In a recent opinion article on Neon Tommy, columnist Christian Patterson made the claim that the real republican strategy in Barack Obama’s second term in office is to “do anything they can to prevent democrats from helping struggling Americans.”

The column ran following President Obama’s inauguration. Mr. Patterson opened the piece with some pointed Paul Ryan quotations in response to the President’s inaugural speech. These quotations included Mr. Ryan’s statement that he and the Republican Party are worried that we are turning into a nation of takers, as well as the statement that he was “aching to hear” the president address our financial woes. It was at this point that Mr. Patterson delivered the aforementioned line about the real republican strategy over the next four years.

For the sake of time and space, we will address the idea of the Republican Party trying to keep American citizens from receiving help in a bullet-point format.

• First and foremost, our politicians are called public servants for a reason. They have been elected to serve the public. We may not always agree with what some of these men and women do once they are elected, but to claim that they are attempting to do anything but serve the public just because we don’t see eye to eye seems rash.
• The real scare I get from Mr. Patterson’s statement is that it reads so much like what the very Republican Party he is lambasting used to preach. We are four short years removed from Sean Hannity telling us all that not supporting George Bush’s wars was not only wrong, it was unpatriotic. While I haven’t asked Mr. Patterson, I feel confident in saying that he disagreed with Mr. Hannity on that point. In that case, it seems illogical to make a statement that is the equivalent, just from the other side of the aisle.
• In his speech, and many subsequent speeches, Ryan and the republican party have made it clear that one of the main problems when it comes to having a discussion on spending is the President’s constant switching of seemingly similar terms. For instance, President Obama often switches in Social Security for what the Republican Party deems “entitlement programs.” The Republican Party (and even those democrats serious about curbing spending) has no desire to eliminate programs people have paid into their entire lives. They simply wish to downsize programs that pay out far more to an individual than that individual has or will ever pay in.
• Mr. Patterson’s claim about the goals of the Republican Party stems from the fact that they are the party advocating a reduction in our national spending. Unfortunately, Mr. Patterson has presented a logical fallacy. He seems to be making the suggestion that there is only one way to help the American people. The American people who are currently receiving funding from these programs are highly unlikely to ever advocate for downsizing them. Just as a hungry child will almost always ask for candy instead of an apple. However, just because that child has begged for candy doesn’t mean it is the right decision for a parent to acquiesce. This is the same type of situation. There are times when the American people do not always want what is best for them. This comes as a result of us as human beings almost always wanting to take the easy way out, even if it isn’t always the best one.

This column is not an attempt to bring Mr. Patterson down. It is a commentary on the state of political discussion in this country. Too often we make the sensationalist statement (I count myself among the guilty) instead of the tempered one. Too often we make statements not backed by fact to sound bigger and bolder. Too often we make statements like Mr. Hannity’s, and Mr. Patterson’s, that instead of advancing the conversation, help fuel an image that prevents not only democrats, but also republicans, from helping struggling Americans.

 

Reach Contributor Calum Hayes here; follow him here.