THE TREATMENT FEBRUARY 23, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Paul Waldman, today, writing at the American Prospect:
The only problem is that there is no tyranny to rebel against. President Barack Obama isn't rounding up his opponents. He isn't punishing them for their free speech. He hasn't even raised anyone's taxes, save for a boost in the federal cigarette tax (we await the event where the tea partiers dump cartons of Marlboros into the Chesapeake). So what are the outrageous crimes that have driven the right to shout "Enough!" until their faces turn red? In the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, Obama passed a large stimulus bill. And he might pass health-care reform that could extend coverage to those who don't have it, all while preserving the private insurance system. He's also embraced a market-based initiative for reducing greenhouse emissions. Not exactly a program that would that would offend the delegates of the Continental Congress. What has driven conservatives to distraction isn't tyranny -- it's the oldest political complaint in the book: The other guys won and are attempting to implement their agenda.
Yet when conservatives criticize the administration, today's playacting revolutionaries imagine themselves heroes of liberty, bravely staring down the forces of oppression. This notion must be called what it is: a puerile fantasy. The tea-party sign-waver is not the man standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square. The conservative blogger is not Jacobo Timerman, exposing the barbarity of the Argentine junta only to experience it himself. The activists and operatives and think-tank denizens are not Vaclav Havel, or Ken Saro-Wiwa, or Nelson Mandela.
And they sure aren't Washington, James Madison, or Thomas Jefferson. Precisely because they live in the country those American visionaries made, the Founding Father fetishists risk nothing by objecting to the current administration, no matter the apocalyptic language they use to clothe those objections in glory. They are participants in public debate in the world's oldest democracy--nothing more, nothing less. It's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a hero. And putting on a tricornered hat won't make it so.
2 comments
The quoted matter neglects to mention Obama's tyrannical record on guns: signing into law the largest single expansion of the right to carry handguns in the last generation. Oh, the oppression! The people groan under the weight of all the tax cuts, expended gun rights, and protected liberties the Obama regime has inflicted on America!
- rhubarbs
February 23, 2010 at 4:50pm
I bet Neville Chamberlain never liked Adolf or Benito, either. He just didn't talk-- and certainly didn't act-- in a way that you could really tell. Sometimes times demand more forceful leadership. Obama's NOT proposing health care reform, but some rather bland insurance reform. And not really spending that much effort at it. As said elsewhere : "When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right." If you've conceded that one of your ideas -- one of your most important ideas is a bad or really not worth fighting for -- why should the public trust any of the other ideas that you have? Instead, they're going to say: Well, thank you Obama and Mr. Blue Dog -- I'm glad you've come around to Republican way of thinking on this. Now I'm going to vote for the guy who didn't seem to have the bad idea in the first place and at least is willing to fight. Do you really want a set of wimps and chumps negotiating with Iranian Mullahs, Korean Dear Leaders, Russian ex KGB, etc ... many voters will not-irrationally vote "no".
- gdbittner
February 23, 2010 at 6:19pm