“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; it’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
To understand the above quote from Sir Winston Churchill is to understand how Barack Obama rose to power without actually having accomplished anything of substance beyond the spoken word. It also explains why his Presidency is doomed to failure. Indeed, his very political philosophy (and, to a similar extent, the entire philosophy of far left-wing democrats) is the antithesis of tenet #6 in the series of tenets by William J. H. Boetcker, defining democracy and how to perpetuate it:
#6. “You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.”
No small man’s lot in life has ever been improved by tearing down someone of greater success without serious cost to both. All that has ever been accomplished by doing so is to serve the envy of the lesser man at the cost of punishing that man who has worked hard to accomplish his success. It also destroys the incentive of both men.
Envy is a powerful political narcotic, one that has been used throughout history by political opportunists like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Mao Tse Tung, Karl Marx … and Barack Hussein Obama. Any society that has a lower class is ripe for socialist attempts to “level the playing field” through the application of Karl Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Program” where he espouses, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is the vision of Barack Obama, exposed when he told Joe the Plumber how “spreading the wealth around is a good thing.”
Indeed, it often appears that Obama gets his marching orders from that “Critique.” He’s used the “Spread the wealth around” promise in his campaign as a lure to attract votes among the poorer communities. His message, however, only spotlights the part where the riches should be taken away from the “haves” and redistributed amongst the “have nots.”
In the two years of campaigning for the Presidency, and now going on a year and a half as President, I have neither seen, read, nor heard of one speech or any action taken by Barack Obama stressing the responsibility of the have-nots who are capable of doing so to lift themselves by their bootstraps (as many of their neighbors have done). There has been no focus on becoming contributors to the common pool of wealth to be distributed, merely promises to take from the “haves” — obfuscation and pandering to the masses, especially those who have made entitlements their way of life.
What has always set America apart from other nations has been that form of government which gives opportunity to anyone willing to put in the effort. Not happy with what your lot in life? Your only limitation in America is your willingness to roll up your sleeves.
How else does a college drop out like Bill Gates go on to become one of the richest people in America, founding a company (Microsoft) that changed the way the entire world thinks about (and utilizes) computers? How does someone from the poor neighborhoods of Philadelphia go from his humble beginnings to become one of the nation’s most beloved entertainers? Ask Bill Cosby and he’ll tell you: A good, solid work ethic and commitment to your dream.
But that’s only part of what the two Bills have accomplished. While they both enjoy lives of luxury and privilege, both are philanthropists who give back to the community that gave them opportunity to achieve. Not because it was legislated, not because they had to; but because that’s what Americans do. And there are countless thousands whose lives are better now, having benefitted from the generosity of those two who have shared their success so that others might achieve through their own efforts.
Unlike entitlement programs, the kinds of assistance provided by philanthropists like Gates and Cosby usually requires a measure of effort on the part of the beneficiary. The same cannot be said for the Obama message of simply spreading the wealth of others around. It’s as simple as the age-old metaphor from Lao Tzu, (the founder of taoism): “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” Obama, doesn’t wish to teach anyone how to fish. He merely wants to punish the successful fisherman by giving away his catch.
Entitlements may calm the hunger of the belly, but it’s that hunger for more in life that drives the incentive to succeed. Take away that hunger by entitlement without responsibility and you end up with an ever-growing segment of the population with an entitlement mind-set, demanding their share in return for simply existing. In the end, socialism yields to that demand, but it strips away incentive from both ends of the social spectrum.
Ultimately, under Obama’s vision, there would be no incentive to strive for excellence if you know the government will seize the fruits of your labor. Eventually, there will be fewer and fewer to take from which means less to give to those demanding. Or, as former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, so eloquently,
“The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”