Non-Reliance On Government’s Graces – Too Radical?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As a recipient of various campaign e-mail blurbs I have become less impressed with the ideas being promoted as reasons to vote for candidates who are trying to convince Nevada voters that government’s good graces are the only hope we have for survival. Those who advance self-reliance, independence from this status of dependency and who look to the private sector operating in a competitive enterprise environment are simply “too radical” to be worthy of voter support.
I recognize that I am not of the target audience who the message is designed to sway. Having seen first-hand research analysis, I fully understand that the messages bombarding us aren’t invented without knowledge as to their effect. The disheartening aspect of this revelation is the logic which indicates that enough people believe that reliance on government is so favorable that they can be counted on to acquire the necessary votes to return those who are promoting this message to office for more of the same. Of course part of the purpose (a major portion in Senator Reid’s campaign strategy), is that exploiting the fears of those who are totally dependent on government support to believe that his opponent will take away their regularly delivered checks and leave them destitute. He can’t win on the merits of his record – so he has to drive votes away from the alternative.
The concept though that a majority of Nevada voters are so gullible as to be emotionally swayed to expect only government handouts as their best hope for the future is extremely troubling. It means that those who are capable of providing the private sector momentum (with either their investment resources or their entrepreneurial values) to grow our economy out of the extremely deep hole we’re in probably should be looking for some place else to be going. In the socialistic scheme of taking from those who have (in accordance with their ability to give) to provide for those who are unwilling or unable to provide for themselves (in accordance with their need) – it is not a great idea to be the target for government’s intentions.
Although there should be some hope that thoughtful evaluation of what is really happening around us might persuade those who believe in private enterprise and capitalism to be activated to rally in support of candidates who advocate opportunity for private sector prosperity with limitations on government intrusion and taxation – that optimism will only be borne out by demonstrated outcomes in November’s election.
It should be clear that given the excessive government spending and efforts to stimulate our economy in this manner – and the devastation that has resulted – support for those who want more of the same is going to result in us getting a lot more of what we’ve got. The notion that it would have been worse, had this effort not been carried out, should also be easily discounted as faulty. Where is the evidence that justifies this theory? Why isn’t it just as apparent (given the continued increases in unemployment and economic hardship) to link that doing what has been done isn’t in fact the cause for the hardships being increased?
Then I would suppose that having those thoughts is far too radical for mainstream Nevada these days…
As a recipient of various campaign e-mail blurbs I have become less impressed with the ideas being promoted as reasons to vote for candidates who are trying to convince Nevada voters that government’s good graces are the only hope we have for survival. Those who advance self-reliance, independence from this status of dependency and who look to the private sector operating in a competitive enterprise environment are simply “too radical” to be worthy of voter support.
I recognize that I am not of the target audience who the message is designed to sway. Having seen first-hand research analysis, I fully understand that the messages bombarding us aren’t invented without knowledge as to their effect. The disheartening aspect of this revelation is the logic which indicates that enough people believe that reliance on government is so favorable that they can be counted on to acquire the necessary votes to return those who are promoting this message to office for more of the same. Of course part of the purpose (a major portion in Senator Reid’s campaign strategy), is that exploiting the fears of those who are totally dependent on government support to believe that his opponent will take away their regularly delivered checks and leave them destitute. He can’t win on the merits of his record – so he has to drive votes away from the alternative.
The concept though that a majority of Nevada voters are so gullible as to be emotionally swayed to expect only government handouts as their best hope for the future is extremely troubling. It means that those who are capable of providing the private sector momentum (with either their investment resources or their entrepreneurial values) to grow our economy out of the extremely deep hole we’re in probably should be looking for some place else to be going. In the socialistic scheme of taking from those who have (in accordance with their ability to give) to provide for those who are unwilling or unable to provide for themselves (in accordance with their need) – it is not a great idea to be the target for government’s intentions.
Although there should be some hope that thoughtful evaluation of what is really happening around us might persuade those who believe in private enterprise and capitalism to be activated to rally in support of candidates who advocate opportunity for private sector prosperity with limitations on government intrusion and taxation – that optimism will only be borne out by demonstrated outcomes in November’s election.
It should be clear that given the excessive government spending and efforts to stimulate our economy in this manner – and the devastation that has resulted – support for those who want more of the same is going to result in us getting a lot more of what we’ve got. The notion that it would have been worse, had this effort not been carried out, should also be easily discounted as faulty. Where is the evidence that justifies this theory? Why isn’t it just as apparent (given the continued increases in unemployment and economic hardship) to link that doing what has been done isn’t in fact the cause for the hardships being increased?
Then I would suppose that having those thoughts is far too radical for mainstream Nevada these days…
Posted by Doug Busselman at 8/3/2010 7:29 AM 
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Unemployment Weak Economy Nevada 2010 Election Limited Government
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Unemployment Weak Economy Nevada 2010 Election Limited Government
Comments