Is It Too Late?, Part V – An Economic Crisis

For the Marxist, guilt is the handmaiden to envy. While the have nots march to the media’s envy drum, the haves are easy targets for guilt based manipulation. This, I believe, is what brings about the phenomenon of a George Soros, a Warren Buffet, or the modern-day Rockefeller clan.

It is no wonder that the middle class is the biggest loser during an economic crisis. As the false prosperity of many middle class people continues to disappear, they become more and more frustrated and increasingly vulnerable to envy provoking media stories. Yet, at the same time, the media subtly encourage them to feel guilty for living so much better than the lower class. The middle class is thus beset with both envy and guilt.

The systematic manipulation of guilt is so important to the modern, corrupt political structure that without it, the entire structure would collapse. Through subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) urging by the media (via both liberal and conservative commentators), friends and acquaintances constantly admonish people for not “abiding by the rules,” and such people usually oblige by feeling guilty.

Amazingly, the media have found they can use the same guilt ploys over and over again without experiencing a backlash. One such staple features bright eyed, smiling youngsters happily eating their taxpayer subsidized school lunches. If someone dares to suggest that perhaps the poorest of mothers could afford to make sandwiches for her own children in order to shave a billion dollars or so from the budget, he is scorned and accused of being cruel and heartless.

The guilt loaded, implied question is: “Would you deprive innocent little children of their minimum daily nutritional requirements?” Never does an interviewer ask how children managed to survive before such a program was instituted.

It wasn’t long ago that a suggestion that government might someday provide school children with lunches would probably have elicited the traditional anti-Ayn Rand response, “Oh, don’t be ridiculous. Things will never get that out of hand.”

Thus, with the voting class addicted to the good life, big business addicted to the profits of a theft is moral society, and the media addicted to the self-righteous thrill of concocting poisonous brews of guilt and envy, how can an elected official possibly tell his constituents the truth? The person who is best positioned to do so is the president of the United States, yet we have already seen the futility in a president’s trying even to make vague references to the real problem.

From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, supposedly conservative presidents (none have ever been libertarian) have backed away from the moral issues. While espousing freedom and free enterprise, they reassure the nation that their proposed budget cuts will not include programs that would affect “the truly needy,” people who need financial help to be “retrained” in the workforce, those on Social Security, those who can’t pay their mortgages … and on … and on … and on.

Such assurances simply mean they are guaranteeing that the anything goes game will continue unabated. And it has. The early signs of the consequences of such an immoral and irresponsible approach to governing are now at hand. I emphasize the word early, because the long-term consequences will force recipients of government largesse to let go of their something-for-nothing way of life. The current economic crisis at hand is nothing compared to what lies ahead.

The euphemism entitlements will be but a fond memory to bitter people who will finally discover that they are entitled to nothing but the right to pursue their own success and happiness, without interference from anyone else — especially arrogant politicians.

But even if a president were willing to attack the real root of the problem, he is helpless to do so. The reason is the so-called entitlements I just referred to — e.g., Aid to Families with Dependent Children, unemployment compensation, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, and, above all, Social Security.

Not only are these programs not being cut by any significant amount, if at all, but all of them have automatic cost of living increases built into them. Thus, even if a president had the courage to declare warfare on such wealth-plundering programs, he would not have the power to do so. Yet, these thefts comprise the largest percentage of the federal budget. They are already built in.

Which guarantees the continued moral and financial demise of the U.S. And who do we look to to stem the tide? Politicians! More on those paragons of morality in Part VI of this article.