-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In the interest of keeping my article today shorter than my usual writings, I left out one point I wanted to make about part of President Obama’s Roanoke words which are not, in my view getting enough attention.
Specifically, Obama said “we do things together,” by which he meant individuals and government, not people working together in the private sphere.
In fact, showing that this is an intentional Obama campaign theme going forward, Obama used the word “together” ten times in that speech.
With that as introduction…
The other day, I overheard a woman walking out of the DMV after getting her driver’s license renewed say to her young son that “the DMV employee and I did it together.”
Actually, I didn’t hear that.
Nor did I hear the man coming out of the building permit office saying that he and the city planning staff “worked together” to pull a permit allowing him to make a modification on his private property.
Nor did I hear the woman who just had her taxes audited say that she and the IRS agent entered into a mutually-agreeable collaboration.
And nor did I ever think that the TSA agent and I “cooperated” when I endured an overly intrusive body scan, so he would oh-so-kindly allow me on to an airplane. (To be sure, the intimacy of the search and the images were as close as I ever want to get to “doing it together” with a TSA employee.)
Indeed, I have never heard anybody describe their interaction with the government as “working together” because that is not what government does. Government is force. And it is force paid for by the very people whom our current government most wants to bring that force to bear against.
At least in the way Barack Obama means it, we are most definitely not all in this together, and if we are, then the soul of our nation is surely lost.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/03/doing-it-together-with-governm
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Consternated Conferences
- The Demise of Money and Credit
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
RJ| 8.3.12 @ 4:55PM
Ross, you have hit upon the essence of the upcoming election. Do the American people want a life based on personal choice and voluntary cooperation or a life of being subject governmental dictates? It should be an easy call, but sadly, today, it is not.
Libertyinfinite| 8.5.12 @ 9:29PM
Mitt Romney isn't any better than obama, in fact he is worse. & the very thought that you hold our future on this election, & look to government to some how get better without the American People changing any of their cultural marxism, shows that America can never recover from her current situation. The right has trained you to be a marxist too this time, "look to romney, he can help us". No, no he can't. Only a civil rebellion amongst the American People that works to throw off cultural marxism would have saved freedom, & gave us a viable future.
Voting doesn't work. We need a deep & hard right if we are to live. Personally I don't think any of the American People want to work for freedom anymore, in a way that will see it happen. We are overwhelmed, as a nation. No, voting without addressing what really killed us, will not even prolong our suffering anymore. This time it will be our swift end. When obama gets another four because romney is not conservative, they will take everything else without a fight too.
RJ| 8.6.12 @ 12:43AM
Me a marxist and looking "to government to some how get better without the American People changing any of their cultural marxism"? You can't be serious.
Yes, we need to change the culture away from government compulsion and towards fidelity for individual freedom. And such leadership must come from the people, not government. However, in a contest between Obama and Romney, I don't see how you think Romney is worse than Obama. Come this November election, I look to the American people to improve the leadership of our government; that doesn't mean I will view it as the best, just the best choice that we currently have available.
You may be right that American values supporting freedom and opportunity may be lost, but that doesn't mean we quit. As for a civil rebellion, it is much easier to take down a government than replace it with something better. The fate of our own society rested within the character of one historically remarkable man, George Washington, who prevented a military overthrow of the Continental Congress. No conservative should advocate a civil rebellion because the resulting chaos and power grabs are most likely unmanageable. Our best alternative is to work within the system and convince our fellow citizens to choose freedom and personal responsibility.
JD| 8.3.12 @ 6:01PM
This latest effort by the Democrats is reflected in the postings of Jack London, who writes as if it has always been government's role and purpose to manage the economy, and to save the private economy from its simple-minded limitations.
Notice the change in tone. It's no longer "this is the way it should be." Now it's "this is the way it's always been!"
Silly us for never noticing.
It's Orwellian. "No, we're not at war against Eurasia. We've never been at war with Eurasia. We're at war with Eastasia, and it's always been that way!"
If they can revise history, they can control everything.
Libertyinfinite| 8.5.12 @ 9:36PM
The American People today are wholly powerless. & the right thinks that everything will go back without any real work, if only we could just elect another liberal republican. We are powerless by choice because we were trained to let our governments do whatever they want to do. Nothing short of a nation of civil rebellion against despotism will save us now. & since that won't happen, being that the right doesn't feel the need to work for anything but romney, nothing will change for the better. With romney, things can only get worse. He is not just not conservative, he gives every argument to the left from not fighting. Gay marriage, he has said nothing. You watch, Mitt Romney is nothing less than the death of conservatism itself in 2012.
Fiscal| 8.4.12 @ 9:35AM
I just came out of a store yesterday and heard a man say that he build that road, dug that sewer, and built that bridge. The truth is that we EXPECT the government to do those things. In a world where there was no government, we wouldn't have the road in front of your house and your neighbors sewage would make your property stink.
What you are talking about is the problem that MOST of us today see with government -- it is all about ideology and not about reality. It is a lie to think that Obama doesn't believe in personal ambition and it is a like to believe we can live in a world with no government. The issue, then, is where do we draw the line and how much do we spend? Why can't we have that RATIONAL discussion? The American people are ready for that discussion, but those of you here on the right don't want it because it doesn't excite your readers.
