Michelle Obama is in the news again.
It doesn't surprise us --- one of my writers has said for two years that the former First Lady would be on the ticket for 2020 --- but Michelle O is starting to take a higher profile now that doubts are being expressed more publicly about Joe Biden’s mental decline. We know that even if he makes it across the finish line to Election Day and (shudder) wins, the new VP will be taking his place soon in the Oval Office. Biden won’t be able to find the Oval Office, or tell an oval from a rectangle.
Putting Michelle –- or someone, but probably her –- in at the last minute was likely the plan all along. She’s black, she’s female, she's famous, there won't be much time to take a hard look, and for many Democrats and possibly independents, she puts an appealing and, yes, moderate face on the increasingly radical Democrat Party, a friendly image that they very badly need now. She’s been voted the Most Admired Woman in America, and even Most Admired worldwide! But Michelle Obama is NOT in the mainstream.
Watch, though, how she can take a leftist goal like income redistribution and skillfully finesse it to make it seem downright middle-of-the-road. Wednesday, in her new podcast (yes, she has a new podcast), she did just that in a conversation with Michele Norris. She called coronavirus an opportunity to think about “how wealth is distributed” to lower-income essential workers.
Read the transcript, and you’ll see how she lays the groundwork for “thinking” about wealth in a different way. “...We have to think about that [being essential],” she says, “in terms of how wealth is distributed.” As she goes on about this, it sounds so reasonable, so thoughtful, so compassionate, until you realize that the solution to this, in the mind of anyone on the left, will be a monstrous government program involving large-scale bureaucratically-calibrated income redistribution, with more pages of regulations than in Obamacare (which is a good real-world example of what I’m talking about).
Michelle even helps us understand why nothing in the budget is ever cut. “...All the things that we look to cut were put in place in response to some crisis.” I see. That’s why, once we have a government program, we can NEVER cut it. The crisis never goes away, so we always have to keep it as-is (or bigger).
More: “...We actually have power; we can...change so much of what we do, we can sacrifice a little more...we can shift priorities, and not just in our own lives, ‘cause IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST DO IT IN YOUR OWN LIFE IF YOU’RE NOT WILLING TO DO IT IN OUR BROADER POLICY.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, out of compassion, we have to force everyone to do what we would have them do. This kind of thinking can be used to rationalize all kinds of control and taken to tremendous lengths. Goodbye freedom.
"It’s in our country’s DNA to step up,” she says. But she warns that this is “always with great opposition, because you’re asking people to sacrifice, to give up things that, that they think they deserve, that they’re entitled to, for the sake of the greater good.”
See how she subtly suggests that the “opposition” is against personal sacrifice and the greater good? Why, some people are just selfish, that’s what they are, thinking they deserve things. We’ll decide who deserves things! And to do that, we’ll have to force everyone into a “broader policy.”
Beware. Someone with this kind of skill, teamed with the more pushy radicals like AOC and "the Squad," could take control of just about everything in your life. Trump 2020!