Commentary Magazine


Topic: middle class

Clintonian Gibberish: The New Language of American Politics

If I asked you to which economic class you believe you belong, statistics tell me you’re probably going to say “middle class.” If I asked you, say, what kind of American you are, logic tells me you will back away slowly. What you almost certainly won’t do is say: “everyday American.” And this contradiction tells us much about Hillary Clinton’s latest effort to erase the meaning from every word she can get her hands on, sparing none. And a New York Times story accepting her framing today confirms it: the new language of American politics is gibberish.

Read More

If I asked you to which economic class you believe you belong, statistics tell me you’re probably going to say “middle class.” If I asked you, say, what kind of American you are, logic tells me you will back away slowly. What you almost certainly won’t do is say: “everyday American.” And this contradiction tells us much about Hillary Clinton’s latest effort to erase the meaning from every word she can get her hands on, sparing none. And a New York Times story accepting her framing today confirms it: the new language of American politics is gibberish.

Of course Hillary won’t be abandoning talk of the “middle class.” That will still be part of her campaign rhetoric. But deliberately putting “everyday Americans” up as the rhetorical centerpiece of her campaign is designed to do something specific. Hillary, who is nothing like you and could not possibly understand your daily struggles, is just like you because she understands your daily struggles, she swears. Also–and this is important–she’s really not an oddball. Scout’s honor.

Don’t take my word for it. You can read that in the Democrats’ newspaper of record, the New York Times. Here’s the lede of today’s piece on the contrasting image challenges of Clinton and the Republicans: “On one side is a crowd of Republicans trying to look presidential. On the other side is a lone Democrat trying to look normal.”

Considering that Hillary’s opening campaign gambit is jumping out at unsuspecting strangers from a van, I’m not quite sure her definition of “normal” lines up with how “everyday Americans” might define the word. Nonetheless, there is her greatest obstacle: she is a train wreck when forced to interact with people who aren’t paying her two hundred grand to speak at their corporate retreat.

Allow me to be Captain Obvious for a moment: you can’t fake authenticity. But one way Hillary will attempt to do so is by diluting the English language until there are no more words, just empty sounds, hand gestures, and facial expressions.

The truth is that while “middle class” has been stretched to its limits as a descriptive term, it still actually means something. It’s not just about annual take-home pay, either. Politicians and economists talk about the middle class because a strong middle class means certain types of jobs are still being created, economic mobility is more than a pipe dream, and a balance of voters’ economic interests keeps something of a level playing field.

And it’s even helpful, in its own way, that the phrase “middle class” is adopted by so many Americans who probably aren’t middle class. It tells you something about the aspirations and self-perceptions of so many voters. And it’s important ideologically to both sides. Many conservatives hope the middle class can act as a bulwark against both the relentless expansion of the welfare state and crony capitalism at the top, while liberals hope the middle class will join their campaign of economic piracy around which they base their pitchforks-and-torches politics.

Candidates don’t generally overtly go for the “rich vote,” but neither do they pretend the poor represent a strong donor base that can fund their campaigns or a tax base that can fund their initiatives. It’s all about the middle class, even if just rhetorically. So as vague as “middle class” can be when it comes to self-identification, the phrase “everyday Americans” is vaguer still.

And that’s the point. Merriam-Webster defines “gibberish” as “unintelligible or meaningless language” and “pretentious or needlessly obscure language.” The Hillary Clinton campaign’s communications strategy is the dictionary definition of gibberish. Bill Clinton may have deployed this strategy from time to time, but gibberish is all Hillary speaks.

And that’s because Hillary has no rationale for being president outside wanting to be president and believing it’s owed to her. (How’s that for “everyday American?”) So her supporters, who are going to vote for her anyway, want more details from her, and she can’t imagine why she would oblige. From Politico:

“I can’t believe I missed ‘Game of Thrones’ for this,” said one Democrat who sat through the call for former Clinton staffers at 9:30 p.m. EDT Sunday. …

The feeling of an information vacuum extends to Clinton’s campaign website, which still does not list her policies or issue stances, and her schedule remains empty except for a handful of small events in Iowa. On her road trip — during which she is likely making many calls to major donors, said one veteran Clinton ally — she has no pre-planned stops.

