Kinsley on what Obama left out of his Kansas speech
Michael Kinsley dissects Obama’s Kansas speech—otherwise known as his attempt-to-channel-Teddy-Roosevelt speech—and finds it wanting in several telling ways:
…[I]n addition to being unfair, [Obama’s] conflating actual crooks and the innocent affluent makes it hard to claim that raising their taxes isn’t punishment for some form of misbehavior. Taxes are not a punishment; they are a source of necessary revenue. But if you tie them to the financial scandal, they sound pretty punitive.
A second big problem with Obama’s philosophy, as revealed in this speech, is really the biggest economic problem facing the U.S. in general. That is, the middle-class sense of entitlement…
In Obama’s speech, he went into great detail about the first part — the spending part, the part about how unfair life has been to the middle class — and somehow forgot to mention the second part — the savings part, the part about how the middle class is going to have to fork over like everyone else to get us out of this jam…
I also wrote a piece last night on Obama’s Kansas speech, one that probably will appear at PJ within a couple of days. My focus was on the concept of “fairness” and why it’s—well, an unfair one, at least as Obama defines it (or actually, cleverly fails to define it).
I also agree with Kinsley. However, when I read Obama’s speech in its entirety, I was struck by a larger and more global (although closely related) omission than the one Kinsley mentions about middle class entitlement. It was the apportioning of responsibility and the failure to appoint responsibility.
In Obama’s world (his rhetorical, speechifying world that is; one really doesn’t know what goes on in the recesses of his mind) the act of assigning blame is a simple thing: bankers and rich people are guilty unless they’re penitent Democrats like him who are ever-so-eager to fork over more money if only the government would make them do so. Anyone who earns under $250,000 is by definition innocent, and the less they earn the more innocent they are and the more clearly they segue into being not just innocent, but automatic victims of the others. Poor people in particular have no responsibility for their lot and no need to do anything about it other than to get a handout that will level the uneven playing field at least a little bit, and hopefully more than a little bit.
In the world of Obama’s Kansas speech, consumers are always the victims, and it’s never of their own greed. The greed is always on the part of the bankers. Now there’s no doubt that some people were convinced to take out mortgages they couldn’t cover without the real terms and real costs being properly explained to them, and they are victims of a sort (although what ever happened to caveat emptor?). But surely not all of those people were innocent, and perhaps not even most. There were many who wanted a house that they simply couldn’t afford, and they thought the ever-rising [sic] housing market would allow them to get one rather easily.
But Obama does not acknowledge that possibility because to do so would be to criticize too many of his own supporters. No, the only greed was, and still is, on the part of the lenders, never the consumers.
Politicians know that the overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves to be middle class. Few consider themselves to be poor or rich. Playing to the “middle class” is a con. Obama does it all the time as he did in this speech.
If any income inequality exists, it’s not between the 1% and the99%, it’s between America and the rest of the world. I think that to say the middle class has suffered because in dollar terms they have not fared as well as the upper class is disingenuous. In real terms (ie the number of TV’s, washers, dryers, microwaves, phones, and the amount of food, clothing, and living space) every single class in America has done exceptionally well in any time frame you choose. I DEEPLY resent when conservatives are portrayed as only caring about themselves, because that’s NOT it. I’m a conservative, and would rather care for myself, because I don’t believe that any government entity has my best interests at heart. I believe that I, and I alone, have my best interests at heart. Anyone who believes that government bureaucrats and politicians have their best interests at heart, is a fool. They only care about getting re-elected and keeping their job. They only have their own best interest at heart.
Second Tom’s comment, and add that I resent the notion that some civil servant in DC – not a group noted for perspicacity – knows what’s better for me and mine than we know ourselves.
And as long as we’re apportioning responsibility, for what exactly is Obama responsible? Tthe Dems?
Well, at least in Obama’s world – if you control for my ideology – I’m a really good guy. Hell, if I just rack up a couple more semesters’ worth of school debt, he’ll be bowing to ME!
Yay!
