In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America.What bothered me so much? It was the belief that we are all connected. The idea of the collective. We are one, and the one is the government.
Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and envy of the world.
But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.
September 8, 2011
Obama: "But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected..."
That's the line in the President's speech (PDF) that made me cry out loud. Here's the whole sequence, in which he purports to define who we are:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213"Will the poor Chinese continue to have a safe place to park their money?" is pretty low on my list of worries right now.
They think that the net effect of an overnight cut of 41% of the federal government
All politics is local.
Mommy and I are one.
A natural progression of the state-as-parent governing philosophy.
The FF and their ancestors lived under a strong central state.
PB&J is actually arguing that the FF wanted to create a strong central state & the Federalist Papers say that?
WHAAA?
Then why have a revolution?
The entire world was under strong central states.
I wonder how those who died or lived through the Great Wars would view the comments on this blog as they read what is left of our notion that we are connected as citizens of this great country and that sometimes requires us to make sacrifices. Their sacrifices make no sense in a country that now reduces the notion of connection to some kind of monetary exchange where everybody is in it for themselves.
Their sacrifices make no sense in a country that now reduces the notion of connection to some kind of monetary exchange where everybody is in it for themselves.
Interesting sentiment given the research that suggests that liberals, who favor large government solutions to social problems, give less to charity than conservatives. This has always suggested to me that the left has a "I gave at the office" mentality.
Aside from that, RV, I find it hard to believe that the veterans of WWI and WWII would wholeheartedly agree with allowing so many people to live on the public dole for so long without contributing to society at all. They might well view that as offensive. "I fought for what again?"
In fact, I have known quite a few vets of WWII who thought exactly that.
Further...please show me a point in human history where everyone wasn't in it for themselves out side the tribal village or hamlet level.
Sorepaw said: "You've noticed, I hope, that the Pledge of Allegiance never refers to states."
Only if you stop reading after the first nine words. Moron.
I'll admit I'm pretty liberal compared to this blog and its commenters but I come to this blog to see what conservatives are thinking sometimes.
I think Obama was trying to characterize Americans. If you want to let him define you, then that's your problem.
Of course we are connected by the mere fact that we are Americans. Isn't it obvious that this was a direct front to the bipartisanship we can't get past. People see themselves as Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and Conservatives. Progressives and Tea Partiers. These days. Before Americans.
Obama rose to the occasion. I see the people here can't.
If this is all you have to offer, I'm not going to bother seeing what the other side has to think anymore.
People see themselves as Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and Conservatives. Progressives and Tea Partiers.
If you think I see myself as conservative before American, you have no idea what you're talking about. American as opposed to any other nationality. That's first.
On the other hand, my die-hard liberal sister-in-law believes fervently that she is a citizen of the world and has stated as such. Nationalism is jingoism to her and her ilk. If you want to explain how we can come together as Americans when a good many on the left have similar sentiments, I welcome you to do so.
For Democrats, they cannot conceive that a community is not equal to a government. Good grief and nice catch.
@EFB
If this is all you have to offer, I'm not going to bother seeing what the other side has to think anymore.
How open minded of you.
@sofa king: actually, I think it's Rousseau's General Will, the idea that justified the excesses of the French Revolution and the Terror.
Rousseau never fared very well in the Anglo-sphere, except with the professional left.
Isn't it obvious that this was a direct front to the bipartisanship we can't get past. People see themselves as Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and Conservatives. Progressives and Tea Partiers.
People who know what "bipartisanship" means and people who don't. People who expect to be disagreed with when they drive by a blog to see what people who disagree with them are saying, and people who don't.
Post a Comment