For some time now, I have been explaining that a mass techno-commercial society such as our own is in danger of fragmentation. Millions of strangers cannot peacefully cooperate if they do not subscribe to a core of moral principles. Without these their conflicts would wrench them apart.
I have further explicated the five essential principles. These are: honesty, personal responsibility, fairness (defined as the same rules for all), liberty, and family values. In their absence, people cannot rely on strangers to uphold their social duties.
As we peruse our fracturing nation, it should be apparent that these principles are being violated in almost every direction. Lies, recklessness, and partiality appear to be ubiquitous. But why is this so? What happened to make us less moral than our ancestors?
Oddly, one of the main culprits is Barack Obama. As a man who was supposed to bring our nation together, he did the opposite. Rather than help us be more understanding of one another, he sowed the seeds of distrust. He did this, in large part, by violating every one of the critical principles.
Although this may sound unlikely, I document it in my recent book, The Great False Hope: A Critical Account of the Obama Presidency. (Available now of Amazon as a paperback ($10) and eBook ($5)). Based on columns I wrote for the Marietta Daily Journal, it provides unequivocal evidence of his perfidy.
Let’s begin with honesty. Everyone knows that Barack lied about ObamaCare. He told people they could keep their doctors and medical plans, whereas he knew full well they could not. This, however, was just the tip of the iceberg. A review of my columns makes it plain that deceit was a running theme of his presidency.
Today we see the consequences of this mendacity. Nowadays politicians and journalists lie without the slightest signs of shame. Thanks to Obama’s ability to slide by, deception has become business as usual. If he could get away with it, so could these lesser lights.
Then there is personal responsibility. Obama was totally unwilling to take the blame for scandals such as the IRS or Benghazi. Amazingly, after he left office he opined that there was not there slightest whiff of scandal during his administration. He must have been hiding in a back room at the White House.
Worse yet was his encouraging ordinary Americans not to be responsible. After all, if they started a company, they did not make it. Much better instead for people to depend upon the government. They could rely on it for food stamps and a free college education.
Next we come to fairness. Despite the talk about social justice, this policy amounted to favoring some Americans over others. Political correctness decreed that millions were victims, whereas others were victimizers. Whites, for instance, were asked to step back because they benefited from an alleged pigmentation privilege.
The rich, of course, were the multi-purpose villains. They were not paying their fair share no matter how much they were taxed. On the other hand, the poor deserved every advantage the government could bestow. Meanwhile women, blacks and gays needed to be compensated for their previous trials.
As for liberty, it was honored in the breach. Just how many regulations Americans had been saddled with became apparent after Trump began to dismantle them. Obama’s attitude was that the government knew best and therefore should force ordinary folks to do what was good for them.
Last we have family values. Barack was not against these per se. When it came to his own family, he was, in fact, a good husband and father. The problem was that he did nothing to promote strong families elsewhere. Despite an epidemic of unwed parenthood, he said little about the emotional devastation it wrought.
This is an amazing catalog of neglect and tyranny. Obama did not overtly characterize himself as an autocratic socialist, but his actions consistently pointed in this anti-democratic direction. That they did was confirmed by the subsequent success of the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Americans were plainly conditioned by Obama to expect lots of free stuff without any preconditions. They were not required to uphold core moral principles, but to cede their administration to an allegedly benevolent government. It would protect them from distress by controlling their day-to-day lives.
The trouble with this scenario is that if individuals are not principled, it will not be long before their government is also unprincipled. While they may agree with leaders like Obama one day, during the next they may be shackled to the personal whims of his successor. Such is the legacy of socialism.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment