|
COMMON SENSE CONSERVATISM |
|
|
|
Written by Sarah Palin
|
|
Thursday, 24 September 2009 |
[Text of speech
delivered at the CLSA Pacific Markets Conference in Hong Kong on September 23, 2009]
You can call me a common-sense conservative. My approach to the issues
facing my country and the world, issues that we'll discuss today, are rooted in
this common-sense conservatism... Common sense conservatism deals with the
reality of the world as it is. Complicated and beautiful, tragic and hopeful,
we believe in the rights and the responsibilities and the inherent dignity of the
individual.
We don't believe that human nature is perfectible; we're suspicious of
government efforts to fix problems because often what it's trying to fix is
human nature, and that is impossible. It is what it is. But that doesn't mean
that we're resigned to any negative destiny. Not at all. I believe in striving
for the ideal, but in realistic confines of human nature...
The opposite of a common-sense conservative is a liberalism that holds that
there is no human problem that government can't fix if only the right people
are put in charge. Unfortunately, history and common sense are not on its side.
We don't trust utopian promises; we deal with human nature as it is.
While we might be in the wilderness, conservatives need to defend the free
market system and explain what really caused last year's collapse.
According to one version of the story, America's economic woes were caused
by a lack of government intervention and regulation and therefore the only way
to fix the problem - because, of course,
every problem can be fixed by a politician - is for more bureaucracy to impose
itself further, deeper, forcing itself deeper into the private sector.
I think that's simply wrong. We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place. The mortgage
crisis that led to the collapse of the financial market, it was rooted in a
good-natured, but wrongheaded, desire to increase home ownership among those
who couldn't yet afford to own a home.
In so many cases, politicians on the right and the left, they wanted to take
credit for an increase in home ownership among those with lower incomes. But
the rules of the marketplace are not adaptable to the mere whims of
politicians.
Lack of government wasn't the
problem. Government policies were the
problem. The marketplace didn't fail. It
became exactly as common sense would expect it to.
The government ordered the loosening of lending standards. The Federal
Reserve kept interest rates low. The government forced lending institutions to
give loans to people who, as I say, couldn't afford them. Speculators spotted
new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated
risks.
So - how can we discuss reform without addressing the government policies at
the root of the problems? The root of the collapse? And how can we think that
setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will
result in meaningful reform?
The words "fox" and "hen house" come to mind. The Fed's decisions helped
create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you'll see
the Fed somewhere in the background.
Common sense tells you that when you're in a hole, you have to stop digging!
A common sense conservative looks to history to find solutions to the problems
confronting us, and the good news is that history has shown us a way out of
this, a way forward from recession.
Ronald Reagan, he was faced with an even worse recession, and he showed us
how to get out of here.
If you want real job growth, you cut
taxes! And you reduce marginal tax rates on all Americans. Cut payroll taxes,
eliminate capital gain taxes and slay the death tax, once and for all. Get
federal spending under control, and then you step back and you watch the U.S. economy roar back to life.
But it takes more courage for a politician to step back and let the free
market correct itself than it does to push through panicky solutions or quick
fixes...
I can't wait until we get that Reaganomics sense supplied again because we are going to survive, and we're
going to thrive and expand and roar back to life. And as the world sees this,
the world will be a healthier, more secure, safer and more prosperous place
when this happens.
Yet it seems like some are looking to ever more ways that will actually
destroy economic opportunities today. Take for example, Washington's
cap-and-trade scheme. I call it the "cap-and-tax" scheme.
Right now we have the highest unemployment rate in 25 years, and it's still
rising. And yet some in D.C. are pushing a cap-and-tax bill that could cripple
our energy industry or energy market and dramatically increase the rates of the
unemployed, and that's not just in the energy sector.
American jobs in every industry will be threatened by the rising cost of
doing business under this cap-and-tax plan. The cost of farming will certainly
increase. That's going to drive up the cost of groceries and drive down farm
incomes. The cost of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also
rise. We are all going to feel the effects. The Americans hardest hit will be
those who are already struggling to make ends meet today, much less with this
new tax every month.
