Seeing a black president elected into office was a sure trigger to rattle people into action for a long time to come. That̢۪s not surprising at all.
But it̢۪s hard not to raise an eyebrow when calls are suddenly made to take down big government. It becomes especially difficult not to be a skeptic when claims reach radical levels. Skepticism is taken to another level when talks of secession are casually thrown around by the likes of the governor of Texas Rick Perry and former presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Even more surprising, and too often unintentionally amusing, is the goal to present their calls for a limited government as arguments given on a non-partisan platform. Sure, because arguing against taxes for the well off, help for the poor and those crazies trying to control guns does not even go as far as whispering GOP.
No. Actually, it screams it just as guns—and now, tea bags— are raised and confederate flags are waived high in the air.
Having these calls against the federal government seemingly come out of the blue, and made mostly by conservatives, is rather problematic in their pathetic attempt to position the movement as a fight for the people in general, rather than against a definite political party.
Of course Republicans are going to be against much of what Obama does, or intends to do. You’re a Republican and he’s the black Democrat in the mighty Oval Office— being regularly pissed off is pretty much inevitable.
But trying to pass the movement that led to the recent Boston tea party-style gatherings as something else than the GOP’s opposition to the Democrats in power, is not only futile— we see you!— but also serves to diminish the credibility of their arguments.
If it was really a movement against the feds, regardless of who was in power, then calls for a diminished government would have come long ago. Probably just about the time when the war for oil— oops, on terrorism—was waged.
It̢۪s almost impossible to reasonably believe that a Republican government that promoted an overseas war for fuzzy purposes and ideals would also champion a limited federal government at home. It̢۪s incredible that people claim to have been outraged out of their couches to protest an imposing government yet decided to remain complacent about the war in Iraq.
If against big government, why weren’t more of these false “non-partisansâ€Â stirred to action years ago? How is it that the “big governmentâ€Â label didn’t seem applicable with an ambitious government that promoted a war leading to the death of over 4,200 American troops, countless civilians and currently keeps thousand others overseas?
Limiting a government back when it sought to ruthlessly expand its influence under a sensationalist banner would have seemed like a much more legitimate fight than any protest currently made against the weight of the present federal government.
Garth Clifton • Apr 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm
This opinion piece was disgusting. It is flawed at so many levels its not even funny.
Number one, it insinuates that Dr. Paul is a secessionist. Which he is not, he would not have run for president of the USA had he been a secessionist, he’d be running for President of Texas. Gov. Perry’s case isn’t as strong. He may well be a secessionist. Time will tell.
Second, it indirectly states that the GOP only disagrees with Obama because he is black. Lets see, WAKE UP CALL MY FRIEND, Michael Steele, the chairman of the RNC is AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. And not only is he black, but look at Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice. African Americans have risen to top positions in both parties, actually proportionately to the share of the African American vote the GOP has, the percentage of high ranking blacks in the GOP is probably higher than the Democrats. (I’m talking cabinet level and other high ranking positions, not congress in which there has not been a black Republican elected since JC Watts.)
Thirdly, you have a naieve view of the Tea Parties. I attended the one at the Save Mart Center, and they were disgusted with BOTH parties in part DUE TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! As advocates of small government we have been had by the entire system, it is coincidence Obama is president. Had McCain done the same things Obama is doing should he have been elected, we’d protest him too.
You are entitled to your own (flawed) opinion. BUT GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. The tea parties were grass roots organized. Sure there were some organizations funding them here and there, but the point is we were sick of big government and are taking our frustration to the public sphere. On a side note, I’d like to say that at least 40% of the Tea Party’s attendance was – black, hispanic, asian, female and under 25. I was there I saw it. So its not just a bunch of old white rich dudes protesting. The small government movement is a genuine political ideology rooted in real principles that you cannot spend money you don’t have and you shouldn’t rob Peter to pay Paul. Big government is all about throwing money at the problems and controlling people’s behavior through taxation. This is so counteractive towards the idea of individual liberty that it has been a failure by design. The goal is not prosperity, it is mediocrity. We know Statism in both parties has failed. Be it the economic control the Democrats are exterting or the social control the hack neocons who hijacked the republican party tried to sell us.
