Posted on | September 17, 2011 | 18 Comments
People may object to the use of a scatalogical term to describe a Krugman excretion, but I submit that the level of perversion on display by the gentleman supports the label. Allow me to object to Krugman’s choice of historical time frame, scope of analysis, boring guilt play, and refusal to understand federalism.
Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series “Free to Choose.”
America was born on the Right, and pulled Leftward by a bunch of slack-jawed Progressives with pointy little beards and berets. These little knobs do well within coffee shops, where they can quote Marx to each other at length, by their anti-market fantasizing is a big economic wrecking ball.
Pretending that U.S. history began with Reagan is a disservice to that reader of yours, Krugman.
People who can’t afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes they die as a result.
No, Krugman, they always die. The most medical care can ever do is postpone the inevitable. Medical care can extend life, but cannot provide immortality. Yet the appeals to the fear of death at which life insurance purveyors and Progressive policy peddlers are so adept seek to get the audience to connect the dots such that all we have to do is give you all our liberty and cash and you will keep the reaper away.
Beyond the appeal to fear of death, there is your appeal to guilt: if I do play along with your upper-decker ploy, I am a Bad Person.
Think, in particular, of the children.
Why, yes: yes, I do! I’m thinking about the existentially proven disaster of your policy ideas in Britain and Canada. Italy and Japan. Having just become a father, and noting that, according to Wikipedia, you have not, might I suggest you consider adoption? A little skin in the game might help you to understand that dooming future generations to debt slavery is as ill-liberal as policy gets.
Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.
And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
The Constitution was a delegation of multi-state-level tasks to a federal government. One can argue for an FDA in the context of managing large-scale testing of a new medication. But this notion that Washington DC should, much less, can fret the complexities of health care for everyone is really is as ugly as a floater in the toilet tank, Krugman.
Also ugly: dismissing a legitimate Constitutional concern as lack of compassion. If your argument was not built on ignoring the whole of American history, constraining the scope of the question of medical greatment, and piling cheap guilt plays on your audience, then maybe your point about compassion might seem sincere.
But no, it’s just more finger pointing, presumably to paper over the emptiness of your argument.
Paul Krugman has achieved a special level of sovereignty: he is the King of the Upper-Decker. Let conservatives hail him and his crap crown as such.
Update: linked At The Point Of A Gun.