The Audacity of Hope - Book Review

I recently read “The Audacity of Hope –Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” by Barrack Obama.

I was struck by the following observations after reading this book. This may take a while to read, but it wil take a lot less time than reading the entire book:
a) Contrary to what I expected, I enjoyed reading the book. Obama has a writing style similar to his speaking style – you enjoy reading (or listening to) it so much that you sometimes fail to understand the implications until you’ve had time to reflect. It’s like candy - it tastes so good while you’re eating it that you forget that it’s making you fat;
b) All his positions are crafted in a manner that make you want to agree with him – like motherhood and apple pie. Who wouldn’t want everyone to have enough time, money, and good health to fully enjoy life – in America and the entire world? No fair person would object to those objectives. The problems surface when you study the details of how Obama proposes to reach his objectives, and after you consider the probable long-term negative consequences of his programs.

Let’s take a look at just some of his positions and ideas directly from this book:

c) Cynicism with Politics: On page 2 Obama writes: “…I understood the skepticism, but that (sic) there was -- and always has been – another tradition to politics, a tradition that stretched from the days of the country’s founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done.”
I believe Obama really believes these words with all his heart. But I happen to believe he is incredibly out of touch with human nature. That’s probably because he’s never had to negotiate in good faith with people of opposing positions without resorting to public pressure; he’s never had to supervise people who would rather be playing than working, he’s never had the responsibility of making a payroll that depended upon his ability to compete in the marketplace – without government handouts. In other words, his background prevents him from seeing the world the way it really is, rather than how he’d like it to be. He has a socialistic point of view that the good of the individual is dependent on the good of all the other people – aka The State!
1) “…what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart…” Really? Then why did the employees of Eastern Airlines go on strike forcing the company into bankruptcy? Why do politicians pit one voter block against the other with lies and half truths to the detriment of the entire country? Why do the media publish the worst news of the day, rather than what’s working and/or what should be done to make our world better? The reason is consistent: People, by and large, are driven by their own self-interest. They will subjugate some of their rights in order to live in an orderly and safe society, but after the basics are met, they have other needs they can best meet on their own – without government interference. The Eastern Airlines employees wanted the best deal for each of them, knowing that the entire company would probably go belly up in meeting their demands. Politicians do and say anything, regardless of the consequences, in order to get elected – for personal power. And the media will peddle what sells, because they are more interested in selling advertising than providing facts to the country. And it’s not just the media management, but aslo the workers who assist on “giving the people what they want”.
2) “…if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done…” Really? What he’s really saying is: “If enough people believe this lie, then I can get elected and force my utopian vision (which has failed every time it’s been tried - because it’s contrary to human nature) down their throats”.

d) What People Believe – according to Obama. On page 7 Obama summarizes three months of conversations with people when he first ran for U.S. Senator in 2006 (two years before being nominated for President of the United States): “…what struck me was just how modest people’s hopes are, and how much of what they believed seemed to hold constant across race, region, religion, and class. Most of them thought that anybody willing to work should be able to find a job that paid a living wage.” Really? “willing to work…” What government bureaucrat will be in charge of determining that truth? Have you ever had to interview 50 applicants to find one that you thought was a potentially good employee, and then find within the first month that they didn’t perform as they told you they would? “…find a job…” Who will be employing these people? Most Americans are employed by small businesses owners – the same people that Obama wants to tax more. Sounds like an old nursery tale - about the greedy person (i.e. politician) who killed the golden goose (i.e. tax payers). “…living wage…” Not every person is qualified to earn a living wage – whatever that may be. Some people don’t have the skills and/or work-ethic required for a good hourly rate or salary. “…They figured that people shouldn’t have to file for bankruptcy because they got sick….” Really? How many people do you know who filed for bankruptcy because they got sick? None