He implies, and almost explicitly says at times, “These people are making more money than you. It’s THEIR fault you’re not doing well.” He’s shifting the blame from his own failed, Big Government policies to a group he finds it effective to pick on.

 

by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.

 

Traditionally, it’s conservatives or anyone not of the “liberal” persuasion who’s considered racist. In fact, every time somebody takes a position not consistent with socialism or welfare statism, he or she is labeled a “hater” or a “racist.”

If you think about it, though, the greatest prejudice and bias is found on the left.

Consider Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. His whole argument for being put back into office is this: The most well-off are doing OK in this economy, but the rest are not.

Well, that’s true. But WHY is it true, and what’s to be done about it?

Obama doesn’t answer this question. We can only presume he’s going to keep on doing what he has been doing, which obviously hasn’t worked out very well. Unemployment is even higher than when he entered office, the “recovery” is the worst in the history of the country and not really a recovery at all.

Obama is counting on prejudice and hatred in order to win reelection. He’s counting on enough people to hate the well-off being being well-off to vote for him instead.

It’s true that the most well off are not as hard hit by this recession as most other people. But this only means that the less well-off, or the middle class, depend even more on the private economy than anybody else. If Obama really cared that much about such people, he’d do everything in his power to stimulate the private economy, not the government sector. Yet all of Obama’s term in office has been about expanding the government sector and stimulating government spending, most of it from $16 trillion in debt (and counting).

Obama may win reelection, but he will only do so by counting on people to feel resentment, or even hatred, of those who make more than $250,000 a year (this seems to be the cutoff point for virtue). Obama has nothing positive to offer. He cannot, for example, say, “We must raise taxes. This will stimulate the private economy and create jobs like we’ve never before seen.” Even Obama knows this cannot happen. He cannot, for example, say, “We must expand government regulations. This will be good for business, especially up and coming businesses yet to be created.” This is plainly and obviously untrue. He absolutely will continue to do everything in his power to raise taxes, and increase regulations. But if the expansion of the private economy is the standard, he absolutely cannot win on that issue and he knows it.

Obama is no different than, say, a racist candidate would be. A racist would say, “It’s all the blacks’ fault.” Or it’s all the gays’ fault. Or it’s all the Jews’ fault. Pick your group to pick on. A racist blames a particular group for problems that are not anyone’s fault except for the government, whose error is refusing to leave the economy alone.

Obama is no different. He doesn’t blame blacks, Jews or gays, obviously. But he does blame those who are doing well. He implies, and almost explicitly says at times, “These people are making more money than you. It’s THEIR fault you’re not doing well.” He’s shifting the blame from his own failed, Big Government policies to a group he finds it effective to pick on.

This tactic, of course, has always worked and always will work with most leftist Democrats. The question is whether it will work with those in the middle who switch parties from one election to the next. It clearly worked in 2008, and polls thus far suggest it’s going to work again (although it will be closer).

Mitt Romney is very vulnerable for this reason. Romney has made a lot of money and would be one of the richest Presidents ever, if elected. Given this fact, Romney has an unusual opportunity to say, “Yes, I made a lot of money and I was successful. And I refuse to apologize for it. Nobody should. And, by the way, you wouldn’t have a great society if people were not left free to produce wealth. There would be no jobs, no civilization, not anything without people like me who are successful.” I’m sure Romney, like most Republicans, is too timid and humble to say such a thing. But leftists are bullies at heart, bullies without the facts on their side. You strengthen bullies by bowing to their irrational prejudices.

I don’t see Romney making an argument like this. But it’s only this kind of unshrinking, unapologetic attitude that could give any opposition to Obama’s leftist bigotry a chance. And Obama is a bigot. He’s not a racial bigot, but he harbors a profound bias against success and achievement. For whatever personal reasons, he hates and despises these things. The proof of this is every single policy, and every single statement, he has made in his administration against business, capitalism, self-interest, private property and even achievement (don’t forget, “You didn’t build that.”) He does what he can to stoke up hatred, not just against Romney, but against success as such. It’s his only chance of winning, and it’s truly sad if a majority of Americans fall for it.

 

Dr. Hurd has a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Psychology, Saybrook Institute, San Francisco, CA, November 1991. Degree awarded With Distinction. Master’s of Social Work (M.S.W.), Clinical, The University of Maryland at Baltimore, May 1988. Bachelor’s of Arts (B.A.), Psychology, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, May 1985. Distinguished Psychology Student Award, Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude. Dr. Hurd blogs at DrHurd.com

Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•