Garth Clifton • Apr 23, 2009 at 4:31 am
This opinion piece was disgusting. It is flawed at so many levels its not even funny.
Number one, it insinuates that Dr. Paul is a secessionist. Which he is not, he would not have run for president of the USA had he been a secessionist, he’d be running for President of Texas. Gov. Perry’s case isn’t as strong. He may well be a secessionist. Time will tell.
Second, it indirectly states that the GOP only disagrees with Obama because he is black. Lets see, WAKE UP CALL MY FRIEND, Michael Steele, the chairman of the RNC is AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. And not only is he black, but look at Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice. African Americans have risen to top positions in both parties, actually proportionately to the share of the African American vote the GOP has, the percentage of high ranking blacks in the GOP is probably higher than the Democrats. (I’m talking cabinet level and other high ranking positions, not congress in which there has not been a black Republican elected since JC Watts.)
Thirdly, you have a naieve view of the Tea Parties. I attended the one at the Save Mart Center, and they were disgusted with BOTH parties in part DUE TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! As advocates of small government we have been had by the entire system, it is coincidence Obama is president. Had McCain done the same things Obama is doing should he have been elected, we’d protest him too.
You are entitled to your own (flawed) opinion. BUT GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. The tea parties were grass roots organized. Sure there were some organizations funding them here and there, but the point is we were sick of big government and are taking our frustration to the public sphere. On a side note, I’d like to say that at least 40% of the Tea Party’s attendance was – black, hispanic, asian, female and under 25. I was there I saw it. So its not just a bunch of old white rich dudes protesting. The small government movement is a genuine political ideology rooted in real principles that you cannot spend money you don’t have and you shouldn’t rob Peter to pay Paul. Big government is all about throwing money at the problems and controlling people’s behavior through taxation. This is so counteractive towards the idea of individual liberty that it has been a failure by design. The goal is not prosperity, it is mediocrity. We know Statism in both parties has failed. Be it the economic control the Democrats are exterting or the social control the hack neocons who hijacked the republican party tried to sell us.
mg • Apr 22, 2009 at 11:30 am
Daniella and the Collegian editors,
This was an opinion piece and I have no problem with you taking the position that President Obama’s economic policies are great and anyone that doen’t share that belief is wrong. That is your opinion and you are entitled to express it in this country. I can tolerate, albeit reluctantly, your ignorance of (or ignoring, take your pick) those that criticized the Bush administration and Congress for their spending increases because you also rather conveniently ignore those on the left that leveled similar criticisms (apparently you just assume that those were done for purely political reasons and they didn’t really mean it). I chuckle at the “well the Republicans/Democrats did it so you can’t complain when the other side does it now argument, also known as the nanni-nanni thesis. By that high standard of thinking, there could never be any criticism of what government does since both sides have engaged in ridiculous and stupid behavior. I can even accept that you did not make a sophisticated and intellectual defense of your position that took into account the difference in degree of the spending. After all, this is the Collegian. If you think that these are great ideas and really belive that it will be paid for by taxing “rich” people and ending the war, super. Make that argument.
But no, that is not what you do. You attack the protesters, not by calling them wrong, uninformed, heartless or even ignorant. You call them RACISTS. This piece, from the very first line, attributes opposition to the policies of president Obama, to the fact that he is of African-American descent and calls all republicans RACISTS.
“Seeing a black president elected into office was a sure trigger to rattle people into action for a long time to come. That’s not surprising at all. ”
“Of course Republicans are going to be against much of what Obama does, or intends to do. You’re a Republican and he’s the black Democrat in the mighty Oval Office— being regularly pissed off is pretty much inevitable. ”
Is this acceptable discourse on a college campus? If you disagree with me then you are a RACIST? Do you have no dignity? Is this the editorial policy of the Collegian? Should all of the students that you just called RACISTS have to support, through their fees, you and the Collegian making this scandalous charge against them? Does President Welty believe that republicans are RACISTS? You certainly do know about diminshing the credibility of arguments Daniella, and this piece is example number 1 that you and the Collegian have none.
