Michelle Obama And The Right’s Shared Sacrifice Hypocrisy

Jun 15 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

Michelle Obama

It comes as no surprise to anyone that nutty people write for World Net Daily. I mean, there is a reason people call it “World Nut Daily” after all. It is difficult to nail down an extreme example on a site that panders to extremists but certainly Mychal Massie gives claiming that prize his best shot:

“Let there be no doubt: The political philosophy of Michelle Obama and her husband is that of committed Marxists. It is up to us to identify them as such, because it’s obvious the media have no interest in doing it for us.”

Right. Here we go with another version of Beck’s conspiracy meme: why aren’t people talking about this? The media has no interest in doing so because it’s not true. It’s really hard to build a compelling argument in the face of a complete lack of evidence. And Massie is being disingenuous: He ignores all the effort (Bill Sammon called it “mischievous speculation”) FOX News put into proving Obama was the next best thing: a socialist.  And they had much of the country believing it.

Massie musters an unimpressive list of quotes which supposedly give weight to his argument. We liberals are used to saying, “Hey, I don’t have to make this stuff up!” I’ve said it myself here often enough.

Massie apparently wants some of that action as he says, “I didn’t make up these comments, and I didn’t take them out of context.” They also don’t prove what you think they prove, Mr. Massie.  Here is Massie’s “evidence”:

Michelle Obama worried during a 60 Minutes appearance that her husband’s safety was threatened by racists. In response, Massie places great weight on a DiscoverTheNetworks profile of Michelle Obama. But for a Republican to cite DIscoverTheNetworks as evidence that something is true is like a Nazi citing Mein Kampf.

DiscoverTheNetworks bills itself as “A Guide to the Political Left” and it’s about as “fair” and “balanced” as FOX News (though even FOX’s Sammon admits the Obama as a socialist meme was “a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched”). This DiscoverTheNetworks piece cites Department of Justice statistics (which you can’t see yourself because the link is broken or invalid) that show most blacks who were murdered between 1976 and 2005 were murdered by blacks as proof that “rampant white racism” somehow doesn’t exist and isn’t a threat to President Obama’s safety.

I’m sorry Mr. Massie, but seriously flawed logic. Because “Some blacks are murdered by blacks” does not prove that “No blacks are murdered by whites”.  And President Obama isn’t any ordinary person: he is the first black President of the United States. The evidence of rampant white racism directed at Obama is all around us. Though Mr. Massie himself is black, he has let his ideology  blind him to the truth.

But back to the “evidence”:

In February 2008, she told young, impressionable students that she and Obama were “asking young people to do [the same thing]. Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.”

Because only Marxists want to help people, right? I mean, who but a Commie would want to be a teacher or a nurse or a social worker.

In April 2008, at a campaign event in North Carolina, she said: “In order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Massie is offended by this. Apparently, suggesting rich people and corporations pay their fare share is Marxism, but stealing from the poor to give to the rich is…what? The American dream?

Later, in May 2008, she said: “Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices – we are going to have to change our conversation – we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.”

Isn’t it the Republicans who are always talking about shared sacrifice? I mean, you can’t hardly turn on the TV or browse the Internet without being clubbed over the head by some Republican talking about shared sacrifice. That’s not Marxism, but if Michelle Obama says it then it is? How does that work, Mr. Massie?

As Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee asked with regards to Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, “Where is the shared sacrifice?” You won’t find it in Wisconsin, or Michigan, or other states where the Tea Party holds sway.

This, somehow, is his conclusion: “Michelle Obama is the very worst of what freedom in America allows one to become.”

What, First Lady?

No, he says, “The problem is that she and her husband are committed to transforming America into that which not even our Founding Fathers could have imagined we would need protection from.”

Funny to hear that from the fruitcake aisle. As President Obama has said, the Republicans are attacking “our basic social compact in America.” They want to turn it into some sort of crazy religio-corporate plutocracy run by people who don’t know what the Constitution says, who trust David Barton on matters of history, and who think the Ten Commandments are the basis for the American system of law and government.

I mean, who you gonna believe?

President Obama called for the rich to pay their fair share (they get a tax break in the Ryan plan) and the Republican response was to call the president “excessively partisan.” What is partisan about demanding actual shared sacrifice, shared as is shared equally as opposed to directed at, as Obama put it, “those who can least afford it”?

Conservatives like Massie have a very strange take on reality. It’s that unidirectional concept of shared liberties, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which apply only to conservatives and never to liberals, only to the rich and never to the poor, only to Christians and never to anyone else. I would suggest if a conservative says something about sharing the cost of the meal that you not accept, because what they mean by sharing is that you pay for their meal. And remember, if you refuse, it means you’re a committed Marxist and “the very worst of what freedom in America allows one to become.”

7 responses so far