President Obama Unfairly Defines ‘Fairness’

February 25, 2018

President Obama Unfairly Defines ‘Fairness’

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

President  Obama showed his true colors while giving his lecture last week in Osawatomie,  Kansas to an audience which included high school kids, at a high school.  In the future, if  Obama wishes to be taken seriously, he may best serve himself by limiting his  speaking engagements to that of only high school age kids or younger, as even  the Washington Post  is calling him out on some of the un-truths in  his speech.  Fortunately, most of those kids will be unable to vote in the  next election.

The  President wasted no time launching into his class-warfare rhetoric and tossed  around the word “fairness” the same way a five-year-old in a toy store would  after learning from his mother that they were only there to buy a gift for some  other child.

What  child in his or her right mind would be against the idea of fairness for  all?  The problem is that Obama only appealed to their emotions and failed  to define his version of “fairness” in a way that the kids in the audience would  be able to clearly understand.  If he had done so, I doubt he would have  left the gymnasium with a passing grade from those kids.

While  discussing his grandparents President Obama said:

They  believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was  rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no  matter where you came from, no matter how you started  out.

If  he truly wanted those high school kids to understand that statement and the  others in his speech, he should have used their school grades as an analogy for  wealth, as grades are the main “fruits of their labor” at this point in their  young lives.

America’s  founding principles of limited government and free market capitalism are responsible for creating the  highest standard of living on earth.  Using the same formula, students all  have an equal opportunity to work hard within the rules to earn their GPA and their wealth is the  knowledge that they gain in the process.  What the system doesn’t guarantee  is that there will be an equality of outcome, as everyone has different talents,  motivations and desires.  That’s why you end up with a top 1% that has  perfect grades, a bottom percentage that gets all “F’s” and everything else in  between.

Under  Obama’s definition of “fairness” it is unfair that those who have  achieved the highest marks get to keep all of their GPA.  Who really needs  a 4.0 GPA anyway?  At some point don’t you have enough “A’s”?  Just as  Obama thinks wealth should be “spread around” the same case could be made for  taking a percentage of the over achievers’ GPA and giving it to those students  that are less fortunate.  Not doing so would be unfair under  Obama’s definition of the word.  This video does a great job in teaching this  point.

In  Obama’s world there are only a limited number of “A’s” (dollars) available to  “spread around” and the 4.0 students (the wealthy 1%) have unfairly taken and  are hoarding those “A’s” to the detriment of all of the other students out  there.  This flawed thinking doesn’t take into account human nature and the  fact that wealth is created with a growing economy (as Steve Jobs surely could  have taught these kids) just as expanded knowledge and good grades are created  when more students choose to work harder for their own self  interest.

Obama  wrongly implies that the capitalist system doesn’t work because there are  imperfections — that there is not an equality of outcome.  History has  proven that at an extreme, attempting to achieve “fairness” as defined by Obama  has unfairly resulted in the murders of over 100 million men, women and  children just in the twentieth century alone.  For those that require  visual aids: placed end-to-end the bodies would circle the globe more than four  times.  And how is Obama’s version of “fairness”, in its lesser extreme,  working out for the EU right now?  Our own current economic malaise is the  result of the implementation of Obama’s brand of “fairness” over the last 100  years and it has been greatly accelerated over the last three years.  Human  nature is never inserted into the Left’s equations and as Rush has said many  times: the Left only wishes to be judged on their intentions and never the  results of said intentions.

Sure,  it is possible to find examples of  students with 4.0 GPA’s that have  received their high marks due to cheating or other improprieties, but that in no  way prevents other students from improving their own lot if they are free to  choose to due so.  Attempting to create “fairness” by taking from the over  achievers and giving it to the under achievers will eventually result in low  grades (standards of living) for all except those that dole out the  “fairness”.

Due  to that inconvenient little thing called human nature, the under achievers will  just give up trying because they understand that it will be given to  them anyway.  The over achievers will no longer try (and gradually join  ranks with the under achievers) because they know it will be taken from  them anyway.  And the craftiest cheaters will become the “teachers pets”  (cronyism) because government control won’t change human  nature.

Given  the chance, even a child can understand that “fairness” does not involve taking  what is not yours.


Speak Your Mind