The functional quest of any political movement--whether or not ideologically driven--is to maximize appeal while minimizing negative reactions. By the nature of Conservatism, the natural inclination to preserve cultural, spiritual & material achievements, our adherents should have a great advantage over those who seek to disrupt heritage--against those who war on tradition & the reality of past experience. Yet, all too often, we let emotion undermine advantage. This is an effort to avoid doing so.
By Egalitarians, we refer to those who seek to level human achievement; to blame those who succeed for those who fail; to pretend that individual success is not really deserved. By Collectivists, we refer to those who believe that the majority, in effect, own or have a right to control the people, their property & aspirations, for whatever purpose that majority may select; thus the right to redistribute the fruits of individual labor for the purpose of reengineering society to Egalitarian ends. By Humanists, we refer to those who ignore most variations in the human species; who seek to replace the ancient heritages of Man--which reflected particular achievers & generations of struggle to particular purpose--with an imagined world view; a decreed replacement for cultures that reflected actual "players," with something intended to impose an artificial "oneness," premised on a fancied, but non-existent commonality of species & a never demonstrated utilitarianism.
Our problem: Committed, we feel strongly; often outraged by actions, tactical or reflexive, of egalitarian collectivists, utilitarian humanists & such. Thus, we find our thoughts & discourse concentrating on what outrages us; an understandable, but not pragmatic, focus.
A common rationalization for such concentration, is a desire to rally all who share our outrage; to reinforce our position, while harnessing a tendency among people (of any orientation) to vote against, rather than for, a targeted position or personality. What this overlooks, is an opportunity to do far more. Yes, we may reach kindred spirits by a negative appeal; but so too may our opponents by exploiting reactions to our negative emphasis.
If, instead, we offer positive arguments; carefully describing easily understood experiences in what actually works to useful purpose in human affairs--thus challenging the Left on the basis of having a better, more realistic, approach;--we can still tap into the outrage of less involved Conservatives by the rational way that we deal with the subject matter; but, in adding to the outrage by implication, rather than by a barrage of angry adjectives, we will have a better shot at reaching a yet broader group by the use of the right, easily verifiable, truths, common to the human experience.
Consider one of the greatest threats to much of what we hold dear: The effects from a vast incongruous immigration over a long, poorly secured, southern border. You do not forgo outrage among Conservative patriots, incensed over a deliberate sabotage to our sovereignty, security, cultural heritage & family pride, by enlarging the focus in the argument. You do not abandon normal outrage towards those, who come here in contempt of our laws--then to demonstrate hostility to our culture & ethnic descent--when you calmly discuss what made America what it has been.
Those who do not wish to see a Mexicanization of California, will be just as apt to rally to a candidate who opposes what has been happening, by describing in detail the heritage & achievements of the original settlers; by praising the growing heritage & achievements of their descendants, from whose ranks the Founding Fathers emerged. You lose nothing in acknowledging the proven worth of those who came later, seeking not to change America, but to adapt to America & the Americans--earlier immigrants in a less crowded age, who gladly accepted & defended the proud traditions.
This more positive approach will appeal to all normal Conservatives, with an added advantage. It is far more likely to help indoctrinated products of an intellectually & morally corrupt educational system, begin to question their indoctrination; begin to see the merits in a heritage, which, up till now, they have rejected.
For more in opposition to an immigration policy, which, since 1965, has been putting foreign interests ahead of American, see: Immigration & The American Future!
A very different issue--indeed one of a distinctly different thrust--is involved in the question of what role, if any, the Federal Government has, or should have, in civilian health care. While it is a reasonable inference, from the right to raise armed forces under the Constitution, that the Federal Government provide health care for those in military service--and, following such service, with respect to medical problems resulting from that service;--there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution, which creates even a tenuous implication of a role in providing medical or other health specific services to civilians. On the other hand, the increasing political push, since World War II, for an increasing Federal role, has led to a political dilemma, as more & more of the population have become dependent on an increasing array of unauthorized Federal intrusions. This creates an ethical enigma, probably evoking what in law would be analogous to liability based upon "promisorry estoppel" (a promisor bound by a promise that others have relied on).
Thus, very few in Congress--even the most Conservative--are willing to openly advocate complete repeal of either "Obamacare"or the increasingly more expensive Medicare & Medicaid, which Lyndon Johnson forced through Congress in the 1960s. Almost no one is willing to "take the bull by the horns," to focus, not on reforming & improving the Federal role, but on phasing it out.
The tactical mistake, here, is not in recognizing that it is impractical to eliminate Federal involvement, altogether, by a simple act of Congress; nor in reassuring those, dependent on the programs, that a partial reform can be devised to make existing programs work better;--to be both less expensive & better designed to actually meet real needs. We do not disparage an expedient interim approach. Yet any discussion of a Federal "role" in civilian health care, should always include clear references to the fuller context of that "role"; that the gathering disaster be more fully explained. Otherwise, the Left may easily limit the debate to a question of how to make the "role" more effective. In point of fact, the major effect is--as it has been from the start--to make health care ever more expensive, ever less finely tuned to the actual needs of individual Americans.