The Game of Thrones quote captures the dynamic nicely. Her loyal foot soldiers report for duty, and they simply want enough information to head out into battle. But when it comes to information, especially policy details, Hillary’s response is essentially: Make me.

Why would Hillary have to divulge more information? What are you, Joe Democrat, going to do to about being taken for granted by the Clinton campaign? There’s no serious challenger to Hillary on the horizon, and she’s trying to keep together a broad coalition of interest groups. She has no reason to speak English when she can skate to the nomination speaking gibberish. The most the rest of us can do is not follow her descent into total incoherence.

Read Less

Republicans Who Are Rising to the Challenge

A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that 72 percent of those polled say that, in general, the government’s policies since the recession have done little or nothing to help middle class people. This isn’t surprising, since median household income actually decreased after the official end of the recession in the summer of 2009. As many of us have argued before, the middle class is feeling anxious, insecure and uneasy — and they are right to feel that way.

Read More

A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that 72 percent of those polled say that, in general, the government’s policies since the recession have done little or nothing to help middle class people. This isn’t surprising, since median household income actually decreased after the official end of the recession in the summer of 2009. As many of us have argued before, the middle class is feeling anxious, insecure and uneasy — and they are right to feel that way.

This unhappiness provides Republicans with an opportunity — and two senators, Mike Lee and Marco Rubio, are stepping up at just the right time. Senators Lee and Rubio, the Tea Party’s great gifts to American politics, have put forward an outstanding tax plan. As my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague Yuval Levin writes in summarizing the plan, it would:

  • Cut the business tax rate to 25 percent (including for all pass-through business income, so that large and small businesses pay the same rate);
  • End the taxation of capital gains, dividends, and interest;
  • Allow businesses to deduct capital investments from their taxable income immediately rather than over time;
  • Consolidate today’s seven tax brackets into two brackets at a 15 percent and 35 percent rate (although business income would be taxed at 25 percent and income from savings would not be taxed);
  • Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and most of the deductions in the code (leaving only the charitable deduction and a capped mortgage interest deduction that would both be available to all taxpayers, not just those who itemize); and
  • Replace today’s standard deduction with a $2,000 individual ($4,000 per married couple) credit, end the marriage penalty in the tax code, and provide a new $2,500 per child credit (alongside the existing $1,000 credit, which phases out with income).

There’s more to it than that, of course, and there are still important matters still to be determined, most especially the details of the cap on mortgage interest deductions (meaning the design and level of the cap). But the key thing to take away from this effort, I think, is that it would lesson the tax burden on working families and businesses, and in doing so provide help to the middle class and promote economic growth.

“Our hope here isn’t to pick winners and losers. Our hope here is to trigger economic growth,” Senator Rubio told reporters. He added that he believes “the vast majority of Americans” would see tax cuts if the plan was implemented.

This is a model approach for Republicans, whether they are running for president, the House or Senate, governor, or state legislator: To put forward ideas that are substantive and specific, bold, and address to the needs and challenges of our time. By which I mean they will actually and materially improve the conditions of ordinary Americans.

Too often these days politics is about theatrics, about silly threats, banalities and rhetorical recklessness. What Senators Lee and Rubio have done is to provide something of an antidote to this. Like others — Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Rob Portman, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Mike Pence and many more — these are serious individuals promoting good (conservative) ideas in a responsible fashion, and in a way that will appeal to voters. It’s a powerful contrast to the Democratic Party, which is reactionary, tired, increasingly bitter and out of ideas.

These are politically interesting times we’re in — and for conservatives, increasingly hopeful ones.

Read Less

The GOP Has An Image Problem with the Middle Class

The Pew Research Center’s latest survey paints a very mixed picture for the Republican Party.

Read More

The Pew Research Center’s latest survey paints a very mixed picture for the Republican Party.

The good news for Republicans is the GOP has opened substantial leads on dealing with the terrorist threat at home (20 points), making wise decisions about foreign policy (13 points), and dealing with taxes (11 points). “On each of these issues,” according to Pew, “the GOP’s lead is as wide—or wider—than at any point in the last several years.”

When it comes to which party is better able to handle the overall economy, Republicans have a slight lead (44 percent v. 41 percent). Democrats have a slight lead on immigration (+2), abortion and contraception (+3), and health care (+7).

