Jul7th2008

Our Collectivist Candidates

Cato Institutes David Boaz criticizes the collectivist remarks of our presidential candidates:

On Sunday Barack Obama urged graduates of Connecticut’s Wesleyan University to devote themselves to “collective service.” This is not an unusual theme for a commencement address. But it was interesting how long he went on discussing various kinds of nonprofit activism without ever mentioning the virtues of commerce or of individual achievement.

He also did not cite the military as an example of service to one’s country. This is a surprising omission in a Memorial Day weekend speech to college-age students by a man seeking to be entrusted with the defense of the U.S.

Sen. Obama told the students that “our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” He disparaged students who want to “take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy.”

The people Mr. Obama is sneering at are the ones who built America – the traders and entrepreneurs and manufacturers who gave us railroads and airplanes, housing and appliances, steam engines, electricity, telephones, computers and Starbucks. Ignored here is the work most Americans do, the work that gives us food, clothing, shelter and increasing comfort. It’s an attitude you would expect from a Democrat.

Or this year’s Republican nominee. John McCain also denounces “self-indulgence” and insists that Americans serve “a national purpose that is greater than our individual interests.” During a Republican debate at the Reagan Library on May 3, 2007, Sen. McCain derided Mitt Romney’s leadership ability, saying, “I led . . . out of patriotism, not for profit.” Challenged on his statement, Mr. McCain elaborated that Mr. Romney “managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That’s the nature of that business.” He could have been channeling Barack Obama.

“A greater cause,” “community service” – to many of us, these gauzy phrases sound warm and comforting. But their purpose is to disparage and denigrate our own lives, to belittle our own pursuit of happiness. They’re concepts better suited to a more collectivist country than to one founded in libertarian revolution – a revolution intended to defend our rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

One gets the sense that Mr. McCain would like to see us all in the armed forces. In a Washington Monthly essay published in October 2001, his vision of national service sounded militaristic. He wrote with enthusiasm for programs whose participants “not only wear uniforms and work in teams . . . but actually live together in barracks on former military bases, and are deployed to service projects far from their home base,” and who would “gather together for daily calisthenics, often in highly public places such as in front of city hall.”

Mr. Obama wouldn’t send us into the military. All he wants is our souls. As his wife Michelle said at UCLA on February 3, two days before the California primary, “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. . . . That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

There is a whiff of hypocrisy here. Mr. Obama, who made $4.2 million last year and lives in a $1.65 million house bought with the help of the indicted Tony Rezko – and whose “elegant suits” and “impeccable ties” made him one of Esquire’s Best-Dressed Men in the World – disdains college students who might want to “chase after the big house and the nice suits.” Mr. McCain, who with his wife earned more than $6 million last year and who owns at least seven homes, ridicules Mr. Romney for having built businesses.

But hypocrisy is not the biggest issue. The real issue is that Messrs. Obama and McCain are telling us Americans that our normal lives are not good enough, that pursuing our own happiness is “self-indulgence,” that building a business is “chasing after our money culture,” that working to provide a better life for our families is a “narrow concern.”

They’re wrong. Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others.

The full article can be found here.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • YahooMyWeb

6 Responses to “Our Collectivist Candidates”


  1. Gravatar Icon 1 Ted Jul 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Romney adds a net nothing to the ticket; his negatives at least approximate the positives.

    McCain NEEDS Alaska Gov Sarah Palin (if he wants to win in November) — whose positives are too numerous to mention here (with no negatives).

    – and don’t cite Palin’s lack of experience, since she’s got 10 times that of Obama!!!

  2. Gravatar Icon 2 LaurenceB Jul 9th, 2008 at 5:54 am

    Generally, I like the Cato Institute, but this seems to be a case of trying too hard to find something to complain about.

    In other words…

    I encourage others to participate in (unpaid) political discussions. I find it admirable that folks like HP are willing to spend the time and money it takes to maintain a blog - presumably with no compensation, for the public good. When I encourage someone to do what HP does, I don’t see it as “disparaging” or “sneering at” whatever job that person may have.

    In the same vein, I don’t think I’m being “hypocritical” when I encourage others to become active politically, even though I have a full-time job that pays well.

  3. Gravatar Icon 3 HispanicPundit Jul 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am

    In the same vein, I don’t think I’m being “hypocritical” when I encourage others to become active politically, even though I have a full-time job that pays well.

    I see your point…but I think Obama’s was a bit more than this. He sees the two as either/or not both/and. In other words, he is encouraging a person with a gift in math to pursue his talents in the political and/or charity arena instead of pursuing a lucrative career.

    I’ve been planning to write a post elaborating more on why this bugs me…I’ll try to get it done soon and post.

  4. Gravatar Icon 4 mortalez Jul 13th, 2008 at 11:50 am

    yes but political office is(if done for the people) a form a charity work.

  5. Gravatar Icon 5 Fernando Jul 15th, 2008 at 12:53 am

    LaurenceB; you mean as long as you don’t have to do it.

    For me! I always tell people to get your career in first, and then after you have made a success in what ever field that you are in? Then, and only then should a person get involved in politics.

    Politics will ALWAYS be around. There is more than enough time for people to get involved.

  1. 1 In Praise Of Personal Interest at Hispanic Pundit Pingback on Jul 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 am

Leave a Reply