Once again, my family and I saddled up Old Blue and headed for Colorado’s state capitol for an old-fashioned protest. Last time, as you may recall, we joined a hastily assembled and relatively small crowd (maybe 500 or so) to protest the so-called Stimulus Bill, which President Obama was signing down the road at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.
This time, we joined a much larger crowd estimated at around 3,000-4,000 as part of a larger grassroots movement and nationwide gathering on Tax Day to protest government spending and the tax policy necessitated by that spending.
They called it a Tea Party, in honor of the original American patriots who protested the British taxation of tea (without representation, which was their main beef) by tossing a bunch of it into Boston Harbor (a.k.a., Bastan Hawbaw). I’m not sure the analogy holds up very well to close scrutiny, but I suppose it’s a brand of sorts that people can identify with.
So, what’s our beef? Why bother? Isn’t the government trying its best to “stimulate” the economy? My reasons for supporting the movement are best encapsulated by James Madison, who wrote in Federalist #62:
“The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…”
This is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today. These mammoth spending bills, which spend money we don’t have, are both voluminous and incoherent to the point that even those words fail to accurately describe their monstrosity. What we’re seeing is a massive transfer of wealth from the average person to the bottomless pit of political favoritism and cronyism, paid for in part by the current generation, but certain to multiply to future generations.
Any serious and ideologically-blind study of the economic consequences of this type of spending policy, and the term policy is being used very loosely here, shows that it is unsustainable. At the recent G-20 Summit, even socialist Europe balked a bit at America’s latest and seemingly unending spending spree. If America goes down that road, who’s left to support Europe and defend it from the crazies who are feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons so they can spring their version of Utopia on an unsuspecting, welfare-numbed, drug-addled, and American Idolized West?
Moreover, a government that grows outside of the bounds set by the Constitution is certain to infringe on our individual liberties. The state that takes on a parental role supplants the role of the individual and the family. What has made America exceptional is not the government’s ability to provide for every need, but to empower the individual to meet his own needs without governmental interference.
Thus the Declaration of Independence declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These unalienable rights are not derived as government handouts. I do not have a right to free medical care (which I’ll be on a waiting list to receive) or anything else from the public weal. Nor do I have an express right to “happiness”. But I do have the right to pursue happiness, unfettered by government dictating to me how I should pursue that happiness.
It’s important to remember that the founders did not dive headlong, willy-nilly into the creation of our unique governmental system. Instead, they wrangled over every jot and tittle. They painstakingly studied the history and form of every government since the dawn of civilization, marking their strengths and weaknesses to derive a form most suited for a free people.
It’s safe to say that the founders’ studious approach is not taken by our current leaders, either Democrat or Republican. The only studies they do are based on maintaining their power and filling the coffers of those who help them maintain their power.
So when a bill comes before Congress that’s piled three feet high in pork and partisan paybacks and sold as stimulus, thinking people begin to think that maybe we’re heading in the wrong direction. The majority of people I met at today’s protest were thinking people; average Joes, if you will, who want our government to exercise self-control and discipline in order to secure our right to pursue happiness. Happiness, as anyone knows, is not found at the DMV or any other government bureaucracy that makes you stand in line for hours and has no concept of customer service, nor does it care.
Another striking thing about the protest was how orderly and well-behaved everyone was. This was in stark contrast to your typical left-wing protest, where profanity, invective, and mean-spiritedness prevail. My hope is that the hard-working, family-oriented American wins the day and wins back our country.
Wow! You really hate taxes huh?
I actually enjoyed reading your post until the last paragraph. Do you really believe that most people who support the tax increase are less hardworking and family-oriented? And whats up with the insinuation that most left-wing protests are profane and mean spirited?
I always support the right to protest and give kudos to you for actively participating in a cause that you feel strongly about. I think more people should do that. But I also recognize the importance of remaining humble and developing an appreciation for different perspectives.
It’s fair to point out that most war and abortions protests on the left aren’t exactly family friendly. This doesn’t mean Club Soda doesn’t support the right to protest.
Most people who support tax increases are either…
a) Don’t pay taxes
b) Are super wealthy
Since neither group can pay for government by themselves they force big government down everyone’s throats.
Hey Deb… What nemov said is correct. I would add a couple of things as well to clarify… I’m okay with taxes, but I’m not okay with my taxes being spent irresponsibly on a whole slew of things the government is not Constitutionally allowed or obligated to do. I did not mean to imply that people who support all the spending and taxing, and so on and so forth, are not hard-working and family-oriented. I was merely describing the type of person I met at the Tea Party. Also, I’m okay with left-wing protests. It would be disengenuous of me to trumpet the cause of the Consititution and liberty if I wasn’t. Perhaps I’m painting with too broad of a brush, but my experience has been that you are far more likely to encounter the profane screamer at a left-wing rally than you are at a right-wing rally, just as you are far more likely to run across profane, depraved comments on the Huffington Post than you are at TownHall.
Nemov:
I was trying to give club soda a compliment by praising his participation in the protest. Sorry for the confusion. I was half asleep!!!
Anyways, your reply is exactly why I hate discussing politics with people or watching the major news channels. I would classify myself as an agnostic/atheist (still exploring), huge advocate for gay rights, pro-choice, supporter of the current tax policy, and a Hannity and Limbaugh hater. But my views are the product of my life experiences, education, and how/where I was raised. I try to remind myself that.
So why do I bring this up? Because using stereotypes are easy and self-fulfilling. They simplify people and issues to make them manageable and easy for us to understand. And worst of all, it divides people.
I am not discrediting your beliefs about left-wing protesters or people who support taxes. But is it that simple? Is this when I am supposed to chalk up your comments as ramblings of a narrow minded racist?
club soda:
I greatly appreciate your honest reply and your willingness to acknowledge that you may have over generalized. I think we all need to acknowledge that more often! Including me of course!!
I don’t have a problem with people expressing their opinions about others. My issue is when we begin seeing our opinion as fact. Confirmation bias plays a big role in this. I also think that making comments like “My hope is that the hard-working, family-oriented American wins the day and wins back our country” could also fall under the “invective and mean-spirited” category. I mean, who is the “hard working, family-oriented American” up against? I think we all are guilty of falling into a mindset that we are fighting for the greater good.
Hey Deb,
The “hard working, family-oriented American” is up against your ideology. Not Deb as an individual, per se, but your views that are then translated into what is destructive public policy: atheism/agnosticism, gay rights advocacy (last I checked they had the same rights as everyone else, just not the state’s sanction of their relationships as “marriage”), pro-choice, and a confiscatory tax system. This is not a “feeling” I have, but is rather based on reason and evidence. I too supported all those views until I actually looked closely at the consequences of that ideology on society when put into practice through policy. Perhaps I’ll address each issue in future posts with my evidence. My hope is that you’ll argue the evidence rather than my psychology. There’s nothing worse than making an argument that’s refuted by something like, “You must be racist or homophobic, or insert the ad hominem of your choice here.” I’m certainly not accusing you of doing that, but I put it out there because it’s a rather common response when one disagrees with another’s ideology. For instance, I’ve been called racist in not so many words for opposing Obama’s policies. The actual response to my unhappiness with the election results was, “You’re not happy because he’s a black man.” If true, then I would be unhappy with Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, when in fact he’s my favorite Justice. I could care less about either Obama’s or Thomas’s color or ethnicity; what I care about is how they make policy, and that’s what I care to debate. And, just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I have anything against you personally. A good friend of mine here is unabashedly liberal, and even had the gall to wear an Obama t-shirt to my house. Needless to say, we have some spirited debates, but it never devloves into name-calling or other worthless rabbit trails. I think he’s misguided, but I like him a lot and have never held his ideology against him.