Unfortunately you either didn’t hear the entire speech or didn’t notice where Obama changed directions. He said “If you had a business, you didn’t build that.” Was he referring to roads and bridges? No.
I did read some of the speech. I think he was referring to roads and bridges.
Obama:
There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.
We both agree that it is ludicrous that he would be saying people do not build their own businesses. But just prior to that he mentions roads and bridges, and says “that” not “it”. So the obvious responsible interpretation is that he meant the necessary infrastructure of a modern society was not built by present-day entrepreneurs, and government plays an important role in providing and organizing infrastructure.
Further please tell me how roads and bridges mean the difference between someone with personal initiative and someone who doesn’t make the effort? We all have access to the same public infrastructure and indeed it’s easier to build a business in the USA with our paved roads than in Afghanistan with it’s dusty trails. But not everyone succeeds in this country despite its many blessings and opportunities.
Infrastructure doesn’t make any difference as to who win or loses-- but without public infrastructure, everyone loses I’m afraid.
Further not everyone is dealt a good hand in the brains, health, and energy department. I get that. But why does Obama seem to always try to demean individual success rather than see this as the opportunity to bring everyone up? How many jobs and how much wealth are created by a Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs (great name huh?)? To give credit to roads and bridges for their success is not only petty, it’s demoralizing. We should applaud success and try to inspire everyone to take the opportunities given to them. Instead Obama focuses on blaming others, excusing failures as society’s fault, and not giving people the opportunity for earned success.
I just don’t understand the appeal of his argument
Or you simply misinterpret the argument.
Sometimes people argue too forcefully for an important ideal they feel is on the wane, especially in politics, even more so in an election year. Reagan’s rhetoric appealed to conservative ideals, scared the dickens out of the left, but once in office he governed closer to the middle. The world didn’t end.
Obama could have been a more activist president the first 2 years, but he really disappointed the far left as he tried to govern moderately (and a bit too cautiously IMHO). There was no revolution, and that’s a good thing.
Obama believes in entrepreneurship, initiative and a market economy, just that some imbalances exist, and the role of government is under attack by relatively new libertarian/randian influences from the far right. Fringe extremism from both sides produces the sharp rhetoric and ultimately the distrust in the mainstream of both sides.
