“You know, one of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats; some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates, a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary, and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

 All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves.

 One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job: the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other, because you can’t charge up those stairs into darkness and danger unless you know that there’s somebody behind you watching your back.

 So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our union will always be strong.”

We already knew Obama was a collectivist who does not appreciate the value of a pluralist society. That is why he and his friends in the media (most notably Thomas Friedman) have such admiration for China. China can set goals for the 21st century without having to pay much attention to public opinion. It upsets Obama that not all Americans understand the importance of a high speed train system, or the need to save the earth by investing in companies such as Solyndra.

 Still, only an audacious president would dare to speak this way in America. He can get away with it because his collectivist views are shared by the mainstream media. It also helps that 90 % of Americans have attended government run schools that teach a distorted version of American history.

 Obama undoubtedly sought an opportunity to highlight his success in killing bin Laden, but the linkage between that effort and American society is flawed. It does matter if we are Democrats or Republicans when we have a political campaign, but not when the mission is to get bin Laden. A collectivist will say that no one person built America, but an individualist might point out than some people have contributed more than others. If Obama wants to show he is a true collectivist he should use the term “we” more often than he says ” I.”

One writer focuses on the guilt feelings of those who receive help. The writer says it reflects “an exaggerated ethic of self-reliance.” The Times story revealed that middle-class people who depend on government programs “are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it.”

The writer says right-wing antigovernment rhetoric gives people an opportunity to direct their anger at the government, rather than feel guilty about their own failures. They righteously assert “the individualistic virtues they violate but still believe in.”

Another writer says that people wrongly assume they should take whatever the government wants to give them. To encourage people to do this we have invented the “entitlement” concept. It is designed to do away with the tendency to feel guilty. The writer says it is time “to rekindle a pride in not needing help from the government.”

A third writer says government programs are needed because private enterprise does not pay the wages needed to cover the “cost of living according to the standards of the day.” So, government programs, such as food stamps, unemployment insurance, school lunch programs and others are really subsidizing businesses that do not pay living wages.

A fourth writer, a college professor, notes that after World War II we had a deficit that was much higher as a percentage of our gross domestic product. However, we rejected austerity and instead sent veterans to college and built the interstate highway system. (This proves that attending college does not make us wiser.)

The key phrase is “standards of the day.” We can no longer afford to live according to the standards of the day because we are already on the edge of bankruptcy. Today’s standards require us to buy toys for our children and grandchildren. The toys are made in China by workers who probably earn only slightly more than a dollar per hour. Still, they save 40 % of what they earn and put their savings in a bank which pays almost no interest. Chinese workers save because they have to take care of themselves when they retire or get sick. The Chinese government takes the money to buy US Treasury bonds or invest in Canadian oil properties. The real problem is the difference between the standards of the day in America and China.

The other reality that the Times readers do not mention is that government has no resources of its own. When it spends money it is either borrowed from China or collected from the private sector. In no sense can it be called a subsidy. Today we borrow 40 cents of every dollar the government spends and that is why we are getting closer to national bankruptcy.

This might not be entirely accurate because the controversy about Catholics paying for contraceptives was inevitable, since Obamacare requires that all insurance plans must include birth control coverage. It seems a stretch to assume that Democrats knew the economy would be a problem in 2012, so a distraction had to be arranged.

Mark Steyn, however, says there is a connection between condoms and going broke (Brokest Nation in History Fusses Instead About Sex). That is because America and the western world in general suffers from too much birth control. We are becoming demographically insolvent. In Greece, for example, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren. Greece is building up debt to support lots of grandparents and asking a shrinking supply of grandchildren to pay back the loans.

The shortage of grandchildren is a problem in all western nations, and even including Japan. Steyn writes that the Baby Boomers did not have enough children to maintain mid-20th century social programs. Says Steyn:

“As a result, the children they did have will end their lives in a poorer, uglier, sicker, more divided and more violent society.”

Still, in 2009 Nancy Pelosi called for free contraceptives as a form of economic stimulus.

Steyn says condoms are freely available and not that expensive. So, why has is a nation going broke decided there is a “compelling national interest in the state prioritizing and subsidizing it?” It is comparable to handing out condoms on the Titanic.

It is like a story out of “The Brave New World.” An all-powerful government wants to draw attention away from looming bankruptcy by introducing a universal contraceptive mandate.