mg • Apr 22, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Daniella and the Collegian editors,
This was an opinion piece and I have no problem with you taking the position that President Obama’s economic policies are great and anyone that doen’t share that belief is wrong. That is your opinion and you are entitled to express it in this country. I can tolerate, albeit reluctantly, your ignorance of (or ignoring, take your pick) those that criticized the Bush administration and Congress for their spending increases because you also rather conveniently ignore those on the left that leveled similar criticisms (apparently you just assume that those were done for purely political reasons and they didn’t really mean it). I chuckle at the “well the Republicans/Democrats did it so you can’t complain when the other side does it now argument, also known as the nanni-nanni thesis. By that high standard of thinking, there could never be any criticism of what government does since both sides have engaged in ridiculous and stupid behavior. I can even accept that you did not make a sophisticated and intellectual defense of your position that took into account the difference in degree of the spending. After all, this is the Collegian. If you think that these are great ideas and really belive that it will be paid for by taxing “rich” people and ending the war, super. Make that argument.
But no, that is not what you do. You attack the protesters, not by calling them wrong, uninformed, heartless or even ignorant. You call them RACISTS. This piece, from the very first line, attributes opposition to the policies of president Obama, to the fact that he is of African-American descent and calls all republicans RACISTS.
“Seeing a black president elected into office was a sure trigger to rattle people into action for a long time to come. That’s not surprising at all. ”
“Of course Republicans are going to be against much of what Obama does, or intends to do. You’re a Republican and he’s the black Democrat in the mighty Oval Office”” being regularly pissed off is pretty much inevitable. ”
Is this acceptable discourse on a college campus? If you disagree with me then you are a RACIST? Do you have no dignity? Is this the editorial policy of the Collegian? Should all of the students that you just called RACISTS have to support, through their fees, you and the Collegian making this scandalous charge against them? Does President Welty believe that republicans are RACISTS? You certainly do know about diminshing the credibility of arguments Daniella, and this piece is example number 1 that you and the Collegian have none.
Tom Cannon • Apr 22, 2009 at 8:59 am
Democrats and left-liberals have never been very good at understanding the difference between libertarians and Republicans… they see them as all part of the same group, and this leads them to erroneous conclusions like those of Ms. Lopez.
They also seem to be completely incapable of understanding the fact that calls to Congresspeople during the passage of the TARP bill during the Bush administration ran something like 95% against, and that it was described by congressional staffers as an “avalanche” of protest, “unprecedented” by some measures. These calls came from all sides of the political spectrum, from Republicans and Democrats and libertarians and others. They don’t seem to remember that the first House vote FAILED precisely due to this protest, and the weasels in Congress engineered a “do-over” with sweetheart deals and massive pork injections in order to pull it off.
People were angry at the mere prospect of spending billions upon billions in a wasted attempt to “save” the economy. Why would anyone expect those same people to be overjoyed at the actuality of spending billions upon billions in the same effort? THIS PROTEST IS NOTHING NEW. Obama taking office did not change anything, despite his campaign slogans. We are still spending far too much money, we are still printing far too much money, and we are still angry about it.
If anything, Democrats are the ones who’ve changed their minds… they used to be pissed like the rest of us, now they’re practicing willful blindness and selective memory, just because they think Obama is the Messiah who will somehow deliver us all.
Tom Cannon • Apr 22, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Democrats and left-liberals have never been very good at understanding the difference between libertarians and Republicans… they see them as all part of the same group, and this leads them to erroneous conclusions like those of Ms. Lopez.
They also seem to be completely incapable of understanding the fact that calls to Congresspeople during the passage of the TARP bill during the Bush administration ran something like 95% against, and that it was described by congressional staffers as an “avalanche” of protest, “unprecedented” by some measures. These calls came from all sides of the political spectrum, from Republicans and Democrats and libertarians and others. They don’t seem to remember that the first House vote FAILED precisely due to this protest, and the weasels in Congress engineered a “do-over” with sweetheart deals and massive pork injections in order to pull it off.
People were angry at the mere prospect of spending billions upon billions in a wasted attempt to “save” the economy. Why would anyone expect those same people to be overjoyed at the actuality of spending billions upon billions in the same effort? THIS PROTEST IS NOTHING NEW. Obama taking office did not change anything, despite his campaign slogans. We are still spending far too much money, we are still printing far too much money, and we are still angry about it.
