Perhaps the saddest spectacle in this whole healthcare fiasco was the revelation that some people who claim to be prolife really aren’t.
It doesn’t please me to say this, but a true prolife Democrat, at least in this current Congress, is an oxymoron.
When Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak folded on Sunday, accepting a promise from the administration that the president would issue an executive order disallowing abortion funding by the government, all hope of stopping this bill died. He and his small band of supposed prolife Democrats then voted in favor of Obamacare. Now we know, as we look at the final vote, that this defection was crucial. If they had remained firm, Obamacare would have failed.
This makes it clear to me that their prolife stance was more of a preference than a conviction. A deeper conviction was their desire to impose a government-sponsored system on the American public.
First, let’s be honest here. President Obama, the most pro-abortion president in American history, will not follow through on his promise. It’s already been asserted—accurately—that no executive order can overturn legislation, and this legislation calls for federal funding for abortions. It was a phony promise, and Rep. Stupak and his group fell for it.
However, it’s not just that they were deceived. The bigger problem is that fundamentally they believe in the socialist vision. They are progressives who accept the assertion that government ought to be in charge of major sections of the economy. They don’t trust the private sector and have faith that government will perform better.
On what do they base that belief? Where does government perform better? Social Security? Broken. Medicare and Medicaid? Massive fraud has been revealed. No matter where you look, the federal government has not performed better than the private sector. That’s an illusion.
Their belief is precisely that—a belief. It is ideologically driven.
I recognize it’s possible that Rep. Stupak really thinks he is helping the poor. If so, he doesn’t understand how economics works. But I don’t accept the idea that Obama and the leadership in Congress really have helping the poor as their driving purpose. Yes, they use that in their public utterances, butÂ the real goal is control.
The American people, by large majorities in the polls, do not approve of this unconstitutional usurpation. Yet the Democratic leadership kept saying this bill was “historic.” As the sign on the right indicates, being historic is not always a positive thing. Historic disasters exist as well.
Something else historic needs to take place now: the biggest turnaround in election history. This November, an electoral uprising is absolutely essential. Can it happen? Almost no one predicted the Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. The morning after election day, commentators were scrambling to figure out what happened.
It can happen again. It can be an even larger and more historic vote than 1994.
Medical analogies abound in the political cartoonists’ world.
It could be that the Democrats are doing most of the spadework for Republicans themselves.
Yet even if this does occur, how can we change what has happened? What are the best avenues for attacking this and reversing the damage?
I’ll try to deal with that tomorrow.