The tactical mistake, from not recognizing the full context of relevant factors--hence not recognizing the context both of what actually works in providing good medical care, as well as that of the "promissory estoppel" effect--is that in deference to the latter, Conservativess make the error of continuing to argue for dependency based reforms; reforms, with a continuation of what the Left has foisted upon us, now seen as something of positive benefit. This leads to an exchange with those who favor ever greater dependence on Government, where Leftists have a distinct advantage from an impression that both sides have now accepted the same basic premise. This effectively surrenders the most compelling arguments against Federal interference in civilian health care.
Acknowledging that, in the short run, we do not have the votes to return to a Constitutional, less Federalized, less expensive, less regimented American medical care; the argument for as radical a surgery as possible on Obamacare--or on any related facet of Federal involvement--must emphasize three central points:
A. For over two thousand years, physicians have been oath bound never to refuse medical services to those who cannot pay. The concept, once generally accepted as a given in questions relevant to the inability of the poor to obtain reasonable medical attention, where needed, has been increasingly pushed into the shadows since Lyndon Johnson rammed through a vastly expanded Federal role; substituting dependence on Government for the professional ethos of American physicians. The substitution makes little sense either in medicine, politics, economics or ethics.
B. Few relationships are less suitable to interference by a distant bureaucracy than that between physician & patient. Centuries of experience reflect the fact that every patient is to some extent unique, having a different range of susceptibilities & resistances; having different fears & anxieties; a different history, different exposures, often different reactions to symptoms, medications, treatments, etc.. It is difficult to imagine how the regulations & prescriptions--whether relating to how funds are allocated in specific situations, or to what sort of insurance coverage carriers must offer, etc.;--almost impossible to conceive, how such bureaucratic controls cannot but have a confining effect on how an individual physician interacts with an individual patient, in the context of a very personal, individual problem. Federal meddling with the physician/patient relationship can only hobble the ability of a physician to provide the exact treatment, an individual requires, while vastly increasing the cumulative costs of physician/patient interactions across America. (All without even bothering to assess the moral damage in promoting increased dependency among peoples once admired for a remarkable level of personal responsibility.)
C. Because of the radical change in the practice of medicine since the 1960s--a result of that explosion of Federal involvement & entitlements, coupled with such accompanying interference in the once acutely personal relationship of physician & patient--the percentage of the total income of American citizens, going to health care each year, has effectively tripled. Contrast that with the explosion in what a given sum will buy in other relationships that benefit from scientific research, such as computer capacity, over the same period! The destructive factor in the patient's acquisition of medical services--the true "bull in the china shop"--is Federal meddling in some of the most inherently individual, inherently local, inherently private, relationships.
These points may not convince everyone of the need to terminate Federal involvement in the physician/patient relationship. Properly stressed, they will move others in the right direction.
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
Prophetic novel, where the New York Times serves as the antagonist to a Conservative political character, and employs the very same dirty tricks as they have employed against Donald Trump>>
Return Of The Gods
Conservative Intelligence Center
Conservative Debate Handbook: Instant Access, All Chapters
Compulsion For Uniformity
How The Welfare State Works
Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide
Misdirection: Destructive Leftist Tactic
Leftist War On Social Continuity
Hungarian Patriots & Internationalist Betrayal Of America
Absurdity At Google
What Drives The Trump Haters
"Who We Are" (Trump Supporters)
Trump: The Issue
Hillary Clinton: Confused As Well As Corrupt
Donald Trump--Metaphor For American Conservatism
Reality Is Not A Grievance
A "Gift" That Keeps On Taking
How You Define A Problem May Define You
A Lesson In Absurdity [Multi-Culturalism]
To Respond To Anti-American Lies
Greatest Mischief Ever Wrought
"Social Justice": Not Social & Not Just
America: Grounded On Experience & Reason
Another Variation On Demonic Theme
Variations On Demonic Theme
Corporate Managers & "Immigration Reform"
Losing America's Multi-Generational Purpose
Health Care--The Real Issue
Social Reform: Confusion & "Unintended Consequences?"
Cloud Dancing Revisited--A Spreading Contagion
Blame & Envy Cocktail--Demagogues' Path To Power
"Diversity": Reality vs. Leftist Fantasy
World Government? Surrender By Subterfuge!
Egalitarian Collectivism Sabotages Human Potential
Pursuit Of "Diversity," Return To Babel?
Tribute To Virginia Byrd Family (Rebuke To Critics)>>
Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr.
Compassion Or Compulsion? (Egalitarianism)
Footnote On Egalitarian Compulsion
Jason Richwine & The Assault On America's Future
Agenda Serving Bullies, Crack-Pots Betraying Duty?
Implied Powers? Clear Limitations!
Missing Link To An Armed Citizenry
Hans Christian Andersen's Perspective On Human Folly>>
The Emperor's New Clothes
Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today
The Feminist Delusion
Destroying Cultural Continuity--Leftist War On Social Cohesion
Sovereignty, Youth & Guns: An American Future>>
Words of Thomas Jefferson>>
On Treaties & Law Of Nations
On "Welfare" (Safety Net)
Universal Suffrage: Threat To Liberty
Function Of Money--A Medium Of Exchange
Conservative Resource Menu--200+ Items