Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Obama right & wrong

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Barack Obama

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Barack Obama

More Barack Obama

More stories »

When Barack Obama and John McCain envision Americans embracing a "greater cause" and "community service," are they promoting a "collectivist" vision of America?

That's what David Boaz of the Washington-based Cato Institute argued the other day in a provocative column in The Wall Street Journal - and he especially deplored Obama's long paean to community service in his commencement address last weekend at Wesleyan University.

Obama never mentioned "the virtues of commerce or of individual achievement," Boaz complained. Instead, the Democrat seemed to disparage them when he declared, "There's no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America's. But I hope you don't."

"The people Mr. Obama is sneering at," Boaz maintains, "are the ones who built America - the traders and entrepreneurs and manufacturers who gave us railroads and airplanes, housing and appliances, steam engines, electricity, telephones, computers and Starbucks. Ignored here is the work most Americans do, the work that gives us food, clothing, shelter and increasing comfort."

Boaz is onto something - but he also goes too far. Obama does seem to have a blind spot regarding the virtues and importance of commerce, as well as the motives of people who build companies or then keep them on track. His lack of empathy for an entrepreneurial culture has been glaring for some time.

McCain's suspicion of commerce, meanwhile, has been on display for years; his sneers regarding Mitt Romney's business dealings provide only the most recent evidence.

Boaz is right that Americans should be troubled by these attitudes. Unfortunately, his equation of "community service" and "collectivism" is no less disturbing. America's volunteer ethic is one of the grand assets of our culture, far surpassing anything, for example, in Europe.

Obama urged the Wesleyan graduates to roll up their sleeves and help the less fortunate - and he offered examples such as soup kitchens, homeless shelters and schools. If that makes Obama a collectivist heretic, then he's in good company - namely, the men and women who man the pulpits of nearly every house of worship in the land.

Our society might be just as rich without its dense networks of volunteers, but it would be a harsher, rawer, crueler place. And the personal bonds that span neighborhoods and even whole communities would be far weaker.

Where Obama goes astray is in equating meaningful work and community service almost exclusively with volunteerism and public-sector jobs (which he referred to favorably several times in the speech), and in disparaging the motives of those pursuing private goals.

Did Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak cobble together the first Apple computer in a suburban garage because they lusted after a "big house and the nice suits"? The idea debases their thrilling quest to create something novel, useful and alluring to consumers. And it misses the real-world consequences of their success, the way in which such products - and not just glamorous devices such as sleek computers - improve everyday lives while generating new wealth that uplifts millions.

Jobs and Wozniak - and many others like them - did end up with big houses and nice clothes, but not because that was the primary focus of their lives. Obama also became a rich man without elevating wealth to an idol. The world is not divided between saints in government, nonprofits and the world of volunteerism, on the one hand, and money-grubbers everywhere else.

And Obama, of all people, shouldn't be urging college graduates to narrow the scope of their dreams.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • May 30, 2008

    9:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    I think I'd like to see Obama's entire speech before agreeing that Mr. Carroll is drawing accurate conclusions here. Anyone know where I can view a transcript?

  • May 30, 2008

    9:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fatheromalley writes:

    Obama on many occasions does use the word Collectivism, Collective etc. . the favorite phrases of Lenin, Marx and Mao.

    Socialism, Collectivism, Communism and in some cased Fascism can be substituted for each other without much danger.

    Of course, Churches like the Catholic Church are collectivist.
    We have Catholic Bishops preaching total amnesty with no regard for the country that gives them their rights of free speech and religious freedoms.

    This goes deeper than a "difference" in philosophy, this goes to the heart of the American experience.

    The man that claims he can bring the races together has NO record of such.. yes he can talk across the isle to certain Republican Senators that have drank the Kool-Aid too, so what?..

    It would have been better if his community service had been helping Whites in poor districts, but he only remained within his oown bitter area of Chicago.

    It is of little wonder that he is blind to the virtues of private enterprise and self reliance.

    His community shows little in that regard. Instead they disparage the "white man's" vision of success... his ex-pastor has a blindness too to the 620,000 European whites that died to free his ancestors.. he also ignores the fact that his "people" took 100 years to find out, like Martin Luther King did, that America is basically a good, self giving country. Martin Luther King wanted the expressions in our Constitution to be "fulfilled" not changed as Obama does.. there is a world of difference between Martin Luther King and Obama.. they come from opposite ends of the spectrum...

