I was informed earlier this week that the IPJ program (and all of TFAS) had been invited by the White House to attend a rally for Social Security reform in Maryland. As I have never seen any president in person, I leaped at the opportunity.
President Bush led a script reading led a panel discussion about Social Security and why it is going to be bankrupt by 2041. Ben Stein, a financial consultant, and two college-age Republicans completed the panel. I did not find the discussion itself that interesting, though I did find humor in Bush thanking FDR for implementing the Social Security program in the first place and his claim that the people should be able to trust the government.
What I did find interesting, though, is that a group of 300+ interns from across the nation (some supporters of Bush, some not) were invited to a rally in Maryland. Our group was only a portion of the interns present. I've heard as many as 500 were invited.
To get into the event, you had to have been invited by the White House. Once inside, if a person made any vocal disagreement with the President or his plans, the dissenter would be removed, or so we were warned. "While I know some of you may disagree with his policies, this is not the time to express that disagreement," our director said (paraphrased from memory). "They will remove you."
Clapping and other signs of support were supported, of course.
There were a number of protesters outside of the rally location, naturally. After discovering that a significant portion of the audience was not from the area, I felt as if I should have been with them.
Does anyone see anything wrong with this method? The White House invites those who would already support almost anything he wants to a rally supposedly designed to raise support for a controversial issue. The local people with real questions are left outside to protest as interns from across the country are invited into the rally because the interns are part of a certain organization.
There is no interaction with the people. Bush is only receiving confirmation from those that already agree with him, and anyone who may not agree is threatened to be removed if he or she expresses disagreement.
It is all quite. . .disconcerting.
On the plus side, I was able to take photos of President Bush. I really like one of them.
Posted by Randy at June 23, 2005 08:46 PM | TrackBackClearly this should have been a rally about how overwhelmingly wonderful Socialist Security is. No dissent should have been allowed. Only talk that Social security is great.
I'll bet everybody does this sometimes. If it was being taped, vocal dissentors could have essentially ruined the taping and interrupted the discussion.
"Clearly this should have been a rally about how overwhelmingly wonderful Socialist Security is. No dissent should have been allowed. Only talk that Social security is great."
Wtf, man? I didn't see Randy say a single word about his own perspective on Social Security . . . that's not EVEN the point. Your sarcastic sniping has no target and is therefore irrelevant. I don't care if Bush is up on stage talking about how we shouldn't eat infant children, the second he starts ejecting people simply on the basis of disagreeing with his opinion he doesn't belong in a leadership position in a democracy anymore. Which leads me to my next point:
"I'll bet everybody does this sometimes."
Again, wtf? Didn't you ever hear your mother ask, "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" How can you even think of justifying anyone's actions on the basis of what "everybody does." Next you'll be telling me it was okay to toss a rock through a Jewish-owned shop window in Nazi Germany or that it's okay to abort a fetus (hey, it's legal, right?). Since when did the right thing have anything to do with what most people are doing?
This is what consistently bothers me about the positions of most of the other conservative-leaning people that I know . . . They go on and on about how right and moral and Christian and holier-than-thou our side is, then turn around and justify virtually any action taken by a conservative Republican with one of two arguments: Either "Well, at least he's doing it for the right side," or "Well, liberals do the same thing."
People seem so afraid to criticize anyone in their own camp in the partisan politics game that they will abandon any vestiges of consistency in the morals that drove them to that side in the first place. If I support someone (politically or in any other way) based on my own personal convictions, then by God I'm going to hold them to a higher standard than I hold anyone else to. And if I see them drop that standard in any way and for any reason and try to justify it in any way (particularly the two ways I listed above) then you will find me sliding right out of their camp . . . But really, it's the camp sliding away from me, because I haven't moved my moral position in the slightest.
That is the reason why I do not support the current administration, and it is why I am consistently in disagreement with you, with my parents, and with any number of others. I refuse to sacrifice my ethics and my morals on the altar of my politics. I'm happy when the leaders of America are doing the right things, certainly . . . but unless they're doing it the right way and for the right reasons, they should not expect my vote or my support.
Posted by: Blame Jared at June 24, 2005 06:05 PM"If it was being taped, vocal dissentors could have essentially ruined the taping and interrupted the discussion."
The panel discussion was being taped. However, I fail to see how vocally opposing a plan would be any more disruptive to a discussion than loud bursts of applause and agreement, which caused the speakers to stop a number of times.
If anything, opposition should be welcomed as the President could defend the changes he wants to make. Repeating empty information to an audience that agrees with you won't change any minds.
"Clearly this should have been a rally about how overwhelmingly wonderful Socialist Security is. No dissent should have been allowed. Only talk that Social security is great."
As Wheeler said, I never even gave my opinion on Social Security. If you are curious, I do believe that it is a good thing. It could probably use some reform, but I am not informed enough to say for sure.
Your implication that I support silencing those that disagree with me is rather unfounded.
Posted by: Randy at June 24, 2005 08:37 PMI apologize Randy. When I posted my first comment, I was in a bad mood. I let that, and my disagreement with your stance and post, color anything I might have said. I'll try to be more controlled in the future.
Posted by: Knight's Disciple at June 25, 2005 09:28 PMIf I return in the fall, I will bring as many Dr. Pepper ties as possible. I have two so far
Posted by: Paul at June 26, 2005 12:03 AM