I’ve always thought that most of the words and actions of Michael Moore were off-base, if not actually damaging. His latest goof-ball words are found in a public open letter to Caroline Kennedy. He praises her for her charitable work, and calls her one of the most beloved and respected women in this country. He says that she would be the best candidate for vice-president as the running mate for Barack Obama, and he asks her to come forward and say that she is willing to accept that mantle of “public service”. Well, Mister Moore, Caroline Kennedy may be a generally nice woman, who has done much charitable work. However, she sometimes does that at the expense of the United States’ taxpayers, and one example of that follows:
Caroline Kennedy is one of the founders of the Profiles in Courage award, named after the book her father president Kennedy had published. According to this web site, the award is given annually to a person who exemplifies the type of courage examined in her father’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book. The award is generally given to elected officials who, acting in accord with their conscience, risk their careers by pursuing a “larger vision” of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or powerful pressures from their constituents. Caroline Kennedy usually participates in the actual award ceremony, and is one of the few people who select the award winner. I have always been appalled by the selection of most of the award winners because many of the elected officials got the award because, as mentioned above, they took action which was contrary to the wishes of their constituents ! Talk about hubris and the elite! One of the award winners was Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. of Connecticut. He ran for governor of Connecticut in 1990. At that time, according to this article, the most volatile issue facing Connecticut was the attempt to implement a broad-based state income tax. Connecticut traditionally had no state income tax except for a fairly steep one imposed on “unearned income” such as interest and dividends. Weicker ran on a platform of solving Connecticut’s fiscal crisis by not advocating the broad-based income tax, to include the taxation of earned income. He won the election, and it was said that he won it mostly because he was publicly against this proposed tax. However, shortly after his inauguration, Weicker reversed his position and became an advocate of the tax that he had campaigned against. Liberal forces applauded his “political courage” and his willingness to “face reality,” while conservative forces were equally quick to denounce him in no uncertain terms as a “liar” and a “traitor.” And it was for that “courage” that Caroline Kennedy awarded him the “Profiles in Courage” award. What absoulte elitism ! Yep, an elected official wins election because he promises not to implement a proposed tax, and yet once elected he pushes for the tax, and in effect through his efforts succeeds in getting the tax implemented, despite the wishes of the majority of the voters. And that is called “courage”? For which Caroline Kennedy thinks he merits an award? I call that hubris. What absolute nonsense ! And at that time many Connecticut voters were outraged. I have never lived in Connecticut, but I too found this outrageous. Yes, by all means, let us have Caroline Kennedy as vice-president. Should Barack Obama become president and then have the misfortune to die, Caroline Kennedy would become the president. And boy will she know exactly what is the really correct thing to do, the voters be damned. Heck, she can even bring Michael Moore into the White House as an advisor! !
I must admit that, in my opinion, many voters often do not know what is really the “best thing for them”. Sometimes most of the voters are off-base. But to the extent that causes problems, that is usually because the government itself just tries to do too much. The government should often not even attempt anything, and just keep their noses out of our business. For that reason alone, there will be fewer things for the voters to think about during elections, fewer things for the voters to actually know and study.