    King trusted in the fact that the Majority of Americans felt that bigotry and racism was bad for this country and against the basic statements in our Constitution and he was right..

    Martin Luther King had faith in that, why else the long history of non violent protest? That takes trust in the good will of others. Like Gandhi, he saw the oppressor not as mean and without conscience, but rather mistaken and blind.. there is a difference. One is filled with understanding of human evolution, the other is only one bit of racism replaced by another. I think Obama displays consistantly the latter..

    Go to wwww.fatheromalley.com and find out more..

    May God Bless,
    Father O'Malley

  • May 30, 2008

    9:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Roader writes:

    Good column. Campaigning for her husband, back in February, Michelle Obama said:

    “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. 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.”

    Then, a month later in another campaign speech she says:

    “Like many young people coming out of college, with their MAs and BAs and PhDs and MPhs coming out so mired in debt that they have to forego the careers of their dreams, see, because when you’re mired in debt, you can’t afford to be a teacher or a nurse or social worker, or a pastor of a church, or to run a small non-profit organization, or to do research for a small community group, or to be a community organizer because the salaries that you’ll earn in those jobs won’t cover the cost of the degree that it took to get the job.”

    It’s undeniable that Ms. Obama thinks that working in the non-profit sector is nobler than working in the for-profit sector…after all, what could be noble in creating, manufacturing, and distributing food, energy, shelter, clothing, and transportation for 300 million Americans? Those are just things that, according to her husband, we consume too much of. The problem is her exhortation to young people to seek employment in “helper industries”, then she laments the fact that “helper industry” employees generally don’t get paid well i.e., supply is greater than demand in those industries, driving down salaries.

    But not in Michelle Obama’s case. Right after her husband was elected US Senator she got a big raise from her employer, the non-profit University of Chicago Hospital. In March, 2005 her annual salary jumped from $122,000 to $317,000. I guess that in the non-profit field, like any other field, connections pay.

  • May 30, 2008

    9:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Charles B, many thanks for that link. I just read Obama's entire speech - and I don't see how anyone could view it as anything less than what it is: a patriotic call to serve our country.

    And for some of you who think "collective" is a dirty word, what do you call a group of neighbors all working together to shovel snow after a blizzard that has everyone's cars blocked in? What do you call a church charity that collects clothes and food for families experiencing hard times? What do you call your own family when they band together to help out a family member who is in trouble? What do you call it when you and your co-workers collect money among yourselves for a colleague who's just been in a car accident or even fired? What do you call all of our taxes used together to educate our children, protect us from criminals, provide us with libraries that celebrates our value of learning and discovery, and to maintain the highways and roads we drive?

    I don't know about you, but none of those activities make me feel like a nameless cog with no individual mind, spirit, or ambition. They do, however, make me feel connected in many ways to my fellow citizens. Sadly, the last eight years has often made me feel anything but. I am looking forward to a time in this country again where we don't hate each other's guts. Because if we remain permanently divided - the very opposite of collective - a long fall is inevitable, my friends.

  • May 30, 2008

    12:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    WestminsterJ writes:

    Gene- you might learn to throw a baseball before you try to keep score.

  • May 30, 2008

    1:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    nah. Gene would hurt himself trying to throw a real baseball. The conservative ideologues can't be bothered with the facts. Such as, humans are social animals. We're not solitary creatures. We work best in groups, each of us caring for the other. But the "I've got mine, you go to hell" crowd thinks any co-operative effort of two or more people is collectivist socialism.
    The Christian oriented individualist ideologues should try looking at the books of Matthew and Acts. In Matthew, Jesus praises people who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those who are sick or in jail (yes, jail). But I guess he was a comie pinko. In the book of Acts, the author comments that the early Christian community pooled resources. Unfortunately, I can't recall the precise chapter and verse, but the author comes close to saying from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Yes, the early Christian community was collectivist, communal.
    Vincent is right: Capitalism without a sense of charity and concern for each other is harsher and crueler.
    Game's over, Gene.

  • May 30, 2008

    1:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    fntsymtn writes:

    Within capitalism (and even the religious references to "collectivism"), charity and concern for each other is a voluntary engagement. Meaning you choose when, how much and to whom your are charitable or have concern.

    Within governmental socialism, communism or collectivism you no longer have an opportunity to be charitable, you are obligated, regardless of your means.