In my view, we spend far too much for "government" and the "government" should do much less. We should ration Medicare and raise the age to get Social Security. There is no reason we need a Department of Education other than to provide basic statistics and we give the Fed too much power. The Congress makes a lot of legislation -- on the left and right -- that the Constitution and limited federal government would not allow whether it is for social welfare or anti-abortion.
Hyperbolic rhetoric, like this, does not help and a truly rational discussion will lead to a more fiscally conservative country.
aware| 8.4.12 @ 11:12AM
You know nothing of the history or the pathology of the State. It is primarily concerned with 2 things: its existence and its expansion. Once it achieves dominance over society there is no turning back.
There is not even a model of "shrinking" it. In your life time, or your father's or grandfather's, there has not been a single retrenchment. Nobody even knows how such a thing would be accomplished. Even talk of doing it is mostly non-existent. Theoretical at best with no real world example of it ever being done.
The State's primacy over Society was achieved in the 20th century and now you will have to go along for the full ride. You flatter yourself by thinking you have a say in the direction but you have no say at all. The State only needs your treasure, and your life if needed, and cares nothing about your opinions.
Fiscal| 8.4.12 @ 2:19PM
It sounds as if you know nothing about anthropology. The long term trend in the growth of government is primarily do to the morphing of our society from an agrarian structure to an urban structure and has little to do with "the pathology of the State". In an agrarian structure individuals are self sustaining and in an urban structure, they specialize and collectively build infrastructure through government. Retrenchment doesn't occur simply because revenue is not tied to costs and people want something for nothing.
The left wants a nanny state and the right wants more military spending -- both are not affordable. Retrenchment will occur if we can't pay for it. Politicians on both sides of the spectrum are tied to preferences because their number one job is to get reelected. We need two things to straighten this out -- term limits and a balanced budget amendment.
With your perspective, why do you even post on a political blog -- especially if nothing can be done????
aware| 8.4.12 @ 4:39PM
Anthropology has little to do with it. You seem to think somehow you will eventually be able to attract decent people to "government" instead of psychopaths and sociopaths.
"Balanced budget amendment". Don't make me laugh. You think this amendment will be more sacrosanct than the rest of the document you're amending?
And I'm sure we can count on the professional criminal class to vote themselves out of office with term limits. Pure Pollyanna.
Urbanization in no way explains why power is increasingly concentrated at the Federal level. And even a world level.
Wait till you see how this all ends. If it makes you feel better to believe there is still a chance and that you still can "make a difference", then by all means carry on. But you don't know who really rules and what they are doing.
Something certainly CAN be done, but not with politics. Political saviors and their promises won't help you. Trying to "reform" political systems won't either. It's up to YOU. There are ways to protect yourself and your loved ones from the worst of what is coming.
It's hard work, are you up to it?
RJ| 8.5.12 @ 2:54AM
Hi Fiscal,
You raise a very sound point that the transition from relatively self-reliant farmers to more specialized, and therefore more dependent, industrial workers has put a great strain and weakened America's commitment to limited government and individual freedom. Nonetheless, I hope we can save our Republic based on rule of law and personal freedom and hope that more people recognize that our government, as it expanded, has become corrupt and lawless.
Cutting back the beast will be very difficult, but some countries, such as New Zealand and Canada have done well. One thing that encourages me is that certain measures that could help here have already happened in other countries such as Chile's pension system and many Eastern European countries adopting the flat tax structure.
I agree with you on term limits; not many Senators are worth having after 18 years, but I don't have confidence in a balanced budget amendment. I have spent many years in commercial transactions; ambiguity always arises during contract performance and I already see many areas of vulnerability in the proposed amendment. Government budgeting and financing is very complicated and we have seen how the Supreme Court ignores relatively clear restrictions. Unfortunately, I don't think the balanced budget amendment would be much of a challenge for the courts to render it a practical nullity.
Nick| 8.4.12 @ 11:25PM
Your whole comment is nothing but one huge straw man, Fecal.
A straw man so big, it makes the Scarecrow look like a gnat.
The only people who want "no government" are the purist strain of libertarians and anarchists. Not the "right."
So, go argue with them, okay?
Oldefarte| 8.4.12 @ 1:41PM
Ross, no offense, but the only thing that private income earners/taxpayers AND government DO TOGETHER in a sense is that, when the income earners/taxpayers bend over, the government [especially the taxman] proceeds to shove their broom handle up their collective backsides
Oldefarte| 8.4.12 @ 4:45PM
PS: Or more appropriately.....THEIR SHOVEL!!!!
Libertyinfinite| 8.5.12 @ 9:20PM
We the people are in his mind as unsuspecting victims of them. We the people no longer have a voice or any power in America, in a way that effects what government does. So when he says "we do things together" he doesn't mean us & them, he means himself & the collective despotism that does whatever it wants over the American People.
This nation is allot further gone than most think. This nation is under the control of the bad guys. The guys who find we the people expendable more than anything else. They now know that if we are not working with them, then we have to be eliminated one way or another.
Mitt Romney will be the death knell for Freedom in America. He is one of them. He is more than not conservative, he turns a blind eye when they take from us so he can take from us in another direction. Putting faith in him bringing independence back to America is our last fatal error. Soon it will be all them, & nothing of us, nothing of we the people. A place that we are very close to being now.