I haven’t chimed in on the health care debate but I don’t suppose my regular readers believe I haven’t any strong feelings on the matter. Let me represent a line of thinking that I haven’t heard even among the most strident opponents to the legislation being advocated by the current administration.
I was spurred on to post this because events are unfolding which I predicted privately but I won’t get any credit for, and I should like a little. 🙂
Namely, this morning the news reports that Obama is willing to ‘consider’ taking the public option off the table. Already the section that apparently gave doctors a material motive for having ‘end of life’ conversations has been dropped. I said privately that I thought that the final health care bill would be vastly different: As presented, it would include as many of the liberal and socialistic dream policies as they think they might reasonably be able to get passed, but as passed, a large number of these would be dispensed; but many would be retained.
This may strike the average, patriotic American, as fair. Compromise is one of those things that we think fair play requires. There is only one big problem: liberals who are operating on the activist play book (Read: Obama standing on Alinksy’s shoulders), have an entirely different notion of ‘compromise’ then the average fair minded American. Consider this long quote from Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals:
…to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise to 30 per cent, you’re 30 percent ahead. (pg 59 emphasis mine)
So you see, the current administration is not of the mindset of ‘all or nothing’ but is of the mindset that 30% was better than nothing at all. Of course, if you do the math, if you then turn around and try it again, with your 30% as your new baseline of ‘nothing’ and strive once again for 100% and once again get only 30%, you have in fact have achieved 60% of your previous attempt. So, in 4 tries or under, you can see that in fact you can have all that you asked for… and can set you up to ask for even more.
In short, the ‘slippery slope’ is not simply something that liberal activists assert does not necessarily follow from their policies… it is the opposite; it is one of their favorite tactics. On the off chance that you think I’m over stating it, consider this quote:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas, a socialist, writing decades ago.
There are plenty more where that came from.
It is absurd and frankly offensive to hear the catcalls from the left that rationing and euthanasia and 100% government insurance for all are the furthest things from the left’s mind. The only people who believe that rubbish are the wholly uninformed who rely solely on the media for their information. Setting aside the tragedies of the 20th century under national socialism and communism, we need only look to Oregon, England, and other European states to see such things happening as we speak.
These are legitimate concerns being raised on the right. The problem with your objections, my friends on the left, is very simple: We don’t believe you.
And it is an open secret between us, isn’t it, that it is very wise that we don’t.