I’d guess. Obama would have us overhaul our entire healthcare system with the goal of fixing a problem for a small percentage of people – to the detriment of the healthcare received by a large percentage of people. I agree there are many problems with our current system, but let’s not run those sad human interest stories up the flagpole again and again. It’s such a transparent effort to tug on our emotions so we react like puppets. “…That every child…should be able to go to college even if their parents weren’t rich...” Really? Does every child have the ability to do the coursework required to graduate from college? You and I know that is a false assumption. But Obama doesn’t care, because the idea sounds so nice that he’ll get millions of votes from people who feel that idea sounds so nice. But who will pay for it? You! And those people, like you, who are earning a living every day – whether working on the factory floor, working in small businesses providing goods and services directly to local customers, or a mid-level manager moving up the ladder in an international company. “…And when they get old, they wanted to be able to retire with some dignity and respect…although they didn’t expect government to solve all their problems…they figured that government should help…” Really? This quote really exemplifies Obama’s beliefs. “dignity and respect” is code for “money and things – for free”. The more that people feel government should help them, the more they become dependent on government. This breeds the class warfare where the “have nots” demand more and more from the productive people. And those politicians who campaign for more giveaway programs get re-elected, reinforcing the downward spiral of more, more government services, more taxes, and a declining economy. This path has been followed before, and it has proven to be a false utopia of socialism and/or communism. See the economies of Cuba, North Korea, China, and the former USSR. The unintended consequences of taking this path, a path that sounds so nice and fair, is an attempt at the redistribution of wealth. While history shows that goal can be, and has been, accomplished temporarily, the more important goal of helping more people live better lives ends up as an unmitigated failure.
e) American Myths On page 8 Obama writes: “…Even the standard high school history textbook notes the degree to which, from its very inception, the reality of American life has strayed from its myths…” Really? Admittedly, it’s been awhile since I’ve read an American history textbook, but what is Obama talking about? What myths is he talking about? I believe we have historical ideals to be striven for, and beliefs we share, but I know of no “myths” that are contrary to the American reality. Perhaps Obama is referring to the ideals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Our government should be in the never ending quest to ensure that its citizens are given the freedom to enjoy those pursuits, but our constitution never guaranteed, or should it have, that each citizen would have the same end result – only the same opportunity. No myths, just truths.
f) Lens of a Black Man On page 10 Obama writes: “…I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can’t help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of how generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our lives.” Really? I’m not ready to turn the Presidency of the United States over to someone who only views the American experience through the lens of a black man. You may think that is racist or xenophobic. It's not. I just feel the President of the United States should represent all of the people, not just a small fraction of those people. And I don’t just want someone to be President who is an institutional racist – someone who might deny rights or benefits to certain racial groups, and/or may provide preferential treatment to other racial groups. Regardless of what may have happened in the past, the future of America should be equal opportunity for all and preferential treatment for no one – not guaranteed outcomes for anyone.
g) Issues of the Sixties On page 12, Obama writes: “…the flashpoint issues of the sixties were never fully resolved. The fury of the counter-culture may have dissipated into consumerism, lifestyle choices, and musical preferences rather than political commitments, but the problems of race, war, poverty, and relations between the sexes did not go away…” Really? “fury of the counter-culture…dissipated into consumerism”? That’s a stretch. The counter culture was just young people who thought they had a better way, and then realized they didn’t. Or didn’t have the guts to stick it out. In any case, what specifically does Obama’s think people should have been doing the past 40 years in order to solve the “problems of race, war, poverty, and relations between the sexes”? We all can’t be community activists as he was. Most of us have to go to work each day to earn a living to support our families – and to pay our taxes. We don’t have the luxury of being upset over everything that isn’t perfect. And Obama, I’m curious, what do you want changed regarding “relations with the sexes”?
