Meg Whitman is running for governor of California, and I haven't a clue what her chances are. I know I don't want someone like Arnold to get elected, but then I don't want hardly anyone to be either reelected or elected. And Meg Whitman gives a good example of why.
Her television ads are all about giving stuff to people. Yes, her big, novel, revolutionary political pitch is to provide more and more stuff to the electorate. She says so explicitly in her ads. No bones about it; nothing about principle, nothing about throwing all the lobbyists out, nada. It's all about stealing from these citizens and handing the loot to those. How else are you going to do more for "the people"?
freedom.iframe('x85'); And this pattern is repeated these days all around the country. No one even pretends to stand for a principle of justice that is to everyone's equal benefit, like making sure there is no more debt that citizens are stuck with. No mention about refusing to place future generations in debt even though, contrary to a major American founding principle – no taxation without representation – such a policy is glaringly perverse in this country.
Why can't Ms. Whitman come up with something really different when she claims to offer us change? But then so did Barack Obama, who now seems to be going down the same road that George W. Bush did: deficits, debt, foreign wars, continuing the "war on drugs," etc.
It is not in my philosophy to construe politics as innately corrupt. There could be decency there, yes, provided the ideas of the American founders were guiding those running for office. Politics should stay out of our lives and only do what referees do at a game – make sure the rules are followed. The rules, in turn, are to act peacefully in all realms of our lives, no exception.
Yes, yes, on some very rare occasions someone may deploy just a bit of force, as when a hysterical uncle needs to be restrained. But that is a very rare exception, indeed, and so would be the use of coercion in a decent society, especially by the government, whose job is to secure our rights, period.
Ms. Whitman, however, is no agent of serious change but is going to continue the widespread destructive governmental habit, promising to redistribute wealth just like all the other politicians are trying to do, thereby impoverishing the country – including the state of California, in spades – at every turn.
Of course, it would be a mistake to think that the American people, including the bulk of California's citizenry, are innocent. Most are, after all, the ones who invite the likes of Ms. Whitman to run for office instead of someone who is committed to weaning us off the governmental habit.
Back when Arnold Schwarzenegger got into the game I actually was stupid enough to vote for him, but only because I considered the Los Angeles Times' efforts to discredit him by writing a story on the eve of the election about how he frolicked on the sets of some of his movies. Well, I figured, that was such a low blow that I should come to his rescue. That was a dumb move; I will never do that again.
But any other basis for selection from among current candidates seems even worse since all they do is offer themselves up as your hired thief rather than someone else's. Yes, that is the ploy of most of them: "free" health care, "free" insurance, "free" maternity leave from your job, "free" unemployment compensation, etc. Of course, all of it is anything but free, but all put on the backs of other people and future generations.
Maybe some day there will be a citizenry that will repeal the authority of politicians to engage in all this larceny. Maybe. But do not hold your breath because that governmental habit is very powerful.
Meg Whitman is running for governor of California, and I haven't a clue what her chances are. I know I don't want someone like Arnold to get elected, but then I don't want hardly anyone to be either reelected or elected. And Meg Whitman gives a good example of why.
Her television ads are all about giving stuff to people. Yes, her big, novel, revolutionary political pitch is to provide more and more stuff to the electorate. She says so explicitly in her ads. No bones about it; nothing about principle, nothing about throwing all the lobbyists out, nada. It's all about stealing from these citizens and handing the loot to those. How else are you going to do more for "the people"?
Meg Whitman acknowledges applause from supporters at an Orange County GOP luncheon in Irvine. The former eBay CEO is a candidate for governor.
Register file photo
ADVERTISEMENT
More from Local and State Contributors and Columnists
And this pattern is repeated these days all around the country. No one even pretends to stand for a principle of justice that is to everyone's equal benefit, like making sure there is no more debt that citizens are stuck with. No mention about refusing to place future generations in debt even though, contrary to a major American founding principle – no taxation without representation – such a policy is glaringly perverse in this country.
Why can't Ms. Whitman come up with something really different when she claims to offer us change? But then so did Barack Obama, who now seems to be going down the same road that George W. Bush did: deficits, debt, foreign wars, continuing the "war on drugs," etc.
It is not in my philosophy to construe politics as innately corrupt. There could be decency there, yes, provided the ideas of the American founders were guiding those running for office. Politics should stay out of our lives and only do what referees do at a game – make sure the rules are followed. The rules, in turn, are to act peacefully in all realms of our lives, no exception.
Yes, yes, on some very rare occasions someone may deploy just a bit of force, as when a hysterical uncle needs to be restrained. But that is a very rare exception, indeed, and so would be the use of coercion in a decent society, especially by the government, whose job is to secure our rights, period.
Ms. Whitman, however, is no agent of serious change but is going to continue the widespread destructive governmental habit, promising to redistribute wealth just like all the other politicians are trying to do, thereby impoverishing the country – including the state of California, in spades – at every turn.
Of course, it would be a mistake to think that the American people, including the bulk of California's citizenry, are innocent. Most are, after all, the ones who invite the likes of Ms. Whitman to run for office instead of someone who is committed to weaning us off the governmental habit.
Back when Arnold Schwarzenegger got into the game I actually was stupid enough to vote for him, but only because I considered the Los Angeles Times' efforts to discredit him by writing a story on the eve of the election about how he frolicked on the sets of some of his movies. Well, I figured, that was such a low blow that I should come to his rescue. That was a dumb move; I will never do that again.
But any other basis for selection from among current candidates seems even worse since all they do is offer themselves up as your hired thief rather than someone else's. Yes, that is the ploy of most of them: "free" health care, "free" insurance, "free" maternity leave from your job, "free" unemployment compensation, etc. Of course, all of it is anything but free, but all put on the backs of other people and future generations.
Maybe someday there will be a citizenry that will repeal the authority of politicians to engage in all this larceny. Maybe. But do not hold your breath because that governmental habit is very powerful.
