RUSH: Now, you know, you and I on this program, we discuss time and time again: "Is Obama doing this on purpose or does he not really know?" It's the age-old argument: "Is he a neophyte, ignorant theoretician from the faculty lounge or is he really this committed Marx who's doing all this on purpose?" Now, a man that we admire greatly here at the EIB Network is Victor Davis Hanson. He's a noted farmer in the Central Valley of California. He is, in his own way, a Renaissance man. He's a Greek historian par excellence. I love listening to Victor Davis Hanson describe ancient Greece. You know, in ancient Greece they had their own Clinton. Alcibiades was an ancient Greek Clinton down to a T. Victor Davis Hanson writes prolifically at National Review, National Review Online and a couple of other websites, and there is a piece he posted yesterday at Glenn Reynolds' website InstaPundit. It's "The Metaphysics of Contemporary Theft," and in his piece Victor Davis Hanson, affectionately known as VDH to his friends, says:
"Watching the tastes, the behavior, the rhetoric, the appointments, and the policy of this administration suggests to me that it is not really serious in radically altering the existing order, which it counts on despite itself. Its real goal is a sort of parasitism that assumes the survivability of the enfeebled host." Let me translate: Victory Davis Hanson believes that Obama and the liberals are simple parasites, that they really don't want to radically alter the existing order. They will say so but they don't actually take the great leaps necessary to do it. They get close, but they don't actually take steps to destroy this because they feed off of it. They need an economy producing things for them to take, so that they can redistribute them -- and they just, in their ignorance, assume that no matter how often they kill the golden goose, that the golden goose is gonna continue to live and be prosperous and produce enough eggs for Obama and his guys to continue to take from.
That's the prevailing opinion from Victor Davis Hanson.
RUSH: Now, back to Victor Davis Hanson. He doesn't really believe that Obama is engaged in a willful and purposeful destruction of the economic engine that creates prosperity and the opportunity for it in this country. He thinks that they're basically just a bunch of parasites, that they don't really want to radically alter what's going on. In fact, they count on the golden goose thriving. They count on, no matter what they do to it -- whatever tax policy happens, whatever regulations -- they think it's gonna survive. They think it's gonna continue to do well enough that there will be enough that they can take from it to redistribute or to do whatever else they want to do with it, and that they're not going to destroy it; that they're parasites, and that they assume (this is their naivete or ignorance) that the host, the US economy, will survive their parasitic behavior; that they won't kill it.
Now, my problem with that (and I, again, say this with due respect to you) is to believe that -- to believe that Obama is not a radical and he doesn't want to radically alter things and just says so; he's just a parasite feeding off of all this -- is you must assume, it would seem to me, that Obama and the left are not driven by an ideology, then. When Obama wants to change our society, when he takes major steps towards doing it, why go to the pains to deny it? Which they do. You accuse them of doing this on purpose -- you go out and accuse them of making radical changes to our society, major steps toward destroying the occasion the nation as founded -- oh, they'll disagree with you. Why? Why deny it? They don't want that to be known.
I think to view them as a bunch of well-intentioned, ignorant parasites is to deny that they're driven by an ideology, and we know what the ideology is. The ideology is socialism. The socialist sucks the blood out of capitalism. We're not talking here about parasites. We're talking vampires, if you want to get down to brass tacks -- and some might say there's not much difference in the two. I think there is. We're talking vampires. Obama, Democrats, socialists, leftists, suck the blood out of capitalism. They will eventually destroy it. This is not news. And they run out of capitalist-created wealth. Margaret Thatcher herself said it: One of the bad things about socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.
Why do you do that? Why does that happen? Why do you run out of other people's money? Because you've sucked all of it out of the system! Socialism does not create wealth; it destroys wealth. Socialism doesn't create jobs; it destroys jobs. The public sector job -- you know, somebody hired to work in government -- is not a job created, because they don't produce anything. It's a job lost, in a zero-sum game sense. If that person could have found a job in the private sector and been involved in an enterprise that's out producing something or providing a service, then you've got growth; you've got expansion. That doesn't happen to government. They suck the system dry. They suck the blood out. So this is not new to anybody.
Why do they do this, though? This is the thing. When you're trying to persuade people, "This is what the leftist does, this is what socialists do: They suck the blood out of the system," people eventually ask you, "Why do they do that, Rush?" 'cause they just can't believe it. They can't get their arms around the fact there are actually people who would do it. That's why you evolve the theory, "They don't really know what they're doing. They're just a bunch of parasites. They think that the system's always gonna be there creating wealth, providing jobs. It's always gonna be there. No matter what they do, it's always gonna be there." See, I disagree with that. I think they know they're sucking the blood out of it, and so the inevitable question: Why do they do it?
And I, ladies and gentlemen, El Rushbo, have provided the answer over and over beginning each time I'm asked. The answer is -- if you listen to them, and if you observe them -- they seek "change." They are not passive. Their ideology is not passive. Liberalism, socialism, is a very active, animating thing. They're not just boobs, although they are. They are boobs, but they're not "just" boobs. They know they're sucking the system dry. They have a reason for sucking the system dry. This is even tougher for people to accept. It's even tougher for people to agree to or understand because they don't want to believe this. Suck the system dry, what happens then? Well, if you suck the system dry and there's no job you can get to support yourself, where do you turn?
It's already happening.
You turn to the government and the people there become even more powerful, as more and more people turn to them for their very existence, for their very ability to eat. We laugh about it, but it's no accident -- and it's no coincidence -- that all of a sudden people are calling 911 when something goes wrong with a restaurant order. In one instance, a guy in the middle of a drug deal who thought he got short-changed on his change called 911. There's a reason this happens. It's because this is being taught. So it's hard for me to believe the passivity here that these are just a bunch of well-intentioned people that end up being parasites sucking the system dry, always thinking it's going to be there. I think a lot of these people have a chip on their shoulder about that very system.
Now, if Obama doesn't want to destroy capitalism, then Marx didn't, either. If Obama doesn't want to destroy capitalism, then Marx didn't either, did he? There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them. When you get down to brass tacks, there's not much difference in Marx and Obama. Our current recession, it's not just an accident of the business cycle -- and don't forget, in the latter part of the nineties, the Clinton administration running around saying, "The business cycle is no more! We have defeated the business cycle. There aren't going to be any more recessions. There aren't going to be any more of these wildly gyrating cycles. We've defeated that!" Okay. We've got a recession that has outlasted all other recessions
Not depressions, but all other recessions -- and it's not just an accident of the business cycle. This is a "manmade disaster," as the Obama people like to describe global warming. It's an economic, man-caused disaster -- and we know who the man is who caused it, and we have to be willing like Reagan was in naming Carter to name Obama. Reagan unabashedly named Carter in 1980 when he announced his candidacy for the presidency. Huntsman yesterday refuses to even go there, but he said he's going to campaign like Reagan. Well, he's not campaigning like Reagan. Reagan named Carter with passion. He laid everything that was going wrong in 1980 in this economy at the feet of Jimmy Carter. He said he failed! He made no excuses, he didn't try to sugarcoat it, and he didn't tiptoe around it.