If anything, Democrats are the ones who’ve changed their minds… they used to be pissed like the rest of us, now they’re practicing willful blindness and selective memory, just because they think Obama is the Messiah who will somehow deliver us all.
Ben Straub • Apr 22, 2009 at 8:44 am
In my opinion Dr. Paul has been correct about so many things. He predicted in 2002 that Fannie and Freddie were insolvent. He said several years back that the US economy was going to collapse. He opposed the Iraq war and nation building. This was all before Obama was on the presidential scene. So Dr. Paul has been critical of both parties as he should be. He likes to also think outside the box. As a research scientist I do this all the time under the assumption that current notions of how to do things may be incorrect or not the best way. His talk of Texas possibly leaving the union is a message to DC to observe states rights and to represent the people of this country not themselves. Dr. Paul has the correct ideas, and his followers tend to be a bit more cerebral than most.
Ben Straub • Apr 22, 2009 at 3:44 pm
In my opinion Dr. Paul has been correct about so many things. He predicted in 2002 that Fannie and Freddie were insolvent. He said several years back that the US economy was going to collapse. He opposed the Iraq war and nation building. This was all before Obama was on the presidential scene. So Dr. Paul has been critical of both parties as he should be. He likes to also think outside the box. As a research scientist I do this all the time under the assumption that current notions of how to do things may be incorrect or not the best way. His talk of Texas possibly leaving the union is a message to DC to observe states rights and to represent the people of this country not themselves. Dr. Paul has the correct ideas, and his followers tend to be a bit more cerebral than most.
Reynolds Kosloskey • Apr 22, 2009 at 8:39 am
First, there’s a difference between “taking down” and “constitutionally restricting” the federal government.
Secondly, your statement “…because arguing against taxes for the well off, help for the poor and those crazies trying to control guns does not even go as far as whispering GOP..” is a rather interesting and somewhat loaded message. I am assuming that the word “crazies” is meant as sarcasm. I would accept as one definition of “crazy” to be to take a course of action, like restrict lawful gun ownership, observe the resultant non-decrease in gun crime, then expect to repeatedly take that same action and expect a different result.
As far as “arguing against taxes for the well off”, I would suggest a closer true objective is “arguing for a non-biased and greatly reduced tax structure”. The opposite to “arguing against taxes for the well off” would be “arguing for taxes against the well off”, which to me seems just as unfair.
On the G.O.P., I do see a lot of hypocrisy. it seems they are more than willing to jump on the tea party bandwagon now, though they held power during the largest increase in government expansion in the history of the country. Neither of the 2 major parties seem willing to curtail the size and power of the federal government in the least, rather each seems to be engaged in a feverish competition to see who can spend the most.
Which brings me to secession, which I do not see as a “casual” subject, but a legitimate one to discuss. I would ask Ms. Lopez how she would expect a state to act, if the majority of its citizenry felt that the union they entered into was no longer honoring the contract of that union. Should those citizens be subject to the coercive control of the other states? How would Ms. Lopez resolve such a situation? This of course assumed that Ms. Lopez does not believe that the federal government is above and free from it’s Constitutional restrictions and obligations to the rule of law.
Reynolds Kosloskey • Apr 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm
First, there’s a difference between “taking down” and “constitutionally restricting” the federal government.
Secondly, your statement “…because arguing against taxes for the well off, help for the poor and those crazies trying to control guns does not even go as far as whispering GOP..” is a rather interesting and somewhat loaded message. I am assuming that the word “crazies” is meant as sarcasm. I would accept as one definition of “crazy” to be to take a course of action, like restrict lawful gun ownership, observe the resultant non-decrease in gun crime, then expect to repeatedly take that same action and expect a different result.
As far as “arguing against taxes for the well off”, I would suggest a closer true objective is “arguing for a non-biased and greatly reduced tax structure”. The opposite to “arguing against taxes for the well off” would be “arguing for taxes against the well off”, which to me seems just as unfair.
