Socialism

I hope that this isn't too little too late. I hope everyone who takes the time to check out our blog can take 15 minutes and listen to this talk given by President Ezra Taft Benson, and read the post by my good friend, Gary Nuila. Thanks for the video, Tyler.

Source: http://nuila.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-03-31T19%3A16%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=20

I like Obama, but not because of his political philosophy. Like many of you, I've been watching him since he gave his famous speech at the democratic national convention in 2004 propelling him on to the national scene. I think what has impressed me most about him is the lack of enmity, of hostility, toward others in our nation and other countries in our world that pervades the hearts of so many of our current national leaders. As far back as a year ago, I was telling people that I thought that Obama was going to win the presidency precisely because he had a message that people were anxious to hear right now. I still think that.

This message is very appealing to a generation of Americans who have only seen political divisiveness and foreign hostility from the time they have become conscious politically. And what I mean by this is not the physical wars, or wars of ideas we've seen, these can actually be carried on without enmity. It's the hearts that have been at war with each other that has been the most distressing.

Obama has been very good at selling the point that he's willing to break out of this. But like I hinted at in the beginning of this post, I wish I could get behind him whole heartedly. I can't.

The reason for this is that behind his powerful messages of "Yes we can," "hope," and "change" it must be remembered that the instrument this hope and change are to be brought about by under Obama's conception is through the force of government, not the individual or collective choices of the people. Yes, we do choose our representatives and our president, but after we do, for most of society the direct choices have ceased.

So as we sing "yes we can" the truth is that Obama's message is not that we can, meaning you and me and the common citizens of this country. Obama's philosophical progenitors gave up on that notion with the New Deal. Rather the message is that the government can do these things for us. The government will take care of us and bring about or make possible our hopes and dreams....but always at a price.

I hope you realize that because the government does not of itself produce, it can only obtain the resources to bring about its promises by taking them from the people. Of course, the people do not willingly give up what they have produced, so the government can only obtain these resources by compulsion (you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail, a deprivation of virtually all of your unalienable rights).

Under this conception I ask you to consider where the power lies. Who is the hero? Who is the king or queen?

Let me end up by saying that I think Obama's message is the perfect one for a different political philosophy altogether: "Yes we can," meaning us, the people, our churches and private organizations, using our agency and our insight, our ability to choose and our reason (what distinguishes humans from animals). This political philosophy says that we will take care of the poor and disadvantaged , we will provide for our elders, we will find ways to ensure everyone that needs it receives health care. And all this without being compelled to do so by external compulsive forces such as government.

I can understand why Obama's philosophy is the predominant one today. It is because we failed to take care of these problems in an earlier era, so it was believed that only government could solve them regardless of the inevitable tradeoff between freedom and security.

I find that few people disagree with this latter conception, they simply don't believe its possible. I think its possible.