Still have a bunch of frequent flier miles (just not enough for, you know, flying) that seem to be getting turned into magazines. One of them that comes in for free is The Economist – based in Britain, not exactly a magazine that I would say that extolls the ideals that most Conservatives here hold high (Left describes it, as opposed to Center-Left). So, while wasting a few minutes, I have a habit of trying to read some of the older issues laying around and I picked up one from just before the November election; I nearly fell off my chair as their almost knee jerk reaction to every problem is "government has to be engaged to solve this problem!"
Here, they are contrasting the TEA Party reactions to the French ones concerning their respective government problems: the French demand more while the TEA Party wanted, er, less:
Not French, not fabricated and not as flaky as their detractors aver: these are the positives. Another on: in how many other countries would a powerful populist movement demand less of government, rather then endlessly and expensively more? Much of what is exceptional about America is its ideology of small government, free enterprise and self reliance. if that is what the tea-party movement is for, more power to its elbow.
Sadly, it seems that while The Economist pretty much got it right, they seemed to have learned nothing as they continually seem to push for more and more government interventions.
Sadly, too, those leading our nation seem to have either forgotten this notion in their ideological zeal to create a "more equal" society. While they push onto fulfilling their equality nirvana ideal, they never will acknowledge that as they think they are doing the right in providing "freedom from" a myriad of perceived ills, they are taking away freedoms from others. But it is for the collective good, they say – casting aside the notion of the sovereign individual philosophy that the Revolution was founded upon.