On the G.O.P., I do see a lot of hypocrisy. it seems they are more than willing to jump on the tea party bandwagon now, though they held power during the largest increase in government expansion in the history of the country. Neither of the 2 major parties seem willing to curtail the size and power of the federal government in the least, rather each seems to be engaged in a feverish competition to see who can spend the most.
Which brings me to secession, which I do not see as a “casual” subject, but a legitimate one to discuss. I would ask Ms. Lopez how she would expect a state to act, if the majority of its citizenry felt that the union they entered into was no longer honoring the contract of that union. Should those citizens be subject to the coercive control of the other states? How would Ms. Lopez resolve such a situation? This of course assumed that Ms. Lopez does not believe that the federal government is above and free from it’s Constitutional restrictions and obligations to the rule of law.
John Smith • Apr 22, 2009 at 8:02 am
Todd,
I appreciate your comment, and I expect all these comments to be dismissed by the author as crazy or kooky. If what you say is right, if elitism is the first thing taught in the journalism, then that is the only thing taught, since the narcissistic complex instilled in pupils clouds their judgment and makes any learning impossible.
I also want to point out that my previous post wasn’t meant to be an ad hominem attack on the author from the start, but none of her “pointsâ€Â merited any deep consideration nor response.
I was not a journalist major, but a CIS major with minor in mathematics. I do, however, read a lot and take great interest in the affairs that concern the future of my country. I̢۪ve been concerned about it during past several administrations, since all of them, carefully examined, have been the same.
I applaud you for standing up for your libertarian principles during your studies. I have had many conflicts with students and faculty during my university years standing up for the same. It is true that only people that are responsible and educated enough are deserving of such pure liberty, untouched by indoctrination. It is also true that people always get the government they deserve. So if we̢۪re looking for someone to blame for our current predicament, we only need to look in the mirror.
What bothers me though is that these clueless individuals are eventually taken seriously by an equally clueless mob, making us altogether one very clueless society. The roots of this evil are hidden behind thick walls of the Department Of Education, where policies are being crafted to dumb down the population (or at least distract them with sideshows) in order to control them more easily. Government’s end is always power. Individual’s end should always be liberty. We are trying to keep the balance, but with the influx of these new “educatedâ€Â individuals, the balance is being lost. America’s greatness is the experiment of liberty. Without it, we’ll slowly drift to our Brave New World, and we all know the consequences of that…or if the education system was good, we should.
John Smith • Apr 22, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Todd,
I appreciate your comment, and I expect all these comments to be dismissed by the author as crazy or kooky. If what you say is right, if elitism is the first thing taught in the journalism, then that is the only thing taught, since the narcissistic complex instilled in pupils clouds their judgment and makes any learning impossible.
I also want to point out that my previous post wasn’t meant to be an ad hominem attack on the author from the start, but none of her “points” merited any deep consideration nor response.
I was not a journalist major, but a CIS major with minor in mathematics. I do, however, read a lot and take great interest in the affairs that concern the future of my country. I’ve been concerned about it during past several administrations, since all of them, carefully examined, have been the same.
I applaud you for standing up for your libertarian principles during your studies. I have had many conflicts with students and faculty during my university years standing up for the same. It is true that only people that are responsible and educated enough are deserving of such pure liberty, untouched by indoctrination. It is also true that people always get the government they deserve. So if we’re looking for someone to blame for our current predicament, we only need to look in the mirror.
What bothers me though is that these clueless individuals are eventually taken seriously by an equally clueless mob, making us altogether one very clueless society. The roots of this evil are hidden behind thick walls of the Department Of Education, where policies are being crafted to dumb down the population (or at least distract them with sideshows) in order to control them more easily. Government’s end is always power. Individual’s end should always be liberty. We are trying to keep the balance, but with the influx of these new “educated” individuals, the balance is being lost. America’s greatness is the experiment of liberty. Without it, we’ll slowly drift to our Brave New World, and we all know the consequences of that…or if the education system was good, we should.
