Obama's Offensive Rhetoric

For quite some time now, the government has been manipulating the citizenry of America through propaganda and empty rhetoric. One cutting example of this in mainstream politics is the rhetoric espoused by Barack Obama on concepts such as "hope" or "change." To talk about hope properly, there must be an event or ideal for which you hope. To talk about change there must be a separate path which you wish to pursue. In Obama's rhetoric, no such logicality exists. Take this quote for example:

"In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?" -Barack Obama

The above statement is a good example of empty government rhetoric. Using a rather commonplace definition of politics as the affairs and activities of government, the statement above translates to government activities of hope or government activities of cynicism. But do either of those make any sense?

To disassemble this sample of rhetoric, we must first examine the proper role of a government. A proper government should exist minimally and only enforce Natural Law. People will be protected from coercion from others and nothing else. There would be no regulation of wealth and the government would stay out of the affairs of the people. There is no good example of a truly proper government in existence in the world today. Nevertheless, that is the kind of government the US constitution was written to create.

Now that we have (briefly) defined a government as it should be, we can analyze how such a government could ever have policies of cynicism or hope. Would a government that adheres to Natural Law have to worry about trust? Would that government have to worry about hoping to improve the condition of its constituency?

If you couldn't deduce the logical answer to the two questions posed above, that answer is no. That government would just worry about the preservation of freedom and the shrinking of government. It would not have legislation that it hopes will work. It would not create policy out of distrust of the citizens (policies such as gun control). It would not engage in either of the politics presented by Senator Obama. In fact, it probably would never put up with a senator who preaches totalitarianism and Marxist economics. The sad part of it is, we'll elect that senator to higher office.