I met Paul Jacobs back at Samsphere Chicago (a blogger outreach event sponsored by one of the organizations that makes up the Sam Adams Alliance) and had the time to chat with him for a while – nice guy! He is also a well written conservative that believes in maximum personal freedom, free markets, and limited government. And that last issue is where is zooms in on Obama.
I have written about Government replacing private charity at length (here, here, here, and here; Doug, writing on the RESPECT teen clinic, show another aspect of ever increasing government).
When Paul starts to analyze what Obama wants Big Government to do, he is essentially saying is that American are now the "no-can-do" people – we cannot do for ourselves and have to rely on government: This is not change we can believe in. This is change we must snort at in utter derision.
Is there any governmental goofiness Democrats won’t support?
Having abandoned limited government, Democrats are left with mere prejudice as a guide: As long as a program uses the power of the federal forces in Washington, and, in at least some backhanded way, increases that power, it just “must” be good.
There’s one exception, I guess — when Republicans think of it first.
So, what’s next?
Charity. Governments now duplicate a lot of charitable efforts. But charities remain somewhat independent. For too many politicians, that’s a bug, not a feature.
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited American shores on his 19th century sociological survey, he was astounded at how vibrant Americans were regarding charity and social betterment. See a problem? Then do something. Americans formed committees. Societies. Projects. They went to work. They accomplished things.
Now, though, after years of government usurpation of many of those causes, and the creation of a vast Leviathan state that Tocqueville did not witness this side of the Atlantic, our voluntary community sector seems weak. But that may be an optical illusion, in comparison with the old days . . . and with that very same federal government. In any case, it is said that Americans increasingly “bowl alone”; and, alone, become increasingly disengaged from their communities, their neighborhoods, etc.
The solution?
Join a local group, take to the soapbox, ring doorbells, hold festivals and bake sales and seminars? Publicize your cause using the new tools of the Internet . . . or that retro mimeograph machine you bought for 50¢ at the flea market? Raise money, and direct it to specific goals? Lead by example?
No. That wouldn’t do. Can’t have anything like that! Why, such techniques might actually smack of good ol’ American can-do-edness.
What we need, apparently, is more government.
Why? Well, ask Barack Obama, the Democrats’ presumptive nominee for the presidency.
His solution is to bureaucratize charity. Regularize it. Marshal the people of the United States into renewed “service” under massive federal programs.
“Service.” Ah, it sounds almost yummy, at least to the Judging Amy crowd. But it comes with a catch. It would all be organized in Washington.
Just what we need, another FEMA, FBI, or (heavens!) Department of Education. Or, as Obama himself recently put it, a humungous new department, filled with civilians doing good deeds, and funded on the order of the $439 billion-a-year Defense Department:
[snip].
Apparently too politic to support complete socialism, Obama’s not arguing to nationalize Microsoft and Apple [other Democrats want to do that -Skip]. He’s arguing, in effect, to nationalize the Elks. Oh, and the local hospital, and a million other independent institutions.
He aims to bring them all in. To government.
And we’re not supposed to notice?
[snip]
This is not change we can believe in. This is change we must snort at in utter derision.
Find Skip
Add Skip
Email Skip
Leave a Comment