Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Independent

A vision of 'fairness' and equality

See also

In 2010, wife of Cook County's hometown hero, President Barack Obama, Mrs. Obama spoke with America's mayors about Michelle Obamacare. Before the U.S. Conference of Mayors, she said she was looking for "ideas and input.... We're looking to you to be the leaders on the frontlines of this effort across the country." Railing against aspects of First Lady Michelle Obama's Anti-Obesity plan, radio host and author, Mark Levin says this.

We live in a nation, in a supposed representative republic - where the founding fathers believed that we were intelligent enough to select our own temporary rulers, our representatives. They wrote a Constitution that limited the power of these rulers, so they wouldn't become authoritarian. Because they believed that we as individuals are actually capable of thinking for ourselves. How the hell did we become a nation of people where we need the First Lady of the United States...to assume responsibility for telling us how much our children can eat and how much restaurants' food portions should be? And then she’ll be praised by Mike Huckabee.... And she'll be praised by Chris Christie (as she was in the past) because what - ? - they can't make their own decisions? And they say well, she's not compelling it. Of course she's compelling it. She's putting the shoulder on these restaurants. We do not need a first lady telling restaurants what size portions we should have, and we do not need her telling parents what to do with their children.

Does this remind you of anything? 'Let's suspend Congressional elections, so we can get our work done [without having to pretend to listen to the People]'. That is a summary of what Gov. Beverly Perdue (D-NC) said recently.

You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election.

Does it bring to mind any other dismissal of the People as a legitimate consideration in government decisions - perhaps, the decision of what to do with the reward of your labor, your income? 'You don't deserve to keep all of your money, American People.'
Can these rights - to the benefits of your labor or, to vote for our elected officials as set forth in our Constitution - be taken away?
If so, is this tyranny? And if so, are Americans living under or moving toward totalitarianism?
Likewise, you may have been told that tenure for teachers allows 'freedom'; it does - for the instructor, who is free to work outside of the strictures of systemic causation once he attains it.

Where the tragic vision and the vision of the anointed differ most fundamentally is on the reality and validity of such systemic processes, which utilize the experiences of the many, rather than the articulated rationality of a talented few. Related to this difference is a sharp difference in the role of dispositions, intentions, or goals in the two visions.

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995.) New York: Basic Books. Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) might be wrong on the 'Get Fit' initiative from our First Lady Michelle Obama; but he understands the pitfalls of our tenure system, which he says has "failed", because it "[guarantees] a job for life after three years". Tenure, he says is also "antiquated system, which needs to be substantially reformed or eliminated".
The vision of equality and fairness central to the mandate justifications that sprout from the Get Fit initiative; to the anointed notion that we the People should not be able to fire elected officials - elites, who know better than we how our nation ought to be governed; and to the notion that tenured teachers are wise enough to be virtually autonomous, lifetime employees is the same vision that is used to justify redistribution of wealth.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

The question is this. 'What is the meaning of pay forward?'
And, 'Who is the next kid who comes along?'
Elizabeth Warren, Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts and former White House financial reform adviser, cannot make a declaration and not explain the consequences of that statement.
Breaking down her statement, what is she saying? That, if you build a factory and are successful; because other people 'protected against marauding bands [that] would come and seize everything at [the] factory (What in the world does this mean?!), you (by starting and maintaining a successful business) have tacitly agreed to 'take a hunk [of it]' (Does she mean the profit or, the business itself?) and 'pay [it] forward for the next kid who comes along.'
There are a lot of problems with this vague, syllogistic argument, however. It is subtly deceptive; because choice is not a part of the concept of taxation. A contract is created by a choice - to enter and to agree and to come to a meeting of the minds. Government appropriation of income is a top-down taking that does not entertain your will. And when it comes to taxes, there is no actual contemplation of the business creator/owner, who takes a portion of profits and gives it to
the next kid' - another up-and-coming businessman (which, would not make sense anyway, because an entrepreneur does not start his business this way). Government takes money from those who produce and gives it to the non-productive and to ailing programs that cannot succeed or, adhere to a successful business model without subsidies (e.g., Solyndra, LightSquared).
Additionally, who but Elizabeth Warren, herself, can say what is a 'hunk' that the Government (not 'we') take(s)? A little investigation turns up information thas indicates it might be quite a lot. So, perhaps, Ann Coulter is right when she suggests that America is seeing the early signs of totalitarianism...enacted by folks who are ostensibly for some sort of righteous equality.

Comments

Advertisement