What policy in the last five years do we look to conclude that we should elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016? Putting aside Clinton herself-- along with her partner in flam-flammery, Bill Clinton--what will there be for us to say "this works, let's continue more of the same"?
With barely a quarter of GDP at 2% and unemployment 7.5% or better, where is the progress? Since there is no decipherable difference in the governing philosophy of Obama and Clinton the question becomes what is their objective? The answer may lie in the true purpose of what liberalism is striving to achieve, mainly, you're looking at it.
Does it not enhance their message of looking out for the little guy when a larger percentage of citizens are in perpetual need of assistance? Vigorous economic growth with massive job creation undermines this. It makes people not only independent but independent from the whom which happens to be them.
Obamacare, if anything, has every working member of society and business looking to liberalism because they are calling the shots in the health care industry. New rules are made, others altered, delayed, and some people are even granted an option to not participate altogether all without consent of the people or at variance to the law itself. The law is what the president decides it is on any given day.
Democrats have created a state of affairs that suits them just fine. Wealth creation, as a policy, is non-existent.
In an interview, part of which you can read here, president Obama had this to say on wealth:
I do think what's shifted is a notion that the wealthier you are, the more conspicuous consumption you engage in. The more successful you are, the more society should stay out of your way as you pursue the bigger house or the fancier jet or the bigger yacht
Consumption is now "conspicuous" at a certain level especially when the rich are buying "fancier" jets and "bigger" yachts, you know, like they always do, knowing them. Now they are moving away from thinking that "society" should "stay out of their way". Thanks to Obama, "society" is now putting the brakes on this kind of tawdry behavior because government is taking more of what they own. That should teach them.
The problem with Obama and his party is the portrayal of wealth as a fixed quantity where some people have more than others thus becoming an antithesis to "equality". But wealth is not fixed, it is created all the time by the very people who are, well, wealthy. Wealth isn't floating in some economic ether till someone captures more of it than others.
And wealth creation starts with ideas that become valuable to a lot of people. Idea generation is embedded in American culture and as such has allowed the country to prosper since its inception and continues to do so today. Putting ideas to market is freedom in motion as such liberalism with their aspirations of European style social democracy doesn't jibe with American cultural ideals.
Democrats look to their politicians such as Hillary and Obama for their star power but it is the principles of free-economics and smaller government that sells books, radio, television and even internet hits while MSNBC, Huffington Post, New York Times are failing enterprises.
Hillary or whomever the Democrats nominate are selling a fail-safe life where we should be more than satisfied with a job that has health care and no one is too rich.
Democrat success depends on personnel, not ideas, and right now in the political arena they are ahead. It is only a matter of time till the tide turns and it could be worse for them this time around because we know what their world view looks like, it isn't an abstraction anymore.