The Administration Should Take Notice: The Tea Parties Mattered

April 22, 2009 1 Comment

This article appeared in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 4/23/09. You can read the newspaper version here, or check out the print column every Thursday.
“Let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that.”

-Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC’s Olbermann Countdown

Last week, Americans attended an estimated 2,000 tea parties nationwide, one of the largest political demonstrations in recent memory. The gatherings touched nearly every part of the country, with small towns like Springfield, TN hosting parties of 75, and large cities like Atlanta hosting over 10,000. But, for much of the media and the current administration, the magnitude of this movement can simply be reduced to right-wing extremism, limited to a misinformed segment of the electorate. They are making a big mistake.

Media coverage was rife with biased and even vulgar commentary, referring to the events as extremist anti-Obama protests, and making countless inappropriate innuendos to “teabagging.” Politically, President Obama refused to directly address the issue, instead filtering his responses through Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs dismissed the tea parties as misinformed, finding it “amusing” that

cincinnati-tea-party1

Thousands gather in Cincinnati for a tea party

Americans were uniting in protest despite President Obama’s “plan to cut taxes.” The now famous Department of Homeland Security memo called attendees who favor small government and conservative principles “right-wing extremists,” who must be watched with increased scrutiny in the name of national defense.

So what was I to expect when I prepared to attend a local tea party? Not to mention a tea party in rural Pennsylvania-where everyone clings to their guns and religion.

On Saturday, I attended a tea party at Washington’s Crossing in Pennsylvania, the famous site where George Washington crossed the Delaware River to battle the Hessians in 1776. It seemed a fitting location-a little less than 250 years ago, one of our nation’s founders led his men in a fight against government control and tyranny. Now, I was walking across the same field his men camped in that night, to join with 1800 others concerned about the course of our nation.
 
As I approached the crowd, I noticed something that might have shocked the media or President Obama: This was an extremely diverse crowd. I saw children, young adults, parents, and senior citizens. I saw Caucasians, African Americans, Asians, and Latinos. I saw men wearing suits standing with men wearing t-shirts. I saw women with children standing with young teenage girls. I saw signs with simple slogans like “Keep the change, we’ll keep our country,” held next to signs with historic quotes like Thomas Jefferson’s, “A country big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” The speakers ranged from elected officials to concerned mothers, from local shop owners to Vietnam Veterans. This was no extremist gathering.

Rather, this was simply a gathering of people concerned that the country is heading in the wrong direction. People who believe in personal choice over government control, in low taxes over redistribution, in fiscal responsibility over wasteful spending, and in personal responsibility over government welfare. People who are not going to sit back and watch as defining American principles are abandoned in favor of European liberalism. The tenor of the afternoon was clear: We do not want to lose our country to a failed ideology.

For the first time in a long time, I had the sense that America’s true identity was not yet lost. Americans were doing what we always have-fight for our country. This was not the beginning of a violent revolution, but of a revolution of ideas. Conservatism lost its way over the last eight years, but the election of a sharply liberal administration has reinvigorated the movement. Sometimes juxtaposition is the best definition of truth. boston-tea-party

Though not surprising, the marginalization of the tea parties ignores the reality of a grassroots movement that is steadily building across the country. Americans are beginning to see that elections have consequences. The Republican Party is rebuilding itself on the conservative principles that once carried it to victory, and there has been a growing sense of buyer’s remorse among voters who expected a more moderate president. The tea parties were a product, not a driver, of this movement.

The tea parties certainly did not change the country overnight, or plot its new history. They did not lead to a change in government power, or a newly elected Congress. But what they did do was demonstrate that millions of Americans from all walks of life still passionately believe in our founding values.

As I watched the growing crowd sing the national anthem with more passion than I had ever seen, I couldn’t help but think that George Washington would be proud. Our tea party was not as heroic as his crossing the Delaware, or as historic as his colleagues’ Boston Tea Party. But in the same vein of our founders, who saw the injustice of government overreach, Americans are beginning to unite around the common ideals that have always made us American.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Filed under Conservatism, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

A Redistribution Parable: Casey at the Bat

April 15, 2009 4 Comments

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 4/16/09. Read the online newspaper version here or check out the print column every Thursday or Friday.

