Handout Nation?

"Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." --- Thomas Jefferson

"The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate" --- Jefferson
-----------------------------

Well, then.  I guess by these measures we've failed two-fold.  In the first part, we have failed to maintain the vigilance that the Founders warned would be necessary in order to preserve our liberty and freedom from the encroachment of an oppressive and growing government.  In the second part, the unchecked infiltration of Progressive orthodoxy in our public schools that has resulted in a revision and "re-interpretation" of American history has in turn resulted in an American electorate without even a nodding acquaintance with the truth of our beginnings and our history, much less with the founding principles of our country; and no grounding education in civics at all.

In an earlier post I said that the ratio of producers to consumers was 51%-49%.  Apparently, I had it almost exactly backwards.  Somehow, in spite of an abysmal economic record, historically high unemployment, high prices for staples, energy and fuel, and a series of foreign policy failures and cover-ups, the Obama machine was able to convince a narrow majority of voters that Romney was the one out to ruin their lives and that he was the one they needed to turn to.

I guess some people really do prefer the imagined security of a promised government check to the opportunity to attempt to reach greater heights of success by being allowed the freedom to fulfill their own potential.

FoxNews commentator Bill O'Reilly opined that it was a result of people voting to "get stuff".  Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh put it even more starkly: "You can't win an election running against Santa Claus."

Perhaps we truly have reached the fabled "tipping point", where there are enough people either dependent on government for their existence or desirous of having their wants fulfilled with little or no effort that they have achieved nominal electoral domination over those whose labor provides for the rest.

An article in Investor's Business Daily sought to reassure readers that the country as a whole remains center-right to right-right, saying that in exit polls most people still self-identified as conservative, while a smaller number admitted to being liberal.  They point to these polls as evidence against the notion that we have become more socialistic in our views of government and it's purpose in society.  As much as I'd like to think they have it right, I don't see it that way.

Only those on the far left ever openly admit to being Liberal.  Others have long preferred the "Progressive" label as being less a pejorative.  Many of those who are telling pollsters they consider themselves conservative, if pinned down, would admit that they are "fiscally conservative but liberal on social issues".  What that means is that while they don't want their money spent on social projects they don't personally agree with, on those that do meet with their approval they insist that there be no consideration of limiting or ending spending, as that would engender a "crisis" that must be avoided at all costs.  Let me be plain here: "You can not be both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (or moderate)."  The closest you can come would be as a Libertarian.  Few indeed truly have the strength to wear that designation.  In order to be a Libertarian, you must first accept complete responsibility for yourself and your situation in life.  The mantra of every Obama voter is that it's always somebody else's fault and that it's up to government to make things "fair".

Labels are irrelevant at this point.  What is, is what is.  A greater portion of the electorate than ever before now subscribes to the belief that providing for a citizen's individual needs and equalizing economic outcomes is one of the duties of government.

Like 'em or not (and I don't), you have to give the Democrats and the Obama administration credit.  They put together an exquisitely effective campaign convincing people that they deserve what they haven't been able to earn, that it's not fair for someone else to have more than they do and that it's within the province of government to make sure they get what they're entitled to.  They even managed to convince people that Mitt Romney, one of the most moral and trustworthy gentlemen nominated by either party in generations, a man of high honor with an impeccable reputation, was nothing more than a modern-day robber baron who made millions for himself and his rich friends at the expense of the "regular people".

It is this, more than anything else, that makes me fear for the future of the republic.  For the future of the grand American Experiment.  The fact that so many are so easily led astray by the blandishments of political opportunists that they will blindly accept, without proof or investigation, accusations of evil intent against a candidate if it will comfort them and confirm their biases against those who have achieved rewards beyond what they have managed; that they are so weak as to be not only willing, but eager to believe the worst accusations against a candidate,  if there's a chance that they could see some personal gain by doing so.

Anyone know where I can go to put in a down payment on a timeshare in Galt's Gulch?