Posted on 07/26/2012 12:57:55 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: George Lakoff (rhymes with). Bill Jacobson has the details at LegalInsurrection.com. By now you have heard the Obama and Liz Warren speeches about how no one got rich on his or her own. ... This narrative is cribbed almost verbatim from the narrative of George Lakoff, a progressive [liberal] linguistics activist and Professor at Berkeley," and he has been advising the Democrats on how to change and use language in order to hide who they really are. That's what it boils down to. Lakoff advises Democrats on how to say things that mask and cover up who they really are.
George Lakoff - No One Got Rich On Their Own>
"Like Warren, Lakoff was one of the academics who helped frame how the Occupy Wall Street movement presented itself. Lakoff’s writings and theories seek to transform progressive politics and he is a frequent speaker on how progressives can reframe the political debate. Lakoff developed a linguistic narrative that [liberals] needed to counter conservatives by focusing on the role of government in enabling individual success, a narrative in which no person became successful on his or her own."
It was Lackoff (rhymes with) who got this started, and Warren and Obama are using what he said.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'm checking the e-mail during the break. "What does it matter who came up with this, Rush, Lakoff or --" No, you're right, here's the point about this. Obama, we have gotten under his skin. They're putting out memos all over DNC websites on how to fight back on this. They have announced -- in fact, I got an e-mail, just to show you, I got an e-mail from a friend with a story attached to it about how the Democrats are now prepared. They're gonna go after Romney on this.
They're gonna go after Romney for going after Obama on Obama's attacks on people that didn't make anything happen on their own. And there was just one little note attached to the story, and it said, "Here they come." Meaning, well, here comes this gauntlet. Here comes the Democrat machine. We have no prayer. We have no hope. We can't stop 'em. Run for your lives. Here they come. The Democrats are going after Romney. Here they come. We enjoyed it while it lasted, but now they're on the case. And I'm thinking, why do we have to feel defensive about that? We're not the ones that said something stupid. We're not the ones on defense. We're not the ones that have to worry.
These people stepped in it big time, and they stepped in it big time for two reasons. One, Lakoff gave them what they thought was a safe way to say what they really believe, both Warren and Obama. My contention is that neither of them, but particularly Obama -- Obama didn't need Lakoff to come up with this. Obama has believed this all his life. And most liberals believe this. Most liberals run around daily with a resentment for those who have achieved success and have acquired some wealth. The confrontational tone is the root to the true feelings Obama has about these people. Lakoff didn't give them the confrontational tone, or, what's the word, the condescending tone. Obama already feels that.
That's my real point. They didn't need Lakoff. The reason that they rely on Lakoff is because they think it gives them a layer of security. They trust Lakoff to tell them how to say what they really believe in ways they think won't offend anyone. I'm sure Obama thought he was hitting a home run the moment that he was saying all that. In fact, let's grab the bite. This is what we're talking about again. Rather than have to sit here and paraphrase Obama, roll it.
Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That
OBAMA: If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, "Well, it must be because I was just so smart." There are a lot of smart people out there. "It must be because I worked harder than anybody else." Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you got a business, that -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so then all the companies could make money off the Internet.
RUSH: Now, my contention is Obama thought he's hitting a home run when he says this. I think Obama thought, "I am nailing it." When he finishes it, I think he thinks he has just nailed it. The crowd was cheering him on. There was no indication that he'd stepped in it. He didn't think for a moment that he'd stepped in it. One of the reasons why is Lakoff said it was okay. Lakoff's the linguistics expert. So Lakoff says, "Say it this way." They trust Lakoff to come up with ways for them to say stuff that will appeal to their base, but that will not offend anybody else.
Well, this is the problem when you deviate from being who you are. When you try to cover up who you are, when you try to hide your genuineness, that's when you become phony. But Obama was unable to keep the condescension out of this, the snarkiness, or even the anger 'cause he believes it on his own. He didn't need Lakoff. The only reason Lakoff is relevant here is because Lakoff saying it made Obama think it was okay to say it. Now, Bill Jacobson came up with this at Legal Insurrection. And this is basically what Lakoff said.
"Nobody makes a dollar in this country in business without using the common wealth…. The idea that there’s a self-made man, that’s there’s a self-made millionaire is false, it is absolutely false, and that is the thing that Obama missed…. Without this you don’t have those roads, you don’t have that internet, you don’t have the banking system," blah, blah, blah. If Obama had simply said there's no self-made man, he'd have been okay. But he blew it by not saying that. Now, Lakoff actually framed the issue several years ago.
