|
4-25-2005
Some people argue that for various reasons, they are the sole proprietor of the memories of past leaders and
heroes, who we memorialize with our actions and our words as we live our lives in the hope that we somehow carry on the tradition
of those mentors.
Take, for instance, Ron Reagan Jr. He seems to implausibly believe that the entirety of his father’s
lifelong endeavors from all the events of which President Ronald Reagan was historically magnanimous, to the legacy he created
through ideological principle and spiritual encouragement are exclusive only to him. Any recognition, explanation, or promotion
of Reagan philosophy by anyone other than Ron Jr., he unequivocally denounces.
As if the rest of us just don’t
have the where-with-all... in the same manner that he does... to fully understand his father and appreciate what he stood
for ideologically, simply because we weren't children of President Reagan.
The same thing holds true for John F. Kennedy
and ditto for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Democrats... and those Presidents' family members for that matter... treat those
leaders' philosophies and ideologies the same way. FDR, his policies, and his memory is regarded as being ‘off limits’
to the rest of us. It’s how the inanity of the ‘third rail’ of politics to describe possible legislative
adjustments to Social Security was generated.
A recent column by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert accentuates this
very attitude. Upset that the anniversary of FDR’s death wasn’t honored more than it was, he wrote, “His
(FDR) goal was ‘to make a country in which no one is left out’. That kind of thinking has long since been consigned
to the dumpster. We’re now in the age of Bush, Cheney, and Delay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks
in the hands of the fortunate few.”
This is the same incessant mendaciousness that the left has spewed since
the first day President Bush took office and is as stale as week old coffee dregs. Every nuance of the President’s political
policy has been rife with ‘egalitarian ideals’, especially in the advancement of freedom for everyone.
The
very purpose of Operation Iraqi Freedom was to bring ‘egalitarian ideals’ to the Iraqi people and the success
that was achieved there has now spread throughout the Middle East so that his philosophy of human equality through social,
political, and economic freedom has not just been limited to one country... not even only America as with FDR... but the world!
So
how exactly has it been ‘consigned to the dumpster’?
It’s nothing more than a petty tirade when he
complains about, ‘small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few’. Mr.
Herbert’s salary surely isn’t small in scope, so does that relegate him to the ‘fortunate few’ helped
by those ‘small men’?
Besides, that’s specious fodder liberals dole out every other week while they
either completely ignore or intentionally belie the positive economic news that often goes under-reported in the liberal media.
Americans of every demographic have benefitted from the fantastic economic expanse that has taken place since President Bush
took office.
Herbert continues as he alludes to FDR’s ‘fireside chat’ State of the Union speech
in 1944 in which he proposed ‘a second Bill of Rights’. Much in the same way liberals misconstrue the Bill of
Rights in the Constitution; where they assert specific rights are given to Americans instead of the intended purpose of limiting
government control over those rights, he promotes a credence for FDR’s ‘egalitarian ideals’ that doesn’t
seem to exist.
Let’s look at a few of the ones he chose. “The right to a useful and remunerative job in
the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
recreation.” Liberals profess he meant the government should give these things to people. Yet, having the right to work
and earn money doesn’t mean a person is supposed to be ‘given’ them, it simply means they should exist for
anyone to participate in if they so choose.
Also, having the ‘right’ to a job to earn money is only accessible
if a business has the capability to be successful thereby creating the job a person has a ‘right’ to employ. The
only form of government that has existed mandating employment was called Communism and Ronald Reagan was the catalyst for
it’s destruction. Sorry about that, Ron. The truth will set you free.
The same rationalization holds true for
all the other ‘rights’ FDR proposed as he addressed the nation. Being allowed a ‘right’ only means
you have been given an opportunity. Impediments can be or have been removed from the path of your advancement towards participating
in those rights.
You have the ‘right’ to cut the grass in your yard... in most places. Do you have to have
the President to mandate it for you so you’ll know that you can? What about brushing your teeth? Why can’t we
get our legislature to mandate that we have the ‘right’ to not have to listen to vile lyrics spewing from the
loudspeakers of unattended cars at the gas pumps while we soak up a few more gallons of fossil fuel from existence?
It’s
just political rhetoric. Liberals continue to use that sophism to accomplish among Americans what they charge conservatives
with doing through the War on Terrorism and that is to ramp up the fear factor for political gain.
Social Security
is a perfect example. Liberals tell Americans that they have the ‘right’ to Social Security checks when you retire,
while never explaining how they also allowed themselves the ‘right’ to spend your collected Social Security revenue
on more and bigger social programs while denying you the ‘right’ to have access to some of your collected earnings
to save exclusively for yourself and your family!
Herbert then turns on President Reagan by quoting a historian who
said Reagan attacked Medicare as, ‘the advance wave of socialism’. In simplistic terms socialism is the governmental
confiscation of a person’s earnings so it can be distributed as that government sees fit throughout its’ society.
Sounds like Reagan was right.
The last conservative on Herbert’s attack list is Vice President Dick Cheney. “He’s
one of the leaders of the GOP gang (the members should all wear masks) that has executed a wholesale transfer of wealth via
tax cuts from working people to the very rich.” Transferring anything, in this case wealth, means moving something from
one to another. Tax cuts are reductions in the tax burden of a person who pays taxes. All working people who received tax
cuts earned more money because they paid less taxes. Where exactly did this supposed ‘transfer’ take place when
working people were allowed to keep more of their money?
Hello?
That echo you hear is intellectual vacancy on
the part of liberals.
Then Herbert did what most liberals do when spinning their rhetoric by destroying his thesis
through a back-handed attempt to denounce conservatives. Herbert writes, “Roosevelt was far from a perfect president,
but he gave hope and a sense of the possible to a nation in dire need. And he famously warned against giving in to fear.”
Fear
was the biggest residual created by FDR’s speech, whether it was intended or not and liberals have raised fear mongering
to the nuclear meltdown level as they constantly work to propel their agenda forward. The very purpose of Herbert’s
column was to promote fear of the hated conservative.
He even admits it himself, “The nation is now in the hands
of leaders who are experts at exploiting fear, and indifferent to the needs and hopes, even the suffering, of ordinary people.”
Are any of you ‘ordinary people’ scared yet?
President Bush should just give a press conference and say
with a saddened expression, “I feel your pain,” and forget all that nonsense about cutting taxes and expanding
freedom and formulating road maps to peace and fighting terrorists.
Then liberals could no longer allege that he’s
‘indifferent’ to the ‘needs and hopes’ of ‘ordinary people’.
Lee P Butler
|
