume the truth of his conclusions. He asks us to believe that it is only through government that good things happen. He asks to us accept that weâd be helpless without Washingtonâs officiousness.
Obama wants us to think that we, as free citizens striving to better our own lives and our world, are incapable of the task.
The president hasnât made an argument so much as heâs demonstrated a failure of the imaginationâand a lack of faith in the American people.
by Aaron Ross Powell
Our presidentâs channeling Elizabeth Warren. Speaking in Roanoke, Obama hit all her governmentâs-the-reason-we-have-nice things notes. âIâm going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way,â he said. âWeâve already made a trillion dollarsâ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.â
Why should the wealthyâwho already pay quite a lot, mind youâpay a little bit more?
Because [the wealthy] want to give something back. They know they didnâtâlook, if youâve been successful, you didnât get there on your own. ⦠Iâm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you somethingâthere are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
About this, Obamaâs right. Lots of very smart people arenât rich. (Iâll assume thatâs what the president means by âsuccessfulâ and roll with it, while remaining totally aware that there are myriad ways to define âsuccessâ that donât involve accumulated wealth.) Lots of hardworking people arenât rich, either. Which means getting rich, while often involving both smarts and hard work, depends on other things, too. Such as background, family, networks, opportunities, and just plain luck.
Back to Obama:
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.
Again, true. Every successful person in this county benefited from the help of someone. None of us are capable of getting far at all entirely on our own.
The confusion for Obama and his fellow progressives comes in locating that âsomeone.â Because for Obama, âsomeoneâ isnât friends, family, colleagues. Itâs government.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we donât do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
At some fundamental level, Obama simply doesnât understand that âweâ are not the state. For him, acting together simply is the same thing as legislating, regulating, and taxing. Thatâs why he can say with a straight face such inanities as his fire service line above. He appears unable to comprehend voluntary, cooperative, non-governmental coordination. The government doesnât run bookstores, but we donât each have our own Barnes & Noble or Amazon.com.
And while heâs right that there are some things we probably canât do without government (or, at least, canât do as efficiently without government), that class of activities is vanishingly small when compared to all the things Obama wants government to doâand wants you and me to pay for.
The argument against paying more taxes or creating more federal programs is not that we all should keep our money even if it means accomplishing nothing and having no nice things. Rather itâs that if we kept our money and had fewer federal programs, weâd accomplish more and have more nice things. Without the state stifling innovation, hindering entrepreneurs, wasting resources, and crowding out private action, we would get even more done together.
Of course, this doesnât mean we havenât each gained something from Obamaâs welfare/warfare state. But the fact that we have doesnât do much to support the presidentâs call for higher taxes. After all, even an abusive parent can give birthday presents.
Thereâs a certain class of argument that sounds utterly convincing to those already convincedâand entirely preposterous to those not. Obamaâs remarks exemplify it. In order for his argument to get off the ground, Obama has to assume the truth of his conclusions. He asks us to believe that it is only through government that good things happen. He asks to us accept that weâd be helpless without Washingtonâs officiousness.
Obama wants us to think that we, as free citizens striving to better our own lives and our world, are incapable of the task.
The president hasnât made an argument so much as heâs demonstrated a failure of the imaginationâand a lack of faith in the American people.
