After listening to reactions all day to the fact that the Senate is on the verge of passing what is called a “monumental health care bill,” I have come to some conclusions about how delusional the folks who follow the madness have become. First allow me to say that the Dems are correct, it is a monumental bill. A monumental mistake. The more I dig, the more I find what I don’t like. But I do realize that this is simply a stepping stone for them. This gets the foot in the door. Once passed, they will be able to quietly tack on whatever they like on the backside of appropriations bills or stimulus bills or energy bills. They will never again have to wrestle with a “health care” bill. But that is not the topic for tonight. The topic is, instead, the mindset of today’s political pundits and the folks that follow them.
As I drove home from work this evening, I was listening to the Alan Colmes show on the radio. I listen to him regularly. Sometimes it is a good show, other times it is infuriating. I have been on air with Alan several times and thus far, the only way he can beat me in logical debate is to turn off my mic. A caller tonight touted the idea that this bill, no matter which side of the issue you are on, is a bad bill. It will not have any good consequences and it should be stopped now. A great point, and one I make regularly. Alan became outraged. “We’ve worked too hard, waited too long, and this is how legislation is done. Scrapping the bill would set us back another 20 years without health care for all. And this is a good starting point. It gets real progress a minimal start and we can fix all the problems with the bill later.” That was his rant. And it points out two very important things to me.
First, we should not, in any way, feel that the teeth being taken out of this bill is any sort of victory for the Republican party or for those of us who want to see a real positive impact. What was sacrificed? 90% of Democrats never really cared if public funding for abortion was in the bill. They put it there so they could take it out and say they compromised (that is obviously my opinion, not a fact I can back up). The public option and single payer aspects of the left’s agenda are not dead. Remember that this is the party that took the slow but effective approach to changing the American mindset from leaders to led. They are willing to trash that aspect this time, say they compromised, and then get that added in later. The progressive movement is more than happy to take your freedom one tiny thing at a time. It has worked for 100 years without revolution.
Do not feel that public opinion is overwhelmingly on our side. It is not. CNN did a poll that said 61% of Americans want the current versions of health care reform killed. That does not mean that they agree with us. There are many in that 61% who want it killed because they don’t think the bill went far enough to the left. And that means when the other things are getting tacked on over time, there will be a large percentage of Americans that will support the changes that cause this bill to be the catalyst for the far left version that will evolve over the next decade. There have been no victories for freedom or individual liberty in the passage of this bill. None.
Mr. Colmes is a proponent of a single payer system. And it important to know that. Because his support of this current bill, which doesn’t give him what he wants, tells us a lot about how those who think like him feel about the future. They are aware that this is a gigantic victory, and that it will set the stage for many more changes to come. Remember, in 1913, Congress only had to convince Americans that it was OK to levy a 1% income tax on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Once that was done, they were free to increase the income tax at will, and they have, as now nearly every American pays income tax and the wealthy sure are paying a bit more than 1%. This bill is the same, and the left knows it. They only had to convince Americans to not revolt when they put their paws into the health care arena in 2009. Imagine how many drastic changes they can make in the next 96 years with federal income tax as their blueprint.
And for the record, before I forget. Do not think for a second that the Republicans in the United States Senate are opposed to this bill. They are not. Remember, two shirts, one team. They can play the game with the Democrats and spin it whichever way they like. They know the voting numbers. They know they can’t stop this. So it frees them up to play the good guy to half of America. Instead of having a 100-0 vote (or 99-1 as long as Ron Paul is there), they can vote against it, allow it to still win, and then pretend they are outraged and were against it all the way. They aren’t. They are just as eager to have a new mechanism for control and power over the American people as the Democrats are. If the Republicans were really on our side, we would see some of our arguments presented on the Senate floor. But that is not happening. Ask yourself why that is.
The second thing that it shows me is that Americans and our government have lost their collective minds. This is the mindset of America. A bad bill is better than no bill. Americans have no concept of the unintended consequences that come with today’s bills. They don’t understand the economic impacts. They don’t understand the market impacts. And they don’t understand the liberty impacts. I give Ray a lot of credit for the fact that he would kill this bill if he could, because it is a bad bill. It is a step in the direction he would like to go, but he sees the inherent flaws and says “stop.”. Americans in general have lost the ability to use critical thought and take that tactic with all legislation.
This is a bad bill that I, again, hope to find time to cover in detail soon. And because of that I wouldn’t support it even if I was in favor of government intervening in the health care industry. They have failed to do anything to actually cut costs, increase the level of care, or hold any of the major players accountable for changing for the better. Support from the insurance companies, the AARP, the AMA, and every other major player in health care is a sign of that. Those who fall into the realm of “all men are evil at heart” surely understand that the support from these groups that have put health care where it is means that they are fairly sure they will be able to continue on their merry way, much in the same way as the big financial powers have done after “regulation” to stop their bad habits.
