The Morality of Dissent

“I want him to fail!” With these words radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh sparked a nationwide controversy. But has anyone who is condemning his remarks stopped for a minute and asked themselves why Mr. Limbaugh or anyone would want the President of the United States to fail? Furthermore, is it wrong to want President Obama or any leader to fail or should we always support our leaders one hundred percent?

The first thing one needs to ask is what does President Obama succeeding mean? If it means that the federal government will take over a vast majority of the private sector, then one would be right in hoping that President Obama fails in implementing the agenda he set out to achieve. Government running anything never works. History is replete with examples of this. So far it has been barely one hundred days and the federal government now has major stakes in all aspects of our economy, from housing, to the banks, to the auto companies. Do we seriously think that federal bureaucrats will be able to run these industries and companies better than people who have been doing so all their lives?

Before you hastily point out that we are in a recession precisely because the private sector failed, consider this. The private sector has not been running their businesses and industries for years. Instead, the economy has been indirectly run by Washington lawmakers through their erroneous regulation. Let’s look at every aspect of the economy that failed, igniting the recession we are currently mired in, starting with the collapse of the housing market.

During the Carter administration Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.), designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

In other words, banks were forced by law to make loans to people who could not afford them. In order to get the monthly payment down to where they could qualify banks came up with all sorts of sub-prime, interest only, ARM mortgage options (referred to as “predatory lending” by the very people who passed the law requiring it). Suddenly, there was a tremendous influx of people who could now “afford” to buy a home. This created a false demand in the housing market, which made housing prices skyrocket. (Ironically the CRA was passed with the intention of making housing affordable. In the end, it did just the opposite). As long as the “values” continued to rise, those loans were “worth” something. People could borrow against them, sell them, or what have you. But when the payments started to rise dramatically, suddenly the bottom fell out when thousands could no longer afford the monthly payments and simply stopped paying. The false demand went away and housing values plummeted or reset to where they should have been all along.

At the same time, the domestic auto companies were starting to struggle. For years they had built cars that Americans wanted, cars that met individuals’ needs or egos. Americans have a love affair with their cars. It comes with the American spirit, that yearning to be free, to be self reliant, to be independent rather than dependant on anything, especially public transportation. The reasons Americans buy cars are as diverse as the people themselves. Some buy muscle cars because they like to go fast. Some buy trucks or SUVs to haul their family, groceries, or a boat. Others use their vehicles for business, some purely for pleasure. No matter how they use their vehicles, one thing remains consistent. The majority of Americans buy vehicles, not as simply a means to get from point A to point B, but primarily as a statement of their individuality. Your car says something about you and for years the Big Three made cars that said something about the people that bought them. They designed cars that the consumer wanted and they designed cars based on the premise of a cheap, abundant source of fuel.

But then the government started to get involved. CAFÉ standards, emissions, and fuel economy regulations were passed, but it didn’t end there. Every year new regulations came out and the auto makers had to redesign their cars to comply. Every year the federal government refused to allow oil companies who are experts at exploring and drilling for oil explore and drill the vast quantities of oil that resided under our land and off of our coasts. We became dependent on foreign sources from nations that really didn’t like us very much for any number of reasons. Finally, the day came when supply could not keep up with demand and gas prices shot through the roof. Americans stopped buying as many cars. Gas was expensive and their mortgages were becoming difficult to keep up with. Besides, who wanted to go through all the hassle and frustration inherent when dealing with the DMV to get another license and registration? (Imagine healthcare being run like that).

President Obama has said he wants to “return the nation’s wealth to its rightful owners.” What does he mean by this? If the first one hundred days are any indication, he wants to confiscate it from the people who earned it and give it to those who did not. For example, the bondholders who invested in Chrysler to the tune of 25 billion dollars were forced by the Obama administration to give up their claim on their investment to pennies on the dollar and got ten percent of the company. The federal government invested about 10 billion and received 35 percent. The UAW, who didn’t hold any bonds, received 55 percent of Chrysler. Is that fair? Is that right? Who is going to ever trust a bond again?

The Obama administration has meticulously attacked the private sector in the United States. Executives are now scared to fly their private jets for fear of PR repercussions. Orders for jets are being cancelled. People who work for Lear or Cessna are losing their jobs. Companies are afraid to throw conventions or getaways for their employees or customer to thank them for their hard work or loyalty because of PR repercussions. The hotel and travel industry is laying off hundreds of thousands as a result.

Do I want this to fail? Absolutely! I cannot support something that I know will not work. I cannot support something that I know is causing harm to millions of Americans. I cannot support something that I know will saddle my children and grandchildren with massive debts and tax burdens.

I do not want Obama to continue to implement policies that are destroying the foundation of this country so that he can “remake America.” He does not have the Constitutional right to do so. I do not want people to continue to lose their jobs. I do not want government to run our economy into the ground any more. Centralized planning never works. Just ask Russia. After seeing what he is doing, it would be immoral and illogical to not oppose President Obama. Yet, like cultists blindly following their leader, millions of Americans refuse to ask whether what President Obama is doing is actually good for them and their family.

I believe it was Hillary Clinton who said “we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” Where is that cry now? There are not many out there with the guts to declare it.