Whither Democracy in an Age of Demagoguery?
Whatever the issue, if America’s biggest problems can’t be put on the public table for open discussion, then what has become of our freedoms? Suppose the drug cartels were to take over a political party in this country, but no one could mount an opposition for fear of being assassinated. It would be even worse if the majority of potential voters were already hooked on drugs.
It’s too bad that a candidate like Romney is forced to say what matters only in secrecy: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”
The liberal media, of course, had a field day labeling this obvious truth as a closed-mike type of gaffe. Commentators followed up by lamenting Romney’s “slam” against the almost majority of Americans. A few quibbled about the minor details, but almost to a person, news pundits avoided answering a direct question like “Is what Romney said actually true?” CNN’s John Avlon dodged so when Erin Burnett asked the question directly.
But if it’s 47% this time around, wait until next time when the entitlement bloc will be an automatic shoe-in for any and all Welfare State candidates. Is 57% or 66% a figure that we’ll see, especially if the Democratic Party is doing what it can to bring in “illegals” from Third World countries who seek out a “free” society? America as we know it will be dead. We already have racial minorities voting as a bloc by skin color alone, but it’s labeled “racism” to say so. How perverse is this?
“The emperor has no clothes,” though woe betide the politician who says so. Debates have already generated into “don’t be honest about the issues” or risk being demagogued by the media. But is Romney really better off by apologizing for what is blatantly true? Isn’t everyone saying that he should embrace and defend, rather than cringe and cower? Look at the boost that Newt Gingrich got when he stepped outside the box to challenge John King’s trashy question during the debate.
The muzzle is being quickly placed on Paul Ryan as well. He’s being portrayed as an elitist who, like his running mate, doesn’t care about the 47% percent who are freeloaders waiting for food stamps, unemployment and disability checks, and the latest taxpayer-funded Twinkie program to help the so-called “disadvantaged.”
Yes, this number excludes the 2% or so of people are who are legitimately in need of welfare, alms, and other forms of assistance. Be reminded that every society in the past tended to the needs of those who truly needed help, starting first with the family, then with the church. But these aren’t the 47% folks that Romney is talking about. Nor are they the Social Security and Medicare recipients who actually paid-in savings-wise during their working years.
