Watching the C-SPAN vote on the Democrats Health Care Reform Bills, the paternalistic philosophy of governance that drives the liberal mindset became increasingly apparent for public consumption. As recent public comments by the likes of House Speaker Pelosi and President Obama himself have shown, their continued push to socialize the health care industry and our country would continue despite the will of the people. That is because of their sincere belief that the American people are not capable of self determination but must be cared and provided for, as a child of the paternalistic government. Provisions by government create dependency on government and a self perpetuating deterioration into socialism.
Mrs. Pelosi repeatedly and proudly referred to Social Security and Medicare in her giddy excitement over the socialization of yet another aspect of American life. Americans are not capable of educating themselves and their family and must consequently be educated by a failing government school system (Benjamin Franklin, Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln must not have ever existed). Americans are not capable of planning for their own retirement and must consequently be forced through taxation into a financially bankrupt Social Security System despite its pathetic return on investment. Americans are not capable of purchasing health insurance due to perverted circumstances created by the government and must consequently be forced into a more bureaucratic government controlled system. All of this is necessary in the liberal mindset because the common people just are not capable of self determination. The arrogance and audacity of the liberal mindset belies the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" that Mrs. Pelosi attempted to quote, as if socialism is in some way a part of the American fabric. Liberals do not like to be reminded that it was originally "life, liberty and property", because they have not respect for any of the three. In the liberal mind set life, liberty and property of the individual must be second to the proper distribution of said factors as they deem "fair".
Indeed we as a society have been moving away from self determination for decades. In American life, and now in the Health Care Reform Bill, adolescence has been extended into the mid to late 20's. Previously people of this age were supporting themselves and their families. Now these able young Americans are encouraged, indeed subsidized, to remain dependent. Where young family members used to aid and support the elders of their family, they are now encouraged, indeed subsidized to turn both children and elders over to the paternalistic government. Once multi-generational dependency is solidified, we will indeed be children of the liberals. We will be seeking to please them for whatever provisions they deem us worthy of receiving.
If you think this is an exaggeration, then I refer to Mrs. Pelosi's "great unfinished business of our society" comment. She was obviously referring to a stepped up version of the recognized failure of "The Great Society". She referred to health care coverage as a right. According to the dictionary, a right is that which is due to anyone by just claim. If health care is a right then one has a right to a portion of a doctor's life without expectation of compensation. Either that or a right to someone's property that will be used to compensate a doctor for their service. You see a right is something that does not require anything of another. It is due to the holder by its very nature. With health care being a right this will by definition take from another as determined by the government.
The liberal government aristocracy has taken another step to total paternalistic control. At what point will the American people regain the fortitude to accept responsibility and demand that which are truly their inalienable rights.
Hey Fee,
ReplyDeleteLiked your piece a lot. "Paternalistic" is one way to put it I guess. But there are a couple of problems with that description, in my view. First, "paternalism" gives at least some impression of "caring" as a father would. You and I both know that this isn't about expansion of health care, but rather centralization of power and redistribution of wealth. "Caring" about all those poor people is mere cover. Second, what father in his right mind wants to keep his children dependent, rather than giving them the tools to thrive on their own? Exactly! So I'd say these guys are "statists" rather than "paternalists." All of that said, your point remains well taken.
Bo