When you write about politics, you never know what sort of responses you will get. I’m accustomed to messages of praise as well as rants accusing me of any number of unpleasant attributes.
A recent message, however, led me to realize that no matter how straightforward a writer is, sometimes readers will imprint their own political ideas whether that’s warranted by what I actually wrote or not.
A letter from a reader who called himself “Current Name” said he considered the term “Big Government” to refer to government control of every aspect of a body of people. The reader said I referred to Big Government “as the large number of people employed in Washington…”
The reader then rather curiously shredded the case he aimed to make—he said the two meanings are different.
The same reader said my perspective is more of a sensationalist—rather than a “reporter or commentator.”
Here’s my response—I attempted to email the individual directly, but this is the Web and people often don’t share their real identities or personal info when sending a letter to the editor. A name did show in the properties field on the email, but I’m not publishing it because it’s the content I quibble with—the sender is, in the scheme of things, not important.
Here’s my response:
Thanks for your message. I use the term "big government" in a number of ways because it is an accurate descriptive for more than one entity. I would address your specific concern better if I had an idea what article you are referring to. That said, I stand by my writing and would remind you that all media can be construed as "sensationalist"--e.g. calling tea party supporters "extremists" as our president's cabinet members, vice president and countless Dems do.
~~Best, Kay B. Day/editor/The US Report
Alphabet media eagerly carry the messaging those officials distribute—part of a propaganda machine bent on marginalizing and subsequently neutralizing anyone who disagrees with big government.
Bottom line—this may sound elementary, but big government can denote that obese central power that grinds personal liberties into the ground, or it can represent the insane, costly level of bureaucrats taxpayers are forced to subsidize because presidents know one way to add jobs is to create them by redistributing taxpayer money to people who can then head to Vegas for a hot tub party (or alternatively to Maui for the same) on our dime. The two concepts are at once incestuous and inseparable.
We like to get letters to the editor, though, and we like to get comments. So feel free to email the editor anytime or use the comments field to offer your own thoughts.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Sept. 1, 2012)