Why is it that Americans believe that compromise is such a good thing when it comes to major legislation such as this? I read an article today about a priest in England that said, “it is OK to steal if you are poor. Just steal from the big box retailers instead of the mom and pop companies.” That is moral relativism, and it is stunning to me that even a priest has been reduced to contradiction with ethical and moral standards. The American voter has taken moral relativism to a new level, under the mistaken belief that the country simply cannot run if people stick to their principles and don’t do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
And that is a giant mistake. Because when we delve into the bullshit that passes for legislation these days, we can find literally thousands of things wrong with every single bill presented. This is true no matter which side it comes from. Thousand of examples of WRONG in every bill. Yet the excuse for supporting these bills is that it is better to pass a bad bill and accomplish something than it is to fight for a good piece of legislation. I point back to my analogy from yesterday. We stand at the edge of a cliff, and the bill says that we should build a rope bridge out of ten pound test fishing line. And people will support this decision because we have to do something. We have to move forward. They know that the line won’t be strong enough to support the weight. But they don’t have any other material to use, so they build the fishing line bridge because they don’t have a better option. They know it will fail. They know disaster looms if they take this path. But they accept the path because we have to do something.
I know that there are so many different definitions of morality out there, and that is an excuse used by some for why we can move forward the way we have. But there are some moral absolutes. And you all know that. For example, thou shalt not steal. There wasn’t an asterisk next to that on the tablet with exceptions noted below. And even if you don’t believe in a God, you know in your heart that stealing is wrong. Taking something that isn’t yours isn’t the right thing to do. You can feel it in your heart no matter your religion. You cannot initiate violence. There is another absolute. These are easy things to agree on the morality of. Don’t let the nuanced arguments get in the way. Look at the basics. Ethics and morals are easy. They don’t become hard until you try to contradict them in order to meet some exception you want to the rule. Stealing is bad. There is not argument to that…. until you begin to want to steal to help others, then you find a way to argue that stealing isn’t really bad. That is what floored me about the priest mentioned above. He is a believer in the Ten Commandments. They are the absolutes, from the mouth of GOD himself! Yet he wishes to contradict the word of the God he has devoted his life to! Outrageous!
Stealing is wrong. It is immoral. End of story. There can exist no contradictions to this being a moral absolute. Start with just that one moral absolute and begin applying it to legislation in Congress.
And in doing so, we could perhaps begin to get back to the principles and values that once made this country great. I read the premise made by someone yesterday, I don’t remember who, that compromise is necessary and needed in legislation. That one party must be willing to compromise with the other in order to get things done. And I couldn’t disagree more. I understand that there are good compromises. Party A says there must be 100 widgets per household and party B says 200, so they compromise on 150. That is good compromise. But a compromise that contradicts your very moral principles and ethics is not a compromise. It is a sacrifice of what you consider right. And that is not OK. If your principles say that government has no right to do X, then you cannot and should not EVER compromise on that. EVER. That isn’t compromise, that is contradiction. And there is a very big difference.
Sacrificing one’s principles and morals is a step towards total obliteration of those principles and morals. The expansion of government over the last 150 years is a testament to the slippery slope that exists the second men compromise their principles and morals. What started as a small “compromise” evolved over the years to an absolute abandonment.
What would this mean for our federal government? Stalemate? Gridlock? Probably. But that is not a bad thing. If the people that we choose to represent us in Congress really are people who represent our principles and values, how can their opposition to anything that contradicts those principles and values be a bad thing? Any bill that contradicts those values is a bill that we do not want. Period. Because regardless of how much “good” it could do, if it compromises our values, it will eventually doom us. We know this, yet most Americans choose to push it to the back of their minds. This may mean that only a couple of bills a session ever get passed. But if that means that all the bills passed meet the definitions of morality and ethics and principles, that is a great thing. THAT is when government is actually representing the people, as it was meant to do under our Constitution. Today’s government is nowhere near what the founding fathers wanted to create. They failed. Can a better version of government exist? Who knows? BF will tell you know. I will tell you yes. I guess time will be the only one with the answer.
How does this apply to the health care bill? If you believe that health care is a right (I don’t), then you should vote no on this bill. It contradicts your principles. If you believe that health care is a privilege, you should vote no on this bill. It contradicts your principles. If all 2400 pages of this bill are completely in line with all of your values and principles, then you should vote yes. That may mean it loses 99-1. But a bill that doesn’t represent the values and principles of the people has no business being signed into law. I understand the concept that taking our time and doing it right puts hundreds of thousands in need of health care at risk. But doing it wrong has the potential to kill millions. Passing legislation outside our values has already proven to kill hundreds of millions (wars, depressions, etc.).
Americans must find their values again. They must seek a better path forward. I don’t know that they can. And it may end up in revolution by the shrinking number of people who understand that freedom and liberty are concepts that they are not willing to sacrifice. They will not compromise on their core values. Yet they face a public that has no idea of how to find theirs. I fear for the future. But if the revolution comes…. I will be the one out front on the white horse. Because my values don’t compromise. And neither does my horse’s.