What bothers me most about Obama and his ilk is that they are the true status-seeking materialists. They try to hide it by portraying anyone who doesn’t live up to their standards as a victim or, if they don’t accept that designation, as a clinger. In the latest VDH PJM piece he talks about Obama as a man searching for his own identity. Obama has never had the courage to find out who he is because he has always swallowed the line of the ideologues who raised and mentored him. He lacks the courage to find out who he is lest that mean he is not the greatest. And now he is trying to force the rest of us into following him. It ain’t gonna happen. Too many of us are rooted in things that really matter, like family, friends, a sense of accomplishment, our own search for meaning, to fall for the wagyu beef standards of the do gooders.
“In Obama’s world (his rhetorical, speechifying world that is; one really doesn’t know what goes on in the recesses of his mind) the act of assigning blame is a simple thing: bankers and rich people are guilty unless they’re penitent Democrats like him who are ever-so-eager to fork over more money if only the government would make them do so. Anyone who earns under $250,000 is by definition innocent, and the less they earn the more innocent they are and the more clearly they segue into being not just innocent, but automatic victims of the others. Poor people in particular have no responsibility for their lot and no need to do anything about it other than to get a handout that will level the uneven playing field at least a little bit, and hopefully more than a little bit.”
Perfect.
That’s Obama – a monster called from the swamp of 30 years of liberalism. He was fed and bred and created.
By none other than…Michael Kinsley, and all the liberals like him.
Now he’s upset?
Obama is Godzilla, brought to life by some naive or self-important scientist in the old movies.
Only now some of these sucker elites are seeing a bleak and dark and grey and miserable future for the America they see as a stage set and not as a real life with real people.
The ambiance of their lives is becoming less pleasant.
I can hear the dialogue of the main characters now: “Oh my God! What have we done!!!”
What they have done is screwed us all over. What they have done is almost unforgivable. Better late than never for folks like Kinsley I guess, but that’s all the good I have to say about people like him. He got us into this mess in the first place. At the very least his ilk can help get us out.
As various folks say, from time to time, the lamp posts are ready. Who’s to decorate them varies, but the people who sold Obama to the gullible and the self-important, and those seeking adequacy in the admiration of the Kewl Kids, are a start. Includes Kinsley.
They’re getting what they deserve, which is a matter for chuckles. Unfortunately, I’m getting what they deserve, too, which is less humorous.
The late Michael Harrington, an American socialist, noted that the middle class had to be destroyed–deprived of its assets–because expropriating the goods of the rich won’t give you enough to start socialism.
And one revolutionary back in the Sixties mourned that the rev was impossible due to “Remington and Winchester”, referring to weapons in the hands of the middle class.
Interesting times.
Well said mike. I hope everyone will start writing, talking and shouting about the roots of communism in the last century and how deep those roots had grown in this century. Those roots may have to be pulled as other comments have implied but first we need to put a spot lite on the perps and Kinsley is certainly one of them.
Didn’t Obama say that he considered himself another Ron Reagan? Now he claims to be another Teddy Roosevelt. I knew he was nuts I never thought it was due to multiple-personality disorder.
When Obama loses Michael Kinsley, is there any hope for him at all? I love it when the smug liberals wake up and realize that they have been had.
Neo, I am relieved to know that by Obama standards I would be considered innocent. But, a victim? No, thank you.
It is bizarre. My wife and I live so comfortably on about a third of the standard measurement of wealth. Of course there are just the two of us and the cat. But, we did pay for 13 years of college without saddling our children or ourselves with debt. We also supported numerous dogs, cats and two horses. Hold your applause. It was not hard; it only required a rather small degree of discipline and common sense.
Back to the victim thing though. Maybe I need to rethink that. After all, I get by with a Tracfone (only 50 minutes/month for $10). The “Other” doesn’t even have a cell phone; whoever is away from home alone takes the one. We only have one computer, two TV sets, an old VHS, one DVD player and that is about the extent of the electronics. No tablets, no droids, no lap tops, no blackberries or huckleberries. We, gasp, have to use the library instead of running out to buy the latest–or perhaps I should say choose to. Only two vehicles–neither new–and one home. Dear. Dear. I wonder if the government can help?
“Obama has never had the courage to find out who he is because he has always swallowed the line of the ideologues who raised and mentored him. He lacks the courage to find out who he is lest that mean he is not the greatest. ”
Yep, he’s afraid of the mirror although he loves to preen between the teleprompters. Were he not president, or a person with any power over the lives of others, he would be an object of pity. As it is, he’s an object of scorn and ridicule.
