Republicans and Democrats in today’s culture have two different “guiding themes” by which they are measured. The Republicans are known to be the people of smaller government and more self destiny. The Democrats are the ones with government solutions to problems.
In reality, both of these parties differ only in degrees. Certainly the Democrats want to have more government than the Republicans, but the Republicans have been catching up—especially as they had almost exclusive power during most of President Bush’s time in office.
As a person that believes that government is the solution and not the problem, it’s damaging when something like this comes out:
[A] Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies – including several hundred in Obama’s former district – deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.
Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted. 1
Why is this a problem? Because this was Sen. Barak Obama’s district and it was in shambles. Without trying to overstate the obvious, the question on voters’ minds is—he promised these districts money—procured them money, but the money ended up lining people’s pockets.
Unlike some of the things that he has been able to dodge in the past, this is directly tied to him. It was his actions. It was his district. It was his friends.
I’m afraid that this also illustrates the point about government solutions. The problem with them—be they in Chicago or in Africa—is that when governments throw money at problems and set up managers, it’s hard to make sure that the managers are spending it efficiently. These guys proved that they were no better than third world dictators.
Is this really the kind of change that we need?
- Hat Tip: Ann Althouse