Krugman writes that conservative presidential candidates claim that government programs result in passivity and sloth, and the “narcotic of dependency.” Many Times readers, says Krugman, were therefore surprised that conservatives have their greatest electoral success precisely in those regions where government programs account for the largest share of personal income.(Krugman must not be referring to regular readers because the Times’most loyal fans are certainly too sophisticated to be surprised. They have often been told voters in these regions vote against their interests, because they cling to guns and the Bible).

Krugman says Red America is supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people do not eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts.

Krugman writes that working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests because Republicans exploit the social issues. People who attend church are more likely to vote Republican regardless of their income level. Conversely, affluent voters in the Northeast would benefit from tax cuts but are repelled by the war on contraceptives.

Krugman also claims that many voters do not understand they benefit from government programs. For example, 44 percent of Social Security recipients say they “have not used a government program.” Politicians encourage this confusion. Krugman says Mitt Romney condemned Barack Obama for not taking on entitlement spending in the budget and at the same time attacked him for cutting Medicare. The truth, says Krugman, is that most entitlement spending goes to the people who believe they don’t use government programs (What Romney is claiming is that Medicare recipients should not be forced to pay for Obamacare).

Krugman says the message he gets is that America is really not a conservative nation. Voters who send conservatives to Washington would be shocked and angry if such politicians actually imposed their small-government agenda.

Liberals are frustrated that despite their best efforts at creating a culture of dependency in America it is not yet fully reflected in the voting habits of people. The reason is that voters are too ignorant to understand what is good for them.

Actually, if Krugman had read the Times article about the growth of government programs more carefully he would have learned that many recipients are fully aware they are receiving benefit checks. They are often angry at the government for sending the checks and angry at themselves for not being able to do without them. Dependency contributes to low self-esteem. Affluent voters in liberal communities, on the other hand, often do not mind paying taxes because it enhances their feeling of moral and intellectual superiority over those who cling to religion and guns..

Social Security was originally designed to be a program that forces people to save for their own retirement. Krugman, however, wants people to think the money is not their own, it comes from the government. That is why proponents of big government is so opposed to privatizing Social Security. It would no longer be a government program.

David Brooks writes in the New York Times about the reaction to Charles Murray’s book “Coming Apart” about the social deterioration of the working class in America (The Materialist Fallacy). Brooks says libertarians congregate around government-centric views. Great Society programs enabled people to avoid work and allowed women to have children without marrying. This explanation has incurred the ire of liberal economists (Paul Krugman, for example), who argue it is all about money. The social decline results from the lack of good jobs.

Brooks says economic conditions were much worse in the 1930’s and yet families tended to be stable units. Brooks thinks that people like Krugman, who look for a materialist explanation, have been loud enough to push aside the views of liberal sociologists and psychologists. Brooks does not refer to Krugman by name, but he says the depressing lesson is the public debate is dominated by people who stopped thinking in 1975. Even if manufacturing jobs miraculously came back we would still not have enough stable, skilled workers to fill them.

Someone who is not driven solely by ideology might accept that what has happened to America’s working class is related to economic, sociological and psychological factors. Brooks says the influences that lead people to behave the way they do are more complicated “than anything that can be grasped in an economic model or populist slogan.”

Frank Bruni writes in the Times about Rick Santorum’s rise in the polls and he does not shy away from personal attacks (The Do-Over Derby). Bruni says Santorum “disparaged” radical feminists for leaving home and turning their backs on a woman’s traditional role of child-rearing. Bruni writes:

“For most of last week, he stood there proudly and loudly, championing the Roman Catholic bishops in their archaic–and, let’s be clear, irresponsible–antipathy to birth control.”

For Bruni, it is acceptable to disparage Catholics, but not radical feminists.

One reason it is difficult to avoid personal attacks is that for many it is not the cause that matters. It is the need to feel intellectually and morally superior. Another is that in order to energize people to get rid of wrongs it is necessary to stimulate passions. The irony is that the left turned against western civilization because it arrogantly assumed it had developed a superior culture. Multi-culturalism was intended to promote tolerance. But, intolerance is necessary to eradicate wrongs. Today, even leftists might consider it progress that Iran will no longer stone people to death or execute minors.

