Mark Steyn makes a case against the Democratic presidential nominee in Obama makes a better symbol than president:
The senator and his doting Obots in the media have gone to great lengths to obscure what Barack Obama does when he’s not being a symbol: his voting record, his friends, his patrons, his life outside the soft-focus memoirs is deemed nonrelevant to the general hopey-changey vibe. But occasionally we get a glimpse. The offhand aside to Joe the Plumber about “spreading the wealth around” was revealing because it suggests a crude redistributive view of “social justice”. Yet the nimble Hope-a-Dope sidestepper brushed it aside, telling a crowd in Raleigh that next John McCain will be “accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”
But that too is revealing. As John Hood pointed out at National Review, communism is not “sharing.” In a free society, the citizen chooses whether to share his Lego, trade it for some Thomas the Tank Engine train tracks, or keep it to himself. From that freedom of action grow mighty Playmobile cities. Communism is compulsion. It’s the government confiscating your Elmo to “share” it with someone of its choice. Joe the Plumber is free to spread his own wealth around – hiring employees, buying supplies from local businesses, enjoying surf ‘n’ turf night at his favorite eatery. But, in Obama’s world view, that’s not good enough: the state is the best judge of how to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth around.
The Senator is a wealthy man, mainly on the strength of two bestselling books offering his biography in lieu of policy and accomplishments. Many lively members of his Kenyan family occur as supporting characters in his story and provide the vivid color in it. But they too are not merely two-dimensional cartoons. His Aunt Zeituni, a memorable figure in Obama’s writing, turned up for real last week, when the dogged James Bone of the London Times tracked her down. She lives in a rundown housing project in Boston.
In his Wednesday night infomercial, Obama declared that his “fundamental belief” was that “I am my brother’s keeper.” Back in Kenya, his brother lives in a shack on 12 bucks a year. If Barack is his brother’s keeper, why couldn’t he send him a $10 bill and nearly double the guy’s income? The reality is that Barack Obama assumes the government should be his brother’s keeper, and his aunt’s keeper. Why be surprised by that? For 20 years in Illinois, Obama has marinated in the swamps of the Chicago political machine and the campus radicalism of William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. In such a world, the redistributive urge is more or less a minimum entry qualification.
The government as wealth-spreader-in-chief was not a slip of the tongue but consistent with Obama’s life, friends and votes. The Obamacons – that’s to say, conservatives hot for Barack – justify their decision to support a big-spending big-government Democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate by “hoping” that he doesn’t mean it, by “hoping” that he’ll “change” in office. “I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible,” declared reformed conservative Ken Adelman, “than his liberal record indicates.”
He’s “hoping” that Obama will buck not just Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and the rest of the gang but also his voting record, his personal address book and his entire adult life. Good luck betting the future on that. The “change” we’ll get isn’t hard to discern: An expansion of government, an increase in taxes, a greater annexation of the dynamic part of the economy by the sclerotic bureaucracy, a reduction in economic liberty …oh, and a lot more Chicago machine politics.
16 comments ↓
[…] Politics as sharing your toys Yet the nimble Hope-a-Dope sidestepper brushed it aside, telling a crowd in Raleigh that next John McCain will be “accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.” But that too is revealing. … […]
[…] Politics as sharing your toys The senator and his doting Obots in the media have gone to great lengths to obscure what Barack Obama does when he’s not being a symbol: his voting record, his friends, his patrons, his life outside the soft-focus memoirs is deemed … […]
I thought we were supposed to be accusing him of being a socialist. And now he’s a communist? Or do conservatives no longer care about accuracy in language, such that they conflate the terms — you know, whatever sounds evil?
But then, Steyn doesn’t seem too interested in accuracy, choosing instead to repeat claims from the conservative echo chamber about Obama’s “brother”. I presume he’s referring to George, his half-brother.
Just a little Google research found me these quotes about him, taken after the Italian Vanity Fair article that conservatives love to quote so much:
Or:
Of course, I still maintain all this socialist (or, apparently, communist) talk is disingenuous. We’ve been spreading the wealth around in this country for as long as we’ve had taxes, especially so since the income tax has been around.
And everyone would much rather read as much as they can into one phrase than assessing how Obama’s proposed tax plan might actually be akin to socialism, because by cherry-picking your phrases, you can make Obama out to be whatever you want him to be. Obama’s proposal raises the top marginal income tax rate from around 35% to around 40%. Before Reagan came along, it was routinely twice what it is now. Remember that socialist Nixon with his 70% top rate? Or arch-communist Eisenhower with his 91% one? Pinkos, all of them.
[1] “Life is good in my Nairobi slum, says Barack Obama’s younger brother” by Rob Crilly, 8/22/08, TimesOnline.co.uk
[2] “Behind the Scenes: Meet George Obama” by David McKenzie, 8/23/08, CNN.com
Nixon, Ike: not on the ballot.
The ‘communist’ word was used by Obama. McCain nor Palin cused the word communist to describe his plans; just socialist and socialism.
So what are we to make of today’s quotes from Obama, that under his cap and trade plan, ‘electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket’ or:
‘So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’
I don’t know what you call that economic philosophy, let alone enrgy policy, nor what national interest that idea serves. I don’t know what school of thought it embraces; I’m not that schooled. But my gut tells me it ain’t free-market or even democratic. My gut tells me it’s hubris. Run amok.
PS: those Obama statements weren’t made today; just exposed today. They were made in Jan. of this year.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a one-party State - that of the Communist Party. The distinction between ’socialist’ and ‘communist’ does not appear to be universally held-to as a difference in semantic domain by those using those terms to describe themselves.
The Weather Underground and the CPUSA which mentored and launched Barry Soetoro alias Barack Hussein Obama (even his campaign symbol is a modification of the Weather Underground logo) seem content with both terms. I don’t know if the socialist New Party that he ran with in 1996, was into making them distinct terms or not.
If the Rs have moved away from an Eisenhower understanding of the economy, the very same view held by Teddy Roosevelt, i.e. “The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth;” and into “Root, hog, or die” territory, then it is no surprise that the Ds have moved into that political space that the Rs vacated. If taking over ideological territory formerly occupied by the Rs represents a shift to the left, then that says as much about the Rs as it does about anyone else. Really, what were the Ds supposed to do? Just leave all those votes laying there?
Susan @ 4, well stated. I’m sure there are some early voting folks in the coal industry today who wish they could have their votes back. Soon, if Obama is elected, they will be wishing they could have their jobs back.
tODD @ 3: as Susan said above, it was Barack who brought up the word “communist”. Then he proceeded to reveal that he has absolutely no idea of what he is talking about or why it is controversial. Apparently, to him, sharing one’s own property is an identical concept to having the government come and cofiscate someone else’s property to share it with folks of the government’s choosing. We saw this same problem in prior campaigns, with Democrats claiming that government re-distribution programs fulfill Christ’s commandments to help the poor. But there is a world of difference between sharing voluntarily of your own wealth to help someone else, as Americans do so generously through charities every year, and setting up a government program and hiring, through a federal union, a myriad of well-paid bureaucrats to coerce wealth involuntarily from some Americans to transfer to others. Christ never called for that. That is not sharing.
This “socialist talk” is not disingenuous, to the extent that it reflects an entirely new level of transfer payments directly from some taxpayers to other non-taxpayers. Paying taxes to the government for the purpose of funding government obligations is one thing. Doing so for the purpose of allowing the government to “refund” taxes to someone who pays no taxes is a new level of socialism, which we supposedly got rid of back in 1996 with welfare reform.
The apparent prevalence of the idea that taxes exist to support fairness–as opposed to citizens being fairly taxed–proves that we’ve digressed or devolved into some dire removal from our beginnings as a country. I recall something about taxation being at the forefront.
Susan (@4), “Nixon, Ike: not on the ballot.” But you agree they were socialists, yes? Or do you always refuse to relevance of the past in this way?
“The ‘communist’ word was used by Obama.” Don (@8) said the same thing: “It was Barack who brought up the word ‘communist’.” I can’t find a reference to his saying that word, which you both put in quotes. Citation, please?
Look, I agree that Obama’s comments on sharing his “toys” or “sandwich” were stupid, inasmuch as they discussed voluntary sharing, and taxation is voluntary only according to the contract we all agree to in this country: to be bound by the voluntary votes of a majority of our fellow citizens or the representatives they elect.
Don also said, “This ’socialist talk’ is not disingenuous, to the extent that it reflects an entirely new level of transfer payments directly from some taxpayers to other non-taxpayers.” First of all, it is not true that everyone in the lower income-tax brackets are “non-taxpayers”. They pay all sorts of taxes, just not income ones, and you know that.
Secondly, all taxes redistribute wealth from someone to someone. But to pretend that this is some “entirely new” system of wealth distribution is silly. I know it’s not a federal example, but where I live, corporations routinely pay the minimum $10 in state income tax, because they know how to structure their wealth and income to avoid paying such taxes. And yet such corporations routinely recieve tax break incentives in order to keep them located in the state. Who pays for those? Me and the rest of the taxpayers. Now why is that any different or better than me as a taxpayer having my money, as I understand you are saying, go to refunds to poorer people? At least I know that the poorer people need the money, unlike, say, Intel.
