Laying Blame: Conservative anguish over the Health Care plan.

There is a flaw in the American psyche that inclines us to perceive presidents as, if not saviors, kings. It may be man’s inchoate longing for a strong ruler or for immediate gratification, but whatever the reason it is a flaw, and a tendency one should curb.

For too long, too many have looked to a new President to solve every perceived problem. With every new administration there is the great expectation of revolutionary change, which within a year or two transforms itself into the disappointing realization that nothing much has changed.

Executive Orders not withstanding, a president is not very powerful. The bureaucracy marches on no matter who is in power and the country changes very little from one administration to another. Even when the president’s party controls both houses of Congress, truly monumental measures are often thwarted because the checks and balances built into the system prevent smooth sailing. Not many presidents accomplish great things, and if one does, he is wildly unpopular during his lifetime. Only in hindsight is his greatness recognized or credited.

That said, there is a lot of talk in Republican circles that George Bush is not ideologically pure because he spends too much money on social issues. But, did he have a choice in the matter of health care? I don’t think so. He could not have been elected or reelected without action on Prescription drugs. It was an issue, as pundits say, whose time had come.

Democratic droning on the issue for years produced Medicare, a plan supposedly devised for the elderly, but which lacks coverage for hearing aids, glasses, or false teeth, the three things old people need the most. That foray into socialized medicine emboldened the left to try again resulting this year in an augmented plan with prescription drug coverage (but still no provision for eyes, ears or teeth). One wonders if it was truly designed for the elderly.

Public interest engendered in favor of the plan was overwhelmingly more enthusiastic than interest in feeble Conservative arguments against it. It is as if, when Medicare passed in 1965, they threw up the hands and surrendered. So, if anyone should be castigated it is Conservative pundits who are unable to convince the public that socialized medicine is a bad idea. They lost the battle against socialized health care, not Bush.

Yes, the Medicare bill is a large one, but Bush deserves credit for introducing the Trojan horse that affords us the opportunity to return the program to fiscal sanity or even reverse course when competition from the private sector kicks in. If personal investment accounts become part of Social (in)Security, as Bush has promised in his second term the beginning of the end of the nanny state could be in sight. History will let us know.

As for ideological purity, how many conservatives, on principle, forego government handouts for which they qualify? Conservatives should be less shrill. Only the virtuous should demand virtue of others. ©Robert (Davison) Wolf. All Rights Reserved.

Oh, come on. First you say that people shouldn't look to a new President to "...solve every perceived problem." Then you exculpate Bush for trying to solve one of those [unsolvable] problems. (Notice that I did NOT use a phrase like "pandering to the electorate" or something like that--let's not argue motives, but assume the good intentions of both sides)

I have heard no one claim that Bush is "not ideologically pure, " as you say they claim with your straw man. No one ever made the assertion that he was or even should be. What I hear people claim is that Bush is not a conservative, or, at best, a mixed bag. If you want to debate on Bush, please argue those points (and I might agree on most--but not prescription drugs), not some "ideologically pure" assertion.

Not many presidents accomplish great things, and if one does, he is wildly unpopular during his lifetime.

I take issue with that statement. Of the presidents you know who have accomplished great things, which have been wildly unpopular? Certainly not Reagan. That's the only relevant example in my lifetime. Hmmm. You know, I just can't think of one. Certainly not Washington. Perhaps Jefferson or Lincoln. Although some may argue the "greatness" of their presidencies, even if we agree that they were great, we must also agree that, while they may have been unpopular, they were not "wildly unpopular." I'm sure there has been one who accomplished great things, yet was wildly unpopular, but ...let's see. I'm thinking.

Only the virtuous should demand virtue of others.

Wrong. I may concede the call for some to be less shrill. But I will never agree with that statement. Otherwise, we could never demand virtue of our leaders, whether the leader be Bush or Clinton. When a person holds himself up to the electorate and asks for the power to hold so much sway over their lives, that person also may have virtue demanded of him, even by the unvirtuous. La Rochefoucauld's dictum that hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue is operative here. Submitting to leaders because of our lack of perfection is a recipe for tyranny.

