The Corner

Inverting the Founders

President Obama has become a master at the trick of couching progressive prescriptions in the language of the traditional American creed — thus effecting a deliberate inversion of that creed’s actual meaning. That’s exactly what he did with his second inaugural address, using the language of the American Founding to promote collectivism in almost all areas of life. The hinge came in a single clause which sounded oh-so-reasonable and inarguable, but which instead was a non sequitur in terms of its logic and a bastardization of the principles of that creed. “Preserving our individual freedoms,” he said, “ultimately requires collective action.” From that moment on, he was off and running toward a vision in which individual initiative is not just unavailing toward its ends, but actually suspect. 

But why is “collective action” required to “preserv[e] our individual freedoms”? Or, even if one acknowledges that of course we need common defense and basic structures of government, which means “collective action” of a sort, does it necessarily require the kind of collective action Obama seems to advocate? There is the voluntary “collective action” of individuals acting without compulsion, which is fully consonant with the American tradition. But the rest of Obama’s speech, and his entire record, shows that his dream is of centrally directed, compulsory “collective action.” If this were boilerplate, it would be merely foolish. But because Obama is deadly serious about it, this is dangerous. We stand forewarned.

Quin Hillyer — In addition to National Review, Quin Hillyer has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New Republic, The Guardian (UK), and Investor’s Business Daily.

Most Popular

U.S.

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More