I'm not going after Tolkien, just this guy using his work to tell his own message.
Bush has done a great job in the War on Terror. But he has been too unwilling to imply any sense of sacrifice for the War on Terror. Personally I'm sick of sending petrodollars to the Islamist Gulf Kleptocracies every time I fill up my car.
And obviously universal health care is very expensive, which is one reason why I am not interested in it.
From the article: "Our modern cultural ethos proclaims that we can have our cake and eat it, too. We truly believe we can be victorious without giving up anything. We believe we can have a consumption-driven economy and preserve our environment. We believe we can have universal health care and low income taxes. We believe we can win the war on terror and not reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
I'm not going after Tolkien, just this guy using his work to tell his own message.
How is this any different from people on this site who want to highjack Tolkien's message to support their own particular "pro-war on (some) terror" biases? Everyone seems to have their own axe to grind when it comes to "interpreting" Tolkien.
Anyhow, taken at his word he isn't wrong: you can't have these "goodies" and low taxes, too, etc. You can't have a "good" without paying for it in some way. It is entirely another question whether you think these "goodies" are in fact "good" or not.