Stay Informed

stay informed

media library

media library

get involved

Register | Forgot login info

General Curtis E. LeMay Quote

I submit that it is politically immoral to use less force than is necessary to achieve a military objective when adequate force is available. It is immoral because more of our young men are killed or wounded or submitted to a cruel captivity that would have been necessary if more than enough force were used. Also, in a protracted struggle our total losses are greatly increased over the losses sustained in a quick, decisive war.

ideas > Two kinds of politicians

Two kinds of politicians
There are two kinds of people that seek for political office. They are the self-proclaimed progressives or those who wish to reshape society through the blunt force of the government. And there are those who want to leave the shaping of society up to the people. I don’t have a good name for these types of people, but we will call them the Constitutionalists after the founding fathers, because just like the founding fathers sought to overthrow government gone bad, so do these Constitutionalists seek to limit government interventionism within people’s lives.

Our governments in America are clearly filled with progressives. These kinds of people are intelligent, self-assured, and generally believe that they know better than the ‘regular’ folks how to run their own lives. One only has to look at the amount of regulations, consumer protection agencies and legislation, taxation, and other government intrusions to validate this assumption. What is a government tax but the government saying that it knows better how your money should be spent. What is a government regulation but the government saying it knows best how to limit your choices in economic matters. Our government has been a progressive government for a long time, at least since the early 1900s and definitely before and after the Great Depression. Progressive governments introduced progressive taxation in the early 1900s, social security in the 1930s, Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s, public education in the early 1900s, and now talk about universal health care in this century. Clearly these are progressive policies. Progressive offer nothing but limitation on freedom, carefully disguised as safety campaigns to protect the American people from some bogeyman, for the sole purpose of allowing the progressive the opportunity to lord over the ‘regular’ folks. The progressive knows that their policies do not bring economic growth and freedom. It is abundantly clear that government interventionism is not better than laissez faire capitalism when it comes to producing wealth for nation. The progressive only knows that they know best how things should be run and that in order to implement the changes they want, they need the government mechanism to do so. In order to stand at the head of the government, the progressive must convince the people that they have their best interests at heart, that the government is the only mechanism of change, and that there are bad, bad people out there that will take advantage of them without the protection that the government offers them. This is the classic bogeyman approach. Create a fictitious enemy, and then offer the protection against this enemy at the expense allowing the progressive the opportunity to rule.

The Constitutionalist operates differently. He realizes that he or she does not have all the answers nor the wisdom nor authority to control people’s lives. He respects the people’s right to make of their life what they wish to make of it. This was originally how this country operated. Government was distrusted. Business was allowed to flourish as people sought their freedom and happiness on their own terms. America was prosperous and free. Slowly, but surely, as politicians offered more and more bogeymen to the American people and as they offered more government-imposed prosperity, the people slowly began to accept the false promises of progressives. And America changed from a country that loved freedom and personal responsibility to one that loved government imposed protection and paternalism.

Ironically, one of the most popular and most certainly the Democratic nomination for President, Barack Obama, is running a progressive campaign with the slogan “Change We Can Believe In”. Senator Obama is clearly not offering change, but much of the same progressive policies that the American government has been offering its citizens for the last century or so, yet there are millions of people enamored with the promise of change.

Progressives should never be trusted for several reasons. First, never trust a person that wishes to run your life for you or that thinks they should be allowed to coerce or force people to live a certain way. Outside of protecting people from harm or injury from other people, the government should have little to do with people’s private lives and desires. Second, progressive policies will lead to economic ruin. The government required to implement the progressive’s vision of how the world should be is a government that controls all aspects of life. In a world where someone controls your life, there is no need for innovation or hard work because they are not rewarded. This type of world is naturally a world with a lower standard of living than would otherwise exist in world of economic freedom. Third, progressives are really nothing more than socialists. Both believe that the government should control the modes and means of production and that the government should provide for the individual from birth to death. I have often found it interesting how words are used. For example, did you know that the official name of the country of North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea or that the official name of mainland China is the People’s Republic of China? Clearly these governments are neither democratic nor republican, but that doesn’t stop them from misusing words that have clear meanings opposite of how they use them. Socialism is socialism whether you call it democratic, republican, or progressive. But often what happens is that people will more easily swallow something if it has a different name. Americans would cringe at the thought of swallowing communism, but they have less of an aversion to swallowing socialism, and even less of an aversion to progressivism or should I say that they have gladly swallowed the pill of progressivism. But there is really no difference between the three. They all seek to make the government the all-powerful directing force in people’s lives. They seek to use the government to order life as they see life should be.

Senator Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all progressives to one extent or other. They all believe that the federal government and government in general should dictate to the American people what they should and should not do in many areas of their lives which the founding fathers sought to limit governmental intrusion. Senator Obama is probably the most progressive of the lot, yet he offers change. Once again, he has used the tried and true method of labeling something it is not and millions of Americans have bought into his vision of change. He does not offer change, but he does offer more of the same, more progressive policies, more government intrusion, or should we say a stronger dose of progressivism which has been responsible for much of the moral decay and economic decline of America. Do we as Americans really want to travel down this road much longer? All we have to do is look back at the devastation that government interventionism and progressivism have left over the American landscape. It has been well over a 100 years since America was free from such government intrusion and intervention. It is obvious with the government debt in the trillions, with unfunded mandates in the tens of trillions that progressive policies do not work, yet Americans as a whole continue to be hopeful or blinded that they will work if only more is spent, more is done, more government control is implemented, and on and on. When will Americans wake up to reality and acknowledge the obvious? We are in the mess we are in because our ancestors, our parents, and even us have bought into the myth that security and freedom can only come through government control. We have been hoodwinked into believing that real freedom, the freedom to make choices without interference from the arbitrary decisions and judgments of others, is inferior to a counterfeit freedom that progressives offer.
Contact us