Home › Elections › Elections Opinion
Paulson: Dream earned, not given
This fall, vote for party that can help you achieve it
Download this story as a podcast!
ELECTIONS '08
Check out our one stop for all the information and news you need to be ready for to cast your vote.
Election Central »
Elections stories » Star endorsements »
STORY TOOLS
More from Elections Opinion
While the parties work to pick their candidates, citizens need to carefully think through the ultimate issues that will determine their November votes. One issue worth exploring: Do you want a government based on ensuring equal opportunity or providing equal outcomes?
The Democrats, stressing change and unity, are calling for equal outcomes for all. They feel all Americans are entitled to healthcare, a living wage, affordable mortgages, jobs that won't go away because of foreign competition and a government committed to meeting every "need."
To ensure equal outcomes, Democrats promise to enforce "unequal" tax obligations on "rich" citizens. Democrats promote more government solutions — freeze mortgage payments, make companies and "rich" taxpayers pay for health insurance, make "greedy" pharmaceuticals provide drugs at a cost Americans want to pay and keep raising the minimum wage until citizens are paid what they think they're worth.
They'll ensure jobs by making it hard to fire and difficult for companies to close unprofitable plants. Of course, more government employees must be hired to make the regulations and ensure compliance. Now, don't worry about those businesses or the "rich"; they can afford it!
Punishing the strong and successful doesn't help the weak; poor people don't hire anyone. The Republican Party has always affirmed that the strength of America comes from its citizens, not its government. The American dream isn't an entitlement or a right; it's to be earned anew in each generation.
Instead of promising equal outcomes, America has always been about ensuring the equal opportunity to "pursue happiness." Optimism doesn't come from political promises; true optimism is earned the way it has always been earned — by each citizen overcoming obstacles on the way to success.
As Democrats campaign on confiscating more from wealthy Americans to give relief to "working Americans," consider Abraham Lincoln's caution: "I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else."
Lincoln understood what most liberals don't appreciate. In a creative, capitalistic society, there is no real war between capital and labor. The American dream allows movement between the classes.
In America, data support that the same person can provide both capital and labor at different stages of their lives. There will always be poor, but 95 percent who started poor don't remain poor. Many aspiring workers work hard to save, then to invest and ultimately to become entrepreneurs or owners of capital that works for them to create their own wealth.
These new "capitalists" provide the capital, the entrepreneurs and the jobs that fuel new opportunities for new workers to earn the money to save, to invest and to fuel new dreams.
Capital needs labor willing to work, spend and save; labor needs applied capital willing to take a risk on new dreams. Both need a government that will ensure that Americans remain free to makes dreams happen and to reap the rewards from their hard work. Lincoln knew what every conservative believes — the future of America rests in the people, not the politicians.
At the 1992 Republican Convention, Ronald Reagan shared his secret for attracting Democratic votes: "I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence, rather than your doubts."
As a past labor leader, his rock-solid confidence in all Americans connected. "I'm not taking your time this evening to ask you to trust me. Instead, I ask you to trust yourself. That is what America is all about. ... It's the power of millions of people like you who will determine what will make America great again."
As always, making the American dream work is work. Life is difficult. Companies open, and companies close. Some careers thrive; others are no longer necessary. There are and will always be obstacles, but, with focused efforts, people can and do succeed. This isn't a populist message that fits well in 15-second political ads, but it's a message that is critical to the future of America.
In November, vote the party that believes in you and your potential to earn your American dream.
— Terry Paulson of Agoura Hills is a psychologist, speaker, author and host to the politicaltalk.org blog. Contact him at terry@terrypaulson.com.
Posted by cassandra on February 18, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Confiscating" wealth? Oh, those poor rich people and corporations.
The philosophy that constructed the mess we are in is being touted as its solution.
I'm reading Joe Bageant's "Deer Hunting with Jesus" right now and he makes hash out of this panglossian bleep and he's very funny. Try it.
Why are the Star's local columnists so freaking lame?
Posted by mohadib on February 18, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Terry. Well said. The best way to keep America strong is to create a society of equal opportunity. The outcome is up to the personal drive and effort of the individual. A society based on equal outcome never works because it takes away from the human spirit the drive to strive and fulfill one's dreams.
Posted by Jacksprat on February 18, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He quotes Lincoln, by picking and choosing the comments, However Lincoln was for the common man, he was for equal as much as could be done in that day and time.
The Republican who tried to follow Lincoln as much as Possible was TR Roosevelt. He went after big business, worked hard for the little man, got the 40 hour week required, stoped child labor, when after the food producers and did all he could to save the great parts of the country with more parks and stopping the cutting of trees by the big lumber companies. We need another Republic like this one. The Republican party is a long way from the party of Lincoln and TR.
Posted by cassandra on February 18, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Aw, yes, think how much the human spirit thrives with no health insurance and the chance to work in toxic and dangerous conditions. http://www.counterpunch.org/nader0216.... Think how much one can strive to fulfill one's dreams without being able to afford higher education.
Of course, one can always go into the service if one can't get a job with Wal-mart like Jessica Lynch. Or the unheroic and perhaps more tragic Lindy English who only wanted money for college but committed the grave crime of being photographed while abusing prisoners as she was instructed.
And there's always another war, particularly now that we've hit peak oil and most of the remainder belongs to the "Islamofascists."
What a party! And the Dems are so much different, aren't they?
Once there was a Republican Party LEADING progressive reforms, not blocking them. What would Hiram Johnson think of Tom Delay, do you think?
Posted by lmaxson on February 18, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The party of Lincoln ceased shortly after the end of the civil war. Even Theodore Roosevelt had to leave it because it had become what Lincoln didn't have in mind.
I find it strange that this article appears concurrently with another about the advantage of tax cuts to the rich. You would think an accountant would question why if you reduced someone's taxes, they would end up contributing more in income tax. The obvious answer lies in their receiving a disproportionate increase in income relative to the remaining population. Thus the benefits defy the "trickle down" theory of the conservatives. The "trickle up" appears more like a gusher.
Paulson doesn't understand equal opportunity any more than a level playing field in the free enterprise system, both of which conservatives regard as hindrances to their goals. Paulson plays to his conservative audience which I assume pays his way. Thus he does not have to think through the consequences of his statements or even to their validity as long as the money keeps coming in.
The Star may have downgraded his column to an "essay", but I personally would prefer "partisan opinion", certainly one far afield from "fair and balanced". He remains in tune with the Faux News in that respect.
Posted by cassandra on February 18, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And for a little real information from a real economist:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opi...
Posted by sslocal on February 18, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, I guess this article hit a sore spot in some of you.
The fact is, whether you like it or not, in a free society you are free to either fail or succeed. This is all based upon what you achive as an individual. Not what the Gov. in its kindness, decides that we need.
Dispite cassandra's ravings we do not need a large Gov. ruling over us but a smaller Gov. willing to let us be what we want to be.
Posted by cassandra on February 18, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd argue with you SS, but I'm an intellectual snob.
Read a book, why don't you.
Posted by sslocal on February 18, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Been reading all weekend.
You don't need to argue with me cassandra, I already know what you will say.
Posted by cassandra on February 18, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I'm on the subject of reading basic material, classic economist Ricardo tells it like it is. With FULL employment, the worker will have only SUBSISTENCE income, which we are free to have, of course if we want.
Maybe a little governmental fiddling with the system might be in order?
Naw, that will only mess up the human spirit.
Posted by sslocal on February 18, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Every law, every rule that is made is another small piece of our freedom gone. Maybe the Gov. should spend a session or two getting rid of a few laws that stand in the way of exercising our freedom.
But no, that would be giving away to much power wouldn't it?
Posted by MerquiseOperatic on February 18, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, every single law is an infringement of freedoms. Quite obviously, we need to return to hunter-gatherer society where someone can steal anything you own and kill you without reprimand. Let's go back to the laissez-faire economic policies of the late 19th Century where laborers worked for dismal wages over 12 hours a day in horrid conditions for the sake of billionaire monopoly owners. Let's bring back presidents like Calvin Coolidge because the government obviously can't fix anything like the Great Depression like total nonaction could.
Think about it for a second. The government ensures the freedom of the lower and middle classes from the abuses of the upper class. What precisely do you imagine would happen without laws? Panglossianism doesn't hold true in reality.
Posted by mikeb6804 on February 18, 2008 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassie---not an intellectual snob, an intellectual drip. Hate to say it, but you are so far out to lunch, noone can ever convince you otherwise. Still anti-military, I see. Many enlisteds have you far outdone in terms of logical thinking ability. I'm getting real tired of your ravings.
Posted by marketrealist on February 19, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Paulson wants us to believe that he is proposing equal opportunity. Well, it would be equal unless you consider that the billions the government gives in perks and benefits to the rich that is grossly unequal.
The farm bill still pours billions into the hands of the rich agribusiness. The oil industry subsidies still benefit the corporations with huge profits. The defence industry still lobbies for porkbarrel spending on military hardware that even the generals don't want or need. And the tax laws - well, they are a joke. Yachts can be written off as second homes and the rich have loopholes that allow them to pay far lower tax rates than the average working class person.
There are more lobbyists in Washington than lawmakers and they keep the money machine spinning in favor of the status quo. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class are lulled into complacency by the likes of Paulson.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.