So whereas the Reagan transformation of the country, the trajectory that Reagan moved our country to was one of conservatism, one where the trajectory was toward smaller government, lower taxes, private sector boom determining whether or not the economy was growing, government deemphasized — Reagan didn’t get a lot done in terms of shrinking government. He wanted to, obstacles everywhere. Is a very tough thing to do, but we were moving in that direction. And more importantly, the voters were of that mind.
Reagan won two landslides on the premise that government was the problem, that government had to be deemphasized in people’s lives, that people’s lives were improved greatly by virtue of their own self-investment and self-worth. Obama wants no part of that. He wants to eliminate that. He’s written about Reagan and his minions, quote, unquote, in his books. He’s been openly disdainful of Reagan’s policies. He’s been very admiring, though, of Reagan and what he was able to do. And so Obama now wants to codify an exact opposite transformation and a trajectory toward government being the central thing in everybody’s life.
That everybody’s life will be Julia, that cartoon. That every meaningful step in an individual’s life will occur after an interaction with government. That the citizen will basically turn his life over to the government, turn his prosperity, to the extent that he’ll have any, his security, his economic well-being, will be turned over to the government. This is what Obama seeks. I first mentioned this in the last three months of last year, when, to me, it became obvious that this is what Obama’s objective was. And, of course, this is an objective shared by many in the media. Now, I mentioned that the political director at CBS, John Dickerson, had written a piece. Here it is.