What he said never bothered me. He was conflating several issues so understood literally, it wasn’t right. But I understood the point he was trying to make.
One point is that nearly half the country pays no income tax. If that number reaches 50% we are toast.
A second issue is that fact that so many people, and companies too, are dependent on government. That percentage is also very high, and if it reaches beyond a certain point, again, we’re toast.
A third issue is that, among the people and companies too that are dependent on government, many of them can’t conceive of a world in which they are not dependent. The likelihood is that they are never going to vote for less government. So a politician running on a platform that is based on limited government is going to have a hard time selling it. Repubs like to blab on about tax cuts but tax cuts don’t inspire anyone and most especially they don’t inspire people who see themselves as dependent. Explaining the whole notion of limited government and freedom to such people requires you to explain concepts we tend to take for granted, the connection between freedom, and happiness, freedom and prosperity. Freedom for its own sake. And still you aren’t going to reach some people.
Fourthly, there is a certain core of people who will never vote for a Repub no matter what. You’re probably wasting your time with them.
These four groups are not identical, though there is a pretty good overlap. Conflating them was rhetorical shorthand. I think most people got it.
read #4 post....Switch it to scroll at the top....Madison at his best....from 55 Men & the Constitution
And you don't think that's good?