Free Markets, Free People

Competing concepts–why the left’s concept of government is dangerous and immoral

The left’s operating concept for government can be found in the words of Valarie Jarrett, President Obama’s senior advisor.  In her words are the very reasons why the left mostly fails when it comes to very basic things like job creation and relieving unemployment.   It is all to be found in the way they envision the role of government.  They don’t see government as an enabler – a role it does and should play – but instead as a provider.   And that was never a part of the vision of our founders.

 This is what Jarrett said to a lay Episcopal group in Washington D.C. on September 21, 2011 about the Obama jobs bill and the role of government.

JARRETT: He has a vision for our country, and I think his America Jobs Act’s a very positive signal about what we could do instantly to create some jobs because we know that’s the backbone of our community. We have to give people a livelihood so that they can provide for their families.

JARRETT: And its a vision, I think his is a moral vision, it’s a deeply it’s a vision based based very deeply in values. And taking care of the least of these, and making sure that we are creating a country that is a country for everybody not just for the very very wealthy. We are working hard to lift people out of poverty and give them a better life, and a footing, and that’s what government is suppose to do.

JARRETT: What he has said is that he is not willing to balance our budget on backs of the least of these, those who are most vulnerable those who depend so steeply on the safety net programs that our country….that is like a rock and foundation of our country. He says I am not willing to [inaudible] Medicare [inaudible], I’m not willing to hurt Social Security, I am not willing to make those choices while the very wealthy and the corporations and the most profitable are not paying their fair share.

There are many things to talk about in those three paragraphs.  The first, of course, is no government program will “instantly create some jobs”.  At least not in the sense of permanent jobs.  Oh it may be able to gin up some make work jobs – eventually.  But those aren’t the productive permanent private economy jobs that we so desperately need.  Government jobs are rarely productive economy building jobs.  They’re also rarely permanent.  Creating a few hundred thousand temporary construction jobs weather stripping schools is not going to pull us out of the economic crisis.  And most likely those jobs will end up costing more than they’re worth and doing little to address the real fundamental problems the economy faces.

But the real problem here is one of philosophy.  The line that bothers me most is the one which ends with “that’s what government is supposed to do”.  No.  It’s not what government is supposed to do.  Or at least that wasn’t the design laid out in the Constitution of the United States.  What was laid out there was a mechanism to enable private individuals to do those things necessary to improve their lives and productivity without using force or fraud to do it.  What Jarret is pushing the left’s vision of government’s role.

Government, as created by the founders, is there to enable and protect.  But it isn’t there to “do” what is claimed by Jarrett.  Because the founders knew that in order to “do” what Jarrett claims it would need much broader and intrusive powers.  And they knew that a government with broad and intrusive powers would continue to grant itself even more broad and intrusive powers while the citizens of the country were slowly bled of their power and rights.  Look around you – that’s precisely what has happened.

As brutal is this may sound, the beginning of this decline in freedom began with the institution of public safety nets and the dependency on government they brought.  Callus?   No, truthful.  Once a dependent class was created and justified (and could be relied upon to vote for the continuation of the welfare state), the current situation was assured – it wasn’t a matter of “if” we’d eventually find ourselves in the plight we find ourselves now, but “when”.

When is now.  Government dependency, which has precipitated its continued growth, has put us in the position of ruin.  Those who’ve whole heartedly helped us on the way and buy into this charade completely are now trying to sell the myth that our dire shape isn’t because of their well-intentioned but ruinous profligacy in the name of social justice, but the very wealthy and corporations – the very engine that has allowed them to keep this model alive for as long as they have – is the problem.  They’re not paying their “fair share”.  And the implication, of course, is if they would, all would be sunshine and roses.  That it is, in fact, because of them, and not the unsustainable welfare state these people have built, that we’re on the edge of the cliff.

Of course any rational person who has taken the time to look into what our politicians have done over the years and how unsustainable it is knows better than to buy into this line of pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Yet the shills and snake oil salesmen still push the myth and try to shift the blame to keep the belief that this situation is viable if only those filthy rich and corporations would finally pay their “fair share”.

It is personally frustrating for me to see people like Jarrett talk about “moral visions” when what she is pushing is a deeply immoral concept. 

Their model has failed the world over in many, many forms, caused true misery and yet there are true believers who simply refuse to accept that reality and feel the only reason that it hasn’t worked yet is because they weren’t in charge.

And when they finally do get their chance, this is the inevitable result.

Do we have a moral obligation to help others less fortunate than ourselves?  That’s for each of us to decide, not some nameless, faceless bureaucrat or leviathan government.   Should we provide for them? Again, that’s something we should decide and if we decide to do so, find a means of doing it.  But should government be in the business of redistributing the income of some to others.  I find nothing “moral” about that and, in fact, find it to be very immoral, because it eliminates my choice, overrides my priorities and essentially promises violence from the state if I don’t comply. 

