Just after Obama was elected president, I asked my niece, Sarah, to tell me, in one word, why she voted for him. She thought about it for awhile, and then replied, “equality.”
Sarah is a newly minted Ph.D., a recent product of government schools and a very smart woman. Not surprisingly, she has adopted the progressive’s outlook as her own. To her credit, she is concerned with others less fortunate than herself. She is concerned with fairness and equality. She is genuinely compassionate and strives to do the right thing.
Unfortunately, like millions of Americans, Sarah has been led to believe that Obama has the ability to make life more just. She seems to believe that the leftist template of “social justice” will finally result in equality and justice for all. I give her credit for her concern and I applaud her interest in others. I also look forward to the day when she has enough life experience to realize that life will never be fair. That people will never be “equal.”
Fairness and equality are subjective concepts whose definitions differ depending on whom is doing the defining. The kicker is words that can mean anything end up meaning nothing.
Equality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is a lovely concept, but the devil is in the details.
Here’s a news flash: Life isn’t fair and people are not equal. And history shows that any and all attempts to make it fair and equal – from socialism to communism to Marxism – have been dismal failures. What Sarah wasn’t taught in school is that countries that are free, are not equal. And countries that are equal, are not free.
America is unique and prosperous because our country offers the only equality achievable by man: equality of opportunity and equality before the law. At least we used to. In an effort to make life fair for all, Obama’s agenda has resulted undermining two of the most important pillars of our society – the rule of law and the right to own private property.
Unelected czars have been given the ability to change the rules on a whim. Government bureaucrats have been given unprecedented power over the formerly free market, with the ability to confiscate (nationalize) any business that doesn’t conform to ever-changing standards imposed by political fiat. Our own Department of Justice has flatly stated that the rules governing election fraud are there only for disenfranchised blacks, not whites.
By arbitrarily changing the rules that govern our society, Obama and his fellow progressives have thrown the country into turmoil. Imagine being in the middle of a high stakes game and all of a sudden, the rules change. Heads they win, and tails, you lose. How “fair” is that?
In Obama’s world, some people are more equal than others. (Can you spell “unions”?) By stacking the deck in favor of one group at the expense of another, in the name of fairness and equality, Obama’s policies have resulted in a less equal and less fair America.
What my niece Sarah doesn’t realize is that all rights come with attendant responsibilities. One man’s right not to be offended means that another man’s right to voice his opinion is infringed upon. One man’s right to free housing means another man’s right to keep the fruits of his own labor is diminished. As Thomas Sowell states, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
Obama has convinced many Americans that he has the ability to bestow unlimited rights. Like a weekend dad, Obama feeds his ‘children’ ice cream, lavishes them with toys, and lets them stay up all night. He leaves to mom (Republicans) the much harder task of teaching the reality that there are no free lunches, that rights are not free when they are paid for by others, and that life isn’t fair. It never has been, and never will be.
Thousands of small businesses and millions of Americans are sitting on billions of dollars, refusing to invest their hard-earned money because this administration has stacked the deck in favor of whoever has the most political clout. Why risk capital when the rules can be changed on a whim? Why hire a new employee when it is impossible to estimate how costly their health-care package will be?
I only hope that my niece Sarah, and the rest of America’s progressives, realize sooner rather than later, that all of man’s attempts to attain utopia, world peace, and equality for all are not only futile, but risk destroying the hard-won equality of opportunity and equality before the law that America has spent over 200 years developing.
Crossposted from Right Bias
@ Nancy Morgan,
Unfortunately the predominant perception of University Professors is much like that of the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, . . . Government will make everything alright.
I can relate to your niece, as I came close to buying into those percepts myself in my early twenties. The influence was all around me and pervasive in both Universities from which I graduated. Basic common sense saw me through unscathed. I believe that what made a difference was that I earned my way through, holding two jobs in summer and working nights and weekends the rest of the time. Earning from hard work had an impact, plus it delivered some satisfaction, as well as evidence that there was a fruitful outcome from the “work ethic.”
Reaching higher levels of education means sustaining longer periods of brainwashing. Too many succumb to the socialist agenda. MIT is perfect example of this disconnect. Bright people who start off believing that new technologies should be available freely to the world equally. They lose sight of the fact that “business,” trade and entrepreneurialism is at the heart of the American dream. It is NOT dependance on government handouts or other benefactors funding a “Chair” at a University.
In our US Declaration of Independence we are told:
Not the pursuit of equality of outcome, but the equality to fully pursue whatever makes us happy.
That might be very different from one person to the next.
Not only has history shown that all attempts to make life fair and equal – from socialism to communism to Marxism – have been dismal failures, it has also shown that every attempt has robbed the most industrious among the society of all incentive to continue being industrious.
she ever read Animal Farm?
First of all Ms Morgan, I resent the weekend Dad comparison. Maybe you should use the “wait until your father gets home, then you will be in trouble!” comparison.
Otherwise, you make a lot of sense. I am in doctoral program and often have real struggles with faculty and cohort members when discussing the real world.
Alas for Sarah!
Social Justice is an oxymoron.
If what is intended is Justice, then there is no social component. Justice is the same for all; all are judged according to the same standards; all serve the same penalty for the same infraction; it is for this reason that the angel of Justice wears a blindfold.
Social policies have as their only purpose to treat different people in different ways. The rich receive different treatment from the poor, the housed different from the homeless; the employed from the unemployed; the hungry from the well-fed.
In addition, governments can (barely) exercise Justice.
Governments CANNOT exercise social policy; such policies become entwined with politics; the decisions on who gets the benefits are not made on social principles, but on political principles (who voted for ME?).