I am not indifferent to environmental concerns. Far from it. As governor, I
created a sub-cabinet to study the impacts of climate change in my state. And I
was the first governor to do so. It took us in a new direction.
I'm a supporter of nuclear power and renewables. We can develop these
resources without destroying our economy. And we can help the environment and
our economy through energy independence.
Now, I seem to have acquired notoriety in the national debate on health
care. And all because of two words: "death panels." And it is a serious term.
It was intended to sound a warning about the
rationing that is sure to follow if big government tries to simultaneously
increase health care coverage while also claiming to decrease costs.
Government has just got to be honest with the people about this.
As I said, it's just common sense to realize that government's attempts to
solve large problems like the health-care challenges that we have, more often
create new ones, and a top down one size fits all plan will not improve the
workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for some one-fifth of
our economy.
Common sense also tells us that passing a trillion dollar new retirement
program is not the way to reduce health-care spending. Real health-care reform is market oriented, patient centered and result
driven.
The ideal plan that I would have in mind would give all individuals the same tax benefits
as those who get coverage through their employers. And give Medicare recipients
vouchers so that they can buy their own coverage. And reform tort laws and
change regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines.
Rather than another top down government plan, we should give Americans
themselves control over their own health care with market friendly responsible
ideas.
So far, I've given
you the view from Main
Street, USA. I'd
like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large.
Later this year, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the
Berlin Wall - an event that changed not just Europe but the entire world. In a matter of
months, millions of people in formerly captive nations were freed to pursue
their individual and national ambitions.
The competition that defined the post World War II era was suddenly over. What
was once called "the free world" had so much to celebrate - the peaceful end to
a great power rivalry and the liberation of so many from tyranny's grip.
Some, you could say, took the celebration too far. Many spoke of a "peace
dividend," of the need to focus on domestic issues and spend less time,
attention and money on endeavors overseas.
Many saw a peaceful
future, where globalization would break down borders and lead to greater global
prosperity. Some argued that state sovereignty would fade - like that was a
good thing? - that new non-governmental actors and old international
institutions would become dominant in the new world order.
As we all know, that did not happen. Unfortunately, there was no shortage of
warning signs that the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of history or
the end of conflict.
In Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in brutal wars in the Balkans. In
the Middle East, a war was waged to reverse Saddam
Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. North Korea's nuclear program nearly led to military
conflict. In Africa, U.S. embassies were bombed by a group called Al
Qaeda.
Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the
savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day
made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores
directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that
there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end
our way of life. Their attacks have not been limited to the United States.
They attacked targets in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Here in Asia, they killed more than 200 in a single attack in Bali. They bombed the Marriott Hotel and the
Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Last year in Mumbai, more than 170 were killed in coordinated attacks
in the heart of India's financial capital.
In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part
of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their
twisted vision.
This war - and that is what it is, a war - is not, as some have said, a
clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within
Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view
on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want:
economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for
themselves and their families. The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates
have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children.
The reality is that Muslims from Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries are fighting Al
Qaeda and their allies today. But this will be a long war, and it will require
far more than just military power to prevail. Just as we did in the Cold War,
we will need to use all the tools at our disposal - hard and soft power.
Economic development, public diplomacy, educational exchanges, and foreign
assistance will be just as important as the instruments of military power.
During the election campaign in the U.S. last year, you might have noticed we had
some differences over Iraq.
John McCain and I
believed in the strength of the surge strategy - and because of its success, Iraq is no longer the central front in the war
on terrorism. Afghanistan is.
Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks were planned and if
we are not successful in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda will once again find safe haven
there.
As a candidate and
in office, President Obama called Afghanistan the "necessary war" and pledged to provide
the resources needed to prevail. However, prominent voices in the Democratic
Party are opposing the additional U.S. ground forces that are clearly needed.
Speaker of the House Pelosi, Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha, the Senate
Armed Services Committee Chair, and many others, recently expressed doubts
about sending additional forces! President Obama will face a decision soon when
the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan requests additional forces to implement his
new counterinsurgency strategy.
We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable
representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to
prevail. The stakes are very high.
