Exposing the Real Agenda…
Now is the summer of our discontent – made glorious winter by this sun of the Statis. Shakespeare may not have been pleased, but my literary license is paid in full and allows for such word play.
This is the opening of the play Richard III, which speaks to a representation of said king as a despot and deformed schemer. This juxtaposition with our current government actions is amazingly similar.
After gaining the affection of the populist and various businesses, the Statis tosses aside those who no longer fulfill its needs – remember the firing of a company CEO, not to mention that taking over of that company only to give it to the unions, (a very under-reported story in which everyday people lost their common standing in bankruptcy court), the incredible increase in spending, the promotion of a judge based upon race, gender, and empathy rather than credentials…, the list goes on and on.
In recent days, both those opposed to the war, (or whatever it is being called these days) are stunned at the actions taking place in Afghanistan – not to mention the dabbling in dropping the pubic aspect to the health care bill, (a ruse if one was ever presented). The base of the Statis is being pushed aside for the simple reason of political expedience. Like Richard III, paranoia and an all-consuming desire to push an agenda is paramount.
A rift is occurring and soon the results will begin to play themselves out. But, this is not the end, for “the game is afoot, Watson!” There are still legislative plans out there for “Cap and Trade” and, surprisingly enough, amnesty is raising its ugly head yet again.
But, what is the single defining theme? Socialism is generally forwarded as the basis, but that does not really explain the underlying basis. Yes, government growth, more control, more regulations, et al, are the mechanisms forwarded. Yet, that is not, in and of itself, a theme.
Consider the case of Joe the Plumber. Why would that have been something so heinous that legions of reporters had to follow up on this private citizen and discredit him, rather than the message stated by the “then candidate for president?” The answer is simple, yet very profound – capitalism.
If there is one theme this administration has been able to accomplish, it is the use of class warfare to condemn capitalism. It started out very simply, choose a dollar figure and compare it to the standard wage of most Americans – in this case, it was $250,000. But, when one considers small business, that figure is not so dramatic. You see it discounts the overhead of paying employees, owning or leasing a business location as well as equipment, a myriad of fees, (legal, insurance, payroll, etc.), and numerous other everyday costs.
Once these perspectives are out there, it becomes a simple technique to continue the division. As noted by President Barack Obama, ‘I don’t know anyone making $250,000 a year’ – to which the crowd went wild. Truth be told, he was admitting he did not know any small business owners whose books may show that level of transactions, but certainly not a salary to the owner of this amount.
The next step was easy, attack truly large businesses, (“Big Insurance”, “Big Wallstreet”, “Big Anything”) and generalize this hatred across the board. Once this is established, any capitalist activity can be couched into this paradigm – big, powerful, with no consideration for the everyday person.
Of course, this is shibboleth used only to create class warfare and debase capitalism. That is a profound accomplishment. In the past, this nation has always risen to the occasion by recognizing our unique ability to depend upon the small business owner’s creativity and hard work. Now, that perspective is subsumed by the concept that government is the solution. This is both unsustainable, (who pays the government’s bills?) and demeaning to the citizenry, (the preponderance of government employment is neither innovative nor ambitious). In short, a shift in the national perspective from creative innovation towards government drones.
The question is…why is this important? Consider this, when you are reading or hearing about some grand new program, ask if this would be better served through the private market via the benefits of capitalism. Once you can grapple with that perspective, you have begun to arm yourself as to whether government is in fact necessary or rather another “make-work” program which sounds good, but has little value.
We get caught up in the minutia and forget the bigger picture. Arguing the tiny specifics allows for those pressing a new government program to gain the upper hand – they can simply state they will “tweak” the proposal, yet continue to allow the progression of yet another new government program.
Keep this in mind when considering these new proposals – is it truly necessary to create a new government system and, if so, how will it effect the small and medium business owner? Huge multinational businesses love big government because it inhibits legitimate competition and benefits the truly large players – one reason so many of the larger insurance companies backed this proposed health care bill.
This is a fairly simple formula for review, but one that is tremendously powerful.