In today’s post-modernist environment it is good to disparage Catholics and bad to disparage feminists, because Catholics have historically been oppressors and feminists belong in the victim category. Krugman says it is all about money, and those who attack people for their lack of personal responsibility are blaming the victims. What we need to understand is that if people become high school dropouts or drug users it is society that made them this way. Brooks disagrees. He writes:

“I don’t care how many factory jobs have been lost, it still doesn’t make sense to drop out of high school.”

When the Times has reports of this type it usually has a purpose, and the purpose is normally revealed in an editorial a few days later. Since the reporters have interviewed people with varying opinions it is not entirely clear what the Times wants its readers to think. One thing seems certain. We are on an unsustainable path. Something drastic needs to be done to prevent a disaster. The Times writes that politicians have expanded the safety net without a commensurate increase in revenues.(That could be the clue we are looking for. Might the Times be arguing for higher taxes on the rich?)

The Times says that in 2000 governments (federal, state and local) spent 37 cents of every revenue dollar on the safety net. A decade later benefits consumed 66 cents of every dollar.

Medicare is the biggest problem. Medicare taxes contribute only about $ 1 of every $3 spent on health care services. A woman who was 45 in 2010, earning $43,500 per year,will pay taxes that will reach a value of $87,000 by the time she retires. But on average the government will spend $275,000 on her medical care.

One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. However, the Times says that support for smaller government is greatest in the parts of America that relies most on government spending. Conversely, the states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. (The Times does not speculate on why this is so. It could simply be that not enough people are aware of this reality.)

If there is one constant thread in the article it is that many understand that our overspending cannot continue, but they do not know what to do about it. One person interviewed said this:

“You have to help and have compassion as a people, because otherwise you have no society, but financially you can’t destroy yourself. And that’s what we are doing.”

There is also an awareness that we are forcing our children and grandchildren to pay for the spending we are doing today, even though their needs could turn out to be even greater than ours.

What the Times fails to do is point out that all government is doing is acting as a middle man. It is transferring resources from those who supposedly can afford to pay to those who presumably have greater needs. There are frequent references to the fact that people who receive benefits are often angry at the government for handing them out. One person said this:

“It’s hard to beat up on the government when they’ve been so good to you. I’ve never really thought about it, I guess.”

The Times might have noted that the process of redistributing wealth is expensive and therefore acts as a drain on our overall prosperity and hinders our ability to compete. A large government bureaucracy has grown up, and the cost is exacerbated by the fact that most workers belong to powerful public service unions which can command generous salaries and benefits for their members. There is also the problem that when money passes through so many hands a portion may end up with people who are not entitled to any benefits.

Bruni says that the only thing Romney has going for him is competence. He says he did well in the economy and he can do the same for the rest of us. His mantra is: I am from the private sector. The president isn’t. He has no idea how jobs are created. I’ve minted oodles of them.

Bruni says it is fascinating that by most estimates Romney’s term as governor of Massachusetts was laudable, but he doesn’t evoke it as often or effusively as he might. That could be because he wants to be viewed as an outsider. It could also be because his record as governor was “somewhat centrist.”

Bruni says all our presidents in recent decades have been “propelled by pockets of intense enthusiasm.” They were saviors before they were disappointments, not disappointments right out of the gate. Bruni writes that all had something solid–a resonant personal story or an outsized personality or a bold vision–for admirers to latch onto.

Bruni says Romney could still win, if the economy fails to improve enough, or if Obama continues to make mistakes, like the unnecessary fight with Catholics. Romney wafts through voters fingers life a puff of presidential air, but his problem is worse than that. His shortcoming is really different, and more damaging. He’s vaporous.

Bruni’s column reads like a parody. He is saying that voters have been fooled before and they might be again. Vaporous means lack of substance, but what is more substantial than success in business and government? What wafts through voters fingers like a puff of air is what we call charisma.

Another viewpoint is that most presidents are elected based on the performance of the predecessor. Bush 41 was not especially charismatic, but Ronald Reagan was. Reagan had been elected in large part because Jimmy Carter had been so indecisive. Carter had been elected because he was perceived as honest, whereas Nixon had not been (Ford suffered because pardoned Nixon). According to this pattern Romney should win because his record of competence is an offset to Obama’s incompetence.

