The mantra that if you are against Obama’s policies, then you are, ergo, against hope and change has been spouted at the national level and it’s being spouted on the local level as well. I live in the 51st District of the Wisconsin State Assembly. Currently it’s being represented by Uber-Dem, Steve Hilgenberg who wrote a chastisement in the editorial pages of the local paper recently. His thesis? If you are against Obama and the Dems, then you’re against hope and change.

Below is a response to Representative Hilgenberg that I’m planning to submit to the paper. Luckily, our small town newspaper has no word limit (and believe me, I’ve tested the limits!). Although the editorial pertains to a local moonbat pol in southwest Wisconsin, the content is pretty generalizable. Again, this kind of mantra is being peddled from the top down and Representative Hilgenberg is only being a good Dem lemming. If you substituted your favorite Dem socialist ideologue for Hilgenberg, the article could probably apply to most anywhere in the US. Anyhow, here it is:

Representative Hilgenberg was kind enough to stand up for “hope and change” in a recent editorial. The concepts of hope and change, however, are a bit on the nebulous side when it comes to clear cut definitions. Hope and change encompass a lot of territory. For example, hope is a cardinal virtue and according the Catholic Encyclopedia (Newadvent.org), it is the desire of something together with an expectation of it. In the case of Christianity, it’s a desire for Heaven bolstered by a faith in Christ’s saving sacrifice. On the other hand, hope on a less supernatural level could be something as simple as little, 7 year old Johnny’s wish for those two front teeth come Christmas or Uncle Phil’s fond hope of hitting it big at the casinos in Dubuque. Hope is indeed a many varied phenomena. The bottom line, though, is that . . . generally speaking . . . hope is a positive thing. Being against hope is like being against puppies . . . only the truly twisted hate puppies, right?

Change too is many varied. In fact, it’s rather hard to be for or against plain old change. Change just is. We were all once babies. Now many of us are adults and sooner than we think or prefer, we will all be pushing up daisies. Generic ‘change’ is just a fact of life that’s imposed on us whether we like it or not. Some changes are good like graduating from college and landing a great job, or getting married, or having kids. Other changes, of course, are very bad, like serious illness or the loss of a job.

With such a huge lack of specificity regarding hope and change, Representative Hilgenberg was thoughtful enough to offer more precise definitions of hope and change in terms of Oba-speak (which is thought and language emanating from The One, aka Barack Obama). Well actually, truth be told, Representative Hilgenberg did his definitions in terms of negatives. Instead of telling you what hope and change are, he told you what they aren’t. For example, if you don’t blame the economic crisis on a lack of government regulations and don’t embrace the porkulus (aka, economic stimulus) package, then you’re against hope and change. Also, if you don’t thoroughly support Obama’s health care plans, then once again, you are against hope and change. And, if you don’t just love Obama’s cap and trade scheme for controlling carbon emissions, then yet again, you are against hope and change . . . and you hate the earth and puppies too! All in all, Representative Hilgenberg defined hope and change entirely in terms of your support or opposition to Barack Obama’s policies. If you, like Representative Hilgenberg, support The One, then you’ve got a bead on hope and change (congratulations!). Otherwise, be gone you hopeless and change-hating cretin!

Trouble is (for Representative Hilgenberg), there are other important concepts out there that put hope and change into context, the most important being truth. Take the economic crisis for instance. Representative Hilgenberg stated that it was a lack of government regulations that allowed greedy banks to run amok and issue all those subprime loans (that is, loans to people who probably shouldn’t get a loan in the first place because their financial status is quite poor and their likelihood to default high). Well, Representative Hilgenberg is right about one thing. The banks did make those loans, but Representative Hilgenberg didn’t tell you why the banks made loans to people who they knew darn well were likely to default on them. It was . . . wait for it . . . government regulations! The genesis of the crisis began in the late 70’s with Jimmy Carter’s “Community Reinvestment Act.” Part of this act mandated that banks issue loans to people who otherwise would have been rejected as too risky. The banks had to do this under penalty of the federal government. It was a classic do-it-or-else kind of regulation. The Carter administration imposed this lunacy in the interest of “equity,” which basically means that they were trying to increase minority home ownership. It’s a noble idea, so long as people can actually afford to pay for the home they’re buying. The federal government, however, did throw the banks quite a bone. Via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (both government sponsored entities), the feds bought all those subprime loans. So, the banks were able to make money on the subprime market and unload the risk on the federal government. Pause for just a moment here and remind yourself that this was the government’s idea (regulations!) and not the banks. Then along came Bubba (aka, William Jefferson Clinton). President Clinton was the chief executive and chief executives are responsible for enforcing laws. Bill really liked the Community Reinvestment Act, which was still existing law, and decided to give it some genuine teeth, which, of course, was his prerogative as the chief executive of the land (elections do have consequences!). The subprime market under Clinton really took off and like a giant crap sponge, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (both government sponsored entities) bought up the subprime loans. Unfortunately, though, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t just hold onto them. They repackaged them into complicated financial instruments and sold them back to the banks and investors. The theory was something like this: if you spread the poison (the subprime mortgages) far and wide, then the overall economy will be able to absorb, without ill effects, the risk. As we are all now well aware, that theory turned out to be wrong, dead wrong.

The truth (history, facts, actual events, etc.) has a way of putting Representative Hilgenberg’s definitions of hope and change into context. Should we hope for more brilliant regulations from the federal government when the Community Reinvestment Act worked so marvelously? If you love a good economic depression, then sure, why not. You could always ‘hope’ for poverty and a ‘change’ of shopping venues from the Piggly Wiggly to the bread line (government issued lard sandwiches for everyone! Hope mine comes with a double dollop of lard!).

Representative Hilgenberg’s ‘hope and change’ definition of policies connected to global climate change (once known as Global Warming, and before that, back in the 1970’s, known as Global Cooling!) and nationalized health care can be dismantled and discredited in much the same way, with a little truth supported by reason and facts.

I like most human beings favor hope and good, positive changes that lead to a better world. I even like puppies. So, I beg to differ when I’m told by politicians like Representative Hilgenberg that I’m against hope and change if I don’t support the policies of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. What’s next? Are they going to call someone a racist if they oppose the policies of Barack Obama? Come to think of it, that’s already been done.