|
May 24, 2009
the debate that will not speak its name?
History shows that great changes (I mean "great" in the sense of huge or tumultuous, not necessarily good) are almost invariably accompanied by great changes in political rhetoric. Barack Obama not only wants to be remembered as a man who brought great change to America, he is well on his way to having done that. Considering what he was reported to have said yesterday, I'm not sure people can begin to appreciate the enormous nature of the change which is coming. Americans have a tendency to take what they have for granted and assume that everything will be OK. An entitlement to an affluent lifestyle and a free economy is taken for granted as a birthright, as something that could never be taken away. Again, the president's words: we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.The sane solution would be to simply stop it. End the entitlement system. Common sense dictates that there can be no "entitlement" by a group of citizens to bankrupt the entire country. These entitlements were created by government, and they can be ended by government. Except Barack Obama hasn't the slightest intention of ending these entitlements. As he says, using the high future cost of the entitlements as an excuse, he wants to change "the health care system that we've got now" into something else. There is no way to do this without socialized health care and mandatory rationing. While it would be one thing to mandate such policies for citizens on Medicare and Medicaid, he wants to do it to everyone else too. When most people say "there isn't enough money" to pay for something, the logical meaning is that therefore, they aren't going to buy it. That is not what Obama means. The assumption behind his "there isn't enough money" is that there should be, there has to be, and there will be. If there has to be, there are only two ways: printing money, or taking it from citizens through socialism. Rhetorically speaking, I think we have reached that point of no-return I have discussed, only it happened a lot faster than I thought it would back in September: What worries me is that the closer we get to full-blown socialism, the more the word becomes politically unmentionable. Even discussing an end to the entitlement system is politically taboo. This puts politicians who might want to do something about it in a very difficult position.Calling it socialism is no longer hyperbole. We have reached a turning point. It is time for the s-word to come out of the closet, be acknowledged for what it is, and be honestly debated. Can it be done politely and in a civil manner? As Jim Kearney pointed out, Barack Obama (at least in the context of abortion) likes to talk the talk: ...He wants to change the tone, and he calls for mutual respect. He wants civility!Is it possible to politely and resolutely oppose socialism in the United States? There are two major differences between the abortion debate and the socialism debate. One is that abortion is an undeniable reality, freely acknowledged to be a fact by both sides. Socialism in the United States has historically been denied by its proponents, so much so that its ugly little closet has been a been a built in feature from the start. In the words of Socialist Upton Sinclair, "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label."This is where the Great Rhetoric comes in. The great label is upon us. Unless Barack Obama is successful in calling it something other than what it is, here is no avoiding a debate over socialism. The other major difference between the abortion debate and the socialism debate is that abortion is by definition chosen, and never imposed. It is thus very easy for people to duck the debate as not really applying to them. Not so with socialism. There is no way to opt out. We can't not have a debate -- and we cannot have a "debate that will not speak its name" over something this serious, and this potentially devastating to the American birthright. What really shocks me is that so many people -- responsible people like business leaders who are most affected and who should know better -- are afraid to have this debate: at a neighborhood barbecue, a businessman who ran a manufacturing concern spent a good quarter of an hour railing against Obama's plans to nationalize health care. He had informed himself about the pending legislation in minute detail. He had devoted hours to studying the effects on hospitals and HMOs. He had become utterly convinced that Obama's plans would harm millions.(Via Glenn Reynolds.) Few are that afraid to say what they think about abortion. Yet this is socialism. As the author of the above concludes, "This is America," Asness concludes. "We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails, it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the Oval Office to be scolded for disobedience by the president."If socialism isn't at least be allowed to be debated the way abortion or countless other issues are, our free enterprise system will have gone down without a fight. And without so much as a debate. I'd like to have a polite debate over socialism based on mutual respect and civility, of course. But considering that "violent revolutions have been fought over less wrenching economic changes than this one promises to be," what's with the idea of dispensing with debate altogether? To put it simply, can socialism be imposed without debate? In the United States? If so, shame on us! UPDATE: Don't miss Roger Kimball's analysis: what is needed is not a 12-step support group fro damaged souls but a network of back-stiffening resource groups equipped to sound the alarm over the governments astonishing encroachments upon prosperity of the United States and the freedoms of its citizens.Kimball ends on a note of optimism: I hope and expect that the more we learn about what the Obama administration has planned for us, the more people will stand up to oppose it.I hope so too, although I think it might be time to consider opposing socialism by simply calling it what it is. If Upton Sinclar was right that "the American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label," then it follows that they won't take socialism if it is properly labeled. UPDATE: "Anecdotal and quantitative evidence ... would appear to confirm a decided bias against dealers who donated to GOP causes or to anti-Obama Democrats." (Link via Glenn Reynolds.) Little wonder businessmen think that keeping their heads down and not speaking out is "just being responsible." posted by Eric on 05.24.09 at 10:16 AM
Comments
Where exactly does the government even get the authority to do this? If the Republicans screw up in the next election we are toast. If they campaign for once as real Republicans, as fiscal conservatives and libertarians as in eliminating the welfare-socialist state and massively reducing the size of government at both the federal and state governments, game over. The choice has to be clear and stark to the tax payers; be a slave to the parasite class or be free. cubanbob · May 24, 2009 02:55 PM Where exactly does the government even get the authority to do this? If the Republicans screw up in the next election we are toast. If they campaign for once as real Republicans, as fiscal conservatives and libertarians as in eliminating the welfare-socialist state and massively reducing the size of government at both the federal and state governments, game over. The choice has to be clear and stark to the tax payers; be a slave to the parasite class or be free. cubanbob · May 24, 2009 02:57 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
It's An Absolute Disgrace
The Seeds Of Stupidity Remember D-Day Newton's Cradle Taxes Send Jobs Offshore The law is the law! A teaching moment? You Can't Do It At Random In debt to Islam? For Western thought? David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
War? Debated 24/7 for months and years. Wrecking the economy with socialism? Not important.
Or as they prefer when it comes to climate change action: the debate is over.