There’s a lot going on right now. Obama gets opposed on anything he tries, including what turns out to be a pretty benign speech to school kids about things we should pray our kids actually take to heart like personal responsibility. The brush those of us who oppose the President get painted with is that of the “angry white man“, despite the fact that many of us aren’t men, much less white, but that’s neither here nor there.
What hurts us more than anything is things like this Letter to the Editor. In it, Mr. Kenneth Corn writes:
Impeach or vote the socialist dictators out now, before they destroy our nation.
Yes. That’s the whole letter.
Now, I’m a fairly vocal critic of President Obama. So far, the speech yesterday to school kids (including my own son I should add) had the least controversial elements of his Presidency and the one thing he’s done that I can’t get that worked up about. That’s especially true with the lesson plan scuttled. I don’t think anyone who’s spoken with me about politics can honestly call me a “socialist”, “communist” or anything else of the type.
However, that letter is ridiculous. Despite the many things that Congress is trying to force down our throats with the President’s help, if not his insistence, there’s a big difference between us and a socialist dictatorship. Take Venezuela for example, and their resident Whack Job in Chief, Huge Chavez. Just the other day, Chavez seized 29 radio stations. Why? Was it a financial bailout where the government only took a percentage? Oh no. It was because these media outlets dared to disagree with him. That’s all.
Is there attempted intimidation by thugs? Yep, in some places. But their private citizens trying to intimidate other private citizens. There have been individual incidences of police crossing that line as well, but they are quickly remedied. This blog operates with impunity. We say what we want, and as long as it’s factually correct, we’re free to. The worst example of “oppression” we’ve had here was Bob Langstaff trying to block a rap concert.
We’ve got some serious problems. But letters like that damn sure don’t help. Instead, it enables opponents of the President to be labeled. Once we are labeled, it’s easier to marginalize us. Don’t give in to the temptation. Sure, there are plenty who think the same thing as Mr. Cutts. But giving voice to it, especially in a public letter with no supporting information, just gives ammunition to those we oppose.
Yes, both sides do it. Another letter to the editor was the Pro-Obama version. All there was to the letter was attempts to marginalize those who oppose Obama in general, though it veiled it in an attempt to hit those who merely opposed the speech. However, neither is accomplishing a damn thing with that type of thing.
We have grown more and more divisive through the years. President Bush fostered this with his “you’re either with us, or against us” rhetoric. President Obama and his crew are simply embracing the rhetoric and using it for themselves. After all, it was used against them for years, so now they feel it’s there turn.
Unfortunately, two wrongs don’t make a right. Argue with me. Debate me. There are actual – you know – issues. Let’s talk about them. Let’s debate them. Let’s discuss ideas and leave the alarmist name calling behind. Let’s scream our thoughts and ideas from the highest highs we can find and make people listen to intelligent, informed ideas.
We, as a nation, will eventually rip itself apart like this.
I’m not saying to back off, or to just live and let live. I say oppose this type of socialistic bill with every ounce of our being. But let’s not lose ourselves in the process. By all means, respond to the antagonistic and personal attacks, but do it with facts and calm discussion.
At worst, it’ll drive the opposition nuts.
Kenneth Cutts didn’t write that.
Thanks for the correction. I have no idea what kind of disconnect occured to cause me to blow that one. It’s been corrected. Thanks.
I happen to agree with Mr. Corn’s succint letter. What is socialism? One definition I found from American Heritage Dictionary at http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism is: “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” If the shoe fits….
Here is my critisism of the Healthcare issue in a nutshell: Why can’t the government continue to regulate health and insurance? Why must it provide it as well?
As for Mr. Fletcher’s article, I thought it was journalistic trolling. It assumes someone cannot be opposed to centralized goverernment mandated and dictated provision of services without being a racist. I opposed Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and all of the others who have advocated “socialized medicine”; “public option”; “medical coops” or whatever term of the moment is in vogue before Obama even came on the scene. Must I now abandon my core beliefs because a black President has been elected? Mr. Fletcher knows which button to push. I sometimes agree with him, but he is wrong on this one.
I’m not arguing about this being socialist. I’m arguing against the tone of the letter. Frankly, it helps those in favor of such measures more than it actually does a thing to help us. It provides fuel for those who call us scare mongers and similar things.
Showing them they’re wrong is always better than telling them they’re wrong. While the true believers won’t care, the middle ground is the group that needs to be convinced.
I do agree with the idea of friendly debate but it only works if both sides participate. IIRC, Democrat lawmakers wouldn’t allow Republicans into the meeting rooms during early stages of discussion, when they thought they had sufficient votes. So we appear to protest, hold up signs, question our congressman, disagree, etc., and are painted as “angry mobs”, “the Brooks Brothers suit crowd”, “paid corporate pawns”, “racists”, “Fox followers”, and “Angry White Males”. Because our actions have had success in exposing those who would shove their policies down our throats, we are cautioned to tone it down? I do not know Mr. Corn but I agree with his letter. I see your point Tom and agree it could have been a tad more eloquent.
There is room for both quiet debate and a showing of emotional fervor. Our forefathers debated – sometimes quite loudly. But they did not mask their emotions when bullied by tyrants. Our opponents were never shy about screaming out their discontent. But we should tone down our message?
I’ll get off my soapbox now. Sorry. I didn’t mean to studlize the topic.
I’m not saying to tone it down, but instead to back it up. I don’t care if you call someone a socialist, but show how they’re a socialist and why their plan is going to destroy this nation. If you’re going to call someone a dictator, back it up and illustrate why you think they’re a dictator. Back it up.
By backing up your arguments, you show you’re well informed and understand the issue. When/if the opposition fires back with their hyperbole and idiotic attacks, then you show them for what they truly are: partisan hacks who only know what they’re being fed by the DNC’s memos. And let’s be honest, much of the opposition really doesn’t understand the facts, so it should be easy
And you were still about a thousand words short of Peter’s posts
No one contests that health costs should be addressed or that healthcare should be regulated to some degree. If those with preexisting illnesses needed coverage, debate it. If medical costs are outrageous, investigate it (locally anyways). But don’t simply come in with a heavy handed approach and revamp the entire system to provide deadbeats with healthcare insurance at the cost of working Americans. Those in critical physical distress or medical need are already covered by Medicare and Medicaid. We already have an Indigent Care system at public hospitals. But to expand coverage and hand employers and taxpayers the bill for everyone regardless of their circumstance is too overbearing. Not allowing Republicans into the meeting rooms and still declaring “bipartisanship” is disingenuous. Dismissing those who dare disagree as uninformed racist “angry white males” is outrageous.
Every problem tackled by Congress does not have to result in a complete overhaul. The free market system is weakened with every government control.
We have seen the same cookie-cutter approach as the Stimulus; bank bailouts; auto industry bailouts; cap & trade (crossing my fingers it doesn’t pass the Senate); and every other debacle from this administration and Congress – a declared “emergency” cured by massive spending with a built-in delay before the tax bill hits.
Nothing is free. Massive provision of services mandates high tax revenues. Eventually, it will overburden the tax contributor base. See California as an example. Heck, look at Albany as an example. Every societal problem should not be solved by simply raising taxes. Except for defense spending – Is there a point where our current government will say we cannot afford it?
Every good idea does not have to become a law. Every want does not have to be satisfied. Every need does not have to be met by the government. Where does it end? Food is as important as healthcare. Free food? Transportation important? Free cars? Free housing? Mandated Life Insurance? For how long? For life? Why work? Why go to school?
In a nutshell: Help the needy. But we resent paying for free-loaders. Government: Bigger is not always better – sometimes less is better.