'This is not regulation; it is rule'

My boss Sam Karnick, from his perch at The American Culture, examines the cultural implications of health care reform. They aren't pretty:

(A) public without a strong understanding of what individual freedom really means and the reasons why it is precious has little defense against the ever-increasing encroachments of government—until something as obviously grotesque, wrongheaded, and overweening as this health care bill comes along.

That’s what makes this fundamentally an issue of culture, and it’s why those stubborn souls who persist in believing in individual rights must engage the culture, especially by wresting control of the public schools from the hands of the progressive myrmidons who have debauched it.

...(I)t’s clear that the real concern was that the option of personal choice was being taken away from individual citizens in this vital area of life. The power to control people’s health care, in addition to the hegemony over the one-sixth of the economy which it represents, conveys to the government an enormous amount of control over individual lives, a level of control surely unprecedented in this nation.

This is not regulation; it is rule. And the public finally realized that the current government does not intend to be gentle in its rule.

I don't really have much to add, except to say that the health care reform debate casts in stark relief, perhaps more than most people would like to admit, how there really are two Americas -- one that believes in the relative benevolence of the state and one that believes in its relative malevolence. One needn't be an anarchist to hold the view that the size of the state is inversely proportional to the size of the citizen. Bigger state, smaller citizens. Bigger machine, smaller cogs.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7195

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Waking up, are we?

Eyes, slowly opening, begin to see that there is a group of people who are set against the founding principles of the nation.

And what should we refer to this group of people as, when they work around all the things meant to protect those principles? And what will we do about it, besides comment on them?

Re: Waking up, are we?

I don't know who you are, Anon, or where you've been, but our eyes have been open around here for quite some time.

As for what to do about it, I wouldn't be so dismissive of "comment."

"Our government rests in public opinion," Abraham Lincoln said. "Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government."

Not long enough

Public Opinion was overwhelmingly against the HC bill, but it didn't matter.

And the only reason that public opinion had a chance to turn so many against it, is because a bunch of people who don't write so well decided to go out and do something, like yell at their congressman, protest in DC, protest in their hometowns, and fight.

So I do dismiss the act of commenting in your own playground as useless.

Commenting to your Representative in terms like "I will work to get you fired" is a lot more useful then spending your time communicating with a group of people that have made it their mission in life to ensure your words are moot.

Its time to take the fight to them. Call them what they are and don't let them off the hook.

I've had death threats fighting them at rallies, town halls, local news paper opinion pages, etc. They are nothing to be afraid of.

The Liberals and the Progressives and the Socialists declared war on America, and America now hangs by a thread. Are you going to be able to say you fought for it, or just that you commented on how it was fought.

"This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite, in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly, "We have to choose between a left or right." Well, I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: Man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

Insightful and depressing

Karnick's piece, and I highly recommend reading it in full, is in equal measures insightful and depressing. It's full of great passages. This was one I liked that Ben did not cite:

Like the Tea Party movement, the “unprecedented level of activism and engagement among Americans” in opposition to Obamacare is evidence of a long-delayed recognition by much of the public that what’s wrong with progressivism is not the particular policies it espouses but its assumption that rule by elites is better than freedom of choice.

I don't quite share what I read as Karnick's optimism here that the broader public is now recognizing "what's wrong with progressivism" in a broad sense. Time will tell, however, and I certainly hope he's right. Yet quotes like this one in the wake of ObamaCare's passage, which has been at the top of Drudge all day, must certainly be disheartening to those who advocate a return to a culture that values individual freedom and liberty over a phony sense of "security" promised by the state.

"It's just going to be like Christmas," said DeCarlo Flythe, who lost health coverage for his family when he was laid off almost three years ago. "It's going to be great. You know, no worries (about) the bills. We are going to go ahead and pay our co-pay and be alright."

A large and unhealthy percentage of modern American society believes in Santa Claus after all — and that he hails not from the North Pole, but from Washington.

And this business of "wresting control of the public schools from the hands of the progressive myrmidons who have debauched it" is going to be a long hard struggle. More likely than not, it's too late. The decades-long control of academia by the left — from primary schools to the universities — would take generations to reverse. And can a new wave of defenders of traditional values, free-market capitalism, individual liberty and the Founders' constitutional order rise up to take its place when they are taught the doctrine of the left from Kindergarten to grad school?

Indeed, the answer is to not simply despair and give up. But look at the Hellfire that rained down from our dominant media elite culture on the Texas Board of Education when it tried to insert some ideological balance in the state's curriculum. From what I could tell, the Board did not go through excising all the pillars of liberal thought or erasing from history long-admired heroes to the progressive movement, but merely sought to add some ideological balance.

The New York Times — in a critical, almost sneering article — was nonetheless factually obligated to report that the Board made but "dozens of minor changes." For this tiny push-back at liberal doctrine, the Board has been assailed by the academic establishment and characterized by the left as Bible-thumping, racist, Creationist morons.

Such battles are necessary, but let's remember that it will be enormously difficult, loud and rhetorically bloody.

Erasing History

From what I could tell, the Board did not go through excising all the pillars of liberal thought or erasing from history long-admired heroes to the progressive movement,

From what I could tell (from reading your link), they erased Thomas Jefferson:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone.

Edit: I can't believe you missed that part, though it was in the last paragraph, so go ahead with your "Gotcha!".

RE: Erasing History

Note that I said they are not going through "excising all the pillars of liberal thought." My point was not to defend every individual action of "dozens" made by the Texas Board of Education, because I don't know what each of them are. But I find it highly unlikely that "they erased Thomas Jefferson" completely from the overall curriculum, and would oppose that.

I'll posit that Jefferson might not have warranted being "replaced" with Aquinas, Calvin and Blackstone. Those three certainly should have at least been added to the "list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century" ... because they did. And I'm guessing public school kids in Texas had previously never heard of them.

I'm also guessing the kids in Texas will come out of their public school education with an appreciation for Jefferson's role in history — and also Aquinas, Calvin and Blackstone. I think that's a good thing.

Besides, another point I make is that what the Texas Board of Education has done is small beer. Howard Zinn's distorted history is poisoning the minds of high schoolers all over the country. When that's "erased" by the few conservatives who can rise to positions to control such things, then we're getting somewhere.

ADS

The problem with progressivism is that the progressives lie about their policies. They even lie about being Liberals.

They don't say 'This person will be able to decide whats best for you'.
They say 'This system will protect you'. But they know a system can never predict an ever changing world, so the 'system' is ever in need of 'fixing' or 'defending'. (Mend it, don't end it) (Pass it now, Fix it later) (Protect Medicare) (Protect SS)

It is this cause (fix or mend or defend) that leads to a steady stream of 'approved' people that are 'qualified' to make the fix or the mend or defend. (Never let a crisis go to waste)

Anyone not having the correct pedigree does not have the ability to do the job even if they have already shown they can (Palin), and no matter what your background if you disagree you are not qualified either. (CEO of Whole Foods)

Progressives are just Liberals, and like liberals they follow their leaders in trying to con people into depending on them, by fooling them into thinking their supposedly unbiased, fair, and morally correct 'systems' will protect them from all manner of misfortune.

(As an aside, the label they adopted, 'Progressive', a lie in itself. They are not creating anything new, they are just trying to sell something old as new. Kind of like when the car repair shop tells you they put in a 'new' part, but what they meant is 'new to your car.)

RE: ADS

The problem with progressivism is that the progressives lie about their policies. They even lie about being Liberals.

Hmmm.... where have I heard this before?

Welcome back old friend.