yoikes • Apr 22, 2009 at 7:40 am
Tea Party during Bush Administration, 16-December-2007, in Austin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8LsnbN7d-8
yoikes • Apr 22, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Tea Party during Bush Administration, 16-December-2007, in Austin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8LsnbN7d-8
Todd Twilley • Apr 22, 2009 at 7:17 am
John Smith,
Please! I would assume that Ms. Lopez has been to journalism school. The first thing they teach you is that you are elite from everyone else and that any criticism of your writings are authored by cooks and crazies. She’ll let your comments run off her back. I know they teach these things, because I WENT to journalism school. Was a decorated investigative jouranlist. But I walked away because 1) I could stand the liberal bosses looking at my libertarian angels on stories like I was a nutjob and 2) the vow of poverty. No wonder journalists are all liberals. You ever seen what they are paid?
Todd
Todd Twilley • Apr 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm
John Smith,
Please! I would assume that Ms. Lopez has been to journalism school. The first thing they teach you is that you are elite from everyone else and that any criticism of your writings are authored by cooks and crazies. She’ll let your comments run off her back. I know they teach these things, because I WENT to journalism school. Was a decorated investigative jouranlist. But I walked away because 1) I could stand the liberal bosses looking at my libertarian angels on stories like I was a nutjob and 2) the vow of poverty. No wonder journalists are all liberals. You ever seen what they are paid?
Todd
John Smith • Apr 22, 2009 at 6:53 am
Those of us that argued for years that the big government programs, such as the department of education are failing, have just been given another proof to support our thesis.
If the author’s intent was to write an opinion piece, it is then obvious that she’s looking at the promising career at HuffPost or ThinkProgress, where she would be writing for the legions of public school failures.
If, however, the author’s intent was to write an informative article of investigating journalism, then the failure of the school system is even more apparent. In the system where standards are so low anything can pass for journalism, since the system doesn’t want to “offend” failures and causes them self-esteem issues.
So Ms. Lopez probably never had to face the fact that she is a loser, and in my attempt not to offend her, I’m not going to call her such. Ms. Lopez, you are not a loser, you are just the last winner.
I feel sorry for the country that you and others of your ilk will be leading one day.
In Liberty.
John Smith • Apr 22, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Those of us that argued for years that the big government programs, such as the department of education are failing, have just been given another proof to support our thesis.
If the author’s intent was to write an opinion piece, it is then obvious that she’s looking at the promising career at HuffPost or ThinkProgress, where she would be writing for the legions of public school failures.
If, however, the author’s intent was to write an informative article of investigating journalism, then the failure of the school system is even more apparent. In the system where standards are so low anything can pass for journalism, since the system doesn’t want to “offend” failures and causes them self-esteem issues.
So Ms. Lopez probably never had to face the fact that she is a loser, and in my attempt not to offend her, I’m not going to call her such. Ms. Lopez, you are not a loser, you are just the last winner.
I feel sorry for the country that you and others of your ilk will be leading one day.
In Liberty.
Brent Burk • Apr 22, 2009 at 2:28 am
These “non-partisans” DID object during the Bush Administration. At least, Ron Paul’s supporters did. In 2007 on Dec. 16 they raised 6million dollars and hosted these rallies across the country. Many of the same people who hosted those rallies hosted these.
Ron Paul is the one you are looking for btw, he was the one criticizing the “war on oil” and foreign policy while remaining small government at home.
Why can’t people protest against the government without being called racist and partisan? Obama can willfully sign bills that put future generations with no representation (aka taxation without representation) into extreme debt and no one can speak out? Obama has broken so many promises so far, I urge all people who voted for him to stand up and fight for what they wanted (change).
Brent Burk • Apr 22, 2009 at 9:28 am
These “non-partisans” DID object during the Bush Administration. At least, Ron Paul’s supporters did. In 2007 on Dec. 16 they raised 6million dollars and hosted these rallies across the country. Many of the same people who hosted those rallies hosted these.
Ron Paul is the one you are looking for btw, he was the one criticizing the “war on oil” and foreign policy while remaining small government at home.
Why can’t people protest against the government without being called racist and partisan? Obama can willfully sign bills that put future generations with no representation (aka taxation without representation) into extreme debt and no one can speak out? Obama has broken so many promises so far, I urge all people who voted for him to stand up and fight for what they wanted (change).