Obama said in his inaugural address that "we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." People cheered.
I didn't.
I like conflict and discord. Not incivility, but argument and debate, expressions of disagreement, which often become heated and passionate. A lack of conflict and discord means that everyone agrees, or -- much worse -- are somehow prevented from disagreeing, either by force of government, or a lack of personal desire or will. It's bad no matter the cause. We necessarily will disagree, and we must speak out about our disagreement, which will result in conflict and discord. Without that, we lose liberty -- and quickly -- no matter who is in power, left, or right.
Nancy Pelosi was right when she said she loved "disruptors" under Bush; but she was obviously self-serving when she said it, because she changed her tune about disrptions under Obama, calling it "un-American." It is people like this -- again, of any party -- we must be wary of losing our freedom to if we do not speak out, if we abandon "conflict and discord" in exchange for "unity of purpose."
One of the reasons I love Federalist 10 is because James Madison so clearly explains the importance of understanding dissent and disagreement in the framing of our new government.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
Far from Obama's "unity of purpose," Madison tells us we all inherently have difference of purpose, and that a "uniformity of interests" is not possible.
But many in our society don't accept the impracticability of this. They work hard to give us a "uniformity of interests." One of the obvious examples of this is Social Security. It doesn't make economic or policy sense in any way to give Warren Buffett a Social Security check; we have universal Social Security for one reason only: to give citizens the same passions and interests, that they might share the same opinions. That is: everyone is in Social Security, so most people support it.
If we cannot force people who have different and unequal faculties, and different degress and kinds of property, to share the same opinions, then these people will work on reducing those differences, that we might share the same opinions. That is obviously what the universality of Social Security is about, and it's also what the "health care reform" is largely about: forcing everyone (starting with individuals) into a government-run system like the health insurance exchange, and forcing everyone to have health insurance with individual mandates.
The initial reason behind it is fine, and something virtually everyone agrees with: people should have health care, and should have enough resources to live past retirement age. However, they take a leap many of us don't like, saying government should provide those things to people who don't have them. And because so many of us don't share their opinion, they try to force us into the system in order to slowly change our opinions to supporting the system.
And yes, it is as sinister as it sounds. Individual mandates are not about taking care of YOU if something happens to you, they are about two things: the first is taking your money to give to other people, but no less important is that by putting you into the system, you will be more likely to support its continuation and expansion.
We see this again and again. We see it in forced unionization. We see it in Medicare. We see it in public schooling. We see it in Rep. Rangel's vision for reinstatement of the military draft. Wherever you see government creating a system and trying to force everyone into it, forcing people to have the same interests, encouraging them to share the opinion of continuing and expanding the system is a big reason why.
This is separate from, though related to, the Democrats' push to literally silence the opposition, whether it's pushing out an entire news network they dislike, or trying to enforce "fairness" on broadcast radio stations (which most of the top Democratic leaders in Congress have expressed support for, just in the last year or two).
This silencing and undermining of dissent is more along the lines of Madison's first remedy to faction, the abolishing the liberty essential to political life. But it's all about the same thing: the Democrats want to remove the causes of faction, so Obama can have his "unity of purpose," and they do this as they long have done: by trying to destroy our liberty; and by pushing us to share the same opinions, by giving us the same interests.
I have two things to tell the Democrats (and the Republicans and others who engage in similar behaviors). First, you should embrace faction. It is how we protect liberty, it is how we ensure justice, it is how we progress as a civilization. It is not without problems, but it represents far more good than harm. Its effects can, and should, be controlled, which is why we have a republic and not a democracy. Read the rest of Federalist 10 if you don't understand.
Second, and more practically, perhaps, it won't work. It never does. It only creates more factiousness, and make its effects harder to control.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 30, 2009 07:24 AM | Email This...and, can you believe he sings and plays guitar to boot.. ha
Posted by: Duffman on October 30, 2009 07:35 AM@1~ If pudge needs his car washed or shoes shined, he'll let you know.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 30, 2009 07:55 AMIf he isn't God, he was certainly sent by God to save the world. Sting said so.
Posted by: Gary on October 30, 2009 07:58 AMI am not alone for feeling less comfortable than if I heard the following ; (quoted from Pudge)
"I like conflict and discord. Not incivility, but argument and debate, expressions of disagreement, which often become heated and passionate. A lack of conflict and discord means that everyone agrees, or -- much worse -- are somehow prevented from disagreeing, either by force of government, or a lack of personal desire or will. It's bad no matter the cause. We necessarily will disagree, and we must speak out about our disagreement, which will result in conflict and discord. Without that, we lose liberty -- and quickly -- no matter who is in power, left, or right."
Posted by: KDS on October 30, 2009 08:21 AMOf course their definition of diversity leaves a bit to be desired when it omits anything or anybody that disagrees with them.
Posted by: deadwood on October 30, 2009 09:31 AMHa, ha, ha!! What a joke. With the addition of Edmunds.com recently, these boobs are building an enemies list that would make Nixon blush.
Wasn't it Obama's buddy Rahm that said "never let a good crisis go to waste"? That sure doesn't sound like "hope over fear" to me.
What they really practice is just old fashioned gangland Chicago politics now writ on the national stage. Sweet.
Posted by: G Jiggy on October 30, 2009 10:16 AMThe press is having a harder and harder time covering for this fraud.
Posted by: Gary on October 30, 2009 10:25 AMOh, wait.
Posted by: demo kid on October 30, 2009 10:31 AMBut more importantly, Bush didn't take many actions to try to actually "encourage" people, by manipulating their circumstances (such as forcing them to by health care), to HAVE the same opinions.