    I prefer a country where I am free to choose when, where and to whom I am charitable and can budget charity within my means. Any person who proposes we "change" and remove that freedom does not understand the meaning of charity.

  • May 30, 2008

    2:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    Gene tried to play baseball once but got tangled up in his underwear while trying to swing a bat. He was dragged from the field while whining..."b,b,b,b,b,but Clinton"

  • May 30, 2008

    4:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Yes, I had no idea single payer healthcare was a "charity." I guess I'm a charity case every time I go to the library. I guess I was a charity case every day I attended public school. I guess we're all charity cases for having a military and police force.

    You're just stingy, fntsytm. You'd see a person turned away from life-saving medical care if they couldn't pay for it, just because you couldn't "vet" them first to make sure they deserved it.

  • May 30, 2008

    4:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    fnttsytm: "Within capitalism (and even the religious references to "collectivism"), charity and concern for each other is a voluntary engagement. Meaning you choose when, how much and to whom your are charitable or have concern."

    First of all, we're a democracy in this country, not "a capitalism." As a majority, we vote for systems we do or don't want to implement, and if you don't like that system, this country is not for you.

    Secondly, you tell me which religion teaches "choosy" charity and concern.

    "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy" [Matthew 5:7]

    "But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." [Luke 14:13 &14.]

    "Love your neighbor as yourself." [Matthew 22:39]

    "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." [Matthew 19:21]

  • May 30, 2008

    9:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bassman writes:

    I love Carrol's columns. However, he failed to mention that, according to their 2002 tax return, the Obamas gave a whopping 0.4 percent of their quarter million dollar earnings to charity. 1000 bucks. What a giver. When he got to the senate he converted again...to altruism. The Audacity of Hypeocrisy.

  • May 30, 2008

    10:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bassman writes:

    Fntsymtn, you are spot on. Coerced altruism is the worst kind of contradiction. Peterpi you are correct on two points. Religion demands altruism/collectivism and men are social animals.

    Indeed, every cult, dictatorship and collectivist entity depends on self-sacrifice. A man's effort is most valuable when expended in service to the group.

    Then came America. A man's effort, creation and money were his to distribute as HE saw fit. The state's only claim on these is in order to fulfil the Locke's Social Contract. The people surrender only a limited portion of their power and money. The state then provides only limited services. When the state becomes our nanny (dems) or our big brother (reps) we lose another portion of our freedom. Keep the government out of the boardroom amd the bedroom.

  • May 31, 2008

    12:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    WestminsterJ writes:

    "Father O'Malley":
    Of course, Churches like the Catholic Church are collectivist.

    Sure. That's why the Catholic Church sided with Franco in the Spanish Civil War, helped bring down the Soviet Union, and opposed "liberation theology" in Latin America. Got any other good ones?

  • June 2, 2008

    11:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    The post by fntsymtn was dead on. This country was founded upon personal choice and personal freedoms, not on working your rear end off so someone/everyone else can benefit when it's not by choice (that's socialism). Charity is a choice, giving to the community or volunteering is a choice, and for Obama to arrogantly say a person is somehow superior by not going into the business world is plain wrong. Mr. wannabe President, you're off base on your assessment. You need to worry more about the racist influences in your mist. (And if you can't get that small of an amount of people to follow you, how can you get millions upon millions to do what those people aren't?)

    mytwosense, the United States is a Republic, not a true Democracy. It's based off of Capitalism..... hence the term, "a Capitalistic society". It's representative government, where legislators vote instead of society at large for each and every proposed bill. And to use your logic against you, we the people have spoken out against illegal immigration, by a large margin, but too many with the representative government on both sides of the aisle prefer to ignore the will of the people and try to shove the illegals down our throats.

  • June 2, 2008

    12:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dakar writes:

    Business creates jobs. Obama wants everyone to give of themselves and work for peanuts while he and and most his rich democratic cohorts all live in the lap of luxury. They have all these democratic primaries to try and determine the presidential candidate, with millions voting and it all will come down to a couple hundred elite superdelegates that "know" whats best for everyone else. It's so obvious that the Democratic party, and especially those within it like Obama, does not stand for the common working tax-paying man.

  • June 2, 2008

    3:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    we've gone through "muslim", "terrorist-taught", "communist", "elistist", "racist" and finally "collectivist".

    you can throw all the rhetoric you want to at obama, but you can't change the reality of his policy stances.