Obama's kinder gentler statism
There has been a lot of talk from Barack Obama about how he supports children's health insurance. Elect Obama, the American people are being told, and he is going to make certain that every child in America has health insurance. Sounds wonderful-until we hear more of the story.It ought to send up red flags (perhaps in a very literal sense) that Obama has gotten the personal endorsement of the head of the Iowa State Teachers' Association, because there is generally no group whose leadership is more statist and Marxist than the State and national leadership of public school teachers' unions. One of the reasons Obama snagged this key Democratic endorsement in Iowa is because of his children's health insurance proposal. So what happens if parents decide they don't want to sign their child up for Obamacare? Barack knows whats best for your children far better than you do:
“I would sign them up in school in the same way they would get inoculated. I would fine parents if form some reason they refused. I am happy to be
very clear on how we would enforce the mandate,” Obama said. He
went on to say that he believed that the vast majority of American parents
wanted to ensure that their children did receive health coverage.
Am I the only one who sees a major double standard here? Obama, like most of the rest of the Democratic field, has justly criticised the President for allowing illegal wiretapping and for the new levels of federal intrusion into Americans' lives. Because of the political advantage that can be gained from such criticism, Obama and all the Democrats are harping away at the PATRIOT Act and at the idea of federal surveillance (as if any of them will actually undo all of this if elected). Yet it is perfectly alright for a Democratic administration to force parents to put their children on government health coverage against their will.
The federal government: It is tapping your phone and monitoring your e-mails. Under Obama it will insure your children whether you want it to or not. It is a large, corrupted beast which exists primarily to enhance its own power.
Through Barack Obama's statement we learn the truth about the Democratic view of the threat of unfettered government power. Republican statism is evil and is a threat to your civil liberties. On the other hand, Democrat statism is kind and benevolent and is here to help you, so you had better do exactly as they say. They know what is best for you and your family, while you don't have a clue. They are from the government, and they are here to help you, so they aren't a threat.
The Democratic Party: Our statism is better!
Labels: Conservatism, Federal politics, Presidential Election
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 4:06 PM
7 Comments:
David,
You are correct on everything you've said here.
However, this exemplifies the problem that I would have voting for any of the other Republican candidates for President, aside from Fred Thompson.
BOTH sides -- Republican and Democrat -- are guilty of the "my large federal government is great, but yours is evil". Candidates like Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani would have no problem with big, intrusive government. Theirs would just do different things than what Democrats would do..
To me, neither party has the moral high ground here. Both are equally hypocritical and self-serving when they talk about the evils of what the other party is trying to do to/with the federal government and the Constitution.
Is it any wonder that a person like me is so invested in the idea of Fred Thompson for President and why a person like me is so lost when presented with the idea of someone else becoming President?
Matt;
I hate to burst your bubble here, but I expect zero progress on the reduction of the federal government under a Thompson administration. Indeed, Fred has certainly not indicated (as has no Republican candidate except Ron Paul, who promises immediate repeal if elected-and I think we can trust that he would-he also won't be elected) that the PATRIOT Act would be repealed or domestic surveillance will end...I do not believe that it would. We are all deluding ourselves if we think otherwise.
The difference between Fred Thompson and the other VIABLE candidates is that I have faith that under a Thompson administration the situation will not get worse. It is a sad situation when we've come to say "I am supporting a candidate because the situation will not worsen." Unfortunately, that's what we've come to.
David,
No disrespect intended, but I have come to take what you say about Senator Thompson with a grain of salt. That's not saying that you are purposefully being facetious, but I would hope that you would understand that I prefer to hear directly from him on pertinent issues.
Regarding the Patriot Act and things such as domestic spying, we'll just have to see what he says.
Regarding reductions in the federal government, your statement would lead me to believe that you haven't heard much of what he's said on the issue. Still, actual reductions are really not in the hands of the executive branch. There are some things he can do, especially with his veto pen, but much of the reduction responsibility comes from Congress.
And John McCain was right tonight with his statements about how Republicans behaved in Congress once they won the majority in 1994. So, to say that a Thompson administration would oversee zero progress for reducing the federal government is 1) misleading and 2) overstated.
We'll see what happens, but as you stated David, there is no such thing as the perfect candidate. And it's interesting that you continue to try to point out supposed Thompson faults in an attempt to show me that he's as faulted as the other Republican candidates...hoping that I will "see the light" and vote for whichever one ends up nominated. Sorry, but that tactic isn't going to work. I think I've been very clear on that.
It's also interesting how you continue to completely fail to address on their merits anything negative that I might have to say about the Republican Party...things such as my initial comment here. If you want my attention, David, please...challenge me on these points and tell me where I'm wrong, if I am, rather than pretending these problems don't exist.
By the way, David...
Did you notice in the debate tonight how the other candidates said things such as "I agree with Senator Thompson" on multiple occasions? I counted possibly a half-dozen times that occurred. And not once did any of the other candidates attack Fred on the issues OR on his record.
You couldn't even come close to saying the same thing about any of the other candidates, especially the top-tier ones.
I think that says a LOT about Fred's credentials compared to the others.
(His campaign video was also very interesting. Some non-Thompson folks seem to think it was an "attack ad" or out of desperation...but I think it was very true, very well-done, and just what Thompson supporters have been asking for...)
Matt;
Because of Fred's strong federalist views, I don't expect the situation to worsen. You do have to remember that Fred Thompson is a disciple of Howard Baker (it was Senator Baker who first encouraged him to run for President, and Baker who taught him nearly everything he knows about politics), and Baker was the great pragmatist of the Senate (and so remains one). For that reason, I think it is safe to say that the PATRIOT Act isn't going anywhere-but note that Fred is not talking about it, either. Just because it won't fundamentally change doesn't necessarily mean he likes it.
By the way, the audio part of Talkshoe is down. When it comes back up tonight or tomorrow, I am going to do a short show on the debate (I agree that Fred did VERY well.
David,
And you're likely correct re: the Patriot Act. It's one of those "if we lived in a perfect world" sort of things. I would imagine that Fred wouldn't have anything to do with anything of that sort if it could be avoided...but his talk regarding the war on terror has been very pointed. His comments seem to point that he'd prefer to leave Iraq sooner rather than later, but they also point to a view that there is a larger, more global, conflict. In other words, he's (more or less) adopted the original ideas fronted by the Bush Administration before Bush became hyper-focused on Iraq.
Thompson views Iraq as part of the greater conflict, but not as a central part of it.
As for a TalkShoe analysis of the debate, if you'd like a partner for that, I'd be happy to join you.
Also, if you would like to do a sports show this weekend, I would prefer to do it on Saturday night (11pm or later would be fine) if possible. Let me know.
Matt
Post a Comment
<< Home