-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In the ongoing debate over the meaning of “that,” John O’Sullivan points out the president’s genuinely statist logic:
Let us look at the life-span of Obama’s successful businessman: He is not only allowed to “thrive” by “this unbelievable American system,” his goods delivered over government roads and bridges, his efficiency improved by an Internet “created” by the government, his status improved by entry into a middle class “created” by government, but he is himself shaped by government through “some great teacher” and the G.I. Bill passed by government. His own abilities don’t explain his success — there are a lot of “smart” people who don’t make it. And if he thinks he’s done well through hard work, well, remember he had a great teacher and a college education. “Doing things together” under such circumstances means that the business owner becomes the junior partner to the government with civil society gradually morphing into semi-independent licensed agencies of the state.
The much-mocked “Life of Julia” ad also assumes that most of its main character’s achievements in life are due to government. It’s one thing to say that there is a government role, or that we are all products of an environment larger than ourselves. What Obama and Elizabeth Warren are saying goes well beyond that.
And that, despite all the indignation about roads, bridges, and antecedents, is why the Roanoke speech has blown up into a major campaign issue.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/25/john-osullivan-tears-down-you
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
mike 3/505| 7.25.12 @ 3:11PM
It stems from a fundamental error: equating "Society," with "Government."
spike59| 7.26.12 @ 5:59AM
much like they equate the 'Federal budget' with 'the economy'
Zeppo| 7.25.12 @ 3:36PM
Can we have a link to John O'Sullivan's remarks?
lsudolemite| 7.25.12 @ 3:45PM
It's very simple. That speech stems from the philosophy that government owns everything before any individual does. Therefore, government owns you from cradle to grave. What you have isn't the fruit of your hard labor, but merely what government graciously deigns to give you.
Trinacria| 7.25.12 @ 8:03PM
With respect, I would suggest that it's even simpler than that. Mr. Obama's "world view" is informed exclusively by his personal experience, which makes it rather less than "worldly" as world views go.
His intransigent self fascination prohibits him from interrupting his gaze in the mirror long enough to consider the possibility that his experience is the exception rather than the rule. By his own admission, he was an enthusiastic beneficiary of affirmative action policies that allowed to him to achieve things that he could not have achieved on the basis of merit (see Harvard Law Review letter to the editor, November 16, 1990); for someone who is unable to look beyond the boundaries of his own experience, it's impossible to consider the possibility that others haven't likewise required the generosity of a benevolent protector to achieve success. Tragically, we're witnessing firsthand the devastating consequences of policies constructed on the basis of this view.
Shiori| 7.26.12 @ 8:15AM
That Obama is incapable of understanding that which he has not personally experienced is clear, but I think it's also an unwillingness to look beyond himself. By no means is Obama the only afflicted one. Today, we have a crop of elected officials who have almost nothing in common with those they represent. Where are the business owners among them? Where are the self educated boot-strappers? We even have far fewer veterans in elected office than ever before. Congress is filled to overflowing with trust fund babies, under achieving ivy-leaguers, beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, and some who simply married well. Zealous ideologues & pseudo-intellectual activists have replaced true thinkers & doers. Yet these bubble people claim that they, above all others, can direct our lives better than we can, and hold the secret fix to all society's ills. Most can't even be considered cerebral - they are simply pampered brats with law degrees who have no concept of reality or their own ineptitude - they feel only jealousy toward people who've actually done things in life. Why do we elect them? Why are they the only types who run for office anymore? Why do we assume they are more clever when so many of them have never stood on their own two feet, let alone achieved real success? Why do we trust these know-nothings over people who are more like ourselves? How can they preside over lives they can't possibly relate to?
RJ| 7.25.12 @ 6:11PM
Mr. Obama,
While you denigrate the accomplishments of others, you need to learn that despite your claims, you didn't kill Osama bin Laden. Other people did that. People who worked hard, developed skills and risked their lives to serve their country. Your egotistical grandstanding is an insult to each US citizen, especially those who have worn the uniform.
Reggie Love| 7.25.12 @ 8:14PM
Mr.Antle,your colleagues at American Conservative Jim Pinkerton and Larison tried to say Obama was talking about the American System,advocated by Henry Clay and earlier Hamilton. Please straighten them out on that.
spike59| 7.26.12 @ 5:55AM
the truly committed Leftist cannot, for the life of him, fathom how anyone can possibly succeed without someone else telling him what to do, when to do it, and how to do it...and it all boils down to this: they cannot, themselves, manage lif unasisted; if they could, they wouldn't have gravitated to Leftist 'thought'...it's an ideology based on failure
spike59| 7.26.12 @ 5:57AM
sp: 'life', not 'lif'....apparently, this conservative cannot spell without being 'asisted'...there's another one...by 2 cups of coffee
SBGMetsJets| 7.26.12 @ 10:16AM
We need also to look at the fallacy of "government built roads." The government did not build the roads, private contractors did. The government took bids from competing contractors, accepted the most competitive bids, and entered into a contract to build the roads. To build the roads, the government had to do exactly what Obama hates--it had to enter into the free market and act like any other economic creature acting within that market.
Mike G| 7.26.12 @ 11:24AM
I just looked at the "Life of Julia" ad. Curiously, there is no mention of what happens to Julia when the government can no longer pay its debts and declares bankruptcy. I guess living in a hut and using the woods for a bathroom wouldn't be a very enticing thought to convey in his ad.
Fiscal| 7.26.12 @ 4:30PM
The problem here is not that Obama believes more in government largesse than reality would dictate, it is that the Romney campaign took him out of context. That gives the Obama people fodder to use against this charge. I see TAS is doing the same thing.
If Romney wants to win, he needs to be honest and truthful. Yes, the government plays a role in providing infrastructure. But WE are the government and WE want this infrastructure to provide what we can't individually. Government has a proper role in providing infrastructure and I submit, should provide even more in terms of power grids, roads, basic research, and research grants. In fact, I would probably quadruple that amount not including defense. We spend about 1% of our budget on non-defense research and I would like to see about 4% with a public/private partnership. But the government should not have such a large role in trying to MANAGE our lives or promoting one business/industry over another.
The real Obama issue here is that he lacks perspective. And without perspective, you can't properly allocate funds. Obama believes the government is an equal partner. Any of us who have created a business know that it is more of a 90-10 split -- if that.
Romney has the room to be the adult in this argument, but he keeps on giving the Obama team ammo by taking things out of context and trying to appease the extreme right.