Michael J. Hurd was a little bitter.
Bill Oâ€™Reilly said it wellâ€”and honestly:
â€œItâ€™s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.â€
Twenty years ago, Oâ€™Reilly said, Obama would have been â€œroundly defeated by an establishment candidateâ€ like Romney.
â€œThe white establishment is now the minority,â€ he added. â€œThe voters, many of them, feel this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff.â€
The primary issue is not race. Itâ€™s outlook. You have basically two types of people, when considered in the context of electoral politics. One wants to do, and wants to be left alone to do it. The other wants to get, not in the traditional American sense of pursuing happiness…but to have goodies to which one is entitled, and provided for by others.
Since the welfare/entitlement state began in earnest, back in the 1930s, the trend has been consistent and steady. Ignore the periods of exception or backing off the trend, such as when Eisenhower or Reagan were President. These periods were the exception, not the norm. They did not represent the steady direction the country was taking, even at those times.
Before Obama, presidential elections were usually decided by the state of the economy. This is because most people, before Obama, wanted a thriving economy above all else.
Things have changed.
The fact that Obamaâ€”an open redistributer or wealthâ€”won the first time was an indication that perhaps something had changed in American society. …
Obama won. Before 2012, this would not have been possible in America. At the end of the day, a majority would never have voted back into office a President presiding over such a lousy economy. Obama himself, back in 2009, predicted he would not be a two-term President if the economy didnâ€™t appreciably improve. The economy did not appreciably approve. Yet Obama won anyway. …
This is so not the America of 1776. There are still good and great people to be found in this society, and some of them will perhaps still manage to flourish, unless liberty perishes altogether and some kind of a dictatorship takes hold in coming decades. (It certainly can, on our current course, especially with continued debt, deficits and economic decline.)
One thing is for sure. Those of us who yearn to think, live self-responsibly and independently must share a society with a plurality of people who would rather force others to take care of them. Not every single person who voted for Obama is a mooching dependent of the welfare state, of course. The truth is much uglier than that. The majority of people live their lives in such fearâ€”even if theyâ€™re doing quite well for themselvesâ€”that they chose to support the least freedom loving President in our relatively young nationâ€™s history. Obama provides them with the illusion that theyâ€™re not alone, even though they are more alone with a hack like Obama, not less.