Thursday, September 3, 2009

Obama and Redistributive Change

I recently read an article, Obama and ‘Redistributive Change
by Victor Davis Hanson

First, Hanson’s views and mine are so different they could never be reconciled. I do not see how I could find anything of value in what the man believes. Amongst other views that I abhor, Hanson provided wide support for the Bush Administration. He is in the same camp as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the rest of that neoconservative clique.

Second, I tend to disqualify the veracity of his entire article when I find misinformation presented in such a way that its intent is to deceive.

In his article, Hanson said … in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” When in fact Obama said, I do believe that for folks like me, who ... err ... you know ... have worked hard, but, frankly, have also been lucky ... um ... I don't mind paying[being paid] just a little bit more than a waitress, who I just met over there, and things were slow and she can barely make the rent.

Now you can read into what Obama said in anyway one would want, of course. However, I believe the meaning he wished to convey was that, yes, on the one hand he should be paid more, he has no problem with that, and that he has been lucky: all of us who are in a certain social class, who have certain intelligence, and so forth, have acquired that by the luck of the draw. One does not choose to be a particular religion, a certain nationality or ethnicity, black, brown, or white, rich or poor, from a good family or not. You are not special because you so happen to be rich. However, on the other hand, the level of income should not be so much more that it would deprive a waitress, who has to battle poverty every day and can hardly meet her rent, of a living wage. He was talking of the unconscionable and unacceptable income gap between social classes, between rich and poor. If it were not for all those Joe’s and Mary’s that work for him, or purchase his goods and services, would Trump be Trump? Would Trump be Trump if the chips did not fall just right for him to achieve what he has achieved? Was he something special that brought him such financial success or did he achieve because of the cards he was dealt and, perhaps, on the back of others.

Hanson said, In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. The context of this statement was concerning the civil rights movement, and nothing more than that.

The Rahm Emanuel cliché You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid is a common business aphorism. In business, a crisis, something unforeseen -- a contingency -- usually forces review of policy and procedure resulting in changes that otherwise would not have been foreseen. Most often, in the end, the organization is stronger because of it. You know, Victor Davis Hanson knows that too, but chose to use that quote in a disingenuous way.

I am not advocating egalitarianism, and I believe Barack Obama is not, but we, and many others who are being labeled as socialist, Marxist, communist, and Nazi’s, are only advocating justice.

Finally, Mr. Hanson states, For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left. He makes this statement without realizing, I presume, that American statism has existed and continues to exist today. Statism has taken hold.