NATHAN: ‘Vapid’ liberalism

OP-ED:

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said in his convention speech that the promise of America is “the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.” Now, the easiest criticism to launch against Mr. Obama is the charge of hypocrisy given that his own brother lives in a Kenyan shack on a dollar a month and receives no assistance from his famous sibling. More perilous though is the collectivist message that he and his supporters send — i.e., provide the needy with a floor by oppressing the rest with a ceiling. However, their modus operandi is far more nefarious, “Vote for us and we’ll take from others in the name of giving to you — thus ensuring your motivated reliance upon our electoral success.”

Of course, it’s a message that’s well received against a backdrop of government bailouts for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG. However, our valid right to mercilessly punish corporate greed should never become a license for the redistribution of wealth.

Mr. Obama plans to increase taxes on those earning $250,000 or more (including small businesses creating most of our jobs), and then turn those revenues into checks for the 40 percent not paying taxes. Consequently, he would be punishing the innocent for the crimes of a corporate universe alien to most of them.

This repeatedly failed socialism has resonance only when the easily frightened are joined by the supposedly educated, who are themselves manipulated by a collectivist philosophy trading on its wrongly perceived allegiance to the poor. For this we can thank college campuses cranking out the less informed by forcing indoctrination into their curriculum. After enough time, the damage becomes societally engrained.

Such vapidity was illustrated on ABC’s “The View” (Sept. 12) when guest and Republican nominee, Mr. McCain, tragically added to it: “I want people [Supreme Court Justices] who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our Founding Fathers envisioned them to do.” Host Whoopi Goldberg responded: “Should I be worried about being a slave, or being returned to slavery cause [sic] certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change?” Mr. McCain: “I understand your point; I understand your point — that’s an excellent point.” She raised an excellent point? Well perhaps, but only if her point was to demonstrate an ignorance of the Constitution that had enough weight, depth and breadth to crush a planet. Given that our Constitution includes the Thirteenth Amendment (which absolutely forbids slavery), originalist justices interpreting the document, “the way our Founding Fathers envisioned them to do,” would forever uphold that mandate. Why? Because our Framers “envisioned” that all amendments would have the same weight in constitutional law as the articles preceding them.

As a centrist, who’s both a social progressive and national defense hawk, I find this election as fascinating as it is frustrating. I’m pro-choice, pro-patients’ bill-of-rights, pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage, and pro-reparations for blacks. However, I’m also supportive of the Iraq war, the war against fanatical jihadists, smaller government, originalist justices, and dissolving the well-documented corrupt United Nations. In order to fully vet these issues, we need a free press that requires its news-reporting staff to apply universal standards of neutrality when presenting facts in their self-evident forms. Unfortunately, most Americans say these standards are gone in virtually all polls about the media.

From the Obama supporters, we’re also witnessing the most censorial approach to modern debate. For them, the only permissible dissent is their own against others; but any counter-argument is characterized as a personal slight, a racial epithet or a slap in the face against unity - unity which of course is contingent upon everyone’s compromise but Mr. Obama’s. This mindset is echoed by Fatimah Ali, a popular columnist in The Philadelphia Daily News. She recently wrote, “If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!” CNN’s Jack Cafferty soon after proclaimed, “McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense — unless it’s race.” Only skin color explains a close contest? Look for a full-fledged race war if Mr. McCain wins? Translation: Unless you vote for Obama, you’re a bigot. This is too silly. If race should never motivate your opposition, then it’s equally wrong to motivate your support. Most people get this, except for those exhibiting the cerebral dexterity of a cow chip.

Alan Nathan, a columnist, is host of the syndicated radio show “Battle Line With Alan Nathan.”