PS. Only 4 firms are making the swine flu now.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on October 30, 2009 11:12 AMhttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59T3YP20091030
Federal officials have slashed their estimates of how many does will be ready by the end of October from 40 million to 26 million. And of course, we will be giving some to foreign countries for free before we have what we need here. Who the hell does our government work for?
A preview of nationalized health care.
And it's ironic to blame the Democrats for pursuing unity when -- regardless of what you think of the merits -- they have been far less unified than the Republicans in recent years.
It is true, of course, that anyone holding a popular opinion will want the minority to agree with him/her. I would never suggest that anyone should take that seriously.
Some people do deliberately seek antagonize people, use inflammatory language, and launch personal attacks, none of which is constructive. Fortunately, none of that is tolerated at SoundPolitics.
Posted by: Bruce on October 30, 2009 03:19 PMWhat else can the government make you buy as a condition of citizenship?
Yes, I mentioned that reason, except I stated it more clearly: "taking your money to give to other people." They would not want the deliberately uninsured to be required to join if they, as a group, would cost them money. They want to force them into the system because they know those people will put in more than they take out.
Mandates are just about taking your money, pure and simple.
... and to prevent society from the moral necessity to treat the uninsured, largely in expensive emergency rooms.
Lie. Absolute, total, fabrication. If this were true we would allow people to opt out, signing a form saying they will be liable for all costs. This is, obviously, completely irrelevant to why they want a mandate.
And it's ironic to blame the Democrats for pursuing unity when ... they have been far less unified than the Republicans in recent years.
I never did that. Please learn to read. I never said anything about "unity" of the type you speak. I specifically mentioned -- exclusively -- Obama's mention of "unity of purpose." That is not about us all being happy with each other, that is about us all striving for the same goals, which, in his mind, are government ensuring that all Americans have health care, saving us from global warming, and increasing the amount of government control over society in myriad ways.
We have no "unity of purpose" -- what Madison called "uniformity of interests" -- whether we are "unified" or not.
It is true, of course, that anyone holding a popular opinion will want the minority to agree with him/her.
False. I certainly don't, whether I am in the minority or majority. I want people to form their own opinions based on their own examination of the issues.
I note, however, Bruce, that you did not rebut anything I said that supports my thesis: that Obama and the Democrats want to undermine dissent and disagreement by forcing us into the same situations, giving us the same interests, that we might share the same opinions. The closest you came was saying "nuh uh! that is not what we have mandates!" But disagreement isn't rebuttal.
No.
typically, most of the people that 'gather' at the inaugural address are supporters of the newly-elected pres.
Posted by: mike on October 30, 2009 05:59 PMhttp://www.thealaskastandard.com/content/were-governed-callous-children
Spoiled brats at the helm. I'm not condoning the last administration here.
Posted by: KDS on October 30, 2009 06:04 PMSecond, it's even worse if what you say is true; every inaugural address before Obama's spoke to the American people, not just the people who voted for the President. I hope you're wrong ...
As it is now, almost as many people who get income tax credit vote as those who pay taxes - which hardly gives incentive for voting for the fiscally responsible candidate.
Posted by: KDS on October 31, 2009 02:36 PM"disagreement for disagreement's sake (the GOP's present M.O.) impedes progress."
The Democratics did it all day long when they were in the minority. That politics. Now they are doing it on a large scale with Health Care and Cap and Tax, when a majority of the people and the opposition disagree with them. When shitty legislation results, impeding progress is the correct thing to do.
Posted by: KDS on October 31, 2009 05:02 PMif the republicans were the party of 'we can make it better and here's how', instead of 'no! nein, nein, nein, nein, nein!' - the legislation wouldn't be so 'shitty'. the dems didn't impede progress every step of the way.
the majority of the people are not opposed to them on health care reform. but if you want the Rs to run on that platform next year, i'd gladly take it.
i haven't gotten a tax return this millenium. long gone are the days of the large returns in time to pay for college books/computer supplies. the only people i know still getting returns are eternal college students and nephews/nieces.
Posted by: mike on October 31, 2009 05:21 PMWhich no one here does.
(the GOP's present M.O.)
False.
impedes progress
Good! Because what you think is "progress" is, to us, not. (And that we believe so, of course, shows that your claim that we disagree for disagreement's sake is false.)
if the republicans were the party of 'we can make it better and here's how'
The Republicans say that ALL THE TIME. But the Democrats lie and say they don't. They think that if you don't want to START with the Democrats' legislation and work from there -- that if you think the Democratic plan is fundamentally flawed and should be thrown out -- then you "don't have a plan" or "don't want to make things better."
Like most of what the Democrats say, it's a lie.
We believe -- strongly -- that the Democratic health care plan is REGRESS. It sends us -- very far -- backward down the path of societal evolution.
the dems didn't impede progress every step of the way.
No, but they tried. And if -- as the Republicans do here -- they really believed that the majority's form of "progress" was bad, then good! They should try to impede it. Absolutely.
yes, but actions speak louder than words, pudge.
when the republicans start acting like adults, maybe they'll be taken seriously, again.
Posted by: mike on October 31, 2009 10:07 PMWhich is why the Republicans released a plan.
What would you have them do? Please enlighten us. And please don't say "try to improve the Democratic plan" because it's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying the Democrats should have tried to improve the Republican plan to partially privatize Social Security investing: they were AGAINST IT, and therefore worked to kill it.
That is how these things called "principles" work.
when the republicans start acting like adults
Which to you would be ... what? Agreeing with the Democrats?
You're being transparently stupid.
-
What??? You have the White House, the House, and 60 votes in the Senate and you're *still* blaming Republicans?
What... you can't govern without Republicans? By the way, when is Obama going to decide on when to decide about maybe sorta doing something about the war? Wednesday?