Exhibit "A" in the "Liberals were born yesterday, and have no sense of history from before the day they were born", is the argument that conservatives should somehow roll over and play dead on Obamacare because, "It's the Law of the Land!" This argument is usually preceded or followed by the talking point that the Hindenburgic** catastrophe that is the Obamacare website is merely a "glitch", you know, like iphones get sometimes. Like the A-bomb over Hiroshima was a "glitch" in their morning commute!
What's more surprising is the inability of so called progressives to see just how lame and shallow that argument actually is. Which laws would still be on the books today, if opponents of those laws had merely resigned themselves to fate, because the laws had been duly passed, signed by the president and "established", and perhaps validated by the Supreme Court (those wonderful people who brought you Dredd Scott!):
*Blue laws (businesses can't open on Sundays)
*Prohibition of alcohol
*No prohibitions on child labor
*No women's sufferage***
*Only property owners could vote
*No ban on monopoly
*Bans on homosexuality
*Bans on abortion, pre-1974
*Laws banning marijuana use
*Laws requiring religious litmus tests before obtaining government employment
*Laws permitting prayer in schools and displays of Nativity scenes on public property
Pray tell me which of the laws above you would be in favor of living under today, because they were "the Law"? Because they were "established law? Because they had been signed by the president or upheld by the Supreme Court??
Did you know, that today, there are even laws that permit private citizens to own firearms? Yes! Even handguns!! Laws that are established and validated by the Supreme Court. Can you imagine me going to the next meeting of Handgun Control, Inc. and requesting a moment to speak?
"Dear friends! Gun ownership is the Law of the Land! It's established and validated by the Supreme Court!"At which time, everyone turns to one another and says, "I did not know that! Why, what are we doing here? Let's go home and bake some cookies!"
If you believe that that argument would carry any significant weight, there are pleasant young men in white coats waiting in the hallway to take your names and contact your next of kin to see whether or not they'd like to have you committed. (All liberals are committed or should be, right?)
Let's go for the trifecta. "The Obamacare website debacle is just a glitch", "It's the Law of the Land!", and..."Obama was reelected"! GOP, pack your tent and go home! While it is true that Obamacare was one of the planks of his platform, it was not the only plank, nor was it the only reason to vote for Obama. Polls taken the day after the election showed that a majority of the American public still disliked Obamacare. So, that wasn't it.
Maybe portraying Romney as a heartless, out of touch bazillionaire (unlike John Kerry, who was never portrayed as being out of touch, even though his wealth was far greater), who caused ex-employees' wives to die of cancer had something to do with it?
Maybe it was all the promises he made so convincingly as he read them from his teleprompter, and later broke (the promises, not the teleprompter!), like promising to cut the deficit (he didn't. Not in real terms anyway), and reduce healthcare costs for a family of four by $2,500 a year (stop laughing! They're going up $7,500 instead)? Maybe it was his assurances that because of his leadership (Again, stop laughing!) GM was alive (even though Detroit was dead), and bin Laden was dead (even though al Qaeda wasn't).
But again, how shallow and meaningless is the claim that because the president was elected and then reelected, we need to roll over and let him do whatever he thinks is best. Do the names "Ronald Reagan", "Richard Nixon" and "George W. Bush" ring a bell? Each of those men was elected and reelected. How many liberals rolled over and let them accomplish everything they set out to do. Show of hands...
If shooting down the trifecta of lame arguments wasn't enough, consider this: Obamacare was a bill of over 20,000 pages, none of which were devoted to cutting costs, but in some cases limiting payments to physicians and health providers, which will surely lead to rationing of health care. This massive document was passed, largely unread by those who voted for it, in the dead of night, between Christmas and New Years, by a strictly partisan vote, after much back room wheeling and dealing. Can anyone honestly say that a bill so complex, so hastily put together and voted on strictly according to party lines, has absolutely no provision that should not or ought to be changed? I'm not sure that Catholics believe the Pope is that infallible! Since when do our legislators speak ex cathedra?
Liberals have no leg to stand on in this argument. And under Obamacare, they may have to wait nine months to get an MRI to diagnose their condition, after which, there will be an additional tax on their prosthesis, assuming that Obama hasn't bankrupted the company by then. In any case, they should expect to get last year's model prosthetic leg, because of all the disincentives against research and development placed into a 20,000 page law, that already has an additional 20,000 pages of judicial interpretation, that the House of Representative is absolutely permitted by established law from funding.
**It's about time that someone started using it as an adjective! I am that pioneer!
***For all you social science and art majors, it means they couldn't vote!
Original art work created for Proof Positive by John Cox
Cross posted at Proof Positive