About half of those surveyed, 52 percent, say the Democratic Party has good policy ideas while slightly fewer than half (48 percent) say the same about the GOP. On who should take the lead in solving the nation’s problems, 40 percent say President Obama while 38 percent say GOP leaders. (President Obama’s job approval is now 48 percent v. 26 percent for the leaders of the new Republican Congress.)

But if Republicans are doing relatively well on issues, they are doing quite poorly in terms of image and public perception. Most Americans see the GOP lacking in tolerance and empathy for the middle class, and half view it as too extreme. To be precise, 60 percent say the Democratic Party “cares about the middle class” while only 43 percent say the same thing about the Republican Party–a 17 point gap. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed say the Democratic Party “is tolerant and open to all groups of people” versus 35 percent for Republicans. And half of those surveyed say the Republican Party is too extreme while only 36 percent view the Democratic Party as too extreme.

Among independents, more say the Democratic Party is tolerant and open (58 percent v. 33 percent for Republicans) and concerned about the middle class (56 percent v. 40 percent), while by a margin of 16 points, 54 percent to 38 percent, independents say the GOP is too extreme. (Majorities of independents say each party has strong principles, with Republicans having a +9 advantage, 63 percent v. 54 percent, over Democrats.)

About these findings, I’d say several things, the first of which is that Republicans would be foolish to ignore the findings or respond defensively to them. Many Republicans will of course feel these impressions are unfair, the product of biased media coverage and so forth. But they need to understand how the GOP is seen by voters, since accepting there’s a problem is the first step toward correcting it.

Second, Republicans need to be aware of how certain actions (e.g., pursuing policies that shut down the federal government and linking childhood vaccinations to autism) reinforce certain perceptions (the GOP is too extreme). Republicans have to realize that tone and disposition in politicians are enormously important, that people of strong philosophical/conservative convictions need to radiate a temperamental moderation. By that I mean they need to come across as not just principle but also as reassuring, as serious-minded and well-grounded, people of equanimity and who prize prudence. The extreme language and apocalyptic rhetoric–comparing America to Nazi Germany, constantly invoking warnings of tyranny–just aren’t helpful.

Third, the Republican Party still has a very significant problem with the middle class. That’s why some of us who are identified as “reform conservatives” put together a publication last year, Room To Grow, which lays out a middle-class agenda, one that applies conservative principles to the challenges and problems of this century, this decade, this moment. The Republican Party right now is seen by too many people as principled but out of touch, as champions of the rich rather than the middle class, as too adamantine, and as pursuing a governing agenda that won’t make the lives of ordinary Americans better.

You may believe those impressions are widely off the mark, or somewhat off the mark, or true in part. But the impressions are there, they are deep and rather durable, and if Republicans hope to win the presidency in 2016, they best nominate a person who has the intellectual and personal qualities to change them.

The opportunity for Republicans to win next year will certainly be there; the question is whether the right person will rise from the ranks.

Read Less

The Middle-Class ObamaCare Conundrum

A funny thing is happening on the way to universal popularity and acceptance for the president’s signature health-care legislation. No, I’m not referring to the dysfunctional website that turned ObamaCare and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius into a laughingstock. As bad as the website’s problems have been and continue to be, the growing coverage of Americans who have lost their coverage as a result of the new law, as well as the higher costs many, if not most of them are now facing, poses a far greater danger to ObamaCare’s supporters.

The key to understanding the strategy employed by the administration is their total faith in the idea that although the rollout might be problematic, once it is implemented the new benefits granted to poor Americans would become so popular as to make it untouchable. Like Social Security and Medicare, they reasoned that the reality of ObamaCare would render it invulnerable to criticism, let alone repeal. That was a belief shared by Republicans who feared the same thing and clearly impelled Tea Party supporters to back a government shutdown as a last-ditch attempt to derail the law. But the drip-drip of stories about those who are ObamaCare losers is showing that both liberals and conservatives may have been dead wrong about the bill’s staying power.

An example of this comes today from, of all places, the New York Times op-ed page where psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb writes about the misfortune of being a self-employed person whose insurance was dropped and then replaced with a new plan that cost her a whopping $5,400 extra per annum. As she writes, her new coverage is “better” as President Obama and his apologists keep insisting, but that comes with a few caveats:

Now if I have Stage 4 cancer or need a sex-change operation, I’d be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. Never mind that the new provider network would eliminate coverage for my and my son’s long-term doctors and hospitals.

