« Huckabee Goes Hunting (Macho Bona Fides)
Big Push By Candidates In Iowa To Win Votes (And Conservatives) »
Yes (Still) Trumps No
In a cleverly titled article at Politico — “The audacity of nope” — writers Jeremy Lott and W. James Antle III set up Congressman Ron Paul as the antithesis of not only Sen. Barack Obama but the entire field of presidential candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Lott and Antle make a good point, but in the process, they miss a much larger (and more obvious) point, namely: Paul and his “no” message might be polling well, but Obama’s “yes” message — as in “yes, we can be a better nation; yes, we can get past divisive partisanship; yes, government has a valid and valuable role to play” — still draws more voters.
Consider: In the latest poll aggregation, Obama draws 1 in 4 on the Democratic ticket while Paul draws 1 in 25 on the Republican ticket. Moreover, Paul’s cross-party appeal is severely limited, while Obama’s — as we’ve seen both in anecdote and en masse — is quite strong.
Sure, there’s a libertarian spirit dwelling in the center of the American soul, but it’s clearly dwarfed by the spirit of expectation.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Yes (Still) Trumps No”
1. Children don’t want to be told “no,” especially to entitlements (which have corrupted the middle class in large numbers).
2. Many see government as a surrogate parent.
3. It’s not only dependency on or expectation of entitlements, but also what is conveyed by the term “entitlement mentality.” It’s an attitude.
Liberals as optimists (and positive) versus conservatives as pessimists (and negative) is too broad in scope to address your central point here, though it’s introduced as a result of what you posted.
Government as surrogate parent is hardly an original characterization, and is right up there with “nanny state” when it comes to the parroting divisive and often pejorative rhetoric. I would agree, the “entitlement mentality” is indeed an attitude, but I see it more as a danger existing in the minds of above accountability politicians, thier systems for holding power, and also certain large corporations (with lobbyists of unprecedented power to influence legislation) than it does in the citizenry – who have rather increasingly limited influence. Ahh, the power of suggestion when a catch-phrase is repeated often enough! The props may change, but human nature is as susceptible to propaganda as it ever was.
The real danger is that by shrinking government and cutting taxes, the functions that government must perform will not get done. We are already seeing this in govt’s inability to maintain infrastructure until a tragedy occurs, and in its failure to protect consumers from tainted imports. Also. drugs that should not be on the market are being brought on too soon, due to the enormous pressure drug companies wield over the FDA, and their congressional allies.
Not true. Too many people view government as something that provides for, or should provide for, and take care of, them. (a grossly distorted though common interpretation of what is a “right”)
Just be careful in defining what government actually should perform. The burden of proof in this libertarian nation is always upon those who favor substitution of government for the private sector (and if honoring the Constitution, the substitution of federal government interventionism in place of local, then state government interventionism).
“Too many people view government as something that provides for, or should provide for, and take care of, them.”
You are either perpetrating a myth or are the victim of a myth. Most folks would be happy if the government simply did it’s job, honestly, represented the best interests of it’s citizens, and didn’t go around the world mucking things up and wasting taxpayer money.