Which is more offensive, the WWE or our government?
Published: 9:05 AM 08/17/2010 | Updated: 9:29 AM 08/17/2010
By Gen LaGreca - The Daily Caller
Connecticut GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon is being vilified by the left for her role as the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), the company she and her husband grew from humble beginnings into a highly successful international corporation.
Her opponents claim that the empire McMahon built allowed steroid use to run rampant, peddled violence to children, exploited women, and committed other indecencies.
But is the alleged steroid use in the WWE more objectionable than the steroidal spending of a Congress pumped-up on Keynesianism? Is a WWE match more harmful to children than a $13 trillion national debt signed, sealed, and delivered to posterity by Congress? Is a WWE skit more indecent than the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, or the 2,000-page ObamaCare bill passed in the middle of the night, unread, by representatives eager to please party leaders? Is the WWE — which has no power to force anyone to buy a ticket to its events or to watch those events on television — more exploitative than a Congress that can seize our wealth, our future, and our liberty? Which is more offensive — the WWE or our government?
And which one is more in sync with America?
In the WWE, no wrestler would ever apologize for being too good, too strong, or too popular with his fans. But our president apologizes for America’s greatness.
In the WWE, every wrestler wants to win and to wave his championship belt high in the air. But our president says that “victory” is not necessarily our goal in a war we’re fighting and that he’s “always worried” about using that word.
In the WWE, no wrestler would ever give away his title belt to another wrestler who didn’t earn it. But our government unreservedly gives away our hard-earned money to its favored groups in order to buy votes and gain more power.
In the WWE, even the smallest wrestlers get to spar with the biggest bruisers, who cut them no slack — and the little guys often win. But our government thinks little guys are helpless and need cradle-to-grave assistance from their enlightened leaders. (And it views all Americans as “little guys.")
In the WWE, every wrestler thinks of himself — his matches, his victories, and his career — as the most important thing in the world. But our president questions our “strong bias toward individual action,” saying “individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”
In the WWE, a wrestler has to work extremely hard to become a superstar, creating an exciting presence and skillful maneuvers to please the audience. But in government, people rise to power who have no skills, who are sometimes semi-literate, who know nothing about the Constitution they swear to defend, and who do whatever they please.
Is it any wonder that the WWE — with its walk-tall, be-the-best, and play-to-win superstars — is a success? Or that the Obama-led Congress — with its bow-down, be-humble, and accept-America’s-decline playbook — has an approval rating of only 20 percent?
Instead of disparaging Linda McMahon and the WWE, McMahon’s opponents ought to be learning from the candidate and her company.
Gen LaGreca is the author of Noble Vision, a ForeWord magazine Book-of-the-Year award-winning novel about the struggle for liberty in health care today.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/17/which-is-more-offensive-the-wwe-or-our-government/#ixzz0wtnVESMM
