CLASS WARFARE BETWEEN THE TAKERS AND THE GIVERS
“The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done; namely, break up the black family. That is, today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two-parent families.
Historically, from the 1870s to the 1940s – depending on the city – 75 to 90 percent of black kids lived in two-parent families. The illegitimacy rate [today] is 70 percent among blacks, and that is unprecedented in our history.” –Dr. Walter E. Williams; John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University.
Liberals and conservatives have debated the impact of LBJ’s Great Society since its inception in the mid 1960s. While liberals hail the social programs of presidents Kennedy and Johnson as landmark legislation, conservatives claim that many of their programs have not only consumed billions of dollars, but have also failed the very people they were designed to help. Welfare for unwed mothers – the amount of which was determined by the number of babies they bore – was not only a key component in the destruction of the urban nuclear family; it was also an early factor in the development of the present-day nanny state mentality of America’s left.
While programs like Medicare and Medicaid looked good on paper, they are badly flawed – as are most programs run by the federal government. However, they have served the Democrats quite well; liberalism is mostly about intent vs. results, and along with Social Security, they fit nicely into the Scare Tactics Playbook.
LBJ’s “war on poverty” was historic in the fact that it declared once and for all that the problems of the poor – housing, income, employment, and health -were ultimately a responsibility of the federal government. The toothpaste was out of the tube. In the minds of the disadvantaged, (and those who exploit them), the list of “rights” to be provided by the government has grown exponentially ever since.
In the 235 years since the Declaration of Independence, we have evolved from a country founded on the rights of assembly, free speech, and religion, to a nanny state – where some on the left tell us computer ownership and internet access are fundamental American rights. Obviously, the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the development of such things, but I’m fairly certain this isn’t what they had in mind.
While America is a land that offers its citizens the freedom of choice to pursue their goals and dreams – it also offers them the freedom to choose otherwise; it offers them the opportunity to choose not to succeed. Its intent is to assign the responsibility for these respective choices to the people who make them – except in the mind of the liberal. Liberal doctrine confuses equality of opportunity with equality of results. As a consequence, those who make choices that fail to provide their wants and desires are to be given those wants and desires at the expense of people who have worked hard to achieve them for themselves. Class envy. Socialism. Wealth redistribution.
German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer wrote that there are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work, or robbery; one’s own labor, or the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Oppenheimer termed the first method “economic means” and the second, “political means.”
Appropriately, we may call the first option “earning wealth ” and the second option “redistributing of wealth.” The creation of a welfare, or nanny state necessitates the redistribution of wealth, as it cannot exist by any other means. Since revenue (taxes) and expenditures are a zero-sum exercise in any particular year – the act of giving someone what they did not earn can only occur if an equivalent value is taken away from someone else – who earned that value. This is the essence of socialism – and liberal politics in America.
Despite incessant whining by liberals that “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share,” reality tells us otherwise: Last year, the top 5% of wage earners paid nearly 60% of total taxes, while the bottom 50% paid less than 3%. Clearly, we have become a nation overpopulated with takers – with a disproportionate minority of Americans playing the role of giver. To quote our brilliant vice president, this system is “unsustainable.” Hence, the cruel hypocrisy of Democrats who pander to their various voting blocks in an effort to frighten them.
The logic is simple: The more you give people, the more they want – or expect. (the “give ’em an inch, and they’ll take a mile” thing) The more you take from someone – the more they object – and the more they resent the recipients of their hard-earned dollars. Mix in the fact that many of the takers do so because they lack the desire or determination to work to become givers – and you have the perfect storm; a storm which is polarizing America as the givers and takers dig in their respective heals.
Seizing revenue by means of coercive taxation, and disbursing that revenue through wealth redistribution necessarily creates a class system comprised of taxpayers and tax-consumers, whereby the latter lives off the largess of the former. Even worse, tax-consumers comprise the core constituency of the Democratic Party, who exploits and panders to them – solely for political gain. Such is the case with America’s blacks – who must be led to believe that “the man” (white males, corporations, big business, and “right-wing” Christians) is the enemy – an enemy that only the Democratic Party can keep in check. (Barack Obama, on an Hispanic radio station earlier this year, referred to “your enemies,” (Republicans) as he addressed the audience.)
Despite the left’s claim that it is the Republicans who promulgate a caste system in America, it is the Democratic Party who does so – and they’re fully aware of it; for without the perception of class warfare by the takers, modern liberalism would not be needed; nor would be the disingenuous politicians who fan its flames.