Barack Obama’s strategy during the 2008 campaign was very shrewd. His statist policy positions and doctrinaire Senate voting record (almost identical to Bernie Sanders) made him very appealing to the left, yet he also made himself acceptable to other voters with a calm and moderate demeanor (Mayor Buttigieg is trying to follow the same strategy for 2020, albeit with less success so far).
Obama’s one major “oops moment” in an otherwise very disciplined campaign occurred one month before the election when he admitted that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”
Elizabeth Warren isn’t following Obama’s script since she’s running as an out-of-the-closet leftist, but she just experienced her own “oops moment.”
Writing for PJ Media, Megan Fox explains that Senator Elizabeth Warren inadvertently – but very clearly – acknowledged that her plan penalizes people with individual integrity and personal responsibility.
Elizabeth Warren was confronted at an Iowa town hall event by a voter who wanted to know if he could get back the money that he paid for his daughter’s college education since Warren’s running on forgiving student loan debt. “My daughter is in school,” he said.
“I saved all my money just to pay… Can I have my money back?” Warren replied, “Of course not!” The man continued to push Warren for an explanation for why some people can have a free education while others have to pay. “So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” he asked. …the plan is really just a bribe to current college students with debt as it does not address students who take out student loans in the future. …That’s what we would normally call a hustle.
Katherine Timpf of National Review has a first-hand account of why Sen. Warren’s scheme rubs many people the wrong way.
…this guy…is…absolutely right… When he references the sacrifices that he and his family had to make to pay for his daughter’s college, what he’s implicitly saying is that his choice to be financially responsible has cost him things that money cannot replace. …I wrote about some of the sacrifices that I myself had to make to avoid shouldering a debt that I knew I couldn’t repay.
…I found out that I’d been accepted to Columbia University’s graduate school of journalism. I was absolutely thrilled by this; it had been my dream since childhood to attend this exact school… Then, I realized I’d never be able to repay the $80,000 loan I’d have to take out to attend my dream school. …I withdrew. It was a tough decision — and the consequences were even tougher. …Unless Elizabeth Warren can go back in time and put me in a Columbia classroom during the time I spent cleaning those Boston Market bathrooms, her plan wouldn’t be “fair.” Unless she can give me the hours of my life back that I spent sitting alone covered in scabies cream, her plan wouldn’t be “fair.” …Elizabeth Warren can’t “pay me back” for a loan that I decided against taking out — a decision that I’d made precisely because I did not expect that anyone else would pay it back for me. …In other words? No — I don’t think that I should have to pay for someone else making an irresponsible decision when they could have made a responsible one.
Warren’s comments are getting lots of negative attention because people now have an easy-to-understand example of how her policies reward bad behavior and punish good behavior.
- If you save for your kid, you’re a chump.
- If you display personal responsibility, you’re a chump.
- If you work hard, you’re a chump.
- If you sacrifice today for a better tomorrow, you’re a chump.
- If you invest, you’re a chump.
- If you think it’s your job to take care of your family, you’re a chump.
There are many reasons to oppose redistribution programs. For instance, I was on TV just last month explaining how government programs encourage debt instead of savings.
What Warren has done, though, is to remind us something more important – that these programs are especially bad because they erode societal capital. They teach people it’s okay to live off the government and that they don’t need to worry about hard work and self reliance.
And when enough people adopt that attitude and a nation reaches a “tipping point,” then you wind up with a society where too many people are riding in the wagon and not enough people are pulling the wagon.
Think Greece.
P.S. I thought the big “oops moment” for Obama in 2008 occurred when he openly argued that he wanted higher capital gains taxes even if the government didn’t collect any extra revenue because of concomitant economic damage. In other words, like many folks on the left, he was willing to impose hardship on ordinary people just to hurt people with high incomes.
[…] that valuable form of capital by making people feel like chumps for doing the right thing (a point I emphasized earlier this year when criticizing Elizabeth Warren’s dependency […]
[…] the other explicitly hard-left major candidate, Elizabeth Warren, saw her support collapse even […]
[…] “Crazy Bernie” and “Looney Liz” have made radicalism a central tenet of their […]
it is a good thing Warren has no chance of being elected
warren’s agenda also includes neutralizing the electoral college… either with a constitutional amendment… or through “the national popular vote interstate compact”… both socialist democrat schemes have challenges… but should the republic effectively lose the EC… the nation would be transformed into a majoritarian democracy… it’s interesting to reflect on what exactly that would mean… the socialist democrats believe they would gain substantial political advantage by eliminating the EC… others believe it would mean the end of the union… in any case… some areas of the country would continue to be taxed… and would lose substantial amounts of their representation at the federal level..
isn’t that the same beef we had with the British back in 1765?
Agreed, but not that much different from “if you don’t take mortgage interest deductions you’re a chump”, “if you don’t invert corporate earnings elsewhere you’re a chump”.
*All* perverse incentives need to be removed, not just the ones that benefit wooly-headed libs.
the solution to paying for college might be military service with a modified version of the GI bill… or an updated infrastructure oriented community service program like the W.P.A… potential students could work for 2 years straight out of HS… gain eligibility for an educational support program… then after 2 years of service… attend the college of their choice… they could upgrade infrastructure… or serve in the military… either way it would maintain their work ethic and help society retain human capitol… it would also help hard working young people pay for college… the benefits to the Nation could be substantial…
it’s not free stuff so the vote buying political class wouldn’t like the idea… none the less… it’s something to consider…
Wonderfully stated Theorem of Societal Collapse.
Expect government to create perverse incentives.