Your article makes good points about what produced Medicare, etc. I won't say that Bush cannot be defended in many areas. But this article isn't that defense.

P.S. I debated whether to give this information or not. However, I shall. TEFRA in 1983 struck an almost fatal blow to my business, because of its introduction of prospective payment into medicine. I applauded Reagan at the time for doing it and applaud him now.

Additionally, in my current business, I stand to have significant, personal financial gains from passage of the Prescription Drug Bill.

Why am I for prospective payment and against the Drug Bill when both stances are against my apparent self-interest? Because I have children and grandchildren. Plus, I have a country that I love. My short-term gain pales into insignificance beside the evil that I would otherwise help bequeath them. So does GWB's political fortune.

No, I'm not saying that I'm "virtuous." But I am saying that I damned sure have a right to criticize.

"But, did he have a choice in the matter of health care? I don’t think so. He could not have been elected or reelected without action on Prescription drugs."

Something needed to be done, yes, but it is the HOW that has taken so many off guard. This plan was set up in a HEAVILY government, centrally controlled manner and is so far from free market that it came as a shock to all who understand it's serious implications.

In one swoop it gives so much power to the government and relieves consumers from their burden as consumers -- shop for what you want, choose a provider that you are comfortable with, and be careful because it is YOUR money. But do it on your own, and you don't need big brother government looking over your choices and decision.

Worse it is bad because of what it will do to those who will follow. They will have NO choice. They are going to pay the bill for those before them. Only government works this way. In the real world we select what we want and then pay for it, we don't select what we want knowing that someone else will pay for it. We bear responsibility for our choices.

Senior citizens have something like 75% if the wealth in the nation- yet are NOT 75% of the nation. They will not be doing anything more to pay their own way, rather their grandchildren, and great grandchildren will pay their elders way... even though the elders have a HIGHER average standard of living than them.

This bill was vote pandering that will yield little benefit to the republicans but will leave huge burdens to their kids. Pathetic and very poorly thought out.

“I have heard no one claim that Bush is "not ideologically pure, " as you say they claim with your straw man. No one ever made the assertion that he was or even should be. What I hear people claim is that Bush is not a conservative, or, at best, a mixed bag.”

Not a conservative is the ideological purity to which I refer.

“Not many presidents accomplish great things, and if one does, he is wildly unpopular during his lifetime. I take issue with that statement. Of the presidents you know who have accomplished great things, which have been wildly unpopular? Certainly not Reagan.”

Whether Reagan should be cited depends on who you talk to--ask a Democrat. I would cite Lincoln and Truman off the top of my head, and it is always a matter of debate whether an accomplishment is great or villainous.

“Only the virtuous should demand virtue of others. Wrong. I may concede the call for some to be less shrill. But I will never agree with that statement”

Plato is quoted as saying, "Good people need no laws to act responsibly, and bad people find a way around the laws." Benjamin Franklin addressed the issue by saying, “As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Theodore Roosevelt said, “No prosperity and no glory can save a nation that is rotten at heart,” and Judge Learned Hand offered: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

James Madison cautioned, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other", and Thomas Jefferson warned, "Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals have an intimate connection."

The consensus is that for a nation to be a free and virtuous, the citizenry must manifest those qualities first. The whole is equal to, but never greater than the sum of its parts. The notion that we can be better collectively than as individuals is a fallacy. Morality begins with the individual and is reflected in how they are governed.

This theme was most clearly enunciated by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian, who in the 19th century concluded that, "America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, it shall cease to be great."

Perhaps I am a pessimist. James Branch Cabell said, "the optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true;" while George Bernard Shaw observes, “the power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. " I can’t help believing that a saintly nation requires a nation of saints, and we would be hard pressed to find one.