Growing up, Casey was by far the best baseball player among his friends. He was born with talent, size, and strength, and had a father who was a former professional baseball player. As a result, he had expert coaching and guidance to go along with incredible hand-eye coordination and power. When he reached high school, Casey realized his talent and skill might afford him the opportunity to pursue every child’s dream: To play professional baseball. So, he became the hardest worker on the team, lifting weights, eating right, and tirelessly working on his swing.casey-at-the-bat

By the time Casey was a senior, he had already broken the county home run record, been named to the all-state team, and was being closely watched by professional scouts. Then something strange happened. Every time Casey stepped to the plate his senior year, umpires immediately called two strikes on him-before he even saw a pitch. Instead of starting with an 0-0 count like everyone else, he now started down 0-2; everyone else got three strikes, Casey only got one.

League officials and umpires had gotten together in the offseason to discuss Casey’s dominance. They decided that it was unfair to all of the other players in the league for Casey to be so much better-they had to level the playing field. Shouldn’t everyone have the opportunity to play professional baseball? Shouldn’t everyone be guaranteed the same level of success? When Casey hit a home run, weren’t the other, less talented, less privileged players suffering because of his success? In sports, after all, one person’s victory also means one person’s loss. The only way to make things fair, they determined, was to give the pitchers an advantage over Casey before he got up to bat.

As the season progressed, Casey began to complain to league officials. So they sat him down and explained their thought process: 1. He was born with more talent than the other players-that was unfair; 2. His father was an ex-major leaguer who could give him special coaching-that was unfair; 3. His parents had more money than other parents in the league, so he was able to use advanced training equipment and eat better food-that was unfair; 4. Yes he worked hard, but that hard work only enhanced his abilities beyond the other players’-that was unfair. If he really cared about his community, he wouldn’t have a problem sacrificing his success for the success of others.

League officials were happy with their work, but soon realized more needed to be done. Casey was now just an average player in the league, but what about the other good players? Not everyone was officialsthe same just yet. So, the league developed a complex statistical measurement system that ensured players below the average got an advantage (they could start with anywhere from a 1-0 to a 3-0 count), and players above the average would be treated like Casey. Of course, to support the system, they formed a Bureau of Fairness Control to oversee each test case and matchup. Now everything would be fair.

But wait, some teams were winning games and others were losing. All games now ended in a tie. And what about the players who got cut during tryouts? Now anyone who tried out would make the team, no matter their ability, work ethic, or experience. It had to be fair.

But soon, baseball lost its appeal. There was no motivation to work hard or succeed, and the competition the game was founded on had evaporated. League officials didn’t understand. Shouldn’t the players want everyone to be happy? Besides, the league was guaranteeing success for everyone. And of course, it was fair.

Casey’s story does not stray far from the foundational philosophy of many of today’s liberal thinkers. Far reaching social policies like welfare, universal healthcare, extreme progressive tax rates, and mortgage bailouts simply put up a façade of fairness and equality. They couch themselves in eloquent rhetoric like, “All Americans have a right to be healthy,” and “We have the responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves.”

The arguments evoke emotion and compassion, and stir up masses of people placing their faith in government as the answer. In many ways, this façade led to the election of our current President, whose philosophy of government has yielded a pork-laden stimulus and budget heavy on spending in liberal social initiatives.

But justice is not found in forceful redistribution, nor is prosperity bred from failed attempts at equality. True justice is, as our founders so masterfully stated, found in life, liberty, and the pursuit, not the forceful guarantee, of happiness.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Conservatism vs. Liberalism Part II: Conservatism (by guest author Maker from The Daily Switch)

February 27, 2009 Leave a comment

This is the second in the two part series Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Forming the underpinning of our two most elephant-vs-donkey-boxingprominent political parties, the ideological debate over Conservatism and Liberalism is as old as our nation’s founding. Now, with a new administration in office, this debate has been reinvigorated. Part II features guest author Maker from The Daily Switch, offering an overview of Conservatism.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending to small a degree of it.”

-Thomas Jefferson

As a young man, I remember listening to my father as he spoke of the world, man, and how things worked, with a fascinated reverence for this thing called Conservatism. Awe would tighten his voice as he told of the seamless way that this ideology worked with and through the strengths and weaknesses of man.  What my dad grasped, and passed on to me, is that conservatism is the only line of thinking that allows for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the only way for us to connect with and uphold that which the Founders had in mind. Conservatism is a deep breath. It is a pause to consider what we can glean from history and how best to apply these lessons to the situations and dilemmas facing us today. Where liberalism demands action, and action now, conservatism prescribes a tempered consideration of the past, present and the potential futures, before acting.

Liberty is at the core of conservatism. A love and defense of liberty fuels the entire philosophy. You won’t hear liberals speak of liberty very often, and for good reason. Liberty sits in direct opposition to the policies of the left. For the ideals of liberalism to be implemented, the people must willingly or unwittingly surrender an increasingly large portion of their liberty. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of liberal ‘accomplishments’ are demonstrable attacks on liberty in the name of growing a ‘benevolent’ government. You see, from the left’s vantage point, you don’t and can’t know what is best for your life, so you need government to intervene on your behalf. Conservatism says that government can never know the best interests of its citizenry, or provide for them, nearly as well as an unencumbered free people can for themselves.

The fundamental differences between liberalism and conservatism pertain to the preferred size of government. Liberals: the bigger the better. Conservatives: less is more. These views have a direct causal relationship with the amount of liberty the citizens are afforded. Conservatism recognizes and encourages the goodness that man can achieve without placing faith in the mythical idea of man being inherently good. Where liberalism seeks to control and stifle people for their own good, conservatism seeks to set free and embolden people to pursue their best interests autonomously. 

Conservatism looks to free market capitalism as the only historically viable economic environment for freedom, while liberalism stubbornly places its faith in systems proved fatally flawed by history. Conservatism seeks in all things to preserve the framers intent for this country to limit the size and scope of government while ensuring the freedom of the common man. The Constitution was developed to this end, and has shaped our nation into the greatest the world has ever known. Conservatism views this greatness as something to be preserved and defended against the eroding effect of liberalism’s continual creep towards socialism.

Practically, what better time than now to look at the issue of taxes? Conservatism and liberalism line up reliably as supportive of lower taxes and higher taxes, respectively. More and more, liberals are admitting that their desire to tax the wealthy is less focused on government revenue than it is on ‘fairness’ or ‘leveling the playing field.’ Conservatives advocate lowering taxes across the board, and especially encouraging small and large business growth through lowered corporate tax rates. Liberals want to exponentially raise taxes on the top two tax brackets in an attempt to, as President Obama famously said, “spread the wealth around.” But, as Dr. Adrian Rogers said, “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom… [y]ou cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” The inconvenient truth here is that, historically, government revenues increase as tax rates decrease and decrease as they increase. If you continue to raise taxes on these individuals, you discourage growth, job creation, and investment. If you cut corporate tax rates, you create an environment of productivity for a flourish of businesses that provide the jobs and products that Americans depend on. In this way conservatism embraces logic, the laws of economics, and liberty in a free market society.

There are countless ways that conservatism opposes the ill-formed and damaging ideas of the left and seeks to preserve what is right and good; that which we value most, by proposing time-tested solutions that honor the laws of nature and man. Conservatism perseveres despite the disadvantages of a Republican Party that has become more betrayer than advocate, a seemingly endless barrage of mischaracterizations by a hostile press, and an increasingly entitlement-friendly society. The place in a person that takes pride in hard work, relishes freedom and demands equal justice under the law is, on some level, inexorably drawn to conservatism.

