Foaming at the mouth hypocrisy

[Seth Jackson]

There are legitimate sounding rationales to oppose health care reform and even more reasons to be concerned about the status quo but we tend to spend a lot of time on complete nonsense.

Repeatedly conservative critics of Obama’s views on health care reform have attempted to label him as “fascist” and “communist.” Many even use those labels interchangeably as if they are the same political/economic system. I will remind the public again, communists sought to end the private sector, fascists sought to use it. Socially, both were dramatically authoritarian and cared not what they destroyed in the process (democracy, large urban areas, entire groups of people, etc).

The AMA has stated that one Democratic proposal; HB 3200 would result in “a significant increase in the number of American's insured by private insurance plans.” Proposing a public option as a part of a reform package, through a peaceful democratic process, in one part of the private sector, is communist like your local government buying a fire station. It is ridiculous on a number of levels.

If your political science 101 text is not a part of a secret communist takeover, conservatives are more likely to support greater government involvement in our social lives. Does that make them more “fascist?”

Ask yourself: Do I support the right of all consenting adults to marry who they wish? Do I think the State should make abortions illegal regardless of the medical context? Should the State choose what prayers our children recite in public schools? If you answered yes to more than two, have called Obama (who supports regulated capitalism) a communist, and have recently enjoyed one of our fine “socialist” parks, in addition to being ridiculous, you might be taking part in what you are criticizing.

[Seth Jackson]

Thanks Jim. Did you happen to catch the comments on the Globe web site? I didn't know they printed it until a few minutes ago.

[Jim Stone]

Excellent commentary.
Many of the obstructionists are very confused (a prerequisite for hypocrisy?). They regard themselves as wanting government to stay out of their personal and state affairs (the 'libertarian' aspect). They also regard themseves to be arbiters of what others personally and their states should do or not do (the 'social liberal' or just 'liberal' aspect). They claim immense skepticism and suspicion of the federal and state governments (apart from substantive reasons, the 'paranoid' view), but uncritically accept and promote any governmental action which has a superficial element of patriotism (a traditional 'conservative' attitude). They also demand assurances that government programs (Medicare) which they initially opposed (if for fiscal reasons, a 'conservative' position), and now use without reservation, be protected from government 'interference' (a 'what-the-fuck?' brainfart). Trying to reason with such folks is like trying to put cats in a bag.