I’d like to say a few things about the 2001 Obama interview controversy. First, here’s a key portion of the transcript, followed by a caller question and Obama’s answer:
One of the…tragedies of the civil rights movement was …the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
Later in the show, a caller asked, “is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?” Obama answered, “You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”
So those who are saying that Obama endorsed redistribution of wealth through the courts are wrong. Clearly, Obama thought the means to his desired Ends were social and/or political, not judicial.
And this bears out in his life. He turned down a job as a constitutional attorney and professor in order to become a politician. He is running on a platform of social and economic change, one that is – why are we so Surprised? – completely consistent with political progressive/liberal ideology: the government-mandated needs of the many outweigh an individual’s right to spend and distribute the money he earns as he personally sees fit. Especially if he earns more than $250,000 annually.
In progressive ideology, a person’s needs and rights extend beyond mere liberty and security and into quality of life issues. For Progressives, it is no longer just “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that are your rights as an American. You and your children are also entitled to other so-called essentials: a certain level of income, a certain type of home, a certain type of health care, a certain type of education.
What is so amazing is that many people who say they object to “socialism” or “redistribution of wealth” – and become defensive and angry if you dare suggest otherwise - simultaenously say they believe in every American’s “right to health care,” “right to higher education,” and “right to work.” The cognitive disconnect is disturbing. Mandating minimum incomes, health insurance and college educations for all Americans at government (read: taxpayer) expense IS advocating the redistribution of wealth.
You cannot say you support taxpayer funding for a brand new set of benefits for the general good of the population and then say you do not believe in ”socialism.” They are one and the same.
In closing, let us agree that most people are political socialists to some degree. We long ago left behind the idea that the government should provide for the common defense and otherwise leave people alone, to succeed or fail, live or die, as they may.
We believe there is good to be done. We believe we should do more for the very poorest of our neighbors, and we have, and we do: less and less through local, voluntary charitable giving, and more and more through a centralized government that acts as our designated conscience, collection agent, and community organizer.
The question is, where does it end, and what will America look like when all the social engineering is done? If Obama and a Democrat majority in Congress are elected next Tuesday, I suspect we will be on the fast track to finding out.