Just look for the dead people who got stimulus checks.
Just look at Japan, where deceased old people got federal aid for years.
Show me the social program, enacted by the Federal Government, which has provided the intended effect to the intended population. Show me the number of millionaire recipients of Social Security. Show me the families kept together from Aid for Families with Dependent Children.
Too bad Sarah never learned to think!
At least my math Ph.D. required independent, individual thought!
Nan G, I think you have mistaken the syntax of Happiness for the 1700’s versus today. Happiness then translated to the right of happen chance or to what will come to your objectives or goals in practice, not being happy. It’s a very merchant style attitude towards life when it was used.
The same for welfare, the syntax of its use differs vastly from today’s understanding of the word due to simplifications of the English syntax over the years due to cultural means.
I don’t mean this as an attack, the rest of your points from the Declaration of Independence are solid, its just the word syntax of today versus what the founding fathers used and intended to hold true till today are two alien language sets. This mutation of syntax is the core reason why Progressives see the US Constitution as a “living” document that can be warped and shaped to their personal agendas based on such mutations.
Tell Sarah that the fact that her Ph.D makes a liar of her stated values. By her own standards, any of us here are her equals – but she has a Ph.D. – which supposedly makes her more qualified than others for various positions. If she denies this, and states that she is _more_ qualified – then why is she? Why isn’t a beginning freshman equal to her? why didn’t all of her classmates get exactly the same grade she did? Shouldn’t she have “shared” her grades with those of her classmates who would otherwise have received lower grades? If not…why not?
I have no doubt she’s proud of her accomplishments…have you asked her why she doesn’t apply for a job as a clerk at Wal-Mart??
I don’t know…_maybe_ you can get the idea across. I doubt it…my MIL couldn’t understand why my neighbor didn’t go back to school when he lost his job, in order to better his situation. He was 45 or so at the time, had 6 kids, and I’m not sure he actually finished high school. But she couldn’t understand why he wasn’t interested in attending community college. I could never seem to explain it to her – at least not so she understood…
You’re right, Mr. Irons.
It does speak to economic opportunity rather than personal happiness (like going to Disneyland, for example).
I think your correct understanding of the way “happiness” as defined back then even makes the case more strongly against the modern-day, Obama version of ”equality of outcome” as opposed to ”equality of opportunity.”
My husband and I worked hard and also scrimped and saved so he could open his then-print shop.
(Nowadays it is so much more than that.)
But put that same amount of cash into some other couple’s hands and it could easily disappear up their noses or in some other frivolity.
Frankly I don’t for an instant believe Obama REALLY believes in his ”spread the wealth around” propaganda.
It surely would be excellent cover for the personal enrichment of himself and his own inner circle, however.
Lots of sweeping claims, but not a single example to back any of it.
Envy the mantra of the progressives. If you follow a religion you could label it coveting thy neighbors goods. I not a philosopher, just an old retired IBM engineer who worked his way up from a apprentice tool and model make to a Staff engineer with a pending promotion to advisory engineer when a major company realignment convinced me to take an early retirement and a buy-out with a substantial adjustment to I and my wife’s standard of living. One of my favorite responses to people who carp about what others have, is if you buy boat, and take it to a water way, there will always be someone there with a larger boat, if you buy a larger boat because you are envious, understand that no matter how many times you upgrade, you’ll look around and see someone with a bigger boat. Progressives and liberals preach this class envy, it keeps them in power. This can be said of union thug organizers, politicians, and tenured professors who would no more share their high salaries, benefits and positions of power with a panhandler on the street than would Obama go two weeks without golf or a vacation.
Just goes to show that education and degrees cannot fix pure stupid.
#9 pops
“Lots of sweeping claims, but not a single example to back any of it.”
What the heck does that even mean. Somebody on their Pop’s computer?
Perhaps they’re refusing to risk their money because it has recently been demonstrated that much of the game was rigged against them. There were some very big winners, of course, but they weren’t mainstream Americans. They were the people who rigged the game in the first place.
Nor has it helped that republican politicians and media bloviators have spent the past 19 months doing everything in their power to errode public confidence, when flagging confidence is at the very root of the prolonged recession. It’s been Doom and Gloom, 24/7. Constant attacks against the people attempting to deal with the problem, from every conceivable angle. Every glimmer of good economic news, every positive sign or signal, has immediately been dismissed, or loudly disclaimed, or turned on its head and presented as proof positive that things are only getting worse.
When the home team needed cheer leaders, what they got was jeer leaders, with unlimited special interest money behind them to make d-mn sure their negative message got through. They’ve saturated the media and the public consciousness with that losing message since the day Obama was elected. Their hope was his failure, and for that failure they have made a mighty effort. No matter what it might cost the nation.
All to get back into power–to do what they did before.
Let’s be accurate.
As of the latest numbers, from last month, American businesses alone are sitting on $1.845 trillion in cash and short-term assets for 2010’s 2nd quarter.
This is just below 2010’s 1st quarter when it was $1.846 trillion.
And that was the highest since this stat has been kept starting in 1952.
OK, but why?
Is it really just the lack of an effective cheerleader?
Obama (and Greg) seem to think so.
But what do business owners say?…..
Companies are reluctant to invest heavily until they see more evidence that the U.S. recovery is accelerating. Yet a high U.S. jobless rate, tepid consumer demand and sluggish export growth are acting as strong headwinds.
Some companies are spending…..by acquiring other companies.
BUT, as you all probably know, that usually means jobs LOST.
Small businesses are using their sidelined cash to pay off debts.
In fact, for the last 5 quarters their collective debt has dropped.
No hiring results, but not a total bad thing.