Read More

A funny thing is happening on the way to universal popularity and acceptance for the president’s signature health-care legislation. No, I’m not referring to the dysfunctional website that turned ObamaCare and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius into a laughingstock. As bad as the website’s problems have been and continue to be, the growing coverage of Americans who have lost their coverage as a result of the new law, as well as the higher costs many, if not most of them are now facing, poses a far greater danger to ObamaCare’s supporters.

The key to understanding the strategy employed by the administration is their total faith in the idea that although the rollout might be problematic, once it is implemented the new benefits granted to poor Americans would become so popular as to make it untouchable. Like Social Security and Medicare, they reasoned that the reality of ObamaCare would render it invulnerable to criticism, let alone repeal. That was a belief shared by Republicans who feared the same thing and clearly impelled Tea Party supporters to back a government shutdown as a last-ditch attempt to derail the law. But the drip-drip of stories about those who are ObamaCare losers is showing that both liberals and conservatives may have been dead wrong about the bill’s staying power.

An example of this comes today from, of all places, the New York Times op-ed page where psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb writes about the misfortune of being a self-employed person whose insurance was dropped and then replaced with a new plan that cost her a whopping $5,400 extra per annum. As she writes, her new coverage is “better” as President Obama and his apologists keep insisting, but that comes with a few caveats:

Now if I have Stage 4 cancer or need a sex-change operation, I’d be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. Never mind that the new provider network would eliminate coverage for my and my son’s long-term doctors and hospitals.

This complaint is acknowledged by yet another pro-ObamaCare editorial published by the same newspaper that finally acknowledged that millions of Americans are going to be adversely affected by the plan. The Times assures us that those who are being inconvenienced by liberal largesse are better off in the long run, but even if they are not, they are confident that “not all … will necessarily be upset” about it. But as the number of ObamaCare losers grows as the effects are gradually felt throughout the health-care system, that faith may prove to be misplaced. As more people like Gottlieb voice their grievances, the notion that the law is irrevocable may prove to be a myth.

Gottlieb, who clearly is part of a liberal milieu, complains that few in her circle are particularly sympathetic. Most seem to think that helping the poor is worth the cost of bilking those who are somewhat better off. Judging by the reaction of her 1,000-plus Facebook friends, her statement that “the president should be protecting the middle class, not making our lives substantially harder” isn’t getting much traction. But it would be foolish for anyone, especially those working hard to silence such complaints, to think that public opinion, which polls show has always viewed ObamaCare negatively, will react in the same way.

This is a critical point. So long as the discussion about ObamaCare was one pitting conservative complaints about an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government and the perils of moving a step closer to socialized medicine against the well being of the poor and the uninsured, both Democrats and Republicans were probably right to think that implementation would be the effective end of the debate. But, to the surprise of both the left and the right, the discussion has moved from economic and constitutional principles to something more visceral and far more dangerous to the president’s plans. Once those opposing ObamaCare are able to use that magic phrase, “protecting the middle class” in the context of opposing liberal projects rather than in defense of them, a tipping point may have been reached.

Lori Gottlieb’s liberal Facebook friends may not think her plight is worth caring about. But the critical mass of voters will always be moved to anger against anything that is perceived as an attack on the vast middle class that forms the majority of the electorate and the backbone of American society.

Americans are a goodhearted and generous people. That’s why the Times thinks they will absorb this blow without much complaint because creating a new federal “health care safety net” is worth it. But unlike previous federal entitlements that expanded benefits for many and hurt few, ObamaCare is predicated on a very different formula that may, despite the Times’s assurances, hurt as many, if not more, people than it helps. That is something very different from Social Security or even Medicare. Like the corruption and the social pathologies bred by the welfare state that liberals have also urged Americans to accept whether they like it or not, this makes ObamaCare a subject for permanent debate and possible repeal. Conservatives who acted rashly out of despair this fall need to understand that when Obama loses the Lori Gottliebs of this world, liberalism starts to lose.