That is neither freedom or liberty.  And last time I checked, those were the concepts this nation was founded upon.


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

21 Responses to Competing concepts–why the left’s concept of government is dangerous and immoral

  • To achieve their Nirvana, the next logical step would not be to force the Rich to share their money, the next logical step would be to PREVENT THEM FROM GETTING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.  See, that’s far better than allowing them to accumulate this undeserved wealth and then redistributing.  The only place they could possibly be getting this unfair wealth is from the non-rich, right?  So we need to stop them from taking it in the first place don’t we.
    We can have Congressional hearings on the incomes of, oh, say, Buffet, or Imelt, Fatzo Moore, Valerie Jarrett even.  If we could stop them from hoarding the wealth of the poor, it would be quicker than the government redistributing it, right?
    I think Hugo Chavez has a model for this, they should talk to him to get his thoughts before they have to use a psychic medium to do it.

  • “I think his is a moral vision…”
    And since his (and the other lefties’) is a moral vision, anyone disagreeing has, of course, an immoral vision. Thus proving the moral superiority of the left and the evilness of the right.

    • I’ve never found anything moral about theft.  As for  ..

      “Well then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” — Luke 20:25

      Caesar is dead.

  • “The least of these”, “the least of these”. She’s talking like Jesus. She thinks all those stupid prolebagger teahuggers will vote for Obama because one of his toadies echoed Christian rhetoric. No way is it an accident.

    • Lolling @ “teahuggers.” I may have to steal that for further use.
      This evil woman and her seditious ideas cannot exit the political mainstream fast enough for yours truly.

    • The best way to shut lefties up when they start lecturing about how Jesus would want the poor taken care of by the govt. is to note how he’d feel about abortion, gay marriage, birth control programs in schools, etc etc

      • I think we should point out to them that we don’t want no fundamentalist Christians runnin our lives and there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state and all that stuff.

  • I agree on the immorality of the vision. It’s setting up “the least of us” for deprivation and misery that have not been seen in the US in my lifetime.
    Unfortunately, that deeply immoral principle is firmly entrenched. Compare Jarrett:

    We are working hard to lift people out of poverty and give them a better life, and a footing, and that’s what government is suppose to do.

    with G.W. Bush.

    When people are hurting, the government’s gotta move.

    I don’t see a whole lot of difference.

    • Context could be the difference, Billy.
      In a disaster, public health emergency, wholesale breakdown of civil order, I would agree with the latter statement.

      • Sure, context matters. However, I’ve never seen Bush’s statement specifically restricted to the context you sketch out. He apparently had that line in his generic campaign stump speech as part of his “compassionate conservative” schtick. I can’t find any reference to him using it on any particular emergency situation.

        Unless that proves to be incorrect, I must stand by my original observation: Bush (along with many, many establishment Republicans) implicitly accept a lot of leftist principles.

        (I did a quick search for video, but even though that line is constantly quoted, I could not find video of it.)

        • In a novel I wrote decades ago (my retriever gave it a glowing review), I had a character observe that LBJ was a genius at vacuum-filling.
          Political vacuums are powerful and dangerous things.  Example: voting rights.  People who love liberty and HATE the expansion of BIG GOVERNMENT have a vested interest in being very alert to vacuums, and assuring they are filled with creative…OFTEN PRIVATE…responses.
          When we fail to do that, they WILL get filled by people…often misguided people like Bush…in any event.

    • There’s not. Dubya was certainly a Republican and equally certainly not conservative.

    One fifth of disposable income now coming from the Central Collective.
    There’s a reckoning coming…

  • We are working hard to lift people out of poverty and give them a better life, and a footing, and that’s what government is suppose to do.

    Assuming there is ANY truth to that, by EVERY CONCEIVABLE METRIC, we were doing it better in the 1920s than we are today.
    We are…empirically…DESTROYING people in the process.  Time for some CHANGE…

    • That’s what I was thinking, you don’t want to say that to her though, she’s an expert (ask her), and you, you’re just an annoying citizen.

      • …you, you’re just an annoying citizen.

        All the wimmins say that…or some variation…  (Sigh)

      • The poverty rate is the same today as it was at the beginning of the “Great Society” some 45 years ago.
        This puts the “War on Poverty” somewhere between a quagmire and “EPIC FAIL.”

        • Geeze Neo, you and Harun and 95% of the posters and commenters here, what the hell is up with this reality and facts thing you all keep doing?

          • Doood…those are YOUR facts, and YOUR reality, man.
            The rest of the world has a whole other set of facts, and an alternative reality, bro.
            Which is REALLY helped along by some form of hallucinogen, dig…???

  • Actually the decline in liberty began with giving Women the right to vote. Women as a group are more interested in “security” than either freedom, or even making money.  You can see the inexorable rise in nanny statism from that point on.