Thursday, September 28, 2006
This post will address the Orwellian tactic used by the left to confuse the reader by either redefining previously understood definitions of words or simply blurring their meanings. Professor Charles Baxter is a novelist, a writer of fiction. He uses his technique of word play to create a fictional impression in this entire op-ed.
Most people use the term �conservative� to indicate someone with conservative political views which include smaller government, lower taxes, protection of family, America, etc. Yet Dr. Baxter uses the term to describe Ms. Wetterling�s personality, one that is �rather tame and pleasant and sensible � conservative, that is�. This is clever � one could conclude that Ms. Wetterling�s political views are also conservative. However, if one looks at her out-of-state support, one will find very liberal groups making contributions.
Dr. Baxter also labels Michele Bachmann a �suburban radical�. Usually a radical wants to destroy the status quo � Bachmann simply wants to lower taxes and lessen government�s interference in our lives. If one wants to call this �radical�, I�d say most American taxpayers (the 50% who pay close to 100% of the income taxes in our nation) would welcome these changes. However, it is the conservative politicians, in the historical definition of conservative, who want to make these changes to get the government off our backs.
Lately, the liberal left has begun to use the term �progressive� to describe themselves. These Democrats want to be �progressive� by giving government more control over our lives. Actually, this is an excellent choice of a word � it implies they are forward thinking. In reality, though, it is used by politicians who want to ignore problems and maintain the status quo in many areas: leave Social Security alone even though it is going broke; leave Medicare alone even though it is going broke; etc. Excuse me � since when do the terms �progressives/liberals� mean maintain the status quo? Ms. Wetterling wants government solutions for all our problems (except national security). How will she pay for her �conservative� but in reality �liberal� solutions? We can only guess that her approach is the classic Democratic solution of raising taxes. But, to be fair, we must acknowledge she may have another solution � it�s just that we don�t know what her solutions might be because she has missed 5 of 8 scheduled candidate forums. Why would Ms. Wetterling refuse to debate her opponents? Could it be that she knows the CD 6 constituents are real conservatives and would not agree with her opinions?