Read Less

Biden: Middle Class ‘Buried’ Under Obama

The Romney campaign is calling Joe Biden’s comment about the middle class being “buried for the past four years” a gaffe, and it does fit the criteria of “accidental-honesty.” There’s no doubt the middle class has been hit hard under the current administration, which is why the Obama campaign is having such a difficult time cleaning up after Biden’s comment. They can’t claim Biden is wrong (or they’ll seem out of touch), but they obviously can’t acknowledge he’s right.

The solution? Agree with Biden’s assessment that the middle class has been buried for the past four years, but blame it all on Bush:

“As the Vice President has been saying all year and again in his remarks today, the middle class was punished by the failed Bush policies that crashed our economy – and a vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is a return to those failed policies,” an Obama campaign official said. “With more than five million private-sector jobs created since 2010, the Vice President and President Obama will continue to help the middle class recover and move the nation forward.”

Read More

The Romney campaign is calling Joe Biden’s comment about the middle class being “buried for the past four years” a gaffe, and it does fit the criteria of “accidental-honesty.” There’s no doubt the middle class has been hit hard under the current administration, which is why the Obama campaign is having such a difficult time cleaning up after Biden’s comment. They can’t claim Biden is wrong (or they’ll seem out of touch), but they obviously can’t acknowledge he’s right.

The solution? Agree with Biden’s assessment that the middle class has been buried for the past four years, but blame it all on Bush:

“As the Vice President has been saying all year and again in his remarks today, the middle class was punished by the failed Bush policies that crashed our economy – and a vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is a return to those failed policies,” an Obama campaign official said. “With more than five million private-sector jobs created since 2010, the Vice President and President Obama will continue to help the middle class recover and move the nation forward.”

No surprise, Biden’s comment is barely registering with the mainstream press, except as evidence of how desperate the Romney campaign must be to make an issue out of it. After the media let Biden slide for his blatant racial pandering, what else would we expect? If Paul Ryan had made a similar allusion to slavery, the press would still be talking about it today (if he hadn’t been forced to drop out of the race, that is). Instead, Biden gets front-page investigations into whether he’s a “sex symbol.” Because, you know, it’s not like there’s any serious news to cover this week.

Read Less

Obama Won’t Keep Middle Class Tax Vow

In a transparent effort to pre-empt Republican arguments about tax cuts, President Obama unveiled a proposal today for a one-year cut for all Americans making less than $250,000 per year. While calculated to play well with his faux working class campaign rhetoric, the president’s plan makes no economic sense. Implementing a massive tax increase on those with the capital to invest it and therefore create jobs is not the sort of thing that will help a flagging economy. Nor will it do anything to stem the bleeding that creates job reports such as the one released last Friday that illustrated the country’s unemployment problem. But, as James Pethokoukis writes at the American Enterprise Blog, the president’s dare to Congress to pass such a plan or to implement a simpler tax code is pure political baloney.

As Pethokoukis points out, had he really wished to push through a simplification of the tax code, he could have endorsed the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations. More to the point, Obama’s predilection has always been to eliminate all the Bush-era tax cuts, including those on the middle class. If he is re-elected, he may well implement his promise of the continuation of the current rates on those making less than $250,000. But the significant element of this stance is that he is not promising to keep them for his entire second term but only for the first year.

Read More

In a transparent effort to pre-empt Republican arguments about tax cuts, President Obama unveiled a proposal today for a one-year cut for all Americans making less than $250,000 per year. While calculated to play well with his faux working class campaign rhetoric, the president’s plan makes no economic sense. Implementing a massive tax increase on those with the capital to invest it and therefore create jobs is not the sort of thing that will help a flagging economy. Nor will it do anything to stem the bleeding that creates job reports such as the one released last Friday that illustrated the country’s unemployment problem. But, as James Pethokoukis writes at the American Enterprise Blog, the president’s dare to Congress to pass such a plan or to implement a simpler tax code is pure political baloney.

As Pethokoukis points out, had he really wished to push through a simplification of the tax code, he could have endorsed the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations. More to the point, Obama’s predilection has always been to eliminate all the Bush-era tax cuts, including those on the middle class. If he is re-elected, he may well implement his promise of the continuation of the current rates on those making less than $250,000. But the significant element of this stance is that he is not promising to keep them for his entire second term but only for the first year.

The key point here is the same one that concerns those who worry about American foreign policy in a second Obama administration: flexibility. Just as the president will be able to implement more “flexible” policies that may please Russia and displease Israel, so, too, he is more likely than not to do what he has always planned on doing if re-elected: raise everybody’s taxes.

