The thing about liberal socialists, or anybody who’s wrong, is that they hate dissension. Dissension reminds them that there are such things as reason, facts and logic.
Case in point: Barack Obama. He recently stated, “What we can’t do is refight the battles of the past two years that distract us from the hard work of moving our economy forward. What we can’t do is engage in the kinds of symbolic battles that so often consume Washington while the rest of America waits for us to solve problems.”
To Obama, might makes right. The battle for passage of socialized medicine was won last year. Therefore, according to those who won, it cannot be questioned. What if that battle had been lost? What if ObamaCare had never passed? And what if Obama had increased his seats in the House of Representatives rather than losing most of them in 2010; what then would have Obama proposed? No question. He would have fought the same battle over again, hoping to win this time. In fact, if Obama had increased his number of seats in Congress rather than losing significant numbers of them, he would have pushed forward with more elements of his agenda, such as nationalizing energy consumption (“cap and trade”), immediate government control of the Internet (rather than incremental), and all the rest.
When opponents of statism and socialism keep up their fight, it’s merely “symbolic,” according to Obama, and should not be taken seriously. When liberals and socialists keep on fighting, as they did after many previous unsuccessful attempts at nationalizing medicine it’s — well, it’s the right thing.
This is the same sort of fallacy as the claim, “Both parties should work together.” No such thing is true when two parties, or two ideologies, are on opposite sides of an issue, and one of those sides is right while the other is wrong. Right does not work with wrong, and has nothing to gain by doing so. A criminal’s victim does not “work with” a criminal in order to help the criminal accomplish his task. Because the criminal is wrong, and because the criminal is against the innocent person’s interests, the innocent person will (and should) fight the criminal with all his ability.
The House of Representatives’ inclination (so far) to take their opposition to ObamaCare seriously is right for several reasons. One, ObamaCare is a horrendous piece of legislation that must be overturned as soon as possible. Repealing it is a first step to restoring individual rights for doctors and patients, as well as long-lost free market principles to the practice of medical care. Repeal of ObamaCare is not a sufficient condition, but it’s a necessary condition. It will show people who are seeking a total course reversal in the socialist policies of both Republicans and Democrats that the Republicans are, at least on this issue, intent on becoming a second party — of offering Americans an actual alternative to the unconstitutional overreach of the last Congress to ram socialized medicine down everyone’s throats.
Principled opposition to the wrongdoing of socialist Washington DC is an unusual thing. Perhaps this is what frightens Obama. After all, if Americans are — for the first time in decades — offered an actual alternative to the socialism endlessly served up by his own party, then what happens if they choose it? What happens if Americans vote, in the coming years, to repeal, defund and replace — piece by piece — not just ObamaCare, but all or most of the welfare-regulatory state as we have known it? This is a battle that liberals and socialists do not want to fight. They want all battles to be on their own terms. They want “me too” Republicans, such as the George W. Bush they claimed to hate, who was always ready for a “moderate” version of Democratic proposals and all too happy to sign it. Democratic liberal socialists fear principled opposition, because they are not used to being challenged on principle and don’t wish to be.
Perhaps fear is why the Obama Administration has proposed a ‘national Internet ID’ for every American. They want such an ID to be in government hands and under government control. They’re insisting it’s not a ‘national ID’ although why a ‘national Internet ID’ is not the same as a national ID is left unclear. Also unclear is why Americans need this, since if they did a profit-driven private market would already be providing it. The government is claiming it’s necessary so people may merge their various online passwords and logons into one location. But in a location to be controlled and known by the government!? Who would trade convenience for government having control and knowledge over all your passwords?
To liberals and socialists of the Obama variety, this doesn’t matter. They’re afraid of losing power, when instead all they want to do is gain power. Americans’ individual rights are under attack as perhaps at no other time in all of American history. Either Americans will have to reassert their rights on every front against an administration and Senate that is increasingly its enemy, or they will have to lose those rights. This is no mere ‘symbolic’ issue. Only a dictator or an authoritarian such as Barack Obama would have you believe otherwise.