Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Saturday, March 02, 2013

Why Obama erodes social fabric

NY Times columnist David Brooks is a disillusioned Barack Obama supporter, and writes:
My dream Obama would abandon the big government versus small government argument. He’d point out that in a mature, aging society, government isn’t going anywhere. The issue is not size but sclerosis. The future has no lobby, so there are inexorable pressures favoring present consumption over future investment. The crucial point is not whether a dollar is spent publicly or privately, it’s whether it is spent on the present or future. The task today is to reform institutions and rearrange spending so we look like a young nation and not a comfort-seeking, declining one. ...

Third, Obama could talk obsessively about family structure and social repair. Every week we get another statistic showing how social and income inequality is dividing the nation. A team led by Robert Putnam of Harvard recently completed research showing that while childhood obesity is falling among kids whose parents graduated from college, it is still rising among kids whose parents have a high school degree or less.

Because of his upbringing, President Obama is uniquely qualified to talk about family structures. Traditional values are an investment in the young, and he could do what he can to restitch the social fabric.
This is foolish. Republicans stand for limited government, family autonomy, and a future time orientation. Democrats stand for extending government dependence, redefining family values, and borrowing for present consumption.

Brooks is hinting that because Obama had a white mom who abandoned him and his African dad, and because he was left to his white grandparents when he got a scholarship to an elite high school, he is somehow "uniquely qualified to talk about family structures". No he is not. Furthermore, the 2012 election exit polls proved that Democrats are entirely depedent on anti-family policies to gain voters.

Obama complains that budget sequestration is bad for the economy, but it is only bad if you want to increase borrowing for present consumption. If the sequestration were really unexpected and bad, then the stock market would have dropped sharply. A Sailer commenter writes:
I have met childless married white women who actually say aloud, “I do not have children so I do not care about the future."
That is it, isn't it? Childless white women are nihilists. For all their soft sounds and supposed political 'caring', they don't really care at all about the future.

No comments:

Post a Comment