Despite the President’s best efforts, the “you didn’t build that,” flack isn’t going away.
His plan of attack from here will be to defer the conversation away from his comments, rather than double down.
Obama and lefties insist that the comments were “taken out of context,” despite the context being exceedingly clear.
Liberals have taken to defending the president by saying, “Well, that’s just not really want he meant.”
Except anyone who has been paying attention knows that the president meant every word of his collectivist nonsense.
Charles Krauthammer penned an excellent rebuttal to Obama where he insists that if its infrastructure and collective will which makes us successful, then everyone ought to be successful.
Leftists are saying that the president wasn’t talking about bridges and roads, except that’s exactly what said. Literally, those were the words he used.
Furthermore, even if he’s just talking about other people, the president couldn’t be more wrong. His argument that no one builds anything on their own is an obvious reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
It’s like saying Steve Jobs couldn’t have been successful if people didn’t buy his iPads. Well, of course not, but that’s the very definition of success.
Put another way, it’s like saying Apple wouldn’t be profitable if it didn’t have people in the factory to put together those iPads.
Well, no, but that’s why they have jobs. If there were no Apple or no iPad, there’s no one needed to put them together.
Obama’s logic is reversed. Ideas and innovation create jobs, not the other way around.
It’s Obama’s belief in this collectivism, the idea that we all are beholden to each other, which drives his ridiculous notion that I somehow owe you for my success or vice versa.
I can think of myriad examples of small business owners who literally built their business on their own, not taking paychecks so they can pay their employees, or perhaps they can’t even afford employees.
That sacrifice is not for me, it’s for him or her.
Those who believe the president isn’t a collectivist and a socialist will say my argument is a strawman, propped up to be knocked down.
However, the argument I made is based entirely on the president’s position on the role of government in the lives of citizens dating back through the entirety of his public life. He underscored it recently by trying to undercut the bipartisan legislation that enhanced work requirements for welfare signed under Bill Clinton in 1996. Look at the slideshow of the Life of Julia, a campaign Krauthammer calls “most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived.”
The problem is, it’s not parody, it’s Obama’s actual ideology.
Julia is a woman who succeeds thanks to the government. It’s literally as if he believes we are doomed as a people if we don’t have a government to hold our hands through the process.
It’s very clear about how someone becomes successful. His argument is as follows, “My plan is to use government to give you every chance to succeed, whereas my opponent doesn’t like government.”
That’s actually EXACTLY what he’s running on. ObamaCare is another perfect example. Obama’s solution to every problem is based on government intervention.
I’m not at all misrepresenting Obama’s positions in order to cut them down (the definition of a strawman), but rather using his own positions and words to concisely and effectively communicate his platforms.
Anyone who has followed American economic history knows that almost no major innovation or business was grown based on being on the government dole.
The obvious exceptions are companies who actually work for the government, defense contractors being an example.
Unfortunately, Obama supporters will insist, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that the president didn’t really mean what he said, or will buy the line that it was taken out of context (which it wasn’t).
Conservatives and independents (and even some liberals) though, have seen it for what it really is: a glimpse into the truth behind Obama’s ultra-leftist agenda and his mantra that government is the true way to prosperity.
Krauthammer’s most salient point is made when he discusses the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe there ought to be help for the orphans of the world. Liberals want everyone to be orphans (hyperbole of course).
It’s not that conservatives don’t believe we ought to help those who cannot help themselves. We do.
It’s that we see government as an impediment to growth and progress, not the vehicle. Only those who truly cannot help themselves ought to get something for nothing. Liberals don’t think this way and that’s why we disagree. There’s a philosophical difference between the way we view government as interacting with its citizens.
We see it more starkly in the 2012 Presidential Race than perhaps at any time in the last generation.