Robert Parry, Consortium News, December 9, 2007
National Democrats are upbeat about their chances in Election 2008, citing George W. Bush’s unpopularity and the weirdness of top Republican presidential candidates bogged down in squabbles over who has the right religious outlook or who is the most hostile to illegal immigrants.
But the smug Democratic hierarchy may be inviting defeat, again, by ignoring the fact that many Americans want leadership that appeals to them on the higher plane of principle. Instead, Democrats often treat Americans more like consumers than citizens, selling them new social programs rather than articulating an uplifting national cause.
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York summed up this consumer-over-citizen approach when she announced her health care plan on Sept. 17:
“We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can’t take a sick child to the doctor?” [Boston Globe, Sept. 18, 2007]
Perhaps a different question might be: why would a presidential candidate see the founding principles of the United States as somehow at odds with the desire of parents to want health care for their children?
In other words, it comes down to: do you want a Nanny State or not?
Comment by grimgold — December 11, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Grim, Jefferson said that the point of having a government was not only to provide security in the people’s papers and person, the national defense, and to enforce the laws equally, but to be the basis for everyone to strive for their individual happiness from whatever station in life to which they were born. You would be judged by merit and not your parent’s income or class. That was a revolutionary idea in 1776, when the world was dominated by classist systems, and still is today, at least to the Republican Party and some Democrats.
Things like equality in education, equal rights, and decent health care are fundamental to establishing a firmament for “life, liberty and the pursuit of hapinness.” That’s not ‘Nanny State,’ that’s what our form of government is all about and what the phrase “all men are created equal” means. We obviously aren’t born equal, but we should all have the opportunity to make the most of our talents, and to be treated equally by the law. If we are sick and ignorant, we will never have that opportunity.
Comment by RS Janes — December 11, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
RS, the govt has given poor education, though equal. They should not be mothering our education system.
Decent health care will suffer the same fate if a govt takeover occurs. I say we try not-for-profit hospitals as an alternative to the market place (I’ve mentioned this to you before).
Being sick and ignorant doesn’t justify a takeover by big govt precisely because govt out of control creates sick and ignorant people.
BTW, I stand corrected concerning Al Gore. He didn’t institute tax on seniors’ S.S. checks. I was wrong. But I now remember clearly – he was the guy that raised the age to collect full benefits from 65 of 67. Oh, he’s so brilliant! (Sarcasm)
You are impressive in your thinking and writing. I enjoy your communications. Grimmy
Comment by grimgold — December 11, 2007 @ 8:32 pm