WASHINGTON, October 5, 2012 – If Ayn Rand were to write a Christmas story, it would look like last night’s presidential debate, in which good triumphs over evil, as looters and moochers get shamed and exposed for what they really are.
Indeed, for those who noticed how eerily Obama’s term in office resembled the “Atlas Shrugged” scenario of America’s decline, last night’s presidential debate must have felt like a lost optimistic chapter from that great novel.
For almost four years now we’ve been seeing Rand’s dystopia coming to life: cronyism in the government and big business, manipulative media, corrupted education, dying economy, social stratification, massive poverty, unemployment, and disillusionment - all the result of a well-meaning attempt to “fundamentally transform” this country on the basis of “giving everyone his fair share.”
And finally, in full agreement with Rand’s writing style, comes a larger-than-life businessman-turned-politician and defends capitalism - not just on the grounds of its efficiency, but also morality - because taking people’s earnings by force in order to subsidize something they disagree with, is fundamentally immoral.
And, just like in Rand’s works of romantic realism, we finally saw the American president as he ought to be - a wise, understanding, and trustworthy father figure, who knows what he is doing and is willing to take charge, doesn’t fear the responsibility, says what he believes, and does what he says.
Next to him, the current “president” Obama appeared like a failing student before a finger-wagging disciplinarian grownup. Early in the debate Romney established his dominance by patiently reminding Obama that, having raised five boys, he could recognize juvenile debate methods: repeating a lie hoping it would pass for the truth was one of them. Blaming Bush was another, one might add.
It didn’t help that the moderator Jim Lehrer sometimes debated Romney on Obama’s behalf while Obama gave out big smiles. Nor did it help that the news networks had been working as Obama’s propaganda machine. Having someone else in the national media to act as his mouthpiece, frame his debate, never challenge his actions, skew the polls, and build the consensus in his favor, must have dulled his instincts and made him unfit for the struggle of political survival. In the end, Obama’s own “you didn’t built that, someone else made that happen” approach became his undoing and effectively made him a poster boy for exactly why no one should follow this philosophy in real life.
Obama’s philosophy of government was also a failure on every level.
When asked a trivia-style question about the role of government, he guessed correctly: to keep the people safe. The problem is, he himself didn’t believe in it - which was obvious in the way he said it, as well as in the way he had sacrificed America’s national security to political correctness.
Obama’s definition of the second government priority - to run the economy, manage individual successes and failures, and guarantee everyone “a fair share” - is incorrect. What’s worse, Obama has always treated it as the government priority number one. Which is why in the time of economic crisis, as Romney pointed out, Obama’s priority was to establish “affordable healthcare” - a supposedly well-intentioned reform that in real life was a death blow to small businesses and the economy in general.
And while Obama was trying to justify it by giving a list of excellent talking points that ended in “etcetera,” it’s an open secret that the devil is in the etcetera. One wonders if his extensive plan covers wound licking.
Obama’s manipulative “real life” sob stories were no longer having an effect either. His complaint about seeing how children in a Las Vegas school were using outdated 10-year-old textbooks reminded us, first of all, of his trip to a Vegas fundraiser with hip hop musicians at a time when a US ambassador in Libya had been killed and the Muslim world was being swept with anti-American protests. In addition, as we now know, those “outdated” textbooks may actually be more truthful than the ones printed after Obama and Bill Ayers had sneakily “reformed” the school curriculum to make it serve the leftist agenda.
Romney’s well-calibrated radar impeccably detected every Obama’s attempt to lie, distort, or manipulate reality.
The “president’s” dishonest bragging about an increase in domestic oil and gas production was immediately cut short by Romney, who explained that the production was up only on private lands that weren’t yet under Obama’s reach, but down on government-owned lands subject to Obama’s harmful regulations.
Obama tried another old and tried trick of big-oil-baiting that always worked in the past. This time it was also quickly pre-empted: oil tax breaks actually go to small subcontracting companies, and the money in question is negligible compared to the government subsidies Obama has given to pie-in-the-sky “green” energy projects, most of which went bankrupt.
With refreshing bluntness, Romney told the self-appointed economic manager-in-chief, “You pick the losers.” That summed up Obama’s economic policy of “fairness,” with all the resulting government waste, abuse, cronyism, and corruption.
To be completely honest, Romney’s otherwise stellar, larger-than-life performance still contained traces of pandering to the moochers - sadly, a necessary ingredient in today’s political games. Thanks for setting those rules, Democrats.
And yet, if you were a manager of a failing company and two business consultants named Romney and Obama came to your office, whom of the two would you hire right away, and whom would you show the door? Even if you’re a Democrat who picked Obama in 2008, the answer in this election is obvious.
Romney may not be a smooth operator. In fact, he may well be the only alpha male in the country who doesn’t consume alcohol. And yet Obama, with all his street cred of alleged coolness trails behind as a clumsy and insignificant beta. Romney wins just by standing next to Obama. Which raises the question: why didn’t the GOP elites pick Romney in 2008, but now suddenly favor him in the face of an imminent Obamageddon?
It is for the same reason that “Atlas Shrugged” still remains and will always be relevant for as long as humanity continues to flirt with the fallacy of “progressivism” while questioning the credentials of capitalism as the only just, fair, and moral socio-political system known to man.
At The People’s Cube, we do NOT equate all “liberals” with communists. The purpose of this website is to pick up “liberal” hitchhikers and give them a ride to the communist wonderland - the inevitable end result of their “well-meaning” policies.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.