“But surely not all of those people were innocent, and perhaps not even most. There were many who wanted a house that they simply couldn’t afford, and they thought the ever-rising [sic] housing market would allow them to get one rather easily.”
I have no pity, mercy, or charity for people who make bad choices that only a fool would believe in. To pity and placate the fool is to fill the world with fools. Let ’em eat ashes.
“I heard it was you
Talkin’ ’bout a world
Where all is free
It just couldn’t be
And only a fool would say that”
Steely Dan
While reading neo’s post, a thought occurred to me: Obama learned a great deal from Reverend Wright. In fact he proudly called Wright his mentor. That is, until a few tapes of his sermons were outed during the election and Obama distanced himself, eventually throwing Wright under the (very crowded) bus . Wright is the preacher in the million dollar house (paid for from church donations) who achieved success and reknown (some of us might regard it more as notoriety) by preaching to his choir of followers and teaching them to build themselves up by means of very specific and targeted blame of others. Along the way he also (intentionally) inculcates them with all-encompassing senses of entitlement and the feeling they are owed. It is a very deliberate re-education and manipulation.
While reading neo’s post, pieces just clicked into place. Obama uses the exact same methodology from his own pulpit (the Presidential podium). He builds up egos, he assures them that none of their circumstances is their fault. Rather it’s that of XYZ, XYZ being the bankers and the rich (note his rather low parameters for defining the really rich, never-mind that he himself surpassed those parameters a long time ago! He himself is quite rich now and no doubt he and Michelle anticipate being much more so after the Presidency). Hmmmm… how big a check do you think he and Michele will add in when they pay their tax bill this year. They are rich now; they should pay their “fair” share. Anyone guessing if he practices what he preaches?)
Yeah, Michael’s honesty caught me by surprise. He’s a liberal but not a sycophant like Krugman, Matthews, Dionne, and the rest of the CBS/CNN/NBC/MSNBC clones. The only point he doesn’t get is that Obama has serious mental issues, ones that will destroy Amrica unless he retires and goes into psychoanalysis. His mother was named Stanley and bred with an alcoholic bigamist from Kenya. Hello?
Individuals suffering from delusions of grandeur promising to fulfill dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent exploitation.
These people are a historical cliche. Their effort to consolidate wealth and power through involuntary exploitation is the oldest and most pervasive story that litters human history throughout our world.
We are all vulnerable to corruptive influences. There are individuals who choose to fail. Then there are the authoritarians who, as a rule, conduct their affairs through involuntary exploitation. For some reason, it is that last fundamental form of corruption which is embraced by the most “liberal” of people. They swoon and submit to promises of instant gratification.
This is merely the historical cycles of creation and destruction repeating.
Wake me when my beachfront property in Hawaii is ready for occupation.
“the apportioning of responsibility and the failure to appoint responsibility”
Like neo, I am a former lib who has turned rightward, though I think my journey started earlier but has been more gradual. Mostly it was because of issues, especially national security. I could no longer vote Democrat when it became apparent the Michael Moore wing of America-haters wielded too much influence in the party.
But along the way I noticed some “cultural” stuff as well. And it really struck me that for the left, nobody ever has to take responsibility for anything except their political opponents. Everyone else gets off the hook, from drug addicts to criminals to terrorists. Someone else “made them do it”.
Gary,
To take your comment a step further, if people are not responsible for their failures, they also can’t be responsible for their accomplishments. They are robbed of the very means of satisfaction and become wholly dependent.
This ties into an incredibly disturbing “news” show I caught this a.m. – ‘Up with Chris Hayes’ on MSNBC. He was interviewing an community organizer, Alfredo Carrasquillo, who very calmly described his Occupy Our Homes program that he hopes will forge a bond between the white OWS’ers and the poor black community. How does it work? He and the people he purports to help move into foreclosed homes, because these homes are empty and these families need a home. All of that stuff about property rights, theft,compensating the home’s owners (the eeeeevil banks) – he just shrugged those off as “technicalities”. It was like some alternate universe watching Alfredo & Hayes discuss this as if it were the most natural thing in the world for Alfredo & his family to just move into someone else’s home because, you know, he needed it. This. is.scary.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/12/27/kwanzaa/
Wrong link:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/12/10/msnbcs-chris-hayes-gives-sympathetic-response-ows-community-organi