Last year, in the
midst of the U.S. debate over what do to in Iraq, an important voice was heard
- from Asia's Wise Man, former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who
wrote in the Washington Post about the cost of retreat in Iraq. In that
article, he prophetically addressed the stakes in Afghanistan. He wrote:
"The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim
world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of
Islam. A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated
modernity twice: first the Soviet Union,
then the United States. There would be profound consequences,
especially in the campaign against terrorism."
That statesman's words remain every bit as true today. And Minister Lee knows,
and I agree, that our success in Afghanistan will have consequences all over the world,
including Asia. Our allies and our adversaries are watching
to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan.
That is why I
recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the
resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right
decision.
That is why, even during this time of financial distress we need to maintain
a strong defense. All government spending should undergo serious scrutiny.
No programs or agencies should be automatically immune from cuts.
We need to go back to fiscal discipline and unfortunately that has not been the
view of the current Administration. They're spending everywhere and with
disregard for deficits and debts and our future economic competitiveness.
Yet, though we are
engaged in two wars and face a diverse array of threats, it is the defense
budget that has seen significant program cuts and has actually been reduced
from current levels!
First, the Defense Department received only ½ of 1 % of the nearly trillion
dollar Stimulus Package funding - even though many military projects fit
the definition of "shovel-ready."
In this
Administration's first defense budget request for 2010, important programs were
reduced or cancelled. As the threat of ballistic missiles from countries like North Korea and Iran grow, missile defense was slashed.
Despite the need to move men and material by air into theaters like Afghanistan, the Obama Administration sought to end
production of our C-17s, the work horse of our ability to project long range
power.
Despite the Air
Force saying it would increase future risk, the Obama Administration
successfully sought to end F-22 production - at a time when both Russia and China are acquiring large numbers of next
generation fighter aircraft. It strikes me as odd that Defense Secretary Gates
is the only member of the Cabinet to be tasked with tightening his belt.
Now in the region I want to emphasize today: The reason I speak about defense
is because our strong defense posture in Asia has helped keep the region safe and allowed
it to prosper.
Our Asian allies
get nervous if they think we are weakening our security commitments. I worry
about defense cuts not because I expect war but because I so badly want peace.
And the region has enjoyed peace for so long because of our security commitment
to our longstanding allies and partners.
Asia has been one of the world's great success
stories. It is a region where America needs to assist with the right mix of hard
and soft power. While I have so much hope for a bright future in Asia, in a region this dynamic, we must always
be prepared for other contingencies. We must work at this - work with our
allies to ensure the region's continued peace and prosperity.
I know that you all -- like all of Asia and
indeed the whole world - have a keen interest in the emergence of "China as a great power."
Over the past few
decades China's economic growth has been remarkable. So has the economic growth and
political liberalization of all of our key allies in Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Asia's
economic growth and political development, together with our forward military
presence in the region and strong alliances, have allowed the region to prosper
in peace for a long time.
We hope that Asia will continue to be an engine of world economic
growth, will continue to democratize and will remain at peace.
Our future is now deeply linked to Asia's
success. Our children's future. We must continue to strengthen our key alliance
with Japan, a country going through its own democratic change. Together the U.S. and Japan built the security umbrella under which so
many Asians prospered. While there is so much attention to China these days, we cannot forget the importance
of Japan in helping to make this the "Pacific
Century."
The recent elections in Japan demonstrated that voters wanted reform and
an end to debt and stagnation. We have a substantial stake in Japan's success -- our alliance with must
continue to be the linchpin of regional security.
With its open political system and vibrant democracy, South Korea wants to play a larger role on the
international stage as well. Of course it wants us to work together toward a
future where the peninsula is irreversibly denuclearized, and unified. But it
also wants to play a global role. We need to work together with Japan, South Korea and our steadfast ally to the south, Australia, to make sure Asia remains peaceful and prosperous.
Australia rightly reminds us to keep our eye on Southeast Asia, where Indonesia has proved that Islam and democracy can
co-exist. Indonesia has fought extremism inside its own border
and is consolidating a multi-ethnic democracy that is home to hundreds of
millions of Muslims.
