While many may attempt to tell us they pay no attention to polls, I have one thing to say: I don’t believe them. They do pay attention. The more pressing question is whether or not people act upon polls — and whether politicians actually govern by them.
From my limited vantage point, that’s been obvious the past month. With ongoing, bipartisan criticism of Obamacare — and its flawed rollout, higher premiums, false promises, etc. — the President’s approval rating has fallen to the lowest point of his presidency. The White House has thus attempted to change the subject; they have returned to the primary, passionate subjects that initially propelled Obama to office. There seems intent to rally the base, his most passionate partisan supporters, since his approval numbers have dropped significantly even among them.
Note that this poll-driven tactic of rallying one’s base is by no means indigenous to Obama. I have little doubt that if it was a Republican president whose support was eroding, we would be hearing him on FOX News talking about cutting taxes. Instead, we’re hearing Obama on MSNBC talking about income inequality. My question isn’t in regard to drumming up support for a passionate, partisan cause; my question is in regard to the logic behind such cause…
Isn’t it interesting that when we want to sway people to our side, we package perspective in a way it sounds best? From fantastic food to super savings to magnanimous, wonderful, wise whatever, products and policies are always promoted in a way that makes them sound most pleasing and persuasive. Hence, in the past decade, we have been lured by a newfound focus on fairness and equality… foreclosure fairness, the Marketplace Fairness Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fairness Doctrine… ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act. I am not proposing that any of the above is or is not a wise pursuit; I am simply suggesting that utilizing the words “fairness” and “equality” is an intentional tactic designed to persuade. Who among us would not desire to be equal or fair?
So in order to comprehend the challenge inherent within income inequality — as currently promoted — we must first move past the rhetoric. The reality is that poverty is significant on this planet, and the compassionate, wise person has what I believe to be a calling to care for them. The challenge, however, is when government mandates the means of that calling for the masses.
To support the current income inequality cause, people are pitted against one another: the rich vs. the poor. There is a strong suggestion and belief that if the rich weren’t as rich, then the poor wouldn’t be as poor — that success only stems from the expense of another. There is a belief that wealth is limited, and thus, if it could simply be a little more redistributed, then life would finally be fair.
What I’m not always certain of is whether the intentional “pitting” is based on persuasion ploys or true belief. Undoubtedly, when 2 groups are pitted against each other (i.e. Yankees vs. Red Sox, Duke vs. North Carolina, or Arabs vs. Israelis), we tend to more passionately favor one and denigrate the other.
The challenge within this argument then is that such assumes that wealth and money are equated. Friends, wealth and money are not the same; money is a form of wealth. Wealth can be manifested in a product or service or effort that adds value to someone else. Wealth can then be traded for what the wealth creator needs or desires. Hence, to assume that the “gain” of one is reflected in an identical “loss” of another — that his success only stems from that expense of the other — is a false concept of an economic transaction. Furthermore, in my opinion, it is an illogical basis for the argument currently utilized to fight income inequality.
I do realize that the above discussion is undoubtedly incomplete. It is also not offered without a genuine, gut-wrenching awareness of our ongoing need to care for the “least of these.” But my point today is that the current call to combat income inequality — potentially driven by a drop in the polls — is based on incomplete logic… and possibly upon increased rhetoric and persuasion.
Respectfully… always…
AR