08 November 2009

One small step in the legislative process, one giant leap for socialism

There is no question that Obama is a committed leftwing ideologue. He does not care one whit whether or not he gets re-elected, or whether or not the entire Congress turns republican next year, as long as the foundation of socialized medicine is in place before then.

Sadly, I think that as long as the Obamites are in power, they will continue – as they have thus far – to build on the other remarkably radical socialist foundations they have already laid in their takeovers of the automotive and financial industries. There are no signs of government letting go its grip in any area. It is hard to imagine it, but as monumentally destructive as socialized medicine may be, it is also a great distraction from what otherwise would already be viewed as perhaps the most radical economic interventionism in American history.

Obama’s pitch to the Democratic Caucus yesterday seems to have been that all of them needed to view the vote in terms of basic principles; e.g., if you believe in socialized medicine, vote for it, electoral consequences be damned. Paul Ryan’s appeal, on the other side, was the same. “Which side of history do you want to be on?”

This vote, in the face of strong public opposition, is a stark reminder of the difference between a democracy and a republic. For two years, members of Congress can do as they please, all in our name. Leaders of both sides called for a moment of clarity about first principles in advance of yesterday’s vote, and they got it.

And freedom lost.

Hopefully, this can still be stopped at least until next fall, because history tells us that Republicans will never repeal it. Indeed, it is literally impossible for them to win the veto-proof majorities that would require, even if they were willing.

Maybe the best approach to the 2010 elections is to ask the voters for the same sort of moment of clarity the House of Representatives was asked for yesterday. To ask the people what sort of country they want to live in, what side of history they want to be on.

We do not need an election revolving around “concrete legislative proposals,” rather than first principles. It is long past time that we stop pretending that it is at all important for voters to consider those kind of details. Voters really need to choose their representatives based upon their fundamental principles, because that is the only way they can know - really know - if these representatives will actually represent them, regardless of legislative details and political winds.

Still, I tremble to think what the electorate will choose.

No comments: