The Virtue Of Defunding Obamacare
by Larry Perrault on September 20, 2013 at 9:39 AM
The 2012 election and the retention of the most un-American (I’m talking un-American policy-wise, as opposed to birth, which has long been of no consequence in any case) American President in our history, with the solidification of the corruption of America already accomplished, plus what he may do over another term, took the wind right out of my sails. I cannot look at the prospects of restoring the American ideal with much optimism, and I lament a Democrat-Republican push-pull that seems to proceed irrespective of the constitutional principle that has been ceded in the contest, now almost completely. If Obamacare is not unconstitutional, what may still be considered so is relatively paltry. But I got a whiff of the sort of resolve that is essential to any hope with the declaration weeks ago by a few Senators that they would not vote for any budgetary Continuing Resolution that did not defund Obamacare.
Well, after all of the doubting of political pros, threats from Democrats, and Republican maneuvering to avoid a confrontation, it looks like House conservatives and vigorous voters will bring The House Of Representatives to vote on a Continuing Resolution that funds all of government without contest EXCEPT for Obamacare. And now Ted Cruz has said that if necessary, he will filibuster in The Senate. Of course Karl Rove thinks it’s a misguided strategy. Charles Krauthammer has also said that it can never pass and only risks hurting Republicans politically. Michael Medved has insisted for weeks that it can’t possibly succeed and had a guest recently helping him preach that it’s the only possible way for Obama to revive his flagging presidency. Bill O’Reilly really is as he insists no conservative, but seems to think liberals are even more nuts than conservatives are heartless. But he asks why Republicans would pursue a course that has no chance of succeeding.
I listen to Medved’s radio program rather than Sean Hannity’s because he discusses a lot of history and is always equipped to call liberals’ bluff when they blather about it, and I watch Hannity on television. Only Hannity, Limbaugh and Mark Levin have been assertive in comment that this fight absolutely must be carried forward. And I agree. With the exception of O’Reilly, the doubters listed above are genuine conservatives in what they believe is best for society. But their conservatism is governed by their political calculations, which are not hard math, but speculations about how the game will play. But these are men who are older than I am, and I seem to be around the age where older political calculators are tuned probably incorrigibly to Republican pessimism. I’m quite old enough to remember the days of nearly monolithic Democratic domination of media and politics. But when I see what these older men fail to consider, I can only think of the old adage that “it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks.” Let’s think about what they are not considering:
1) As I referred to above, it is absolutely unacceptable to me to cede to an utter abandonment of The Constitution. That leaves America just another untethered drifting democratic debate of sentiments. Constitutional principle was historically unique and provoked historic prosperity. Anchorless democracy was spurned and assiduously avoided by the framers of The Constitution. And these smart men will know that if they take one step back from the fray. I agree that Republicans must clarify an alternative course. But for me that would open interstate insurance marketing and largely turn the matter to the states, perhaps recommending decoupling from employment and encouraging consumer rather than third-party responsibility, with states devising other methods to assist the needy. But weeks ago, Medved said they must offer a program that maintains a preexisting condition exemption. A) that seals the abandonment of due constitutional province of state v. federal jurisdiction. B) It retains the utter demolishing of the meaning of “insurance.” And C) It retains the complete disincentive to buy it before you need it. Policy by polls is not cool.
2) But they may insist, whatever we wish for The Constitution, we still will lose this battle, and an opportunity to make real headway on qualifying Obamacare, if we do not clearly win in the next election. In the first place, if you have ceded all constitutional principle what do you suppose to have won in an election? Do you really take substantial comfort in a numerical upperhand in an un-American society? Be assured, the essential identity of America is in the constitutional ideal far more than in a geographic definition. Geographically, it’s a beautiful country that I’ve traveled much of. But I’d follow constitutional principle away from any of its geography, if necessary.
3) Enrollments in Obamacare exchanges and the issuance of government subsidies begins next month. Once these are established, undoing it will be many times harder if not impossible. And it’s easy to doubt that any qualification that may be accomplished in the future will be compliant with the intended principles of The Constitution. Republicans will be fully vested in heresy, fully responsible for the consequence, and The National Archives where The Constitution resides, could officially be considered a museum of historical artifacts.
4) I don’t at all consider it a certainty, and certainly not a liability politically, to clearly advocate for an ideal that you consider not only propitious, but consonant with right and good. That banner deserves to be born and I am certain that it has a power of its own in speaking to an audience. The voters should have a clear choice. If I nobly and decently advocate for the truth and voters reject it, then they will have what they deserve, and I will have done my duty. But they would have the opportunity to hear and make the right choice, particularly if Republicans were univocal and unequivocal. For me, I could not vote to fund Obamacare anyway. Whether to do so is primarily a moral more than a political question. It would simply be wrong.
5) Surely it’s plain, but it seems as though these pessimists assume we still operate in a cultural environment of 4 television networks and a print media standard set by The New York Times and The Washington Post. Personally, I have only referred to the incidental bit of their content over more than a decade. Talk radio, pay television, and the Internet have been around a bit now. Those old mediums are only fading. The circles where it’s otherwise are of little consequence to most Americans.
6) And lastly, it is possible that if Republicans were clear and united, that public pressure could swing some Democrat votes. Even in that unlikely case, they might say, Obama would veto it. So what’s the point? If pressure has moved some in Congress and focused on the president, I WANT him to stand before the country denying the funding of all of government and shutting it down, ONLY to protect Obamacare. Make it ALL HIS…every drop. I would have no part of it. And the same for Harry Reid. I’m certain if Cruz has to filibuster, he will meticulously paint them with Obamacare and its invasions and practical failings.
Must these doubting men that Levin calls “French Republicans” for their preemptive surrender, abide in their craven timorous flinch? If they were an army committed to a virtuous purpose, they might actually achieve a political victory, damage Democrats for the 2014 election, and make agreement Obama’s only escape from discrediting himself for the balance of his term. But without a gallant pursuit of a virtuous course, we’ll never know and voters will know only of a party of fear casting shadows in tall grass.