Far from espousing some sort of conspiracy theory, Marco Rubio is simply stating the obvious but overlooked truth when he says that Barack Obama is deliberately trying to change this country. This is
what Marco meant in the now-infamous debate moment where he insisted repeatedly that President Obama is not simply inept but rather "knows what he is doing."
When then Senator Obama ran in 2008, part of his campaign slogan was "change we can believe in." Since then, President Obama has been successful in changing a variety of things. He increased government intervention in health care, for example, with the Affordable Care Act. Further, he ordered his justice department to cease defending DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act), which precipitated a top-down redefinition of marriage throughout the country. He has also sought to change American foreign policy by making it less aggressive (in the interest of full disclosure, I have often, though not always, supported the Obama administration's foreign policy posture, but hardly ever its domestic policies. I have hope that Marco would also not be prone to aggression, even though he does want to rebuild the military. Such a desire is not equivalent to aggression, in my book).
Marco Rubio understands that President Obama has been deliberately trying to redefine some of the basic values of the United States domestically, and that is what I want to focus on. Further, he understands that this redefinition will continue under Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Sanders, for one, openly talks about
making us more like Scandinavia.
What are these values, then, that President Obama and some other up-and-coming democrats are trying to change? If you will stay with me, I will try to explain my sense of the problem.
The United States has been the largest change agent in the world in the past one hundred years. It is hard to argue against this point when this is the country that brought us the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the lunar landing, the personal computer, and so much more in the way of technological innovation. But technology does not even begin to encapsulate the United States' influence: in the political sphere, it defeated Japanese imperialism and provided the critical mass necessary to defeat Hitler, along with successfully containing communist expansion until that oppressive system of government dropped out of the running for world domination. Largely with the help of the United States, the United Nations was founded, and through the influence of that body the values of human rights have now become so normative in the world that even dictators pretend to uphold them. The world has greatly benefited from the profusion of technology and ideas that has emerged from this immensely productive society, the United States of America.
Meanwhile, Europe remains a "nice place to live." In fact, in many aspects it is a "nicer" place than the United States.
Denmark is often rated the happiest country in the world by psychologists, and it is full of Bernie Sanders' "democratic socialism." Yet where do we see Denmark, or Scandinavia, changing the way we think and do things? They have great companies, yes, but from what I've seen, they are mostly great at doing the things that have already been done--or making incremental, measured improvements on those things. Their societies may be rated "happy" because people are content, but contentment is not the ultimate happiness. In America, we have often dared to aspire higher, and we've pulled the rest of mankind with us.
Essentially, what we have before us is the gritty, risky choice between comfort and the possibility of greatness. Each of us has to make that same choice in our own lives, so we should know how it feels. It is the choice between starting a company you feel passionate about, or pushing aside those feelings to take the safer route and work for someone else. It is the choice between going to college to pursue expensive higher education in a field you are passionate about--or just sticking with your current job because it is comfortable.
America--and individual Americans--have often chosen the bolder, riskier path. That is what has produced the tidal wave of innovation and inspiration that has come from this great country. And now, we are being asked by the likes of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders to ease our way into retirement (although they don't see it that way). Having done our great work, should we now retire and become like every other country?
The fact is that socialism--or approaches towards socialism--rob us of the values of personal responsibility and freedom, which are necessary to continue on the path of great achievements. Our health care system may be expensive, but it is also extremely innovative because it has the freedom to operate competitively. We may have large income inequality, but we also have large numbers of entrepreneurs that jump from low income brackets to high income brackets, because they take a personal risk and then give their all towards achieving their goal. That is the difference between us and Europe--the American dream was never a promise that everyone would be cared for, but rather a promise that everyone would be allowed to care for themselves. If we change our philosophy, our results will also change.
That said, the "invisible hand" of economics is not perfect. There is a place for some government assistance programs, such as in education, which is the great equalizer. I agree with Bernie Sanders on the basic premise that something must be done about student debt. I agree that some help for unemployment is justified, because "getting a job" in our society is an artificially long and drawn-out affair (if the invisible hand were perfect, we would be instantly matched with a company that wanted our skills, and we wouldn't have all the time-consuming issues of the hiring-firing process).
In the end, policy is complex because the world isn't perfect. Some government intervention is necessary. However, it is essential, if we want to continue to do great things, that we have a president who believes in the principles that make us great. I believe that Marco is smart enough to manage the complex issues while still pushing us in the right direction. And I believe he is right about the direction that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders are taking us. In the end, its a choice between more or less agency. Agency was never risk free, and it is certainly less comfortable than giving away some of that agency to someone else. But in the end, only agency carries the seeds of greatness.
