He explained it as "the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise and fall as one nation" and described it as blending "individual responsibility and mutual responsibility." Simply put: You have to do what you can for yourself, but that you also have to do for others.
There is the rub: If everyone were to adhere to the first part, there will be no need for the second. Besides, even if we buy the idea that, as Obama said, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper," there is still the question of whether government should do the keeping.
That's an absurd thing to say. Not everyone can accomplish everything they need for themselves, no matter how hard they try. Suggesting that everyone living below the poverty line is just not trying hard enough is insulting. People take the jobs they can take and there are always going to be some jobs that just don't pay enough. If there wasn't some sort of safety net for these people, and for those who find themselves unable to work for whatever reason, a lot of people would starve through no fault of their own.
I'm also keen on people not playing the victim, not feeling a sense of entitlement, and not fearing competition. And when you're struggling in a tough economy, you don't give up or lay blame or ask for a government bailout, you work harder.
In a country where there isn't 100% employment, there's always going to be people who can't find work. That's not their fault and it's not because of a lack of effort. It's just the way things are. Unless you want those people to starve to death, you're always going to need a government sponsored safety net.
Case in point: On this third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, there are people in New Orleans who are still waiting for the federal government to rebuild that city. Good luck with that, folks.
The waters have long since receded and residents are no longer standing on rooftops holding signs that read: "Help save us!" But they might as well be.
That wasn't the fault of government. That was the fault of the Bush Administration. I sometimes wonder if this has been Bush's intention all along: screw things up so much and so often that people lose all faith in government. In reality, the Bush Administrations failings shouldn't turn one off all government any more than a bad experience at a fast food restaurant should turn one off all restaurants.
The same goes for the Democrats who convened in Denver. This is a party that maintains power by trying to convince people that our country is a dark place, devoid of opportunities, and that the answer is to elect more of them.
It just so happens that this country becomes a dark place after years of Republican control. The fact that Carter, Clinton and Obama have run in the face of horrible Republican incompetence isn't their fault. You shouldn't kill the messenger.
Now they're seeking a change in the White House, a change in policy, and a change in national priorities --even if they aren't ready to change their tune.
What? Should they act like Joe Lieberman and just pretend the last 8 years didn't happen? This country is in the middle of a disaster the likes of which we haven't seen in decades.
|