Obama’s government-centered society
Many have been trying for four years now to figure out exactly how to define Barack Obama; as a communist, or at the very least a socialist.
Those attempts have not been very successful as most people have a tendency to turn off harsh ideological evaluations and simply see him as a left-of-center Democrat.
Yet those same people have no trouble latching on to Obama’s defining conservatives as “right-wing extremists.”
It’s been very frustrating to those of us who see clearly his philosophical underpinnings.
However, in a recent speech in Wisconsin Mitt Romney may just have found the right rationale to use against Barack Obama, indeed, located the very specific dividing line between Obama and those of us who oppose him been trying to draw for almost four years now.
Obama, Romney said, has “spent the last four years laying the foundation for a new government-centered society.”
While the phrase does lack sizzle, it is deadly and to-the-point accurate.
“President Obama believes in a government-centered society,” Romney said.
“He doesn’t call it that precisely, but you listen to his speeches, there’s no question he believes government guiding our lives will do a better job in doing so than individuals pursuing their own freedoms in their own ways.”
He also stated, “In Barack Obama’s government-centered society, government naturally allocates the rewards.”
Just think about it.
Every major Obama initiative has centered on the government.
While his policies have not necessarily put government in charge, or given government total control, they have made government the most important and powerful element.
Look no further than the blizzard of czars, the flurry of job-killing regulations, or the dictating to private enterprise what executives can be paid and what bonuses they can receive.
That is why Romney’s “government-centered society” allusion is so inspired, why it’s going to stick — and why Obama’s biased supporters with a “thrill running up their legs,” and even Obama himself, aren’t going to be able to totally ignore it or be easily shed of it.
In fact, one Senator who was a guest on “Fox News Sunday” made reference to “Obama’s government-centered society rather than a freedom- and opportunity-centered society.” So, the term is gaining some traction out there.
It has been difficult to define our strong discontent with Obama, especially in a way that might be persuasive to those who don’t think in terms of ideology.
Obama is more than just an off-the-shelf, left-wing Democrat, and has been more difficult to categorize.
In a May, 2010, “Commentary” magazine article, Jonah Goldberg described Obama as a “neo-Socialist” — whose relationship to socialism was similar to the relationship of neoconservatives to old-fashioned conservatism.
“In many respects, Barack Obama’s neo-socialism is neoconservatism’s mirror image.
“Openly committed to ending the Reagan era, Obama is a firm believer in the power of government to extend its scope and grasp far deeper into society.
“In much the same way that neoconservatives accepted a realistic and limited role for the government, Obama tolerates a limited and realistic role for the market: its wealth is necessary for the continuation and expansion of the welfare state and social justice.
“While neoconservatism erred on the side of trusting the nongovernmental sphere—mediating institutions like markets, civil society, and the family—neosocialism gives the benefit of the doubt to government.
“Whereas neoconservatism was inherently skeptical of the ability of social planners to repeal the law of unintended consequences, Obama’s ideal is to leave social policy in their hands and to bemoan the interference of the merely political.”
And that was exactly what Romney was trying to say about Obama without using the incendiary “socialist” word.
Plus he did it in a way in which most Americans might find relevance.
There are a lot of people out there who just don’t pay attention, or fully understand terms like “socialist” or “communist,” or could care less really, but they should understand words like “opportunity” and “freedom.”
The strong point of Romney’s line of attack is that it transfers the criticism from Obama to his philosophy; from Obama to his vision for America’s future.
Romney said by way of contrast, “I will spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of an opportunity society led by free people and free enterprises.”
If Romney does indeed become the Republican nominee, let’s hope he’s good at his word because our republic clearly cannot stand four more years of a neo-socialist who continues to build a government-centered society.