Yesterday I read that public opposition to Dems' healthcare reform is now nearly 2 to 1.
Politically, it's tough to imagine how something so unpopular can be on the brink of becoming law. The bill is bad, and since tweaking it for passage has been much more about buying votes than about making substantive improvements, it's only getting worse over time. Yet it continues to gain momentum rather than lose it.
This would be a good time to step back and look at what the liberals are doing. Not what they want you to think they're doing, but what's really happening. It's a review of what we know about liberals.
Liberalism is a dichotomy. Liberalism's power comes from the number of people who want the free lunch. There's no shortage of people willing to give their votes to anyone who promises something for nothing. Invariably, that "something for nothing" takes the form of a good intention -- like "free healthcare for everyone."
The people who lead this mob -- the elites -- are not so ignorant. Ezekiel Emanuel knows better than anyone that free healthcare for everyone is impossible. Indeed, his specialty is figuring out who gets care and who doesn't.
What's interesting is that the folks who would do nearly anything for "free healthcare" are not so likely to embrace what is merely a different way of rationing than what we currently have. Especially if they understood how this new rationing works.
So as the Senate debates healthcare, most people see two sides, each appealing to the other's base. Most people see Republican Tom Coburn, for example, trying to convince Democrat Bob Casey's constituents to take the position of Coburn's constituents, while Casey's trying to convince Coburn's constituents to take the Casey constituents' position. When a critical mass of Coburn voters is convinced that Casey is right, it's implied that Coburn will be pressured to vote along with Casey, and vice versa.
But that's not really what's going on. Only one set of constituents -- one set of minds and opinions -- is in play here: the "something for nothing" crowd.
The Democrats and the Republicans are not fighting over the middle ground. And Democrats are not going to win over anyone on the right. This is all about a critical mass of Democrat voters, and whether they will remain ignorant, or see the light. What we have here is a race, to pass the bill before too many Democrat voters figure out what's in it.
The Republican message is an old one: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The Democrat message is, "We're only cutting out the waste and fraud." They have to preserve the ignorance; the illusion -- not because the truth of what they're doing is too complicated, but because it's so disagreeable.
Now, there's no shortage of congressmen who've been quoted saying that they support the bill even against the wishes of their constituents. They think they know better than you, and they want what Ezekiel Emanuel is selling -- rationing. Maybe not enough to admit what they want, mind you, but enough that they're willing to vote for it against the will of the public.
But this is about power, too, and a lot of Democrats won't give up their seats just to perpetuate a hoax on their base.
And so, while the rank and file of both parties battle over the remaining healthcare supporters, another struggle is going on behind the scenes, among the Democrats. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are urging moderates to "take one for the team." They're pressuring moderates to risk their seats over the bill, to get it passed at the risk of not getting re-elected. In fact, it could be argued that Reid himself is doing just that, as his numbers, in his home state of Nevada, have been in the tank for quite some time.
As they lose the political support of voters who are hearing the right's message, left-leaning Senators will feel more and more ideological pressure to vote for the measure anyway.
Those are the real races that are underway in the Senate.
http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/12/healthcare-reform-applied-liberalism.html#more
Politically, it's tough to imagine how something so unpopular can be on the brink of becoming law. The bill is bad, and since tweaking it for passage has been much more about buying votes than about making substantive improvements, it's only getting worse over time. Yet it continues to gain momentum rather than lose it.
This would be a good time to step back and look at what the liberals are doing. Not what they want you to think they're doing, but what's really happening. It's a review of what we know about liberals.
Liberalism is a dichotomy. Liberalism's power comes from the number of people who want the free lunch. There's no shortage of people willing to give their votes to anyone who promises something for nothing. Invariably, that "something for nothing" takes the form of a good intention -- like "free healthcare for everyone."
The people who lead this mob -- the elites -- are not so ignorant. Ezekiel Emanuel knows better than anyone that free healthcare for everyone is impossible. Indeed, his specialty is figuring out who gets care and who doesn't.
What's interesting is that the folks who would do nearly anything for "free healthcare" are not so likely to embrace what is merely a different way of rationing than what we currently have. Especially if they understood how this new rationing works.
So as the Senate debates healthcare, most people see two sides, each appealing to the other's base. Most people see Republican Tom Coburn, for example, trying to convince Democrat Bob Casey's constituents to take the position of Coburn's constituents, while Casey's trying to convince Coburn's constituents to take the Casey constituents' position. When a critical mass of Coburn voters is convinced that Casey is right, it's implied that Coburn will be pressured to vote along with Casey, and vice versa.
But that's not really what's going on. Only one set of constituents -- one set of minds and opinions -- is in play here: the "something for nothing" crowd.
The Democrats and the Republicans are not fighting over the middle ground. And Democrats are not going to win over anyone on the right. This is all about a critical mass of Democrat voters, and whether they will remain ignorant, or see the light. What we have here is a race, to pass the bill before too many Democrat voters figure out what's in it.
The Republican message is an old one: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The Democrat message is, "We're only cutting out the waste and fraud." They have to preserve the ignorance; the illusion -- not because the truth of what they're doing is too complicated, but because it's so disagreeable.
Now, there's no shortage of congressmen who've been quoted saying that they support the bill even against the wishes of their constituents. They think they know better than you, and they want what Ezekiel Emanuel is selling -- rationing. Maybe not enough to admit what they want, mind you, but enough that they're willing to vote for it against the will of the public.
But this is about power, too, and a lot of Democrats won't give up their seats just to perpetuate a hoax on their base.
And so, while the rank and file of both parties battle over the remaining healthcare supporters, another struggle is going on behind the scenes, among the Democrats. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are urging moderates to "take one for the team." They're pressuring moderates to risk their seats over the bill, to get it passed at the risk of not getting re-elected. In fact, it could be argued that Reid himself is doing just that, as his numbers, in his home state of Nevada, have been in the tank for quite some time.
As they lose the political support of voters who are hearing the right's message, left-leaning Senators will feel more and more ideological pressure to vote for the measure anyway.
Those are the real races that are underway in the Senate.
http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/12/healthcare-reform-applied-liberalism.html#more