Robert Knight

All across the land, Mr. Obama is waging class warfare. In Columbus, Ohio on May 5, Mr. Obama accused GOP nominee Mitt Romney of wanting “to spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”

In Redwood City, Calif. on Thursday, he slammed Republicans for wanting “bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. ... They want to give banks and insurance companies even more power to do as they please. ….”

It’s not like Mr. Obama has been coy about his redistributionist philosophy. He tipped us off when telling Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher in 2008, “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

In 2009, in his first budget statement, Mr. Obama announced that:

“For the better part of three decades, a disproportionate share of the Nation’s wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy. Technological advances and growing global competition, while transforming whole industries—and birthing new ones—has accentuated the trend toward rising inequality.”

It was time, Mr. Obama said, “to break from a troubled past” and “begin charting a new path.”

Where have we heard this before? From socialist thinkers for more than 200 years. French socialist Gracchus Babeuf, for example, in arguing for forced equalization and against the free market in 1797, said:

“The most intelligent and the most industrious are given a warrant for hoarding, a title to despoil with immunity all those who are less gifted. … one succeeds in having too much only by causing others not to have enough.”

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, borrowing from Louis Blanc, declared in The Communist Manifesto that government should ensure a redistributionist system “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”

By contrast, Ronald Reagan called the Left’s theory of social and class warfare “alien and discredited.”

“Since when,” he asked, “do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes—one rich, one poor—both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expenses of the other?”

America’s Founders, informed by a biblical worldview of human nature (“Thou Shalt Not Covet”), recognized that envy could become a driving force in politics. They designed the Constitution to protect our God-given rights – including the right to private property – from government’s greedy, grasping hand.

Mr. Obama sees this as a monumental flaw, as he said in a 2001 radio interview:

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and the framers had that same blind spot. . . . The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

The “blind spot” is really the heart of the Founders’ view of limited government and the role of the law in society. With a Harvard law degree, Obama understands this well enough, as he has said:

“The Constitution is a chart of negative liberties, [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

Yes, he gets it. He just doesn’t like it.

Robert Knight

Robert Knight is an author, senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a frequent contributor to Townhall.