The Culture of Dependence
Almost half a century ago, the last and truly great American conservative liberal, Barry Goldwater, predicted some of the dangers we now face in American politics. Based on the Constitution and Jeffersonian precepts that government works better the smaller and more limited it is, Goldwater paved the way for real progress without leaving aside traditional values. Unfortunately, the Republican Party forgot many of Goldwater's ideas and on many occasions followed the big government programs advocated by the Democratic Party.
Ronald Reagan, who owes much to Goldwater, wanted to correct the party’s course, and he did so during the 1980s. The same happened with Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" in 1994, but that was again decaffeinated by the momentum of a political culture of dependency evidenced by misunderstood conservatism. I bring this up because it has just been Newt Gingrich who has hit the nail on the head these days, when he criticized and showed — with numbers — the vast expansion of size and power of Barack Obama's big government.
In line with the coming midterm elections, Newt Gingrich wrote a letter a few days ago to the leaders of the Republican Party, where he reminded them of a fundamental difference in principle between the two parties: While the party of Obama-Reid-Pelosi is a political coalition of food stamps, the Republican Party is the party of salaries and paychecks earned by each hardworking individual. Gingrich evidenced a verifiable fact, which has parallels with European social democratic parties: The Democratic Party catapults a political culture of dependence on the Nanny State, subjugating the citizens this way.
It is thus necessary to compare the actions of Obama and his allies to the spirit of Goldwater and Reagan, and it's more important than ever for Republicans to keep promoting the culture of independence, employment, freedom, individual responsibility and personal success through [one’s] own work. Because in the America designed by Obama and his majorities in Congress, what prevails today is the lack of work. And this America has plenty of food stamp programs. Last June, the big government that Obama's pseudo-progressive ideology likes so much distributed more food stamps than ever before in American history.
This culture of dependence on the government is precisely what the tea party is putting into question — hence the obsession of the political left to vilify this grassroots movement. When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took control in Congress with their electoral majorities in January 2007, the U.S. unemployment rate was at 4.6 percent, and 26.5 million Americans were using food stamps. Today, nearly four years later, the unemployment rate reaches 9.6 percent, and one in eight Americans is receiving food stamps — nearly 42 million.
This letter from Newt Gingrich hasn't been favorably received within the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi, whose presidential position* in the House of Representatives faces serious danger, absurdly responded that these food stamps themselves are job creators, and the Federal Government gets profit for every dollar spent on those. This mediocre politician from San Francisco seems to understand little or nothing about economics. Because, if so, if every dollar spent on these vouchers generated 79 cents, as she argues, then why not spend the entire national investment budget on those food stamps? But nothing is further from the truth. What happens is that, as indicated by uncouth socialism, all this is about having the people under control. "If you vote for me, I’ll give you food stamps; if you don't, then I take them away." This is coarse politics, where anything goes and where a nobody can hold a portfolio.
These Democrats, who undo with their actions what they say with their words, see society as a malformed creature that cannot stand on its own. They see the citizen as an incapable person who must have everything regulated, as they think the people are ignorant, and all the wise ones are in Congress. Opposing this arrogant culture of dependency should be the flagship of every citizen who wants to be free here in the U.S. and around the world. This should be the force that moves those who refuse to be servile and dependent on these acrobats of public money. After all, as Margaret Thatcher said: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." And this applies to the Democratic Party too.
*Editor’s Note: Nancy Pelosi is currently the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Ronald Reagan, who owes much to Goldwater, wanted to correct the party’s course, and he did so during the 1980s. The same happened with Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" in 1994, but that was again decaffeinated by the momentum of a political culture of dependency evidenced by misunderstood conservatism. I bring this up because it has just been Newt Gingrich who has hit the nail on the head these days, when he criticized and showed — with numbers — the vast expansion of size and power of Barack Obama's big government.
In line with the coming midterm elections, Newt Gingrich wrote a letter a few days ago to the leaders of the Republican Party, where he reminded them of a fundamental difference in principle between the two parties: While the party of Obama-Reid-Pelosi is a political coalition of food stamps, the Republican Party is the party of salaries and paychecks earned by each hardworking individual. Gingrich evidenced a verifiable fact, which has parallels with European social democratic parties: The Democratic Party catapults a political culture of dependence on the Nanny State, subjugating the citizens this way.
It is thus necessary to compare the actions of Obama and his allies to the spirit of Goldwater and Reagan, and it's more important than ever for Republicans to keep promoting the culture of independence, employment, freedom, individual responsibility and personal success through [one’s] own work. Because in the America designed by Obama and his majorities in Congress, what prevails today is the lack of work. And this America has plenty of food stamp programs. Last June, the big government that Obama's pseudo-progressive ideology likes so much distributed more food stamps than ever before in American history.
This culture of dependence on the government is precisely what the tea party is putting into question — hence the obsession of the political left to vilify this grassroots movement. When Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took control in Congress with their electoral majorities in January 2007, the U.S. unemployment rate was at 4.6 percent, and 26.5 million Americans were using food stamps. Today, nearly four years later, the unemployment rate reaches 9.6 percent, and one in eight Americans is receiving food stamps — nearly 42 million.
This letter from Newt Gingrich hasn't been favorably received within the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi, whose presidential position* in the House of Representatives faces serious danger, absurdly responded that these food stamps themselves are job creators, and the Federal Government gets profit for every dollar spent on those. This mediocre politician from San Francisco seems to understand little or nothing about economics. Because, if so, if every dollar spent on these vouchers generated 79 cents, as she argues, then why not spend the entire national investment budget on those food stamps? But nothing is further from the truth. What happens is that, as indicated by uncouth socialism, all this is about having the people under control. "If you vote for me, I’ll give you food stamps; if you don't, then I take them away." This is coarse politics, where anything goes and where a nobody can hold a portfolio.
These Democrats, who undo with their actions what they say with their words, see society as a malformed creature that cannot stand on its own. They see the citizen as an incapable person who must have everything regulated, as they think the people are ignorant, and all the wise ones are in Congress. Opposing this arrogant culture of dependency should be the flagship of every citizen who wants to be free here in the U.S. and around the world. This should be the force that moves those who refuse to be servile and dependent on these acrobats of public money. After all, as Margaret Thatcher said: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." And this applies to the Democratic Party too.
*Editor’s Note: Nancy Pelosi is currently the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Next article![]( "The Need to Sanction “Pyroprocessing” in the ROK–U.S. Nuclear Energy Agreement")