h) Who’s Really Losing the Battle? On page 38, Obama writes: “…Others pursue a more ‘centrist” approach, figuring that so long as they (Liberal Democrats) split the difference with the conservative leadership, they must be acting reasonably – failing to notice that with each passing year they are giving up more and more ground…” Really? Conservatives and moderates are dismayed at how the liberal media, politicians, and judges are transforming the America culture into something they believe is doomed to failure. Can Obama really want to move farther left – at an even faster rate? That is scary!
i) Distortion of Reality On page 42 Obama writes: “…Or the former Black Panther who decided to go into real estate, bought a few buildings in the neighborhood, and is …tired…of the bankers who won’t give him a loan to expand his business.” Really? Do you really think every middle-class white person who wants to borrow money is approved by the bank? Most are denied. Banks usually only lend money if the borrower has enough collateral to pay off the loan if your venture fails. What the borrower did in your past also has a bearing on the bank's decision. That’s why MBA’s probably get more loans approved than former Black Panthers. Bankers don’t care if you’re white or black, as long as they’re comfortable that you’ll pay them back. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to manipulate you.
j) Tax Cuts On page 47 Obama writes: “…I consider the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to be both fiscally irresponsible and morally troubling…” Really? Any movement of tax rates downward is not lowering them, but more properly labeled as “moving them closer to their historical level”. I do agree that Republicans have been almost as fiscally irresponsible as have the Democrats. Both have made no attempt at balancing the budget. But morally troubling? I’m extremely concerned when anyone tells me his morals are superior to mine! Especially when that someone wants to take more of my hard earned money away from me to give to someone else – because of his moral values. If Obama’s moral values are so superior, I suggest a new line be inserted on the federal income tax return – so people who agree with Obama can make their own voluntary contributions to his morally superior programs.
k) Shared Values On page 52 Obama writes: “The post-election polls may have been poorly composed, but the broader question of shared values – the standards and principles that the majority of Americans deem important to their lives, and in the life of the country – should be the heart of our politics, the cornerstone of any meaningful debate about budgets and projects, regulations and policies.” Really? This is typical of the feel-good comments of Obama. Those words sound so good when you first hear them, but what are the consequences of their implementation? First: Who is going to take the poll, and make the interpretations? Answer: The political party in power. Are the results going to be objective, or are they going to be self-serving to those politicians in power? You know the answer, because you know the true character of human nature. You aren’t stupid or naïve. Second: When have great leaders decided the big issues of the day by taking a poll? Did Abraham Lincoln take a poll before deciding to write the Emancipation Proclamation? No. If he had, he wouldn’t have written it. Great leaders lead, they don’t ask their pollsters what the people want. Great leaders have a vision, and then communicate that vision to the people. Great leaders understand that the people don’t have access to all the information required to make the correct decisions. The voters have access to so much information (much of it false) that its impossible to make a fully informed decision about the key issues of today. That’s why we elect leaders. Otherwise we’d decide everything by surveys. We aren’t a true direct Democracy, where everyone votes on everything. We are a representative Democracy, or Republic, where we elect people to run the country, while we run our lives. Real leaders understand their role is to lead! Obama doesn't realized his own contradiction when he says on page 65: “There is a constant danger, in the cacophony of voices, that a politician loses his moral bearings and finds himself entirely steered by the winds of public opinion.”
l) Naïve Leadership On page 58 Obama writes about a death penalty law which passed while he was in the Illinois legislature: “…over the course of several weeks, we convened sometimes daily meetings between prosecutors, public defenders, police organizations, and death penalty opponents, keeping our negotiations as much as possible out of the press.” Really? Does Obama really think he, or any President, can keep the negotiations of important national matters out of the press? Is he that naïve, or does he think we believe his leadership fantasy can become a reality? Is he that naïve about human nature, or is he just trying to con us into believing he can do the impossible? Of course, that leadership style might have worked if we had term limits. But with congress having a 9% approval rating, but a 94% re-election record, congress will never vote for term limits. Perhaps we should never vote for the incumbent, and implement our own term limits!!!