Indeed, once his job-killing health care bill is implemented in the next four years and the economy is mired in the doldrums without the White House putting forward any ideas other than to spend more, the president will have no choice but to raise taxes. And because soaking the rich will only get him so far, the middle class he is currently romancing is certain to be next in line.

Read Less

“Feel Your Pain” Strategy Won’t Work

Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg, James Carville and Erica Seifert issued a new memo late yesterday, warning the Obama campaign that its current strategy is doomed to fail. And they seem right about one thing: the Obama campaign is going to have a hard time convincing the public that the economy is on the path to recovery, especially with greater economic pitfalls looming.

The strategists argue that the Obama campaign should forget trying to make the case that the president’s economic policies are working. Instead, it should focus on its support and empathy for the middle class, and highlight how Mitt Romney’s policies would leave struggling Americans vulnerable during tough economic times:

It is elites who are creating a conventional wisdom that an incumbent president must run on his economic performance – and therefore must convince voters that things are moving in the right direction. They are wrong, and that will fail. The voters are very sophisticated about the character of the economy; they know who is mainly responsible for what went wrong and they are hungry to hear the president talk about the future. They know we are in a new normal where life is a struggle – and convincing them that things are good enough for those who have found jobs is a fool’s errand. They want to know the plans for making things better in a serious way – not just focused on finishing up the work of the recovery. …

But we underscore the sentiment they expressed in the postcards to the president they wrote at the end of the exercise: overwhelmingly, these voters want to know that he understands the struggle of working families and has plans to make things better.

Read More

Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg, James Carville and Erica Seifert issued a new memo late yesterday, warning the Obama campaign that its current strategy is doomed to fail. And they seem right about one thing: the Obama campaign is going to have a hard time convincing the public that the economy is on the path to recovery, especially with greater economic pitfalls looming.

The strategists argue that the Obama campaign should forget trying to make the case that the president’s economic policies are working. Instead, it should focus on its support and empathy for the middle class, and highlight how Mitt Romney’s policies would leave struggling Americans vulnerable during tough economic times:

It is elites who are creating a conventional wisdom that an incumbent president must run on his economic performance – and therefore must convince voters that things are moving in the right direction. They are wrong, and that will fail. The voters are very sophisticated about the character of the economy; they know who is mainly responsible for what went wrong and they are hungry to hear the president talk about the future. They know we are in a new normal where life is a struggle – and convincing them that things are good enough for those who have found jobs is a fool’s errand. They want to know the plans for making things better in a serious way – not just focused on finishing up the work of the recovery. …

But we underscore the sentiment they expressed in the postcards to the president they wrote at the end of the exercise: overwhelmingly, these voters want to know that he understands the struggle of working families and has plans to make things better.

This is the opposite of “hope and change.” The message proposed in the memo is inherently pessimistic: Economic struggle is the new normal. You need to be protected from it. President Obama will provide a safety net, while Mitt Romney will not.

It’s also inherently reactionary: Mitt Romney wants to bring change. His reforms pose a risk to your social welfare programs during dangerous economic times.

Carville, Greenberg, and the gang seem to want Obama to channel Clinton’s “I feel your pain” message. But there are a few problems. First, Obama isn’t Clinton when it comes to personal connection with voters. The focus group members in this memo wanted to know that Obama empathizes with them. But Obama has played plenty of lip service to the concerns of the middle class during the past year. If the public is wondering whether he understands their pain, that seems to suggest a deeper connection problem. Why aren’t they already convinced?

Second, focusing on empathy seems like it would be less effective for an incumbent, particularly one whose policies have utterly failed to revive the economy. Romney has a clean rebuttal: Obama may feel your pain, but what has he done about it? Maybe the president sympathizes with you in a campaign speech, but at the end of the day, where is he? Jetting off to fundraisers, with rich people and celebrities.

And when Obama had a chance to help you, what did he do? He pushed through ObamaCare, which will rack up more debt and kill more jobs. And he jammed through a failed stimulus, stuffed with billions in funding for pet projects. He might feel your pain, but he clearly has no clue what to do about it.

Sure, the economy may tank and we may be teetering on a fiscal cliff — but at least Obama will be there to hold your hand when we finally step over the edge.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.