Obama’s “you didn’t build that” continues to resonate — far
more than a political gaffe. There is a reason: the implications
are far bigger than his attempt to discredit the successful. He
didn’t simply go from “it takes a village” to “it takes a
government.” His statement challenges the fundamental relationship
between America and its government.
In his recent Roanoke, VA, remarks, Obama attempted to unmake
the ideal of the self-made man: “…[L]ook, if you’ve been
successful, you didn’t get there on your own…. If you’ve got a
business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
He overshot. In an effort to exalt the government, he not only
denigrated the individual, he inverted America’s historical view of
their relationship.
Many liberals may think this, but few — even in their most
unguarded moments — would dare say it publicly. Over our nation’s
two-plus centuries, we have so exalted the independent pioneer
spirit that it is virtually synonymous with being an American. We
as a people are imbued with that sense, even if some do not share
in the sentiment.
Savvy politicians of all stripes know this, and at the very
least pay lipservice to it. Still, Obama said it.
The logic of Obama’s words is as refutable as his public
utterance is inexplicable. If the government’s spending was the
catalyst for innovation, then why are we not all Steve Jobs? Why
did so many of America’s greatest inventors appear prior to
America’s biggest government?
Logically if, as Obama says, we all share in a boost from the
government, then that boost really cannot be the determinative
element in the innovation equation — precisely because we all
share in it. Instead, it is a constant on both sides of the
equation — success and failure alike. The catalyst therefore must
lie elsewhere.
Why is it so difficult for liberals to accept that it must lie
in the truly and obviously unique element in the innovation
equation: The individual?
The answer is: Because liberals embrace a state-centered
approach. The independent individual in general, and the successful
individual in particular, are challenges to liberals’
state-centered, we-know-best mentality. If the individual can
succeed on his own, this diminishes his need for the state. And
without a dependence on the state, the individual has little need
for the liberals who espouse it. It was no accident that they
embraced “it takes a village” to raise a child years ago, and it is
no accident that they want to reduce the individual element when it
comes to accomplishment now.
Nobel economist Friedrich Hayek said: “It is one of the great
tragedies of our time that the masses have come to believe that
that they have reached their high standard of material welfare as a
result of having pulled down the wealthy, and to fear that the
preservation or emergence of such a class would deprive them of
something they would otherwise get and which they regard as their
due.”
A tragedy, yes; an accident, no. The liberal chooses the state
over the individual. Liberals may generally not make that choice as
explicitly as Obama’s words imply, but when state and individual
conflict, the former wins.
The implications of Obama’s assertion, like the choice itself,
are enormous. By denying the individual’s ownership of the
accomplishment, it is easy to deny the individual’s ownership of
accomplishment’s rewards. If the government is truly responsible,
then isn’t it entitled?
Following the liberal line of thought, the answer must be “yes.”
This then is far more than misspeaking, it is mis-thinking. Placing
government and individual on an equal basis, is to undermine our
founders’ intention for our government and overturn the conception
we as a nation have had for it ever since.
Early in his Roanoke remarks, Obama uttered some additional
unintentionally candid insights: “In some ways, the stakes are even
bigger now than they were in 2008, because what’s at stake is not
just two people or two political parties. What’s at stake is a
decision between two fundamentally different views about where we
take this country right now.”
Obama is right. It is a choice between the state and the
individual. A choice between where we believe our best hope for
progress lies. And a choice about where our values lie.
It is a fundamental choice and one our nation has faced since
its beginning. When America’s founders drafted our Constitution,
their decision was to ensure maximum freedom for the individual by
placing strict limits on the government. In contrast, today’s
liberals seeking to enhance freedom for government action must
place limits on the individual. As Obama himself pointed out: “And
the choice is up to you.”
