The Nadir of Hackery

Posted on Comments

Fail, failure, failing — anyone who has paid attention to the ObamaCare rollout knows that it has more that justified the criticism of its opponents. The president’s signature legislation is a policy disaster for the nation and a political liability for Democrats. Any attempt to ignore that objective truth is simply dishonest. And speaking of “simply dishonest,” Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo:

For years, Obamacare supporters weathered at best tepid support for the President’s reform in the expectation that once people experienced the actual law, rather than the right-wing fever dream, opinions would change. Then they were hit with the wholly unexpected surprise of a botched website roll out that set the whole public opinion war back on its heels and then a wave of cancellations that were reported in a misleading way (and only affected a tiny portion of the population) but nevertheless further soured public opinion.
But for all that, here’s why I think the generally cataclysmic press is overblown and why the law will be a success. . . .

He goes on from there, but you get the general idea — Josh Marshall begins his argument with the conclusion and then, ignoring all contradictory evidence, scrounges up whatever excuses and rationalizations can be made to serve his conclusion. Whatever else he may be, Josh Marshall is a partisan Democrat, and his is a partisan argument. Anyone who doubts him is pre-emptively accused of buying into “misleading” reporting and “the right-wing fever dream.”

Josh Marshall is as objective about ObamaCare as a Baptist evangelist is objective about Jesus. Yet in this tent revival, Josh Marshall preaches only to the faithful, and offers this as his altar call:

We didn’t pass Health Care Reform for it to reap electoral gains for Democrats (though I think it still will) or to have it be popular, per se (though I suspect it will be). The aim was to get people covered, make the health care provision system more efficient and reduce the scale of human suffering, especially the spectrum of suffering tied to your wealth and your luck.
By that standard, I think it will be a success and I think there will be no going back. And that’s the only standard that matters.

If you don’t accept the eternal salvation of ObamaCare, Preacher Josh is saying, it’s because you don’t want to “reduce the scale of human suffering.” You are morally inferior, a sinner.

What was that he said about a “fever dream”?

 

33 comments

  4. “If you don’t accept the eternal salvation of ObamaCare, Preacher Josh is
    saying, it’s because you don’t want to “reduce the scale of human
    suffering.” You are morally inferior, a sinner.”

    This is exactly how Progs go through life looking at their families, their neighbors, people they pass on the street. It’s why they cannot be trusted with any sort of responsibility; taqqiyah is seared into every fiber of their being.

  5. Apparently the intent was to “reduce suffering” through euthanasia. They’ve been cancelling the policies of cancer patients all over the country — and when of them spoke out, the IRStappo informed him he’s being audited.

  6. Note Marshall is called a realist in the headline, with no clue that such a determination is the prerogative of his readers, not himself or his editors. Feedback, of course, is essential to judging the quality of one’s arguments. As such self-assessment is unwelcome at TPM, comments are disabled. Oh, they’ll take comments by email, but that effortlessly hides them from the public.

Comments are closed.