News
Barack Obama, collectivist
The last twenty-four hours have shown a wealth of new proofs of where Barack Obama’s heart lies. First to appear was a tape of a speech Barack Obama gave at Loyola University in 1998. In it he said he “believe[d] in redistribution” of wealth. Three years ago he said the same thing, and more. This shows, more than anything that Barack Obama ever said before or since, that he is a collectivist.
Barack Obama at Loyola
The Loyola tape has part of a speech that Barack Obama gave at Loyola University on October 19, 1998. In that speech, he lamented that most people didn’t believe then that “government can be effective at all.” Toward the end of the tape, he says that good government must
pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution,…at least at a certain level, so that everybody’s got a shot.
That is classic collectivist boilerplate. Mitt Romney, his opponent, noticed that at once.
I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those that are in need. We’re a compassionate people, but then we let people build their own lives, create enterprises. We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution. The right course for America is to create growth, create wealth, not to redistribute wealth.
Of course, the future putative President would return to his redistribution theme three years later, in an interview with Chicago Public Radio. (See second embed below.)
But some might call those quotes inconclusive. Not so a video that emerged this afternoon.
The 1995 video
Barack H. Obama. Photo: Pete Souza, January 13, 2009
Joshua Klein published the third embed (below) yesterday (September 18, 2012). In it, Barack Obama calls for “democracy with a small ‘d’.” He also speaks of “common ground,” “common good,” and the union and civil rights movements.
It’s not popular right now to say that, and to believe in sort of a common good, but I think that notions of a common good are the glue that hold our society together and make democracy possible.
He even called this “the core of [his] faith.”
This quote should sound the loudest alarms:
The best part [of my dream] is that we can collectively decide on our fate, that things like technological change, things like mass media, things like the market are all subject to our control. That we can make decisions for better or for worse and continue to move forward and progress.
In other words, total collective control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. And control of the media.
Earlier this month, Barack Obama joked that he’d like to appoint Bill Clinton as “Secretary of Explaining Stuff.” Of course he did not say what a “Secretary of Explaining Stuff” really is. The correct title would be “Secretary of Information.” Or “Secretary of Propaganda.”
So: seventeen years ago, Barack Obama called for a government that controlled all technology, all markets, and all media. This year he spoke half jokingly about creating a cabinet-level Department of Propaganda.
Does anyone have the right to criticize Mitt Romney any more? Mitt Romney told the truth: Barack Obama wants a government that everyone would depend on. (Well, not everyone. The government has to depend on other people.) He said it seventeen years ago. He has never changed his dream.
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]
[subscribe2]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization5 days agoChina, Iran, and Russia – a hard look
-
Civilization3 days agoDrill, Baby, Drill: A Pragmatic Approach to Energy Independence
-
Civilization4 days agoAbortion is not a winning stance
-
Civilization2 days agoThe Trump Effect
-
Civilization3 days agoHere’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right
-
Executive2 days agoFood Lobbyists Plot to Have It Their Way With RFK Jr.
-
Civilization4 days agoLet Me Count the Ways
-
Civilization3 days agoWho Can Save the Marine Corps?
““things like technological change, things like mass media, things like the market are all subject to our control. That we can make decisions for better or for worse and continue to move forward and progress.”
In other words, total collective control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. And control of the media.”
Or, alternatively, that by hard work we can influence our surroundings and not just be the hapless playthings of fate. Which, when you think about it, is actually a fairly individualist view by any reasonable standards.
That’s not what he meant and you know it. Because the word individual never passed his lips, but collective did, then collectivism was what he was pushing. He speaks of collective decisions, as if by the sort of collective mind that became a staple of science fiction in the latter half of the century just passed.
“That’s not what he meant and you know it.”
No, I think that’s exactly what he meant.
“Because the word individual never passed his lips, but collective did, then collectivism was what he was pushing. He speaks of collective decisions”
Alternatively, “collectively” could mean “as a nation.”
I’m no great fan of Obama; as I’ve said before I think of him as an American Blair. However he’s just a perfectly normal centrist politician. There is no evidence at all that he’s a communist or even a socialist.