Skip to comments.No, Chris Rock, He Ainít My Daddy, or Yours
Posted on 02/11/2013 10:36:43 AM PST by Kaslin
Biblical scholar Chris Rock breathed the spirit of a Pauline epistle last week, as he urged children to meekly submit to their parents: The president and the first lady are kinda like the Mom and Dad of the country, Rock said. And when your Dad says something, you listen. And when you dont, it will usually bite you in the ass later on.
Wait he wasnt urging submission to mom and dad, but to Caesar as if he were mom and dad.
If youve managed to keep your last meal down, it gets worse. Because, when you reject the parental ministrations of progressive government, you orphan yourself. Or, shifting from patriarchal metaphors to relevant vocabulary, when you reject the smothering blanket of progressivism, the Left insists you are rejecting the very concepts of government and civilization.
Overly harsh accusation? Hyperbolic partisan rhetoric? No. Have you ever heard a liberal play the Somalia card? You dont like government controlling health care? Government micromanaging Americas diet? Government choosing industrial energy sources, grocery bags or household light bulbs? What?! Do you want to live in Somalia? You say you believe in lassez faire? Really? Do you fancy undeveloped, malarial Africa?
Its their go-to card. Rather than defend the absurdities and excesses of the modern American state, they accuse critics of advocating barbarism. They know they couldnt win a straight debate about what we actually want our government to do, so its always the false choice: Embrace Big Brother or submit to anarchy.
Happens all the time.
A while back in a Colorado senate hearing, I questioned the need for an intrusive new regulatory scheme in a long-established industry. The witness sniffed back at me: Well, some businesses would love the libertarian ideal of no regulation at all.
I see. Question the next bureaucratic power grab and youre demanding a seven-decade rewind, to the land before administrative rule.
Last week, speaking to a group of executives jointly with the former Speaker of Colorados House of Representatives, I criticized increased federal spending, and the incumbents odd dictionary that defines balance as all tax increases and no spending cuts.
My friend and opponent retorted that the right level of taxing and spending for many conservatives is zero; we just need to strangle government and move on.
Yes, if we think borrowing 40% of spending is too much, trillion dollar deficits are too big, and $16 trillion in express ledger debt is stifling now and especially to our children and grandchildren, then we are demanding the abolition of the state.
And, in too many debates to count on social networks, any argument about the increasing federal bite in personal earnings, in GDP, and in American productivity draws a trite retort about the value of roads, schools, parks, and police and fire protection.
The most recent such doe-si-doe was just yesterday (today, as I write) with a former reporter for a major regional newspaper, now a press flack for a government agency. As we arm-wrestled over the size and reach of government, he challenged: if Im so opposed to socialism, then how can I countenance the Interstate Highway System established by the Republican luminary Dwight D. Eisenhower?
Well. If anything is to be done collectively, I guess theres no reasonable objection to everything being done collectively.
Like Peter Sellers, Im mad as hell. Unfortunately, theres no escape from continuing to take it. But if I could get in all their faces at once, boy would it feel good to rant
No, Mr. Rock, the president is not my Daddy. I have a family and intimate relations that I treasure, and a government with constitutional limits that I respect. The two relationships arent analogous.
No, Mr. Regulator-Cheerleader-legislative-witness, questioning the value of new regulations is not advocating a return to the Wild West, anarchy, or law of the jungle. Thats not what supporters of liberty and limited government want. We want government that enforces the norms of civilized behavior: you cant punch me, and I cant cheat or defraud you.
You see the difference? We dont want government that thinks it knows better than consumers and producers what should be produced, bought, or sold. We just want government to be a neutral referee and keep us from abusing each other in the process of our transactions.
Thats the gist: Government is a peace protector and rule enforcer, not a big-biceped coach and mentor. If you want government to be a quarterback that steers people and resources toward good opportunities, and deflects them from bad choices, you are a progressive statist, whether right or left.
But, if you want government to be a sheriff, that takes a dim view of people hurting, cheating, or forcing their neighbor, then you are a defender of liberty and limited government: Freedom except when fist hits nose.
Finally, if you argue that challenging the permanent 20% jump in spending and the relative size of the federal government weve experienced with this administration is tantamount to rejecting roads, schools, police and fire protection, youre either ignorant or dishonest.
Weve had all those public services for many decades in America, even back when the federal bite on our wealth was a fraction of what it is today. Indeed, virtually all the parade of civilized glories is state/locally funded and delivered. Uncle Sam has no call to justify his 25% lien on national wealth based on the vital local services our states provide for much, much less.
Can we debate what we actually need constitutional government to do? Or is that too nuanced for liberals?
I suppose he felt the same way when W was in office? NO?
Chris Rock drinks toilet water.
I’m sure Chis Rock thought George W. and Laura were his mom and pops.
Freakin’ retard. Like ‘Father’, like ‘Son’............
They (slave owners) became father figures to the community as a whole, treating the slave population as a benevolent father would. These father figures did not see themselves as ruthless masters, but caring overseers who had the interests of their slaves at heart.
Note, this source doesn't actually claim the slave owners were benevolent but instead, they tried to make themselves appear this way to ingratiate and pacify their slaves.
most of them dont know who their dad is
Though we do now appear to be a nation of Pony Tail Guys
who do think the POTUS should be their surrogate Daddy.
Actually it was Peter Finch in “Network” who mouthed the phrase: “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”. Think we would all do well to follow suit.
But they know WHAT he is.....
This is just Chris’ desperate attempt at getting any sort of legitimacy to Obama’s discredited policies.
We’re not even sure Hussein is his daughters’ father.
Chris is still a young man, and doesn’t understand that many of us have already lived through several presidencies, and we didn’t wait for any of them to tell us how to live our lives. They were our PRESIDENTS, and I hold every one of them one step below my own real father. What a shame that Chris would disrespect his father in such a manner. So Chris, what will you do when Obama is no longer President? Will you still think of him as your father? Will you still do what he tells you to do?
Hey Chris. You wanna be a slave to
The massa, go right ahead.
He's 48. Although he does act like he's 15.
LOL! 48 is young to me. But long before age 48, I didn’t need a President to tell me what to do.
If I had a son he wouldn’t look anything like Chris.....
There’s a point here, and it’s one that Republicans have never learned, and which conservatives need to learn; how to frame an argument.
Liberals are incapable of nuance. Framing his argument for him drives a liberal insane because it attacks him at his weakest point: it kicks him in his know-it-all. They can’t stand to be put in a box. So, let’s do it. All the time.
The difference between the liberal’s false-choice argument and the conservative’s framing of the argument lies, of course, in fact. We’re going bankrupt and liberals did it. Hence:
“Okay, your President wants more tax increases as part of his unfair budget strategy. Therefore, you favor bankrupting the middle class as well as the nation due to your out of control spending and your President’s obstinate refusal to address the real cause of the budget crisis. Defend your position.”