Thursday, August 20, 2009

Obama To Change Approach on Healthcare

The Fox Nation is reporting today that Obama is shifting his appeal for support for his healthcare bill to more of a moral argument. A softer, gentler approach than simply calling everyone who disagrees with him nazis and extremists and telling them to shut up. It is unclear, at this point, whether he will borrow a page from the Bill and Hillary Clinton playbook by shedding some crocodile tears or carrying around 50 pound bibles whenever he can get near a camera, which is seemingly all the time.

Having liberals preach to me about morality is a bit like having a guy who has had five triple by-pass surgeries lecture me on the horrors of trans fats. It just does not fly.

When any one of Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Obama, etc. start showing me contracts for the health insurance that they’ve bought for others, maybe then it'll have some merit. Heck, when Auntie Zeituni gets off Boston public assistance maybe then Obama can start lecturing about goodness, humanity and morality. You remember Auntie Zeituni, the aunt he wrote about so affectionately in his memoirs. The aunt, he today, claims to not really know.

According to Fox, Obama has asked pastors to push his agenda from the church pulpit. Kinda violates the left’s belief in separation of church and state. There is not much that is more creepy than left wing religious organizations. I'd just assume be locked in a room with Pat Robertson for a week then attend one hour of a left wing sermon.

Someone needs to start teaching this lesson to our youth-- governments aren't moral, corporations can't, by design, be moral or immoral. Individual people are. Particularly in the United States, the government was never intended to the guidance of morality. That responsibility belongs to the family, society as a whole and faith. The government is not “our brother's keeper.” Neither is Proctor and Gamble, Ford Motor Company or Walmart.

Also, never taken into account with the vapid rhetoric of the left is the opportunity cost of their backwards endeavors. Impoverishing everyone to help the few in the end ends up hurting more people. If we are all left poorer and with less economic freedom we are all less likely to give of our own volition. It only makes sense that a more free, more wealthy more able to move in and out of classes society is more able to help one another or better yet, more able to produce citizens who do not need help. Which, ofcourse, is everything the progressives do not want.

Throughout history there are examples of governments trying to enforce morality, and it has always ended very badly. I'd argue that more lives have been destroyed by the ethical imperative: “each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” than any other.

No comments:

Post a Comment