A new era of responsibility? Yes...but whose?

Obama spoke for about 20 minutes yesterday, as he addressed the nation for the first time as President. If one phrase seems to have defined his speech for the nation (as chosen by the media), it is his call for a "new era of responsibility."

I like that. If there is one thing that is needed in this country, it is a renewed commitment to responsibility.

The so-called Masters of the Universe, those Wall Street "fat cats," need to understand, and heed, their responsibility to the economic system that they prosper under. The greed for power and money can only foment mistrust in capitalism and sabotage the very underpinnings of a free market.

Those who govern must cast aside their own personal ambitions and recommit themselves to their only Constitutional responsibility, which is to serve the governed.

We, the people, must resolve to take our lives into our own hands and realize that if we relinquish that personal responsibility we are, in turn, relinquishing our liberties.

The last of these is the most urgent, and the most consequential for the future system of government we choose to leave our children.

There were too many examples, during the election, of people who showed evidence that they had cast off the notion of personal responsibility in exchange for a handout, or assurances, from their government.

There was the infamous video of Peggy Joseph who was overcome with relief that with Obama in office she wouldn't have to worry about paying her mortgage or putting gas in her car.

There was the young lady who called into the radio show as I was listening who stressed her belief that the government needs to do more to regulate the stock market.

There was the man who wrote to our local newspaper, just last week, complaining that he had "done what [he] was told" and saved his money, invested in his 401(k), only to lose 40% of it in the past year. He wonders "Where is my bailout?"

It just leaves me to wonder: Where is the sense of personal responsibility that our parents' and grandparents' generation seemed to embrace? Where is the "Just leave me alone and I'll take care of it" attitude?

It also makes me wonder just what Obama meant when he called for this "new era of responsibility?" Looking at the rest of his speech, it does not seem to be personal responsibility that he is commanding us to commit ourselves to.

The first hint of this is in Obama's paraphrasing of the Declaration of Independence. He cites the "god-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." What are the actual words of the Declaration? That we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I may be accused of splitting hairs here, but the difference is important. All that God gives us, according to the Declaration, is the right to pursue happiness. In Obama's version, he says we are all deserving of a chance to pursue happiness. In the first, it is up to us to create the opportunities that might allow us to acheive our successes. In the second, the "chance" to do so must be provided by someone or something outside of ourselves.

The second hint comes midway through the speech when Obama states that we must not ask "whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." None of this is anchored in personal responsibility; it is all rooted in what government can, and should, do for us.

Obama then talks about the purposes of the market and the economy. "The success of our economy has always depended...on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart...because it is the surest route to our common good."

His notion that America's economic success over the years has always depended on how deep runs the wealth it creates is quite backwards. It is not how many people the prosperity reaches that determines the growth of the economy. It is, rather, the growth of the economy that drives prosperity to so many levels.

And, again, "extending opportunity" is not an intended function of government, nor does it drive our wealth. Opportunity exists, by default, as a result of our free market system.

Here it seems that this new responsibility that he beckons us to embrace is one of government towards its citizens, to provide opportunities, comforts, and securities.

The real responsibility we need to recall is to resolve to do our best to dig deep and work hard to make our own opportunities, and to reject the government's overtures to pave the way for us from cradle to grave, knowing that, if the latter is the course we embrace, our "full measure of happiness" will be as limited as it is defined for us.