A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		 NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives
NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail
Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged
OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

 Wednesday, August 27, 2008

The Evasion Invasion

By Gina Liggett @ 12:21 AM

They've arrived in Denver by the thousands, ready to take on America... and change it.

In "The Blueprint for Change," Barack Obama outlines just what he's going to do if elected President. In this way, he will "... put government back in your hands, where it belongs."

Just what does he mean? Is this blueprint a principled declaration of the proper role of government? Is it an acknowledgment that somehow that relationship between government and its citizens has been breached and that he is going to set it right?

Careful not to fall out of your chair when reading this blueprint, because the dizzying list of government fix-its often contains a dollar sign followed by the word, "billions," in the sentence.

And the man who boasts that he's only worked in "public service" (as opposed to the private sector) doesn't hesitate to usurp the capitalist term, "investment," to hide the wealth-bleeding expropriation of earnings that will be required to pay for this fantastical plan.

This blueprint represents evasion on a grand scale, "...a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality," in the words of Ayn Rand.

The Democratic candidate for President is blanking out the fact that it is the individual who is the fundamental unit of a society. To Obama, we are globs of groups: the wealthy, working class families, lenders, borrowers, the bankrupt, the corrupt, seniors, veterans, women, volunteers, methamphetamine addicts, the underserved, students, employers, disadvantaged youth..."

So it is no surprise that his vision of government is to correct the ailments of the various groups... somehow. And to pay for it... somehow...
  • "President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009... Obama is committed to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

  • "Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."

  • "Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry."

  • "Obama will create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that will make tuition at the nation's community colleges completely free and will cover up to two-thirds the cost of tuition at the nation's public colleges and universities."

  • "Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S."

  • "Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce."

  • "Obama will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year."

  • "Obama will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in office."
In this blueprint, there is no reference to the individual. Therefore, there is no understanding of what is required for life. Therefore there is no mention of freedom... no mention of a moral basis for individual rights... no mention of property rights... no mention of how wealth is created... no mention of the right to live one's life free from the violation of one's rights... no mention of pursuing happiness... no mention of limitations on governmental power.

This is because, to Barack Obama and his evaders, there is only the collective.

Even when Obama properly opposes any attempt to overturn a woman's right to abortion, it's not because abortion is a moral right, but because it fits into the category of his policies that pertain to women.

In order to carry out his blueprint, Obama will take on America's "enemies" -- a floating, disembodied melange of "lobbyists," "disparities," "agribusiness," "chronic disease," "special interests," and "workers falling behind."

This is what he will do for America. This is what he means by giving America back to the people.

I fear there will not be enough duct tape in the world to patchwork this country back together if Obama's blueprint becomes realized. And the tragedy is that the masters of evasion won't even notice.

Labels: ,

Share |
   E-mail Gina Liggett     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)
  Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

 Comments

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 5:04:22 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Andrew Baker
E-mail: smoke_owner(at)mac.com

"Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests." Should be translated as future candidates need not have ideas or positions which people would willingly pay candidates to promote.

I really don't plan on voting for president just because both candidates are so repulsive (I swear, I think they get worse every four years). Even if McCain weren't a Republican, McCain-Fiengold should disqualify him from ever holding any office. Obama seems like he would be more of a despot than even Hillary ever dreamed of being. I get that impression because his general counsel is urging prosecution of the independent group that made the Ayers add.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_camp_Prosecute_Si ...

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 7:51:29 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Clint
URL: http://dummyfencing.typepad.com

Is it not a tad bit ironic that Obama supports public financing, but decided not to take it for his own campaign? I guess in Obama's America, there will be no choices about public or private financing.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 11:28:09 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: IchorFigure

It's simply astounding that politicians don't pause for a moment to prescribe billions of dollars toward a proposed goal. They chide the bad discretion of the home and credit agencies to be so frivolous with their spending, and in answer they throw billions more at it.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 12:19:34 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Jeff
E-mail: praxus(at)comcast.net

Do not his promises stink of the "bread and games" of the many despotic Emperors of Rome? He will give you food, health care, and a minimum standard of living and all you have to do is give up your liberty. The things he promises will soon exhaust the ever decreasing number of industrious Americans and the rest will be rendered indolent through their reliance on government handouts or will have fled the country.

Let us hope our country can survive these two despicable candidates.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 12:26:22 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Andrew Bossie
E-mail: abossie(at)exemplarresearch.com

I love Obama's perspective of "change". He has shown himself to be very naive. It all started to become obvious with his idea that you can sit down with evil, radical dictatorships such as Iran, have a beer and work out your disagreements. This blueprint for change is also laughably naive since there have been dozens of "programs" that have attempted and failed to solve these very "problems". Either he is naive enough to believe that these are new ideas or that it will work out differently this time. The health care programs alone such as Medicare and Medicaid are on track to literally bankrupt this country even without an increase in coverage though universal coverage. He is not only naive, he can't do math either. The creation and expansion of these initiatives is the very cause of the increasing prices of heath care, political campaigns and the cost of college. We have seen this scenario dozens of times. The old create programs to fix the ripple effects of the other programs. I hate to think this way but the other angle on these initiatives is to create an ever larger group of victims and dependents to further cement the foothold of the elitists who are our "keeper". If he doesn't have this ulterior motive, then someone else does and he is just a useful idiot.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 15:20:37 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Jeff Montgomery

These candidates are ridiculously bad (as is the enthusiasm their supporters seem to have for them). I have to say that simply in terms of policy and apparent moral fervor, Obama scares me more. I can only hope he will be stymied in his attempts to enact his stupid ideas, should he be elected.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 15:59:28 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Rachel
E-mail: raemeg(at)gmail.com

Since the rise of Big Government is such an unstoppable force, at present, shouldn't our strategy be to bind it and dead-lock it and slow it down as much as possible to give a rational philosophy time to change the culture?