m) Anti-Business Bias On page 144, Obama quotes a union leader: “Some CEO, who already is making millions of dollars decides he needs to boost the company stock price so he can cash in his options, and the easiest way to do that is to send the work to Mexico and pay the workers there a sixth of what we make…” Really? Why is Obama so quick to believe that all businessmen are greedy and unfeeling? He sure likes businessmen when their businesses grow and they hire more people! But if there is a painful situation that has no easy solution, why is it assumed to be the result of the businessman’s lack of ethics, feelings, morals, etc – and not the gut wrenching decision of a leader who is desperately trying to ensure his company’s survival in an amoral global economy? Why? Because the problem is often the unintended consequence of government legislation that was designed to make people feel good now, but without thought about likely results years later. About 30 years ago, legislation was passed that required local banks to loan money in the geographic area in which they operated – even if the bank felt those loans might be risky. (See Community Investment Act of 1977 – Real Cause of the Subprime Mess - http://soichiro1974.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/the-real-cause-of-the-subprime-mess-government-regulation/ ) That legislation was noble in intent, but it eventually became a major cause of our current credit meltdown – because banks had to develop some method of making those loans to unqualified borrowers – thus was born home mortgages requiring no income verification, low initial interest rates, low or no down payments, etc. – all the direct result of poorly crafted, well-meaning, legislation. But who is blamed? Businessmen are blamed – not careless, corrupt self-serving legislators!
n) Fantasy Legislation On page 182, Obama writes: “Just as government policies can boost workers’ wages without hurting the competitiveness of U.S. firms…” Really? What laws of mathematics, economics, and basic supply & demand are we to ignore in order to believe this fantasy legislation is possible? Is Obama that naïve or does he really believe we are that gullible?
o) Healthcare Illogic On page 184, Obama writes: “Given the amount of money we spend on healthcare (more per capita than any other nation), we should be able to provide basic coverage to every single American.” Really? I don’t understand how a person as smart as Obama could write such an illogical sentence. Why not say: “Given the amount of money we spend on housing, every American should live in a 2-story house with a swimming pool”? The only way either of those sentences makes the least bit of sense is through the concept of re-distribution of wealth. According to this line of thinking, some of us are just spending more than we need to for healthcare, housing, fill-in-the-blank, and if the government just took that extra money the rich don't really need, then it could give that money to someone who hasn’t earned it, but who wants it. As an added benefit to the politician who institutes that feel-good policy, he secures the vote of that constituent feeding at the government trough for the rest of that voter’s life. So who benefits from this logic? The politician and the free loader. Who is hurt? The productive citizen – and ultimately the entire country. When the free-loaders outnumber the productive citizens, then this country is toast. We’re close to that point now - with 32% of American adults not paying any federal income taxes* - and Obama’s trying to lead us to that tipping point. *According to http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html, out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns filed in 2006, 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, faced a zero or negative tax liability.
p) Good Point I don’t want to give the impression that all of Obama’s ideas are awful. Occasionally the lofty rhetoric might lead to something that is worth of implementing. On page 191 Obama writes: “…how well we respond to globalization won’t be just a matter of identifying the right policies. It will also have to do with a change in spirit, a willingness to put our common interests and the interests of future generations ahead of short-term expediency.” Really? YES. Although this might sound just like another naïve pronouncement by Obama, the key difference is the implication of a shared pain or sacrifice hinted in the phrase “put the interests of future generations ahead of short-term expediency”. That’s something that should resonate with all Americans. That’s something George Bush missed early in his presidency. He should have led all Americans in some shared sacrifice while fighting the war on terrorism, rather than just encouraging us to go to the mall and spend money as usual. Then Americans would have felt we were in this struggle together and not just sending some of our brave young men and women to fight for our freedom – while we went about our normal business of living our lives. We all long for a cause bigger than ourselves – to bring meaning to our lives.
