The Conservative Edge

There has been a lot of heated discussion lately about the so-called radical activism of the Tea Party. Commentators like Leonard Pitts and Paul Krugman have derided party members for engaging in acts of violence and propagating lies about everything from the health care bill to Barack Obama’s birthplace. Of course, we are to believe, these actions result from the manipulation of the Fox News network, in addition to a general lack of intelligence and education among those of the political right.

But is that really true, or just an association those on the left would have us make? The liberals and Democrats very badly want us to accept that the Tea Party methods of expression belong solely to the conservatives. The liberals seem to be implying that they are innocent of any devious, underhanded, or otherwise destructive behavior. That is not true. Liberals can demonstrate with the best of them.

For example, earlier this year, tens of thousands of leftists gathered at the World Social Forum in Brazil to decry the evils of capitalism. It was not a silent demonstration. The AP reported that “Accompanied by thundering drumbeats and samba blaring from sound trucks, a crowd of exuberant activists estimated by police to number 25,000 marched through Porto Alegre waving communist flags and shouting socialist slogans.”

The report also quoted one activist. ‘”They have driven the capitalist system into chaos,” said Sergio Bernardo, a Brazilian human rights activist sporting a bright red shirt emblazoned with the words “Bourgeoisie Stinks!”‘

Notice too how these leftists had no problem extolling either communism or socialism. But in America, the liberals seem to be so often offended when they are linked to socialist ideology. Indeed, the more liberal the Democrats become, the more likely they are to enact socialist-style legislation. That is why they are working so hard to silence or discredit the voices of Tea Party members, as well as the Limbaughs and Becks of the world. The liberals don’t want us to discover their little secret—they really are socialists at heart.

I’ve been listening to the debates over President Obama’s proposed stimulus plan. It seems that some people, like New York Times columnist Gail Collins, insist that there are no earmarks in the plan and that we should all just “give it a pat on the back” and accept it. Others, like columnist Paul Krugman, are accusing the Republicans of “trying to push the economy over the edge” as they object to the sheer size of the program. Of course, before Obama’s election, Mr. Krugman repeatedly charged the Republicans with overspending and running up the federal deficit. So much for his objectivity!

President Obama has ridiculed the Republican view that this stimulus is more about spending than about stimulating the economy. “What do you think a stimulus is?” he asked. Spending, he said, “is the whole point.” That callous response doesn’t make sense—common sense, that is. Most Americans understand the need to control their personal spending during tough times. Indeed, that’s partly why the economy is in a recession. People have tightened their budgets and expenditures; they’re saving money instead of spending it. How then can it be un-American to question the size and the intent of the stimulus plan? Didn’t the liberals question and over-analyze everything from the Patriot Act to Bush’s tax cuts?

The Democrats don’t understand (or won’t admit) that there may be ways to stimulate the economy without spending money like a shopaholic. For one, the government could slash the corporate tax rate, as America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. Businesses might be able to retain more American workers, instead of sending production overseas to offset the high taxes. Many countries in Europe, for example, also subsidize corporate energy costs, making it even cheaper to produce goods. This puts American business at a huge disadvantage. But for some reason, the Democrats hate Big Business, especially oil companies and tobacco companies. They don’t seem to realize that when you create an environment in which business can grow, you create opportunities for employment growth as well.

Aren’t there any reductions in the stimulus plan? Can’t the supposedly intelligent, qualified members of Obama’s Cabinet (and other Democratic Representatives and Senators) find excess and redundancy in government and cut it out? Instead, they are focused on their efforts to make government even bigger, with a resulting increase in government control. When Ronald Reagan’s administration took office in 1981, James Baker recalls that their top three priorities were: economic recovery, economic recovery, and economic recovery. But now, the Obama administration’s priorities are: spend, spend, and spend some more.

Maybe more Americans would have a positive view of the stimulus plan if all the Democrats would pay their income taxes…

I read a column in my local newspaper today (Jan. 19) that left me a little upset, and scratching my head. Isn’t it amazing how prominent columnists and political observers now want everyone to be nice, quiet citizens, and speak no ill toward the new administration? I felt the need to respond to a column by Kathleen Parker, and the entire contents of my letter are below:

“Kathleen,

“I just read your column “The Importance of Not Being Earnest”, published in the January 19 edition of the Dayton Daily News. While some of the column attempted to be encouraging, I saw an undercurrent of sarcasm and high-mindedness.

“Let’s take your indictment of our (your readers) seemingly inherent “snarky” attitudes. Are you suggesting that we are the only cynics and skeptics? That “snarkiness” must come from our own cold hearts and judgmental minds? Perhaps you should consider that some of us might be products of what we see on TV, or read in magazines and op-ed pieces. If it is the intention of editorial writers and other commentators to change or influence the thinking of those who read their works, then perhaps you should be willing to accept your role in shaping the attitudes of those you criticized in your column.

“For example, I believe it was you who, in a recent commentary, did everything but kick George Bush in the ass as you shoved him out the back door of the White House. Was this done in civility and grace? Hardly—to quote Clint Eastwood in the movie Heartbreak Ridge, “…that’s not very dignified for a mature woman…” And this is the kind of work many of us have been reading for the past 7 or 8 years. How can you then think that Americans have been immune to this kind of critical opinion? Is it possible that editorial poisons have sickened the American people?

“Another example of editorial pollution has been spread by your fellow columnist and “economist” Paul Krugman. I can’t think of a more crass, belligerent and snarky writer than Mr. Krugman. I have cut several of his columns out of the newspaper, just to marvel at his toxic vendettas he hurled at George Bush and other conservatives over the past few years. He has lambasted the Republicans for running federal deficits, but has now turned on a dime, insisting that deficits are necessary to turn our economy around.

“It seems that you have also turned on the same thin dime. You have gone from accuser to some sort of Pied Piper, telling us how WE need to develop a love for service. I think all of you who have fanned the fires of disdain and derision need to atone for your past few years of unpatriotic “snarkiness”. You have built your Golden Idol, and you want all of us to join the orgy of celebration. I’m sorry, but before I get all aglow, I need to see some admission of your own harboring of the things you seek to exorcise from us. Go ahead—confession is good for the soul!”

That’s my response. I guess we’re not supposed to treat Mr. Obama the same way that all the writers like Mrs. Parker treated the Bush administrations the past few years. It’s the old “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. It’s the Democratic/liberal way.