Elizabeth Warren on Fair Taxation
"There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the judicial system, where nine-tenths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back."
So that's what Lakoff says. That's the guidepost. So Obama goes out, puts it in his own words 'cause he was off-prompter. It's in his heart. He believes it anyway. The anger that was in his voice, the snarkiness, is evidence that he believes it and that there's a lot of resentment. So there's no self-made man, and it's always previous taxpayers. Now, here again, it wasn't that long ago, folks, it wasn't that long ago that successful people were role models. Successful people were what everybody wanted. Everybody wanted to be a millionaire. And I don't mean to cheapen this. There was even a television show growing up called The Millionaire, and it was about some philanthropist who picked somebody every week, gave 'em a million bucks because they deserved it. But the point is that a million was the magic number. It was something people shot for, and it was something people admired. And look what the left is doing to it, to all of achievement. They are impugning it. They are turning successful people into suspects. They are trying to rob from people the fact that they worked hard to get where they are.
There's a lot of things in this that are bad, but what Obama is doing is promoting the idea that people who've sat around and done nothing are the real success stories? They're the victims? They're the ones that really made it all possible for these so-called self-made people to do what they did? It is sort of a reverse self-esteem movement, and it's offensive to the sensibilities of anybody who understands basic human nature, combined with liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness. There's no happiness in the Obama campaign. There's no happiness in the Obama White House. There's no happiness. There's no pursuit of happiness anywhere on the left. You just have a bunch of angry, victimized people who sit around in resentment, various forms of it, various stages of anger, and then they come up with this, and they have their linguistics specialist massage it in such a way that it will sound plausible to people.
Of course the real objective, as I said to brilliantly earlier in the week... Let's turn this into policy now, 'cause that's where this really matters. You lay the foundation here for the fact that nobody who is successful deserves to be. Nobody who has achieved anything really did achieve anything. Everything they have is thus illegitimate -- maybe even unjust, maybe even immoral. Why, just like the founding of this country was!
So Obama's rolling a dice that he's got a majority of people that vote in this country who he can convince to believe him on this. Then he wants to (what I describe as) "socialize profit." Profit is the evil that's attached to the bogeyman of a corporation or a successful individual. Profit. It's like, "Why should a doctor profit from treating somebody who's sick? Why should there be profit in that? Why should there be profit in selling people food? Why, we all have to eat!
"Why isn't there some sort of communal store where you get it for what it costs? Why should anybody make money? Isn't that immoral?" He's setting all of this up so that profit, the pursuit of profit and the securing of profit, is evil. He will thus have a moral claim to it. He'll socialize profit, and claim that it's actually his. He'll do it in the name of all these Americans who were used and taken advantage of, stolen from, whatever. They didn't get their just rewards from their contributions to Mr. Whosit's success over there.
And this is how Obama will have his support. His hope and dream here is to have popular support for simply taking money from people. Eminent domain of capital. Not just taking their property, but eminent domain of their capital, eventually. Why mess around with raising taxes to get this money if it's truly unjust and immoral -- if somebody has that money and it essentially came from theft, which is what these guys are saying? They used all this taxpayer money! they used all the roads the bridges!
They didn't do that on their own.
They stole it!
Well, what do you do from thieves? You don't raise their taxes. You go take it back if you find it, and you find them. And this is where he's headed with this. Of course he's using class envy and class warfare and all that. But it's just the latest in the orientation toward bigger government that is benevolent. It's thinking of The Little Guy. But it's not gonna help The Little Guy by raising him up, 'cause The Little Guy is not gonna get any of the money. Even if Obama does raise taxes or somehow confiscate all this money he says is immoral and unjust, he's not gonna give it away.