If I'm not mistaken about this, shouldn't we be thinking in terms of what will hamper the federal government the most in the next term? What I have in mind specifically is to figure out how to set the presidency against the legislature so that "nothing much" gets done.

Am I misunderstanding the situation?

What is the most efficacious, or perhaps least inconsistent, power today and what will be tomorrow?

I see speculation, around, that Obama is not really as bland and purposeless as he seems, that he's just trying to appease enough people as he can to get power and then we'll see his true colors. But even if that's true, can he be truly "effective" in office, as compared to McCain? Will McCain empower more or less systematic evil than Obama? Maybe Obama is good at pretense, but does that mean he is diabolical? I can't figure out if he's dangerous, if he really can do what we are all supposing he wants to do.

I know, however, that there is a powerful, religiously motivated, ideology at work that seeks to enable a very specific moral agenda based on Christian principles. One of the most high-profile examples of this effort is the proposed amendment 48 in Colorado this season.

Can Obama and the Left really achieve such results (e.g. have a good chance of even proposing to do something like criminalize abortion)? What will he need in order to act on his desires? Can we make predictions about the mood and constitutions of the next House and Senate memberships? If so, shouldn't we try to maximize the friction between the White House and Capitol Hill? Or can Obama act with impunity? (Not a rhetorical question. I don't follow politics closely enough.)

Last election there was the sentiment expressed that the Left is simply too spent as a cultural force and that as evil and as powerful as they remain, that the rising star of the Religious Right was far more ominous simply by virtue of its actually having an ideology (by comparison). What ever happened to that contention and is it at all applicable to Obama's bid?

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 17:35:24 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Gina Liggett
E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net

I so enjoyed reading the above comments. And I particularly have pondered Rachel's idea about how to basically maximize gridlock. That would be great! To have such infighting and politicking that absolutely nothing gets done? Yeah!!!! That might by us some time....

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 22:03:39 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Andrew Baker
E-mail: smoke_owner(at)mac.com

Gridlock did seem to work well during the nineties. Maybe my memory just fails me but I don't remember any odious legislation passed during the years Clinton was busy with his scandal.

Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 14:21:05 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Clint
URL: http://dummyfencing.typepad.com

**I hate to think this way but the other angle on these initiatives is to create an ever larger group of victims and dependents to further cement the foothold of the elitists who are our "keeper". If he doesn't have this ulterior motive, then someone else does and he is just a useful idiot.**

Don't be afraid to call evil by it's name. The "hate to think" is a bit of an evasion in and of itself, I suspect.

However, based on Obama's associations with Ayers, ACORN, George Soros, and various other groups that aren't coming to mind right now; if he is just a "useful idiot", he's a very shrewd one.

Evil or not, his platform is not encouraging for the well-being of man.

Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 15:07:13 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Valda Redfern
E-mail: valda.redfern(at)gmail.com
URL: http://valzhalla.blogspot.com

I'd refuse to vote for McCain because of his views on abortion alone.

Rachel asks "shouldn't we be thinking in terms of what will hamper the federal government the most in the next term? What I have in mind specifically is to figure out how to set the presidency against the legislature so that "nothing much" gets done."

I think hopes even for gridlock are unrealistic, but also that Obama would get less done than McCain and is therefore marginally preferable.

Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 19:40:21 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: jgb

I don't disagree that these policies are all bad; but the only thing novel is that this presented as a representing "CHANGE". This "blueprint for change" is nothing less than the preservation of the welfare statist status quo. (Even mandatory community service is not a new proposal -- I've heard this from our last two presidents, and probably from other "contenders".)

As a reminder, we've just endured over 7.5 years of George W. Bush -- a man who successfully placed himself among a holy trinity of welfare statists / spenders (FDR and Lyndon Johnson being the other members). On non-defense spending, he outspent Clinton, Carter, Nixon as well as Reagan, his own father, and JFK.

When Obama speaks of change, there is no definition of what *he* will do different -- and this is either very scary because it could be VERY bad, or it is merely evidence of how superficial are the differences among contemporary politicians. (His "blueprint" suggests the latter, in my judgement.)

I am far more concerned about the future of separation of church and state in our government. Earlier, Obama looked very scary in this respect. And I will never vote for a Republican who opposes (or even advocates a compromise on) abortion rights.

For me, the most interesting questions are whether our next president will further violate church-state separation, merely maintain the post-Bush status quo, or will attempt to unwind some of the damage George W. Bush has done. A very important question is what will happen to the White House Office of Faith-based Initiatives, after Bush is gone? -- and that is a question I've not heard anyone speak about.

Friday, August 29, 2008 at 5:20:03 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net

I recently saw what I thought was a very clever and apropos term used to describe Obama's "message of change" and the way some people are responding to it: "Hopium," or "The Hopiate of the Masses."

 Post Your Comment

Name or Handle:
E-mail:
URL:
 Remember Me
 
Comment:  
No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links.

Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome.

The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays.

To weed out spammers: 9 plus 5 equals 8039924114773979237