I find this especially odd, Don, given your defense of Medicaid elsewhere on this site. That, of course, is a system that takes money from the rich(er) and gives it to the poor(er) via health care. So is the food stamps program. And public schools.
And if it’s the blank check notion that so offends you — it’s okay to spread the wealth around as long as the poor only get services out of it — what do you think about Alaska’s dividend check, given them by their government? Who pays for that?
tODD @ 10: Regarding the “communist” issue, you asked for a quote supporting the notion that Obama was the one who mentioned the term. I got it from the portion of Mark Stein’s article which Dr. Veith quoted: “Yet the nimble Hope-a-Dope sidestepper brushed it aside, telling a crowd in Raleigh that next John McCain will be ‘accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.’
So Steyn says that Obama brought up “communist”. If you disagree with Steyn’s quotation marks, your beef is with him, not me.
tODD, I do not like the progressive income tax system, to be quite frank. I would prefer a modified flat tax with not deductions (modified meaning that the first X dollars of income are exempted from taxation). If not that, then the fair tax is much preferable to progressive taxation. I agree with you that we already redistribute wealth. 40% of adult Americans already pay no federal income tax. But Obama wants to take this unfair system to the next level, an entirely new level where we re-introduce the welfare system that we finally partially got rid of in 1996 with a new welfare system administered by the IRS. It will take the non-taxpaying public to over 50% of the total population. We need to go the other way. If we are going to have a high-tax, high services government, everyone needs to share the burden. That is my point.
Sure, folks pay other taxes, like payroll taxes. But those are supposedly for their own benefit — they fund their retirement. Social Security is identified as an “insurance” system. Obama wants to convert it, outright, to a welfare system, by unhinging the taxes paid in from the benefits received. Not a good thing.
Corporate tax breaks offered by local or state governments are not really relevant to this discussion, nor is the Alaska Permanent Fund annual refund program. They are not federal programs. The former are policy matters, offered to induce the direct creation of jobs by encouraging companies to locate in a particular area. It’s too bad that corporate taxation is so high that these can serve as an inducement, since we all know that we, the consumers, ultimately pay corporate taxes through higher prices or lost jobs to overseas manufacturers. The Permanent Fund is built from a severance tax, on the principle that Alaska’s national resources belong to the people of the state. Can’t really argue this, and I would rather see the money refunded to the people than spent by the government.
Unfortunately Obama fails the “Content of His Character” test.
Don (@11), sorry, I got confused somehow about the “communist” issue. Totally missed that.
You mentioned that poor people pay “payroll taxes”, which “are supposedly for their own benefit”, but somehow missed sales taxes, which, like income taxes, are for the general fund. There are yet other taxes poor people might pay — property, to name one.
I think it’s funny that you brush aside some tax notions as “policy matters”, as if Obama’s plan wasn’t also a policy matter. Of course, you also realize that Presidents aren’t technically relevant to this discussion, either, since the one elected tomorrow won’t be passing legislation that enacts taxes. He’ll just be able to sign it or veto it.
Finally, funny how your socialist your description of the Permanent Fund sounds: communally owned property, the benefits of which are distributed evenly to everyone. Not sure how that tax gets described by you as being “refunded” to the people, since it wasn’t collected from them, but from the oil companies. Which, of course, by your own argument, would drive up the price of gas. Why not just cut the tax on oil? Ultimately, that would make everyone in Alaska richer, right?
tODD:
I’m distinguishing federal taxes from state taxes. There are no federal sales taxes, or property taxes. Besides the income tax, at the federal level, there are gas taxes, which are use taxes, as well as tariffs. I don’t have a problem with those, and I trust you don’t either.
State and local taxation is a totally different animal, of course. Those governments are not limited by our federal constitution to enumerated responsibilities, so they are free to do as their people please. The good thing about 50 states is that if you really don’t like the tax policies of your state badly enough, you can move to another state.
Don S#14
“The good thing about 50 states is that if you really don’t like the tax policies of your state badly enough, you can move to another state.”
Yes, that’s what some people do here in Nebraska. After they get their kids through school they move to, well, ahem, one of the states further south and east.
[…] Politics as sharing your toys The senator and his doting Obots in the media have gone to great lengths to obscure what Barack Obama does when he’s not being a symbol: his voting record, his friends, his patrons, his life outside the soft-focus memoirs is deemed … […]
Leave a Comment