Op Ed #6

Clunker Class War
By Timothy Egan

Op Ed Entry #6
Robert Overholt


Republicans and democrats have clashed throughout history when regarding the role of government in the private sector. Conservatives are supportive of minimal government interference in private corporations. Liberals have a different approach, as they are more open to government imposition on private enterprise. Timothy Egan, in the article Clunker Class War, has accused the Republicans of disapproving the “Cash for Clunkers” program because it is working. “They hate it, many of these Republicans, because it’s a huge hit. It’s working as planned, and this cannot stand. America must fail in order for President Obama to fail.” Wrong. Conservatives don’t want the President to fail. They just know he will because government intervention is for the Soviets. Granted, the “Cash for Clunkers” program is a creative way to jump-start the currently dormant economy. However, government should not sponsor such an event, nor should it redistribute taxpayer money to fund it. Despite each party’s conflicting opinions on government involvement in our economy, redistribution of wealth is simply…socialism. Republicans and Democrats are Americans-- plain and simple. America was built on competition in the marketplace motivated by the hunger to live the American dream. Once government enters the private market, we will essentially be the U.S.S.R. “Cash for Clunkers” would be more effective if the car companies sponsored and funded it, but a taxpayer should not be responsible for paying for someone else’s new car. Republicans disapprove of this program, not because it is working (also questionable). Rather, because government facilitated programs designed to revive the economy represent socialist ideals. If you prefer socialism, move to Europe (no offense).
Timothy Egan wrote Clunker Class War out of spite towards Republicans, and rightfully so, for Democrats have received their share of criticism. As a result, Egan focused on his argument and not his rhetoric. The article is neither formal nor clear. Jumping from argument to argument, the article was written quickly and petulantly. The article presented many facts, yet Egan’s emotions were excessive and overpowering. The format of the article seemed to parallel his thought process. The paragraphs were short and abrupt, not in any specific order. Argument after argument, the author critiqued the Bush Administration (once again, rightfully so as the criticism goes both ways). His facts, however, were jumbled and not pertinent to his arguments. He assimilated many random situations and contorted them to fit his argument. For example, he criticized Bush’s $700 billion bank bailout. This bailout was to prevent global economic collapse, and was funded by many countries around the world. Democrats misinterpreted the bailout, and for once supported Bush!