Those who say Islam
and democracy are incompatible insult our friends in Indonesia.
Our great democratic friend India is also "looking East", seeking a greater
role in East Asia as well. Together with our allies we must
help integrate India into Asia. If we do so we will have yet another
strong democracy driving Asia's
economy and working on shared problems such as proliferation and extremism.
And we must
continue working with the region's most dynamic economy, China. We all hope that China's stated policy of a "Peaceful Rise" will
be its future course.
You know better than most the enormous change that has taken place in China over the last thirty years. Hundreds of
millions of Chinese have been pulled out of poverty as China has undertaken economic reforms that have
resulted in unprecedented growth. Even today, China's economy is projected to grow by some 8%.
It is helping to edge the world out of recession.
China has amassed huge financial reserves.
Chinese diplomats are engaged on every continent and, through its vote on the
United Nations Security Council, China has become critical in gaining UN
support on multilateral issues from Darfur to Iran to North Korea.
Just four years ago, then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick urged China to become a "responsible stakeholder" in
the international system. He observed the many benefits to China of a "benign international environment."
The peaceful regional environment that China has enjoyed was created through the hard
work of Americans, Japanese, South Koreans and Australians. Secretary Zoellick
urged China to step up and play its role too.
We are working with
China to de-nuclearize North Korea. But to be a responsible member of the
international community China should exert greater pressure on North Korea to
denuclearize and undergo the fundamental reforms it needs. Zoellick urged China to play a greater role in stabilizing the
international energy market by ceasing its support of dangerous regimes.
China could play a role in stabilizing its ally Pakistan, and working for peace in Afghanistan. There are many areas where the U.S. and China can work together. And, we would welcome a China that wanted to assume a more responsible
and active role in international politics.
But Secretary Zoellick also noted that many of China's actions create risk and uncertainty.
These uncertainties led nations to "hedge" their relations with China because, in Zoellick's words: "Many
countries HOPE China will pursue a ‘Peaceful Rise' but NONE will bet their
future on it."
See: this is the heart of the issue with China:
we engage with the hope Beijing
becomes a responsible stakeholder, but we must takes steps in the event it does
not. See?
We all hope to see
a China that is stable, peaceful, prosperous and
free. But we must also work with our allies in the region and the world in the
event China goes in a direction that causes regional instability.
Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by
a single power. In seeking Asia's continued peace and prosperity, we should
seek, as we did in Europe, an Asia "whole and free" - free from domination by
any one power, prospering in open and free markets, and settling political
differences at ballot boxes and negotiating tables.
We can, must and should work with a "rising China" to address issues of mutual concern. But
we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by
China's rise. We simply CANNOT turn a blind eye
to Chinese policies and actions that can undermine international peace and
security.
China has some 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer
believes Taiwan poses a military threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese
forces make our friends in Japan and Australia nervous.
China
provides support for some of the world's most questionable regimes from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe.
China's
military buildup raises concerns
from Delhi to Tokyo because it has taken place in the absence
of any discernable external threat.
China, along with Russia, has repeatedly undermined efforts to impose
tougher sanctions on Iran for its defiance of the international community
in pursuing its nuclear program.
The Chinese food
and product safety record has raised alarms from East Asia and Europe to the United States. And, domestic incidents of unrest -- from
the protests of Uighurs and Tibetans, to Chinese workers throughout the country
rightfully make us nervous.
It is very much in our interest and the interest of regional stability that
China work out its own contradictions - between a dynamic and entrepreneurial
private sector on the one hand and a one party state unwilling or unable to
adjust to its own society's growing needs and desires and demands, including a
human being's innate desire for freedom.
I do not cite these issues out of any hostility toward China. Quite the contrary, I and all Americans of
good faith hope for the Chinese people's success. We welcome the rise that can
be so good for all mankind. We simply urge China to rise responsibly. I simply believe we
cannot ignore areas of disagreement as we seek to move forward on areas of
agreement. Believe me, China does not hesitate to tell us when it thinks
we are in the wrong.
