Obama knows how to campaign. He knows he needs to sound positive. He knows he needs to encourage Americans. He knows he needs to promise to solve problems.
But this kind of stuff keeps slipping out of his mouth. “Voting is the best revenge.” This is what he told crowds when they booed Romney’s name. “No, no, no — don’t boo, vote.” Casting a vote for Obama against Romney is a more effective means of vengeance?
Vengeance for what?
Obama wasn’t talking to people in Massachusetts, so his audience couldn’t possibly claim to have been hurt by some policy for which Romney is responsible. If Romney had been president of the United States these last four years, and he was now running for re-election, and Obama was the first-time challenger, then it would make sense to say that “voting is the best revenge.” But Romney has been the governor of Massachusetts and it is Obama who has been President. If anyone would be justified in saying that “voting is the best revenge,” it would be Romney.
But if he did so, the Mainstream media would have jumped all over him.
The only other way to understand the statement is to read Romney as a representative of George W. Bush. Presumably Obama is talking to his supporters. He presented them as the solution to Bush in 2008. He made promises. He got elected. How is there room, this far after the election, to “get back” at Bush? If Obama had an excuse to tell people to vote for revenge, the election in 2008 would make more sense (relatively speaking). But Obama didn’t allow such words to come out of his mouth back then.
Furthermore, Obama said then that if he didn’t turn the economy around in four years he would be out of a job. So shouldn’t his own words really apply to him? Shouldn’t we want revenge on him for making promises he didn’t or couldn’t keep.
But I suspect more than this, is Obama’s redistributionist agenda. Based on economic facts and on historical experience, we know that “spread the wealth” schemes really end up being “increase the misery” plans. The poor become worse off. But the frightening thing is that, for some people, such misery is worth it as long as they know they have hurt someone else at least a little bit. Obama knows that increasing taxes on the rich will not help his huge national debt problem. But he wants it anyway. It doesn’t matter if nothing positive results as long as the “wealthy” are hurt just a little more.
Back in 1924 Dr. Alice Hamilton, an assistant to Jane Addams, went to visit the Soviet Union and then stopped in Paris on her was back to America. She wrote about how it felt to be in Paris after visiting Russia:
“though I love to see gayety again and to have comfort and ease, there are lot of things in Moscow that are finer. It is fine to see people all alike plain and shabby, never to see a flapper or a woman with a made-up face…to see no rich people and few abjectly poor.”
A few paupers are acceptable as long as we’ve eliminated the rich. I think resentment of wealth is at the bottom of Obama’s recent words. We need revenge on Mitt Romney because he is relatively wealthy.
And voting is the best revenge.