Authored by William Robert Barber

This next election will either reject the liberal progressive philosophy or sustain and confirm its continuum. The legislation enacted by the Obama administration will be validated, upon his reelection, or it will be annulled by his loosing. The heretofore power of the federal government will be curtailed and the tenth amendment to the constitution reaffirmed or the rights and sovereignty of States is denied. Public employee unions will prevail with as much or more influence or such will abate. The federal deficit will be decreased by real cuts in spending or marginally decreased by tax increases. The national economy will reconfirm capitalism or vector in the direction of more central planning and socialistic notions.

This next election will define America’s ethos, its capitalistic resolve or its insistence on striving to enable a European style system of economic, social, and cultural governing. This election is the most important clearly defining vote any citizen will make in its lifetime.

The mainstay issue is the definition of government’s role in a free society; there are citizens who have a belief that encourages greater government involvement and those, in bold contrast, that prefer limited governance. Many citizens find solace and surety in government assurances and are willing to trade-in potions of their individual liberty and freedom for such warrants. Others reject the entire conceptual of such a trade and indeed consider increased government intervention as unconstitutional, a threat to their Americanism, and downright tyrannical.

Each of us must choose. We must pose the question and answer; we must adapt a belief of certain governing principles. I have done so. 

I do believe government (another word for society) should provide for the mentally challenged, encourage the blind to cope with their handicap, materially support the insane, financially sustain the disabled thus unemployable, facilitate the needs of the elderly poor, and shield children from abuse.

I also reason that the coercive force of governmental agencies, departments, and offices should enforce the constitutionally lawful laws of the land. The primary objective of enforcement is so to insure that this nation is one of laws not of men. Additionally, the armed forces must, in the broadest context of meaningfulness, protect the nation and its people from martial aggression, sanction its sovereignty, and render by any means applicable unflinching surety for its future. 

I do not believe politicians should utilize the facilities of government to enhance their lives; this prohibiting would include the profitable facilitating of special knowledge to advance their person, family, or friends. These very same should be barred from pledging and promising to those that pay no federal income taxes a promise: ‘if you vote for me and my political party I and my party will insure not only your continuance of exception from federal income taxes; but, the richer than you will pay more in taxes to pay for beneficial federal programs.’

Presently, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs available in this country. Those that want to work can work. The issue for the intractable unemployed is more a manner of job position/description and pay then a matter that there are no jobs available. And as long as the government gives the unemployed money for not working, well, they will not work.

Of course the Obama administration and their sympathizers contend that well-known economist suggest that paying people not to work is the best bang-for-the-stimulus-buck and a darn good investment. If that is so then why not put the unemployed on a five-year unemployment agreement and pay them $100,000.00 per year? It is absurd to assert that paying people for not working is going create a functioning economy. The policy may not positively stimulate the economy but it will buy votes.

What the liberal progressives are saying is that if the government gives people money they will spend it and when that spending occurs the economy benefits. Hmm…I wonder (after unemployment insurance is exhausted) where the money from the government to the unemployed comes from. Oh yes, the government prints it or taxes the people to pay those that do not work.

Nevertheless, such wrongheaded illogically inspired nonsense will generate empathy and emotionally founded simpatico for the political party that endorses such payments. As for the politician or party that endorses a counter-argument, the politician that challenges the sense of it all, well, they will be defamed, belittled, and cast as a Charles Dickens Mr. Scrooge.

Because there will always be a distance between perception and reality all decision makers are professional guessers. Withstanding the enormity of the issue, these decision makers, by the virtue of their being are everlastingly striving to cast the illusion of propriety, prudence, and diligent sobriety on the outside while on the inside insecurity prevails.

But when the problem and answer is evidenced; doubt eliminated and the decision makers still cannot make a decision, the workingman’s definition of politics or incompetence has just been explained.

Here’s the deal. After spending hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars, respectful of the merit of one’s political ideology, government cannot effectively, efficiently, or even with the bare rudimental of requirements service the desires, needs, or wants of it citizenry no matter how much it taxes, decrees, or resolves to facilitate. History has documented volumes of failed governable attempts to right a wrong, correct an injustice, enable a moral good, or interject its power where it should not have.

The Obama interpretive of fairness as exampled in his governance is not an economic policy, and if it was a policy it will not work; such, at its roots nothing less than campaign exuberance, has never worked. Government promises of surety are taken at the price of one’s liberty. In addition, one must resign oneself to the loss of individual choice. If one votes for a liberal progressive government one must as a consequence forsaken individualism and by deduction one has chosen collectivism; upon such an occurrence, eventually, the ethos of Americanism will be extinguished. This next election is critical…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s