“Something needed to be done, yes, but it is the HOW that has taken so many off guard. This plan was set up in a HEAVILY government, centrally controlled manner and is so far from free market that it came as a shock to all who understand it's serious implications.”

It seems clear that you have not looked at the 1965 entitlement which made much of what you complain about a fait d’accompli long before this bill. You are correct “we bear the responsibility for our choices”, but blame can not be laid on the current administration for a battle lost in the 60s. If you were around at that time I hope you caused a fuss.

“This bill was vote pandering that will yield little benefit to the republicans but will leave huge burdens to their kids. Pathetic and very poorly thought out.”

I agree, but I point out that the privatization mechanism might be the key to ultimately dismantling it. If Gore had been elected, you’d have had the bill without privatization.

I'm having trouble understanding whether or not you are trying to rebut my rebuttal. First, if "not a conservative" is what you meant, that's what you should have said. Sure, you can argue that purity is variable, all the way from unpure to 100% pure. However, at least to me, your statement connoted that Bush was criticized for not being within one standard deviation or so from 100% pure. But, if you had said "not a conservative", I would have joined that debate with you! Not now, since yours' is the first post I've even come to FR for in months (the link was emailed from a friend)--and I won't be back after this one, probably.

Whether Reagan should be cited depends on who you talk to--ask a Democrat. I would cite Lincoln and Truman off the top of my head, and it is always a matter of debate whether an accomplishment is great or villainous.

I wasn't debating whether anyone accomplished great things or not. I used Reagan because I thought we might agree that the fall of the Soviet Union and Reaganomics were great things. I DID question whether Lincoln and Jefferson were "wildly unpopular", although I'll give you that they were unpopular, just as Bush and Clinton are. Unpopularity mixed with some degree of popularity goes with the territory. Unpopular enough to be, say, a Carter in an election doesn't make them "wildly unpopular."

That point was made to refute your implication that doing great things makes a president wildly unpopular during their lifetimes. That's just not universally, or even predominantly, true.

None of your quotations would I disagree with. I am in total agreement. To be honest with you, I still have my original copy of Tocqueville, from 1972. I still subscribe to his points. And if your point is, "know thyself and act consistently with what you are", then I also agree.

The fundamental problem with our candidates--and I am beginning to include Bush in this group--is the people who elect them. I think that sums up what you meant. But who disagrees with that, except Rush Limbaugh, with his "faith in America and Americans?" This issue is like drivers who think the only good drivers are themselves: liberals think Americans are too stupid and/or selfish to take care of themselves and vote; conservatives think Americans are too stupid and/or selfish to take care of themselves and vote. I--and I infer you--agree with both.

Having said that, I still don't believe that refutes my point, i.e., that it prohibits you, me, or anyone else from demanding virture. If it does, then many of us have to eat a lot of crow about Bill Clinton.

The differences between you and me become clear in your last sentence--which, by the way, doesn't follow (in my opinion) from your Cabell and Shaw quotes: I can’t help believing that a saintly nation requires a nation of saints, and we would be hard pressed to find one.

If that is the case, then no saintly nation is possible. It is fundamental to our major religions that man is inherently flawed and can only be saved, or "saved" if you prefer, by God. Sure, there are saints. But the genius of the Founders was to know that our society is made up of flawed people. Therefore, they instituted the checks. (I'm not trying to be pedantic--I know you know all this). Only when we disregard or destroy these checks can our flawed nature be manifest--as our situation certainly now is.

If you criticize for our allowing our checks on government to be disregarded or destroyed, then I--and many you wrote this piece to criticize--would agree totally. Without those checks, the Great Experiment is over. This is our contention--that GWB is part of that problem. But to require sainthood or total virtue (which you may not have meant) in order to criticize him, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, or any other politician, is just too Utopian for me.

At any rate, adios. You get the last word. But I do appreciate your calm logic, without acrimony, even if I disagree. I would come back and contribute money if FR had not been hijacked by...well by those very stupid and/or selfish people. Thank you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.