I mentioned China's internal contradictions. They should concern us all. We hear many
Chinese voices throughout that great country calling out for more freedom, and
for greater justice. Twenty years ago, many believed that as China liberalized its economy, greater political
freedom would naturally follow. Unfortunately that has not come to pass.
In fact, it seems China has taken great pains to learn what it sees as "the lesson" of the
fall on the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union: any easing of political constraints can
inevitably spin out of control. But, in many ways, it is the essence of China's
political system that leads to concerns about its rise.
Think about it. How many books and articles have been written about the
dangers of India's
rise? Almost as large as China -
and soon to be more populous - virtually no one worries about the security
implications of India becoming a great power - just as a century ago the
then-preeminent power, Great Britain, worried little about the rise of America
to great power status.
My point is that
the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every
ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more
open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and
intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find
a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests.
I am not talking about some U.S.-led "democracy crusade." We cannot impose our
values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom,
liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S.
ideas, they are much more than that.
They are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other
international covenants and treaties.
They apply to
citizens in Shanghai as much as they do to citizens in Johannesburg or Jakarta. And demands for liberty in China are Chinese, not American, demands. Just
last year, many brave Chinese signed Charter
08, a Chinese document modeled on the great Czech statesman Vlacav Havel's
Charter 77.
Charter 08 would
not be unfamiliar to our Founding Fathers and was endorsed by Havel himself.
No, we need not convince the Chinese people that they have inalienable
rights. They are calling for those rights themselves. But we do have to worry
about a China
where the government suppresses the liberties its people hold dear.
Nothing of what I am saying should be seen as meaning conflict with China is inevitable. Quite the contrary. As I
said, we welcome China's responsible rise. America and China stood together against fascism during World
War II, before ravages took over in China - we were ready to stand together with China to shape international politics after World
War II. Much has been accomplished since President Nixon's fateful visit. And
again, we stand ready to work with what we hope will be a more open and
responsible China on the challenges facing the 21st century.
All of you here know how deeply integrated the economies of the United States' and China's are. We rely on each other, sometimes
unfortunately in unhealthy ways. America spends too much that we don't have, and
then we go to China as a lender of first resort.
Our fiscal policy,
lately, seems to be "tax, spend, borrow, tax some more, repeat" and then
complain about how much debt China holds. America needs to gets its own fiscal house in
order. That's a Common Sense Conservative perspective.
We can hardly
complain that China holds so much of our debt when it's our over spending that created the
debt.
But here's the reality. If in fact the United States does the "right" thing - if we spend less
and save more - then China will also have to rebalance its economy. We
need to export more to China
- and we'd like China
to consume more of our goods - just as we need to save and invest more. This vital process - so crucial to both
countries - is impeded by problems of market access.
We must talk about these issues with more candor. If China adopts policies that keep our highest value
products out of their markets, by manipulating technical standards or licensing
requirements, our economic relationship suffers.
Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China. I see a future of more trade with China and more American high-tech goods in China. But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law and protect our
intellectual property.
We need to avoid
protectionism and China's flirtation with state-assisted "national champions." On our part, we
should be more open to Chinese investment where our national security interests
are not threatened. In the end, though, our economic relationship will truly
thrive when Chinese citizens and foreign corporations can hold the Chinese
government accountable when their actions are unjust.
I see a bright future for America in Asia. One based on the alliances
that have gotten us this far, one based on free and open markets, one that
integrates democratic India into East Asia's political life and one in which
China decides to be a responsible member of the international community and
gives its people the liberty - the freedom - they so desperately want.
Sadly, however, our largest free trade agreement ever in Asia, with South Korea, sits frozen in the Congress. In contrast, China is behaving wisely in negotiating free
trade agreements throughout Asia. We
want an Asia open to our goods and services. But if we
do not get our free trade act together, we will be shut out by agreements
Asians our making among themselves.
All of you here follow global financial markets and economic policy closely, so
I know that it will come as no surprise to you that United States leadership on global trade and investment
is being sorely tested at this moment.
We are struggling with a monumental debate on whether fiscal discipline, or
massive government spending, will drive a sustained recovery. We are struggling
to repair the excesses that grew in our own economy and served as a trigger to
a catastrophic collapse in the global financial system.
