Phony Intimacy

Phony Intimacy

Tibor R. Machan

Mrs. Obama was praised for reporting in her speech at the Democratic National Convention that President Obama takes his mission to be a personal one, that he treats the citizenry intimately, attending to the private problems of citizens.

Actually it is a bad thing that Mr. Obama treats his role as president of the USA as a personal one. It is not. He is supposed to be guarding the basic public ideas and ideals of the country and not attend to people’s personal affairs.

Personalizing politics is the road to totalitarianism–it tends to make one into a micro-manager of everyone’s life in the country. Not only is that a futile effort but it is utterly insulting to the citizenry, as if we couldn’t deal with our challenges without the president’s meddling in our affairs. It leads to the strong arm policies of a Stalin, the practices of police states in which the government takes the role of micro-managing the country’s population. That is the way of the police as bully, not as peacekeeper.

The American Founders understood that a free country isn’t the laboratory of master politicians–czars, monarchs, Caesars, etc.

Obama doesn’t get, or more likely doesn’t like, it!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Phony Intimacy

  1. Beth says:

    How timely and true your statement is about how it is a very bad idea to have a president (a macro leader) take a personal role (micro issues) in people’s lives. By definition this will lead to greater control over people as you brought out.

    Some who read this might scoff at the assertions of personal politics leading to police-states and totalitarianism, but I would ask how could it not? If a leader designates himself with the role of solving people’s personal financial problems, how could they not use the strong arm of government to make their ideas so? All actions needed to “fix” people’s problems or make them better would involve forcing other people to do things they otherwise might not have. This leads to the use of force against innocent people in the economy and can be seen as “police-state” type action when used.

    Also, helping select groups of people on a personal basis will always lead to ripping off the non-chosen citizenry. In order to help the former, the latter will always take a hit when force is used. I believe this type of control is a form of totalitarianism. The problem is that normal people often excuse such behavior because they are made to feel guilty in that the actions are justified as “being for the greater good,” or ” for those less fortunate.” No one has ever been able to answer to me why justifying force with these reasons makes the use of force upon completely innocent citizens moral.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s