Rule the World (01/08/2009) entitled: Barack
Obama faces the difficulty of launching reforms The newspaper Le Monde despairs that Barack Obama can not reform the United States, ie the eyes of the leftist newspaper, to make a countries like France with its system of social protection
. For
for the newspaper Le Monde, there is only valid for reforms that go in the direction of more state control and less free market, more solidarity and less individualism, more sharing and less profit, more utility and less private.
In other words, more coercive and less freedom. If that does not go in this direction is immoral in their eyes. And the USA are the champions of immorality, and Barack Obama their savior.
The newspaper in this article articulates the so-called failure of the President of the United States on three axes:
-
"the results are meager compared to the efforts: no reform of financial regulation" (the crisis is linked to excessive financial regulation, click here
)
- "a lukewarm compromise on climate change (which there is little evidence, click here
)
- and only to the Room "
- a" mending the health system (which is already regulated, which explains his failures; click here
)
crumbled from a half-dozen committees that work under the onslaught of interest groups .
The United States does not want to change the world and cites leftist intellectuals to explain this obstinate beast and evil and irrational.
"Politics is ruining the naive belief that the United States is a functioning democracy. " There would be a close link between reforms say the left who advocated more state and democracy? For the World; be democratic is to be left. Often this confusion is made.
Or Barack Obama is not elected democratically reform the country as he wants?
A system where someone is elected democratically, can change the law as it sees fit, is a tyrant.
Worse, this is called tyranny of the majority or democracy, often criticized for the perversion
Athenian democracy. This is not because we are the majority was right to do what you will, particularly against the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual.
Democracy does not protect individuals, they are the natural rights inherent to every individual who protect them, but that the world does not like, he would say it is too individualistic, it must always think about even before either group.
And who opposes Barack Obama? the Senate and House of Representatives, that is democratically elected others who also have legitimacy by the people. This is also the whole point of this balance of powers, it is not in the hands of one individual.
but for the world that is not acceptable, because Obama reforms that promote greater social justice and ecology are necessarily the best of an ethical standpoint, and it seems shocking that people dare to oppose them is that they are so selfish and handled famous by private interests.
"
Others respond that blocking is mostly the work of special interests . Indeed, lobbying is a detestable thing, because it privileges the ability to get the piston at the expense of talent. It eliminates the one that creates wealth, giving way to one who knows how to make friends. It is the aristocracy of the piston. All interests coalesce men around the state to seek favors from legislative channels.
Bastiat said that "
under one pretext or another, we turn to the state. We say:" [...] Could you facilitate this? Could you give me a good place? Or hinder the industry of my competitors? Or give me free money you have made to their owners? Or raise my children at public expense? Or give me the incentive ? Or the well-being sure when I'm fifty? By this means I get to my goal with an easy conscience, for the law itself has done for me, and I have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or the odious ! "
But what the world does not understand is that the system he endorses, that is more state intervention in the economy and redistribution of wealth, promotes and perpetuates the lobbying.
And why? because if it empowers people of the state to act on the economy, for example by creating subsidies, regulations, etc. .. everyone will be trying to bribe them to gain privileges by law.
With Obama's reforms that increase state control it increases on the economy of lobbying activity and thus the privileges and corruption (to the delight of men of the state).
Note that the critical World lobbies are
"partisan media" or "insurance." Here we use the term corporatism villains s private interest and the terms are never used for trade unions (CGT, CFDT, SOUTHERN etc. ..) in France, they do not pursue their private interests by pressuring the government to seek favors.
Why, because it seeks to preserve the public service and solidarity, so for these reason sils can lobby and they call it,
social movements and social struggle
. For the World's all about results, not how to get there.
And as for his analysis on health, the World demonstrates a great ignorance apparently. The newspaper believes that only health systems controlled by the state that can be effective and valid, the alternatives are bad and unacceptable.
When the newspaper quoted the Republicans to explain to people, and they have the right even if the world can not accept different opinions, the damage caused by the State Medical, the world said that Republicans "have played
on fear." But then the World does not play on fear when he frightens us with the dangers of wild finance or destruction of social protection.
Oh yes! In this case, he appeals to the reason for his readers, not their emotions. Am I stupid! The World does not use "tactical
" to influence its readers, it is not partisan but rather it is the way of truth and virtue.
"The strategist
their [the Republicans] also advisable to personalize the debate when they discuss the perils of health systems abroad "and cited the Republicans' history
some Fran Tooley, Ontario, who had two herniated disks but has to intimate the order to wait a year to see a neurologist ".
Michael Moore did not use the same methods in Sicko?
Did he not take individual cases to also personalize the debate and remove the iniquity of the American health care system? Ah yes, but Michael Moore extols the virtues of a nationalized health system, and the world approves the system, so Michael Moore can use all methods to convince his listeners.
And indeed Republicans have good reason not to accept "
a system of socialized medicine," watch England and Canada and see their long queues for care.
And do not get me wrong, in France, which has been the strength of the health system was his liberal hand, not his hand that she socialized, will continue to grow to destroy it.
