The “haves” or the “have nots”?
I recently came across a video from television reporter John Stossel which was recorded in 2015. It was titled, “Playing the Victim,” whereby he examined how politicians cultivated “victims” as supporters, particularly among Democrats. To illustrate, he showed how Hillary Clinton painted her supporters as “victims” while on her campaign trail for president. For example, she insisted all women, particularly those of color, are all being suppressed and victimized by others. Make no mistake, victimhood is an integral part of the Democrats’ platform.
Actually, this is a trick Democrats have used for many years and is a part of identity politics. They contend only their party can correct the situation on the victim’s behalf, that the people cannot do it themselves, which is why politicians need their support. Over the years, we have heard politicians promise “two chickens in every pot,” “a car in every driveway,” and even “40 acres and a mule.” The message is clear, their lower station in life is due to others, not themselves, and only the Democrats will protect them.
Taking such a position can be quite harmful to egos, and establishes a master/slave relationship. Instead of encouraging people to work harder and try to prosper, they simply pit “the haves” versus “the have nots,” thereby unfairly creating animosity between the classes, sexes and races.
Think about it, I’m sure we are all aware of people who know how to play the victim card. They adamantly believe someone else is always at fault for their problems and never assume responsibility for their own actions. In their minds, they are never guilty, never at fault, and never wrong. In reality, it is just the opposite. Such a mindset denotes a severe inferiority complex and hinders motivation and ambition. Therefore, they rely on others to tell them what to do, if for no other reason than to have someone else to blame when things go awry.
I have also found such people to be socially maladjusted, tending to act on perceptions as opposed to reality, something they have trouble coping with and explains why they are easy prey for politicians.
The antithesis are people who assume responsibility for their actions and try to improve their station in life. These are the people Democrats point at in terms of causing the problems for the “have nots.” Interestingly, it is the “haves” who ultimately pay for the “have nots” through taxes.
So, who are the real victims here, the “have nots” who have been taught to feel entitled to freebies, or the “haves” who work and pay taxes to care for the “have nots”?
This explains why the “haves” want smaller government, and the “have nots” want bigger a la Democrat promises. All because they have become convinced by the Democrats they are victims.
Keep the Faith!
P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.
EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.