Genesis of the "NO" Logo
In history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the 20th and 21st century, collective variations have included socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism. Under collectivism, a ruling class of “intellectuals”, bureaucrats, politicians and/or social planners decides what people want or what is “good” for society and then uses the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax and redistribute wealth in an attempt to achieve their desired objectives. Individualism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence and responsibility. It embraces opposition to controls over the individual when exercised by the state. The Preamble to our Constitution makes it plain that all power rests originally with the people, as individuals.
The “O” within the circle represents collectivism in its various forms. The “N” represents an emphatic repudiation of collectivism. The red, white and blue circles encompassing the “NO” are emblematic of our Republic. It is the responsibility of the individuals in an engaged and enlightened republic to limit the influence of the government, especially one that attempts to wield power outside the boundaries delineated by the Constitution.
When Barack Obama won the election in 2008, he was quite right that the old system needed fixing. America’s debt, its poorly educated youth, its imbalances in trade, its counterproductive tax system, its out-of-control annual spending, its culture of entitlement and subsidies, all in perfect-storm fashion were starting to coalesce and weaken America from within and the perception of America abroad. The statesmanlike thing to do — in the manner of a once-naïve Harry Truman, who woke up to the threat of Soviet-inspired global Communism, or of a Bill Clinton, who finally addressed some of the contradictions of the welfare state and deficit spending — would have been to overhaul the tax system, recalibrate Social Security and Medicare, cut spending, lecture the citizenry on personal responsibility, and address the therapeutic curriculum in our failing schools. With a 70 percent approval rating and supermajorities in both houses of Congress, Obama could have done almost anything throughout 2009.
Instead, he chose the path of Jimmy Carter and the pre-1995 Bill Clinton — even more redistributive state programs, more stifling regulations, more petulant talk about “them,” more class warfare, more debt, and more failed big government.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274706/obama-s-paradoxes-victor-davis-hanson
