A Patronizing President

President Obama must not be a student of history.

In a speech given to the Center for American Progress pushing for an increase in the minimum wage (threseveneforty dollars per hour!) he came up with this gem:

“This shouldn’t be an ideological question. You know, it was Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, who once said, they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves, to be well-fed, clothed and lodged,” he continued. “For those of you who don’t speak old English, let me translate: It means if you work hard, you should make a decent living.”

Lord.

Where to begin?

First off, for a man of alleged great oratorical skills, I think it's about high time he drops the 'you knows.'

Call me a stickler.

Onto Adam Smith.

Adam Smith's philosophy on economics was classically liberal; that is to say, not whatever Obama espouses.  To those who are not familiar with classical liberalism, to get a contemporary idea it finds a strong ally in modern conservatism and libertarianism.

Which, by the way,  the left spends a lot of time dismissing as "impractical" and even "extreme." Heck, I've even read liberals mock the 'invisible hand' analogy put forth by Smith. In the Democrat base, you'll find more in common with Marxism than you will Adam Smith. After all, Adam Smith represented the very system that is charged with the crime of creating so much misery - including income inequality. Capitalism, for the record, has been the single most successful economic system ever used by man. It's made more people wealthy and pulled more out of poverty than leftists care to admit. That's why they focus on "deaths due to capitalism" while neglecting the success which dwarfs any imperfections in the system. Those imperfections, I might add and argue, are sometimes due to cronyism supported by government action.

Furthermore, Smith would scoff at the constant calls for higher taxation and regulation (again, supported by Democrats) that in the end only discourage economic activity and growth.

Little or nothing in the writings of economist during the Age of Reason find much in common with the modern progressive movement. Smith would not approve of the government intervening in the economy.

Which is why it's astonishing President Obama would invoke Smith.

I can't for the life of me see or find anything in his policies or vapid outtakes on finance and economics remotely comes within an earshot of men like Smith, Bastiat etc.

That's the whole point of people like me who take issue with the modern progressive movement.

Finally, he takes an awfully patronizing tone in the final part.

Only he gets it all wrong.

Smith didn't write in "old English."  He only missed by, I don't know, five centuries?

It's not even "middle English." In fact, it was more along the lines of neo-classical. That is, modern.

Oh, but T.C. we all know he meant "old" English as in "old." Whatever. I don't give a shit.

He misused the phrase. Plain and simple. Any person with a remedial grasp (and respect) for the English language and history would be aware of this.

I'm gonna go with this was a lame ass attempt at the President trying to sound like a free-market individual while playing amateur historian. Only problem is the speech was a call for government action.

By all means, increase the minimum wage. Mariginalize low-skilled and inexperienced workers. Interfere. Be our guest.

Just don't purposely or ignorantly invoke Adam Smith while dragging classical liberal thought in the mud. This is tantamount to defamation. 

***

I don't know who's worse. Obama for his lousy history analogies and claims to be classical liberal or the coy Jean-Francois Lisee asserting his philosophical (if you want to call it that) outlook is in the Jeffersonian tradition.

Both are outrageous claims that don't stand up to the facts of history.

***

For the President I present Modern English!