The New York Times tries to be helpful. It is not that Obama has made a mistake. It is about votes. Politicians are allowed to change their minds if it involves an election obstacle. Then it becomes not a failure of the intellect, but just a matter of appealing to people who have the right to vote, even though they are not very smart.

The NYT writes:

“Obama Adjusts a Rule Covering Contraceptives. Insurance Firms to Pay. Compromise is Aimed at Pleasing Catholic Allies on the Left.”

The Times story makes it clear Obama is not trying to please Catholic bishops. The reporters say “it was never really driven by a desire to mollify Roman Catholic bishops.” The important figure in this drama is Carol Keehan–head of an influential Catholic hospital group, who had supported Obama’s health care law. When she told the White House the rule went too far it became obvious a change was needed. (Of course, Obama had already been told by Joe Biden and others that Catholics would be offended by the rule.)

The editorial writers at the Times are not entirely pleased (The Freedom to Choose Birth Control). What bothers them is the implication that religious freedom is involved. They write it is dismaying the president gave any credence to the “misbegotten notion” the rule violated the freedom of any religious institution. (The Times has an annoying habit of making assertions without supporting evidence. It is the Bible of the secular left. When they say something loyal followers must fall in line.)

The Times says the new rule means that religious institutions can now shift the cost of coverage to insurance companies. And, the Times writes, “Mr. Obama assured Americans it would not result in other women, or the rest of the country, subsidizing that shift.” The paper does not explain where Obama gets the authority to order private companies to provide services for free. They also do not explain how Obama proposes to make sure insurance companies do not pass on the cost in the form of higher premiums. The Times does say the rule would be objectionable if it turns out non-religious employees are subsidizing the exemption of religious employees.

The Wall Street Journal says the so-called “accommodation” makes the birth-control mandate even worse (Immaculate Contraception). There is simply no precedent for the government ordering private companies to offer a product for free.

The Obama administration has signaled it rejects the idea there is any need to pay attention to the moral objections of Catholics or other religious people. The Times says Republicans saw this as a “good wedge issue” and the White House failure to foresee this “mischief” produced several days of stammering. It was an opportunity to portray Obama as being both anti-religious and in favor of pro-government oppression. To prevent the possible loss of votes Obama is now resorting to what his opponents describe as the theft of private property. There is no free lunch, but only free contraceptives.

If there are still good people around they are strangely quiet.

Even if Barack Obama manages to back away from the requirement that Catholic institutions provide its employees with contraceptive services the damage has been done. It shows that those who favor a technocratic society do not tolerate obstacles of any kind, even the religious freedom clause in the First Amendment.

Yesterday, Obama told ten states they no longer need to abide by the requirements of the “No Child Left Behind Law.” This law probably should never have been passed in the first place, because it means federal intrusion into education, which is supposed to be a state prerogative. Obama, for some unexplained reason, refused to grant a waiver to New Mexico. The administration justifies its action by saying ‘we can no longer wait for Congress to act.” This fits well with Obama’s campaign theme of a do-nothing Congress. A Republican senator said it represented “another end run around Congress’s constitutional role to legislate.”

Obama has appointed Supreme Court judges on the basis of their “empathy,” because it is not the language of the law that matters, it is how it affects people. A liberal justice, a Clinton appointee (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), tells Egyptians the US Constitution is too old to be a model for an emerging democracy.

The Wall Street Journal comments editorially on the Obama administration’s “settlement’ with the banks, which require them to turn $25 billion of shareholder money over to people who have trouble making mortgage payments ($25 Billion Bank Job). WSJ says banks did sloppy paper work, but only $1. 5 billion of the penalty is related to improper foreclosures. What really happened is that banks are forced to deal with a “wave of foreclosures created in large part by government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

WSJ does not mention this, but aid to mortgage holders is actually being paid by retired people in America, who are earning practically nothing on their savings. The Federal Reserve, by keeping interest rates artificially low, are allowing banks to profit from the spread (difference between long and short rates), thereby recovering the money government is taking to give to mortgage holders.

Then we have the administration’s attempt to prevent Boeing from opening a factory in South Carolina, because it is a right-to-work state.

This spring the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. If upheld, a lower court judge argued it would allow the federal government to order all Americans to eat a daily dose of broccoli.