q) Who’s God? On page 193 Obama reveals his feelings about his moral superiority: “And perhaps I possess a certain Midwestern sensibility…that at a certain point one has enough, that you can derive as much pleasure from a Picasso hanging in a museum as from one that’s hanging in your den, that you can get an awfully good meal in a restaurant for less than twenty dollars…” Really? Are those Midwestern thoughts or are they the thoughts of Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, or the heads of Communist China and North Korea? And who would be the arbitrator of this utopian sensibility – Obama? In his drive to make the world “fair”, Obama fails to understand the workings of capitalism – and human nature. Building one museum to house all the art in the world would employ far fewer people than building all the dens required for individual collections. Again, short term thinking. And how often does Obama dine on $20 entrées at the fine restaurants in Washington and Chicago? He wants you to do what he’s not willing to do! He wants you to do what he says, not what he does!
r) Indecency of Homelessness On page 221, Obama writes: “As a general rule, I am more prone to listen to those who are as outraged by the indecency of homelessness as they are by the indecency of music videos.” Really? While the sentence does not make sense as written, I believe the point Obama tried to make is he is more offended by the “indecency” of homelessness than by the “indecency” of music videos. Many homeless people are on the streets because of laws written to prevent emotionally disturbed people from living in institutions against their will. Thus, many people are homeless because they are not able to cope in our society by learning marketable skills, getting and keeping a job, and paying their bills. If the legislators pass legislation putting emotionally ill-equipped people on the street, then it cannot complain that emotionally ill-equipped people are on the street. And the damage caused to those homeless people, while living in deplorable conditions, are not equivalent to the emotional damage caused to young people by violent and sexually explicit music videos. While I’m not in favor of legislation that would prevent people from writing and distributing explicit music videos, Obama should listen to those people who feel these videos were harming their children – even if these people are not equally offended by homelessness. But Obama believes his morality is superior to those who disagree with him.
s) Gay Rights On page 222, Obama writes: “I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex…” Really? YES, I agree with Obama on this subject, as long as the institution, and the label, of marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.
t) Race On page 241 Obama writes: “Few African American entrepreneurs have either the inherited wealth or the angel investors to help launch their business or cushion them from a sudden economic downturn. Few doubt that if they were white they would be further along in reaching their goals.” Really? First - I’m confused. Is Obama referring to people who have emigrated from Africa to start their own business in America, or is he talking about black native born Americans who have started a business in America? I think such a distinction is important, because it shows with which country Obama more closely identifies himself. Second - Either Obama is making up this supposition in order to justify his own beliefs, or black American entrepreneurs have a perception problem. I have met very few white entrepreneurs who used their daddy’s money to start a business. If they had inherited wealth, they never had the guts to be an entrepreneur. And angel investors are a figment of the public’s imagination. Angel investors are as rarely seen here on earth as are spiritual angels. Those individuals who lend money on speculative ventures (and new businesses are the most speculative of ventures) expect a healthy return on their investment. And they have more sense than to be worry about the race of the businessman. If you’re black and you didn’t get a loan, get over it. It’s probably not because of your skin color. I’m white, and I didn’t get most of the loans for which I’ve applied. If you’re black, and your business failed, and there was no government program to “cushion” you, get over it. It’s probably not because of your skin color. I had a printing business, invested all my time and energy into itfor 22 years, Al Gore invented the internet – which reduced the need for my services - and my business failed in 2002. I’m white – and I lost everything! No government program bailed me out, and I didn’t expect to be bailed out! I hadn't been taught to expect the government to kiss my knee and make it all better.
