Obama Statement Hints at Socialism

Following the heat generated by the attacks on U.S. Embassies all over the Middle East, politics in America have likewise taken a feverish turn.  During the past week, both the Romney and Obama campaigns have attacked one another via two short videos (one against Romney, the other against Obama) released wherein each candidate was memorialized voicing controversial statements. Both of these commentaries can be found with a quick search on YouTube.

First, the Obama campaign jumped on the opportunity to attack Romney for the now infamous “47 percent” video.  In this clip, Romney opines that his campaign will not be able to reach 47 percent of the American population because those people receive vast amounts of government-sponsored handouts, do not pay taxes and are not interested in reforms to place the nation back on the right path.  Although a great number of folks may be left scratching their collective heads as to why this is a controversial statement, the Obama campaign has twisted Romney’s words to make him appear as a non-inclusive candidate whose policies would not provide equal opportunities.  In response, Romney fired back with a rediscovered clip of Obama promoting redistribution of wealth.  Both clips are incredibly interesting (especially given their interdependent relevance) and will undoubtedly provide something to consider between now and November.

The Obama video was filmed in 1998 while he was giving commentary on a plethora of topics involving economic revitalization to a Loyola University audience.  At the time this video was taken, President Obama was still a state senator for Illinois.

I see no real purpose in discussing Romney’s comment, because he simply articulated the basis of his campaign; there is nothing new in his words. I suggest that voters should simply listen to and watch the video first-hand and make up their own minds.  I am encouraged that he has the courage to speak his mind plainly and consistently.

As for Obama’s comments… well, those deserve some analysis.  Before I give my opinion on the 30 second video that provides the essence of the Romney campaign’s attack, I would like to talk about the prior eight minutes of Obama’s speech before that clip.  Quite honestly, even as a Conservative, I have to admit that these comments were taken slightly out of context.  Obama begins his exposition with some good points about the specific district he represented as an Illinois senator, the Thirteenth District of Illinois, which includes the southwest suburbs of Chicago.  During his speech he points out that his district was home to some of the wealthiest housing developments in America as well as some of the poorest.  Obama then goes on to elaborate on the improvements being made and how these improvements are occurring around city hubs, such as universities and professional sports stadiums.  Thereafter, he changes his focus to the largest prevailing issue: inequality and the lack of entry-level jobs.  I have to agree with what this younger version of Obama asserted in regard to the status of the economy and improving the educational system.  Unfortunately, he unwisely leaps to the word “redistribution” when he speaks of these civic and economic improvements.  While job creation is a form of redistribution of wealth, it is the type of redistribution that Conservatives support, accomplished through education, individual work ethic and perseverance.

In regard to the 30 second segment which is provided in the Romney campaign advertisement, Obama speaks to the form of redistribution that serves as the foundation of both socialism and communism, taking from those who work and succeed and giving to those who do not work and do not succeed.  America was built on capitalistic ideals; a citizen is responsible for their own success.  Success is the sum of ambition and willingness to work.  This is the belief upon which America was founded and served as the master plan for her success.  The clip documents Obama directly ascribing to the primary theme of both socialism and communism, which is the exact opposite of the American formula for success, and is also the path our nation has followed over the past three decades into increasing economic ruin.

Again, in fairness, Obama’s comments must be analyzed in context.  I believe you must factor in the time period between when this comment was made and present day.  A lot may have changed in Obama’s mindset from when he made this comment 14 years ago. He might not have meant that the government must directly take money from the successful to give to the less successful.  On the other hand, however, recent evidence seems to argue frighteningly in the other direction.

Obamacare is a perfect example: it does not seek to eliminate the expenses of health care, but it simply redistributes them to those who work hard and succeed.  Based on the implementation of the first tier of this program, the cost of my health care insurance doubled.  In fact, I was forced to carry two entirely redundant health care policies.  Obamacare not only increases the cost of health care for working Americans– it simultaneously eliminates the prestige of being a health care professional. These professionals will be paid lower wages, thus diminishing the rationale for our brightest minds to seek a job in this particular profession.  He is literally destroying capitalism within the health care field, and in doing so, will degrade the high quality  for which the United States is known.  This is just one example, but a powerful one.  This is the path America has been on since we launched our first social programs…look around. Has it worked?  The answer is no.

Jack Whitaker can be reached at richard.whitaker@spartans.ut.edu