He'll parcel it out a little -- maybe more food stamps, maybe more Obama Phones -- but he's not gonna give people money. So if it's undeserved, Obama says, "We can take it! You didn't build it; we did. You didn't earn it; they did. You don't deserve it; therefore, we're taking it." They wanted Lakoff to come up with something to make all this sound reasonable. Lakoff comes up with it. Obama goes off prompter, steps in it, and now they're making tracks to run an anti-Romney campaign because he has the guts or the audacity to point all this out.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So here's the point: "There are no self-made men. The individual is subservient to the state." This is what Lakoff was trying to conceive that other Democrats could take out into the public domain. They're not talking about roads. This isn't about roads and bridges. Obama and the Democrats are engaged in what I would call 'a determined philosophical takedown of the individual,' at the expense of the total empowerment of the state. If you read a sentence of this or a whole paragraph, what Obama's saying is: There is no self-made man.
The individual is nobody! There is no such thing. The state makes all this happen. The nameless, faceless state made up of all the nameless, faceless people. The idea of government serving at the consent of the governed is stood on its head. It's about the justification for higher and higher taxes. Obama was not taken out of context. He said exactly what he intended to say. The context is that no such thing as a self-made man. There's no such thing.
There's no such thing as a successful individual, pure and simple.
He's attacking success.
END TRANSCRIPT
Obligatory “rhymes with”...
I see a trap in arguing this point too much because there is some truth in Obama’s statement. We have created an environment that encourages and supports business creation and development. Arguing that this existing environment does not contribute to successful businesses and that success comes solely from the entrepreneur then we weaken the argument that government regulations and taxes will have a major impact on these folks. After all, they do not government.
I am sure you know who he is talking about
Say, Jack Lakoff, that's not working out so well, is it? I think we have figured out "lying."
Beat me to it.
That argument assumes that "an environment that encourages and supports business creation and development" is equally as helpful as "government regulations and taxes" are harmful.
Businesses can withstand some of the latter but when regs and taxes are cranked up to high levels, the symmetry of the argument is lost and the positive is overwhelmed.
yea, it’s odd how that helpful environment apparently only trickled down to 1% of the population. One wonders why having roads and bridges didn’t ensure the success of 100% of the population
The making of a fortune requires that an individual have the ability, power,and willingness to use the ingenuity and take the the actions that are required to build a great fortune. He must earn a high rate of return on capital and then constantly and continuously reinvest almost all of it so that the high rate of profit rapidly compounds of a period of many years.He hires workers to help him and pays taxes for legitimate functions of government to provide an environment of freedom and respect for private property that is conducive to earning and investing.It is when government uses force and confiscatory taxation and pro-union legislation that hampers the market that businessmen and capitalists object to.
While the President and his surrogates attempt to portray "We, the People" as some sort of collective who are helpless without the guiding and controlling hand of a large and powerful government master, America's Founders saw "We, the People" as masters of their government, who retain sovereignty over that government by the provisions and limitations of their own Constitution for controlling elected representatives in that government.
There is a huge difference in outcomes between the two concepts. America's Founders were clear in their understanding that economic progress, for instance, relied on the degree of individual freedom which existed, and they stated it clearly:
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." - Thomas Jefferson
"The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate .... But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." - James Madison
". . . the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." The word "benign" takes on special meaning today, when almost every person understands the implications of the word "malignant"--a word which might be used today to describe the kind of debilitating and destroying government "influence" we encounter at every turn.
No wonder so-called "progresssive" leaders like the Democrats who represent the current Administration must use misleading semantic maneuvers in order to sell their misleading and counterfeit ideas.
1801 Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson
(Excerpt) "Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. . . possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?
"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." (end of excerpt)
To me this is just an expansion of the "it takes a village" philosophy. You know, you are not qualified to raise you own child and should be under the guidance of licensed professionals. Children must be brought up to understand that the government knows best and parents are just other citizens to whom you happen to be born.
The expansion would be that you are not really the builder of your business. You are merely a person who has taken advantage of the opportunities that where provided to you by the government and the citizens who came before you and laid the groundwork that allowed you to have a business.
The collective has provided the business to you and therefore the business belongs to the collective.
resistance is futile.
Obama would say "You didn't make that cake".
Some reader in Townhall.com had made a comment several month ago to one of the columns about the progressives and said they should not be called progressives as they aren’t. I wished I could remember the word the reader used, because it fit perfect
Beat me to it.
This may appeal to the masses, but my observation after being in the work force for 50 years is that there are an awful lot of lazy-assed people out there too. And some of them of them even become President.
If new roads are a neccessity for building a successful business, how did Wells Fargo get started? They sure weren’t running those stage coaches on interstate highways.
Exactly
Obama's mission is to break America's spirit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.