Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Tax Day Tea Party Spin

To counter the gross media misrepresentation of the Denver Tea Party, this event was not racist, "extremist," or even partisan. It was passionate yet peaceful. It was a rally based upon ideas, upon the preservation of principles rooted in the brilliantly successful history of America. The core message to Washington was: "You cannot pull out of debt by creating more debt, nor can you stimulate an economy by issuing boundless taxation. Only the private sector has the power to pull the country out of a recession, and you are squelching its productivity."

Yes, the event frequently focused on Obama, but contrary to the claims of progressive critics on Capitol Hill, protesters also acknowledged and lamented that Bush had opened the door for Obama to gleefully skip through. We know this, but it does no practical good to rally against Bush as he is no longer in office. Moreover, Obama's policies are a highly concentrated, blindingly fast-moving (and far more morally debased) version of what Bush flirted with.

But rather than dealing with the arguments presented, the radical left insisted on marginalizing the opposition with ad-hominem labels such as "terrorist," "right-wing extremist," "disgruntled war veteran," and "white supremacist."

And why should Christians care about all of this? For this reason: ministries and nonprofits that we so love are currently in jeopardy; statism in its fully developed form simply will not allow these to operate outside the range of its oppressive and politically correct eye. Free speech such as campus evangelism, Christian public speaking, and the ability to publicly vocalize certain moral convictions is also at stake. This we know from a wonderful but oft ignored teacher: history. To be aware of and concerned about these possibilities is hardly extremist but wise.


Anthony said...

I was very tickled yesterday by the news that Goldman Sachs is predicting that they should soon be able to return the money gifted to them by TARP - and how the White House thinks that that might not be the best idea right now. Eventually, yes, but not right now.

It seems that no matter how hard this wave of economic reform that seeks to level the playing fields tries, capitalism keeps squeaking back in! If Goldman returns the money first, before anyone else does, they will look strong and secure as a business (much more so in comparison to those other firms that will not be able to return the money for some time yet). Hence the source of the caution from Washington. We simply couldn't have private businesses making savvy business-like decisions if, in doing so, they might jeopardize the position of their competitors, now could we?

Of course, if we can't, then I don't suppose we could really call anyone a 'competitor' - how about 'happy partner in a mutual economic journey towards wealth for everyone'? Or, perhaps eventually, 'The US Department/Branch of [insert commodity/service here]?'

Free enterprise (n): something that our children may likely learn about in history class.

Sarah Geis said...

Indeed, sir! Well put. Of course Washington doesn't want them to give the money back! The District of Control fully intends to maintain ownership of these companies, as it is outside "The Plan" to let them be successful on their own.