A striking aspect of what is going on in America is that the media practically ignored Obama’s comparison of American society with the military. Politics should not get in the way of national goals, he said. Americans should behave like the soldiers who killed bin Laden. They should follow orders without complaints. One goal is that in a future year a large segment of America’s population has to drive electric cars. These cars will be partially paid for by taxpayers. And, utilities must obtain a given percentage of their electricity from wind and solar. If America’s oil and gas industry insists on increasing production of fossil fuels it is, in effect, obstructing a national goal.

In his State of the Union speech Obama implied that rising production of oil and natural gas was somehow related to his policies. The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) noted that oil production in 2010 was down 13 % on federal lands.(In the same year, federal lands saw the fewest number of onshore leases since 1984). The only reason oil output is rising is that the federal government can do little to slow production from private lands. Even so, it tried to do just that in North Dakota, when the Justice Department sued three oil companies for the death of six migrant ducks.

The IPAA also noted that Obama tried to mislead Americans when he claimed he was opening up 75 % of our potential offshore oil and gas resources for exploration. Said IPAA:

.”..but we know he is referring to leasing that has been scheduled for years in the same areas that have been producing for a half century.”

In a Wall Street Journal article (Why the Birth-Control Mandate Makes Sense) three women (Jeanne Shaheen, Barbara Boxer, and Patty Murray) argue that the decision represents “a historic victory for women’s health.” They write:

“Contraception was included as a required preventive service on the recommendation of the independent, non-profit Institute of Medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families.”

In other words, society should be ruled by experts. What makes these experts so reliable is that they are “independent.” The women do not say what they are independent of. Presumably, they mean there is no political affiliation, so the motivation must be the good of society.

The decision to ignore the attitude of Catholic officials was not made by Congress. It was never debated by our elected representatives. Kathleen Sebelius., Secretary of Health and Human Services, issued the ruling. There was a debate at the White House. The New York Times writes that it pitted three women (Sebelius, Valerie Jarrett, and Nancy-Ann DeParle) against three men, all Catholics (Joe Biden, William Daley, and Denis McDonough.) Daley, the chief of staff, has left the White House. McDonough is a deputy national security adviser. A decision that affects 300 million Americans rested in the hands of a small group.

But, one person (Obama) is more important than all the rest. Obama stated his philosophy of government in the last section of the State of the Union address. Follow me, he said. Society is like an army. To be successful we must all march together. All that matters is the mission. Obama compared America with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. He said:

“All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves.”

So it is with America, Obama continued. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together.”

Obama and fellow progressives did not anticipate the firestorm, because we should all support the mission, which is to create a healthier America.

Progressives behave like the ancient Greek philosophers, but many of the ideas favored by the left come from Christianity. In” A Brief History of Thought” Luc Ferry describes what happened when Christianity overcame Greek philosophy to become the dominant influence in Western civilization for nearly 1500 years.

Greek society was aristocratic and hierarchial. Those favored most by nature in terms of ability should rule. The rest should fall in line. Christianity changed that. All human beings are equal from the standpoint of dignity and worth, because we are all God’s creatures. And, human beings have free will. What matters is the use we make of our talents. Without these ideas, modern democracy could not exist.

Another idea derived from Christianity is one that the left often claims to share. It is our common humanity. In ancient Greece the word barbarian meant” not Greek.” Universality is a Christian idea.

Because we have free will we must let conscience be our guide, said the Christians. Salvation is an individual matter.It cannot be a collective achievement. Secular law must be secondary to the dictates of our conscience. Today, we might call this personal autonomy. The state cannot dictate what our beliefs should be. We are not soldiers who are required to follow orders from our generals.

Luc writes that the ancient Greeks and the Jews had trouble understanding the concept of the savior who died on the cross. It was too demeaning. How could an all powerful and wise God allow his son to die on a cross to wash away our sins? It was to teach us humility and the importance of love, said Saint Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This is still a difficult idea to grasp for those who claim to obtain guidance from logic and reason. ( Luc is a secularist. But, he thinks it is wrong to ignore history and refuse to acknowledge the influence of Christianity in our culture).

The Times writes that” Mr. Obama’s aides were concerned about being portrayed as hostile to religious groups in an election year.” They are looking to the Hawaiian plan as a possible way out. The Times says that in Hawaii “religious institutions that do not offer free contraception can get birth control through side benefits, which employees nominally pay for but which often end up being free.”

Those who are convinced they make only optimal decisions should not humble themselves by searching for a fig leaf.

.