One of The New York Times’ favorite techniques for indoctrinating in the guise of news coverage is to casually assert something that advances its agenda and expect readers to take it at face value.
A Sunday story on Representative Eric Cantor, the new Republican House Whip, included the following declaration: “The [Republican] party also faces the burden of trying to advance what Mr. Cantor describes as its bedrock value — smaller government — in the face of considerable evidence that the American public wants an increasingly active government to deal with the economic crisis” (emphasis added).
If there is indeed considerable evidence that Americans want “an increasingly active government,” why doesn’t The Times offer any?
In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
As the Senate was poised to vote on Obama’s $827-billion economic recovery plan last week, a Rasmussen Poll showed 62% of voters wanted it to include more tax cuts and less government spending. Only 14% wanted more spending and fewer tax cuts.
Is that a clear indication of the public’s longing for an increasingly active government?
Despite weeks of media shilling for Obama’s so-called stimulus plan — including persistent front-page advocacy in The Times — another Rasmussen poll shows only 38% of Americans think the lard-layered boondoggle will help the economy, while 29% said the plan will make things worse and 24% believe it will have little impact.
But if the public is panting for a big, brawny, activist government to lead us out of the current economic doldrums, shouldn’t they be cheering the Democrats’ plan deliriously?
In the age of media-anointed Obama, the American people remain what they’ve always been: skeptical of government activism and of the opinion that tax cuts, not spending, is the best antidote for a recession.