And we are
attempting to do so under the weight of a global imbalance of debt and trade
deficits that are not only unbearable for the world's mightiest economy, but
also unacceptable in that they foster tensions between global economic partners
like the United States and China.
I am proud to be an American. As someone who has had the tremendous
opportunity to travel throughout the United States and listen to the concerns
of Americans in towns and cities across the country, I can tell you that there
is a sense of despair and even crisis afoot in America that has the potential to
shape our global investment and trade policies for years, and even decades to
come.
Never has the
leadership of our government ever been more critical to keeping my country, and
the world, on a path to openness, growth and opportunity in global trade and
investment.
It would of course be a mistake to put the entire burden of restoring the
global economy on the backs of America's leaders. There is plenty of work for all
of us to do in this matter. Governments around the world must resist the siren
call of trade protection to bring short term relief during a time of crisis.
Those who use currency policy or subsidies to promote their nation's exports
should remain acutely aware that if there ever were a time in which such
policies could be viewed as "tolerable," that time has now passed. All
participants who seek to find benefit in the global trading system must also
take the responsibility of playing by the rules.
The private sector has responsibilities as well. For instance, it should not be
the responsibility of government to dictate the salaries of bankers or the
ownership of companies. And yet, due of the excesses committed by some, this is
exactly where we find ourselves now because government now owns substantial
portions of the private economy - even, unbelievably, in the United States.
These are challenging times for everyone, but we in the United States must humbly recognize that if we are to
lead and to set the direction for the rest of the world, it must be by our
example and not merely our words. And we must tread lightly when imposing new
burdens on the imports of other countries.
Well, CLSA: My country is definitely at a crossroad. Polling in the U.S. shows
a majority of Americans no longer believe that their children will have a
better future than they have had...that is a 1st.
When members of America's greatest generation - the World War II generation -
lose their homes and their life savings because their retirement funds were
wiped after the financial collapse, people feel a great anger.
There is suddenly a growing sentiment to just "throw the
bums out" of Washington, D.C.
- and by bums they mean the Republicans and the Democrats.
Americans are
suffering from pay cuts and job losses, and they want to know why their elected
leaders are not tightening their belts. It's not lost on people that Congress
voted to exempt themselves from the health care plan they are thrusting on the
rest of the nation. There is a growing sense of frustration on Main Street. But even in the midst of crisis and
despair, we see signs of hope.
In fact, it's a sea change in America, I believe. Recently, there have been
protests by ordinary Americans who marched on Washington to demand their government stop spending
away their future. Large numbers of ordinary, middle-class Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents from all over the country marching on Washington?! You know something's up!
These are the same people who flocked to the town halls this summer to face
their elected officials who were home on hiatus from that distant capital and
were now confronted with the people they represent. Big town hall meetings -
video clips circulating coverage - people watching, feeling not so alone
anymore.
The town halls and the Tea Party movement are both part of a growing
grassroots consciousness among ordinary Americans who've decided that if they
want real change, they must take the lead and not wait to be led. Real
change - and, you know, you don't need a title to do it.
The "Tea Party Movement" is aptly named to remind people of the American
Revolution - of colonial patriots who shook off the yoke of a distant
government and declared their freedom from indifferent - elitist - rulers who
limited their progress and showed them no respect. Today, Main
Street Americans see Washington
in similar terms.
When my country again achieves financial stability and economic growth -
when we roar back to life as we shall do - it will be thanks in large part to
the hard work and common sense of these ordinary Americans who are demanding
that government spend less and tax less and allow the private sector to grow
and prosper.
We're not interested in government fixes; we're interested in freedom! Freedom!
Our vision is forward looking. People may be frustrated now, but we're very
hopeful too.
And, after all, why shouldn't we be? We're Americans. We're always
hopeful.
Thank you for letting me share some of that hope, and a view from Main Street with you. God Bless You.
Sarah Palin is the former Governor of Alaska, and in the
eyes of millions, the next President of the United
States.
|
Discuss this item on the forums. (29 posts)
|
|