Consider Jefferson’s notion above. This is the choice between left and right, liberal and conservative, tyranny and liberty.

-Guest author Maker (from The Daily Switch) on TruPolitics.net

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Conservatism vs. Liberalism Part I: A Proud Liberal (by guest author Saylor Smith)

February 27, 2009 12 Comments

elephant-vs-donkey-boxingThis is the first in the two part series Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Forming the underpinning of our two most prominent political parties, the ideological debate over Conservatism and Liberalism is as old as our nation’s founding. Now, with a new administration in office, this debate has been reinvigorated. Part I features guest author  Saylor Smith, offering a summary of Liberalism.

As a lifelong liberal, I look askance at the ascendance over the past two-and-a-half decades of the conservative political cause. President Ronald Reagan gave conservatism legitimacy in the 1980′s after its nearly two decades of decline. How, in recent years, did “liberal” become a pejorative hurled by conservative or moderate politicians at their left-leaning opponents? Why do liberals themselves now even run from the characterization, hiding behind the less specific and presumably safer “progressive”?

As I recall, liberals gave us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights and women’s rights legislation, farm subsidies, labor union rights laws, the minimum wage, FDIC, FCC, FHA and the Federal Reserve system, among many others, virtually all of which were consistently opposed by conservatives.

A liberal believes the government can and should solve many of society’s problems. A conservative believes big business should be granted the unregulated power to operate in society – corporate scandals of the past several years, the Wall Street meltdown and the banking crisis of the past few weeks certainly help to contradict that theory. Clearly, it is a whole lot easier to remove a government official who has to answer to the voters than it is to battle the powerful influences of millionaire corporate heads of such multi-nationals as Enron, Halliburton, Mobil and the insurance, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, many of which operate, thanks to the conservative movement, with fewer governmental regulations.

It is “liberal” to favor environmental laws for the protection of our air and water; it is “conservative” to support the “rights” of oil, tobacco and coal companies to operate free of regulations. It is “liberal” to argue for reduced taxes for citizens with lower and middle incomes; it is “conservative” to argue for lower taxes for the richest corporations and for citizens with the highest incomes. It is “liberal” to favor reasonable gun control legislation, including laws that outlaw the sale and ownership of assault weapons; it is “conservative” to support every citizen’s right to own and use guns. It is “liberal” to favor laws that grant equal rights to all American citizens; it is “conservative” to oppose equal rights for those individuals deemed “unworthy.” It is “liberal” to insist that a wealthy, civilized nation such as ours should provide health insurance for all of its citizens; it is “conservative” to insist that every man or woman should shift for him- or herself. It is “liberal” to argue that taxpayers should support – even with their pocketbooks – strong, safe public schools; it is “conservative” to insist that public education can get by on less. Liberals fight for First Amendment rights, especially the constitutional guarantees of a free press and free speech; conservatives fight for the Second Amendment guarantee that, as they see it, a citizen may carry a gun at any and all times and places. Liberals fight for an Equal Rights Amendment to expand rights of citizenship; conservatives fight for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, thereby denying rights of citizenship to a certain group.

The governmental concept of liberalism is, I believe, responsible for developing and strengthening one of the greatest forces for good in our society, protection of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority,” an often overlooked hazard in a democratic society. Without that protection, groups such as African-Americans, Latino-Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Muslims, Jewish Americans, women and seniors might never have gained their rightful standing as full-fledged citizens. Gay and lesbian Americans continue the fight.

Liberalism is defined in “Webster’s Dictionary” as “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” Conservatism is defined as “a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.” Neither political philosophy is “correct,” but it seems fair to argue that over the past seventy-five years the unique form of liberalism that developed in the United States has been the most powerful and consistent force for good on the face of the earth. 

I, for one, am proud to add my name to the bottom of a list of American liberals that includes Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John, Robert and Ted Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Martin Luther King, Jr. and, yes, Barack Obama.

-Guest author Saylor Smith on TruPolitics.net

Filed under Conservatism Tagged with , , , , ,

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.