By Douglas V. Gibbs
The talk of Swatstikas, Naziism, and Hitler is an often used technique to demonize the policies, or the character, of American political figures. Anti-war activists made use of the fascist label plenty of times to describe their distaste for George W. Bush, and his policies in Iraq. Any support of war efforts can be construed as Hitleric by those that exist in the realm of "peace, love, and coexistence." The comparisons to Nazism, however, are not usually accurate. The whole point, in most cases, of even making the comparison in the first place is for the shock value attached. Hitler, and his Nazi regime, was so horrifyingly evil that the mere off-hand comparison is believed to be devastating, especially if those observing the rhetoric believes it.
Conservatives are often called Nazi-like because some people erroneously believe that fascism exists on the right side of the political spectrum. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went so far is to point out the existence of signs with swastikas on them at Tea Party events. She made the statement, it seems to many, to come across as one who thought the swastikas at the event were a symbol of the belief system of the Tea Party participants, rather than recognizing the Hitleric symbolism was actually designed to characterize the National Socialist similarities between the policies of the Democrats, and those of Hitler's Third Reich. After all, with all of the past rhetoric by the liberals to call anyone who supported any of the policies of George W. Bush, especially his war policies, a bunch of Nazi-fascist-war-mongers, and then for those same people to show up at a "conservative" event with swastikas on their signs, surely it must be a confirmation, right?
Only in the mind of a leftist.
When making any comparisons to Hitler, or Stalin, it is easy to drag into the conversation the atrocities committed by those persons. Each of those historical figures are responsible for the deaths of millions from genocidal rampages of their governments. That is part of the reason making such comparisons to today's political voices is so effective. The very thought of having anything to do with either of those genocidal maniacs is horrifying, at the least. And if you can convince folks there is any truth in the comparison, it can be devastating to a politician, or a political party.
With all of the silly name calling, and tomato throwing, set aside, it would seem reasonable to understand that behind the genocide, and totalitarian military rule, were socialist political ideologies. Both Stalin and Hitler believed in the power of the government. They believed it was their duty to organize the people, provide for the people, and to weed out any possible dissent where possible. Their supporters truly believed that what was being instituted was for the good of the country, and for the good of the people. Some individuals were unable to keep up with the competition that daily life offered, and these socialist leaders accepted the role of being the provider of "rights" to these poor, downtrodden people. But to do so for only certain groups could be seen as favoritism by the government, so it was reasoned that government must provide these entitlements across the board, to all citizens, just to be fair - whether the other people wanted it, or not.
Nationalized Health Care, in both Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, were important policies for those governments. The leaders told the people that they believed it was important that all people in the nation have access to health care, and that is a very reasonable motive, one would think. But like all examples of nationalized health care, bureaucrats began to realize that "all services to all people" was not possible as much as they had hoped. Cuts would have to be made, and decisions on who gets care were cast. Those who carried bad behavioral habits that may have brought on their medical problem to themselves were pushed to the back of the line, since their unwillingness to be healthy, or have healthy habits, was the cause of their sudden need for health care. People who were less productive, and unable to provide for the "state" were also delayed treatment. Eventually, nationalized health care led to more complex social systems, and the practice of rationing, euthanasia and eugenics.
For the leaders, nationalized health care became a means of controlling the people. Knowing that care could be refused by the government for poor health behaviors, or for dissent, the people began to openly portray their love for the ruling system, while doing all they could to keep the regime approving of them. And as the leaders had hoped, the government became the focal point in people's minds. They worked, played, and practiced their habits for the sake of the leadership - to keep the government happy.
The Democrats in power during this time period may not have such insidious motives behind their push for a single payer system that eventually places the government in full control of all things associated with health care. But by ultimately removing the private choice, which is what always eventually happens once a nationalized system is put into place, the government will be enabling themselves access to power never before seen in America. Why would anyone wish to allow the government to have that kind of power over the people, and give the populace no alternate choice if the government system becomes either poor in its working model, or used by a future leader to manipulate the system and take control over the people as was the case in Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union? Even if the Democrats in power now have no desire to control the people in such a way, and even if they truly do have benevolent motives, what is to keep a future administration from using a nationalized health care system in ways similar systems were used by totalitarian dictators?
There's an old saying about putting all of one's eggs in one basket. Isn't that what nationalized health care ultimately does?
The private health insurance system may have many flaws, and I am convinced that the system needs to be fixed, or reformed. But after the reform is over, I would rather have thousands of slightly flawed insurance companies to choose from, than a single choice that, if flawed, leaves me nowhere else to go.
This is why the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, wrote the U.S. Constitution with the aim to limit the powers of the federal government. After all, if they believed in the wonderful benevolence of nationalized health care, don't you think they would have given the government the authority to enact such a plan in Article I, Section 8?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment