I could go on and on. NONE of it would happen, however, if not for a TEMPORARY increase in Federal power. The Left wants it, so let's give'em what they want--FOR NOW; let's use their ideals AGAINST them. They will LOSE in the end, however. We have to play the game, b/c, as the article pointed out, the only way people will GET a smaller gov't is if they WANT it. The only way they will WANT it is if we show them how well it works. The only way we can show them how well it works is by DEFEATING the oppostion--namely, the Big Gov't and socialist programs side. The only way we can DEFEAT them is to PLAY THEIR GAME.
Translation: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Yes, people need to want smaller government. So why not make the case? Why not try convincing people that big government is a bad thing? Articles like this only make it more difficult to do that.
Convince them how? "We are going to take away this program on which you've relied for 40 years to show you how you can do it on your own." Yeah, great plan. That'll fly as well as a brick. How about we say, "Here, here's what you need to get back on your feet. Now that you are back on your feet, use these resources to STAY on your feet, as this program has a life of 6 months." Then, when the time's up, the program ends and they are still standing. DEMONSTRATE how it will work, don't just make wholesome promises--platitudes don't pay the bills. SHOW them how they don't need to rely on the Gov't forever.
We have no better opportunity to institute the "ownership society" than right now. How can the guy that makes $5.15 enter the ownership society if he can't even pay his rent (based on the gov't handout mindset)? We SHOW him how, by helping him TEMPORARILY, OUR way.
Making trite little comments like "why not try convincing people that big government is a bad thing" does no good, as to him, it ISN'T a bad thing. Maybe even use this as an opportunity to SHOW him what gov't dependency means, so he will try even HARDER to get out from under it. But if he has no REASON to try, why SHOULD he? Under *their* system, he keeps getting handouts. Under our system, he gets a hand up and then he is on his own, like the rest of us.
But how can we institute the best way (i.e. the Conservative way) if we don't play their game? People, in general, are not well-educated nor informed, nor do they like to think for themselves, which is why Liberalism is such a fit for so many of them. We must use that tool to our advantage, and play it their way. People have been brainwashed into thinking that the Fed has all the answers, and will, therefore, RUN from any attempt to diminish Fed influence. We have to play the game their way while subtly changing the rules that, eventually, will lead to the demise of the idea that the Fed has all the answers.
But again, we cannot accomplish it the way we've been trying. We've been trying to point out that big gov't is bad for 225+ years, and look what its gotten us: NEA (Arts and Education), HUD, welfare, SocSec, etc. So how about playing it THEIR way for a change, and using their programs against them? Use their ideals to defeat their ideals.
"You must become the beast to defeat the beast" rings particularly true to me in this respect. In "Silence of the Lambs" we are shown how you have to think like a psycopath to catch one. So why shouldn't we have to think and play like a socialist to defeat a socialist? It has to be on THEIR level, since they have had it their way for 60 years...