u) Re-Distribution of Wealth Here's the real scary one. If you doubt that Obama is one of the most liberal politicians in America, actually a Socialist, read his words on page 245: “…And what would help minority workers are the same things that would help white workers: the opportunity to earn a living wage…and tax laws that would restore some balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth.” Really? The working of the marketplace, not the decision of a government bureaucrat, is the more appropriate method for determining who gets a so-called living wage. But what’s this little remark again about restoring “balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth”? Who is going to determine how much wealth is taken from those actually producing wealth and then given to those who only consume it? Why, I guess it will be Saint Obama – the wise one! And what gives him that right? Because he is so wise and compassionate – and he walks on water in white robes and sandals. Wake up America. Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing! Dare I say it? He’s a Socialist – one who confiscates the wealth of productive people and gives it to non-productive people. Show me a country where this works! You can't, because it never has.
v) The Welfare State On page 253 Obama writes: “It was partly on behalf of fixing the black ghetto that Johnson’s War on Poverty was launched, and it was on the basis of that war’s failure, both real and perceived, that conservatives turned much of the country against the very concept of the welfare state.” Really? That’s right. Much of the country understands the truth behind one of our favorite jokes: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” We understand that, no matter how benevolent the intention, the government just mucks up almost everything it touches. If Americans believed a government program would solve poverty, we’d all support it enthusiastically. But we know, from being parents and from being children, that you only make the situation worse by giving things to people (our children) rather than having them earn them. Don’t give people fish - teach them to become fishermen. And if they don’t want to be fisherman, then let life teach them a universal truth: “If you expect others to help you – and they do - you will never reach your potential, and you will hate your benefactors for it.” I don’t pretend to know the answer to solving poverty, but I sure know it's not a resurrection of the War on Poverty.
w) Illegal Aliens On page 268, Obama writes about his feelings regarding illegal aliens: “And as I watched Cristina translate my words into Spanish for them, I was reminded that America has nothing to fear from these newcomers…all those who may not have had the right legal documents or connections or unique skills…” Really? Most Americans don’t believe that illegal aliens just “may not have the right legal documents”. They believe that illegal aliens have entered this country illegally. America is the only country in the world where millions of people want to come each year. And America, as with all the other countries in the world, can’t let just everyone come here who wants to immigrate. Why? Because a country must be able to absorb immigrants without causing disruption to its own citizens. So we have quotas based upon country of origin, special skills, etc – and people are not supposed to enter our country wihtout getting prior approval - otherwise the have entered illegally. This is no small matter, although some pandering politicians will use euphemisms like “undocumented workers” – when they are actually non-Americas who have entered our country illegally. The two issues of (a) preventing more aliens from entering illegally and (b) what to do with each illegal alien already in America are problems I’m not prepared to address at this time. But let’s be clear about why Obama wants illegal aliens to remain in this country: Because most illegal aliens are poor, Obama’s giveaway programs appeal to them, and they will vote for him and all those other pandering politicians who refer to illegal aliens as “undocumented workers”. How do you think other countries would treat you if you were in their country without a valid passport? They’d deport you on the next plane!
x) Defense Budget I was very surprised to read what Obama wrote on page 397: “Indeed, given the depletion of our forces after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will probably need a somewhat higher budget in the immediate future just to restore readiness and replacement equipment.” Really? I’m not kidding. Obama, who says he can pay for all his new social programs with the “peace dividend” from withdrawing from Iraq, says in his book that we will need to spend more on our defense budget in the immediate future! I guess he’ll have to raise taxes to pay for all his programs. And how Obama’s going to raise enough money from increasing taxes on the top 5 to 10% of the productive Americans to pay for all the programs he’s promised to the remaining 90 to 95% remains a mystery to everyone. This is why Obama never gives any particulars for how he’s going to pay for his new programs. Either he’s not going to deliver on his promises of new programs, or he’s going to increase taxes a whole lot higher than he’s mentioned in his campaign for the White House.

I’m going to end this book review before I run out of letters of the alphabet. But if you read this book, ask yourself this long question: While each of Obama’s ideas/programs sounds so good, and nice, and fair: (1) what government social program ever actually works like it was supposed to work?; (2) what government social program ever costs as little as it was supposed to cost?; and (3) what governmental social program was ever stopped because it costs too much and/or never accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish?