United Liberty

On Wednesday, I noted a 1998 speech given Barack Obama, then a state senator in Illinois, at Loyola University. As he wound down his comments, Obama made it clear that he believes in redistribution of wealth. As I explained, the comments aren’t surprising. During a 2008 campaign stop in Ohio, Obama told “Joe the Plumber” that he believes in “spread[ing] the wealth around.” And since that time, Obama has pushed his tax hikes along the same rhetorical line.

But more comments have surfaced in the last couple of days that show how deep-rooted this belief in wealth redistribution is. In 1995, Obama called for a collectivist society, based in “democracy — with a ‘small-d,’” which is essentially the rule of the mob, for the “common good”:

The comments in the video may have seemed out of the mainstream for 1995, but this is now commonplace in the Democratic Party. During 2004 fundraiser, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), put it much more straight-forward fashion, explaining, “Many of you are well enough off that…the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Back during the RNC, I had a conversation with a protester, who was complaining about Republicans called Obama a “fascist.” She said, “That’s a right-wing philosophy.” I told her that whether it’s right-wing or left-wing, it’s still a political system that undermines the greatly diminishes the individual for sake of the “common good.” It’s still collectivism.

Adolf Hitler was fond of the saying, “The common good before the private good.” Nikita Khrushchev once said, “We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.” Both of these quotes, from a fascist and communist, are examples of the putting the interests of the state, which is often shrouded in the “common good,” over the individual.

No, I’m not calling Obama or Clinton fascists or communists. I’m simply saying that the comments are concerning given the seemingly outright contempt for the individual that is expressed. Through this mindset, liberties are privilages that are afforded to the people by the state, which could be revoked at any time if they are deemed to be inconvenient or otherwise irrelevant. And there is no such thing as economic liberty in a planned economy.

It’s a side of Obama that doesn’t get told very often, if ever. And since the comments in 1995 and 1998, as Mark Taspcott explained yesterday in his excellent piece at the Washington Examiner, Obama has been able to mold his message with “air of reasonableness and moderation.”

Even a shrew can be tamed, but once you peel back the veneer, you see a radical sitting in the White House.