Biden’s Rhetoric vs. Reality on Oligarchy
The one-term POTUS farewell speech was nothing short of political theater
In his farewell speech, President Biden claimed to rally against the threat of oligarchy. His statement rings hollow compared to his actions—like awarding George Soros, a multi-billionaire associated with significant political influence, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If oligarchy is the enemy, how does one reconcile awarding a figure of elite global influence?
A personal grievance: Biden's rhetoric about the evils of "trickle-down economics" further underscores the contradictions in his political philosophy. Remember when he declared that the era of "trickle-down" is over, implying that such policies have failed the American people? But his assertion conveniently ignores the reality that his administration's economic policies rely on massive federal spending, with questionable long-term benefits for middle- and working-class Americans. Policies that foster inflation, pile on national debt, and increase dependency on government programs do little to empower citizens or create a robust economy.
Let's not forget the historical context of trickle-down economics. Its premise has always been to stimulate growth by incentivizing investment and entrepreneurship. Critics, like Biden, misrepresent it as a handout to the wealthy. Yet, the tax cuts and deregulation underpinning this model often lead to job creation and higher wages. Biden's "tax-the-rich" alternative may play well with progressive audiences but risks stifling the innovation and growth that drive prosperity. More money in the hands of middle, upper-middle, and upper-class people trickles down throughout the economy, especially in America's consumer-based system, where domestic spending is one of our massive success stories. If a business owner has a bumper year, do you not think he will spend that money on the local and domestic economy? Do you think that business owner hoards his wealth—or saves? The issue Democrats have is the global shareholding of America's stock market. Still, those share prices bolster the economy and retirees and make our stock exchanges the envy of the world.
Biden's critique of oligarchy comes at a time when his administration's policies have bolstered corporate consolidation. From pandemic-related measures that crushed small businesses while enriching large corporations to green energy initiatives that seem more focused on lining the pockets of well-connected firms than genuinely addressing climate concerns, Biden's presidency has hardly been a bulwark against concentrated power.
The speech also revealed Biden's desperation to secure his legacy. By positioning himself as the champion of the working class, he hopes to rewrite his record. Yet, voters are not so easily fooled. Rising costs of living, skyrocketing energy prices, and a shrinking middle class are the true legacy of his economic agenda.
If Biden wants to critique oligarchy, he should start by examining his policies' role in exacerbating wealth concentration. And if he genuinely believes in empowering the average American, he should abandon the tired talking points about trickle-down economics and embrace solutions that incentivize growth, foster competition, and reward hard work.
Lastly, his statements around social media and free speech are ridiculous. This is a Democrat fait accompli. The pattern of rejecting free speech when it challenges a particular worldview is something we are seeing across the world, especially within free-market economies. Aside from damaging misinformation—which is insanely hard to pinpoint exactly how to manage—the power of the narrative is something those in power wish to control. Enter Obama. In 2013, his administration supported an amendment to the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. This amendment, part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, effectively removed restrictions that prevented U.S. government-produced propaganda from being disseminated to domestic audiences.
The original Smith-Mundt Act was designed to restrict the use of taxpayer-funded propaganda within the United States, ensuring such materials were only aimed at foreign audiences. The 2013 amendment lifted this restriction, allowing agencies like the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (now the U.S. Agency for Global Media) to share content domestically. Think about this for a moment: allowing this to move forward has undoubtedly blurred the lines between information and propaganda. The responsibility for misuse lies squarely with the left.
It is well known that the majority of left-leaning Americans trust mainstream media without question, and this is why Biden piped in such a ridiculous message. Perhaps this speech was merely an attempt to distract from a presidency that was, frankly, terrible. I don’t really know. What I do know is that it’s a disastrously dreadful way to close out one’s term. At the very least, I found myself squirming as I listened.