There is more than a bit of nastiness in this liberal-progressive urge to smash what others have built and to drag people down to their level.
The Democrat/Socialist Party's plan to nationalize healthcare exemplifies the essence of social justice: an invidious urge to destroy what exists and a faith that social harmony depends upon making everyone equally miserable.
Liberal-progressives estimate that 46 million people, 15% of the population, lack health insurance. In order to provide them insurance, liberal-progressives intend to force each of us to forgo any vestige of individuality and to accept a prison-like regimentation of our healthcare.
When Hillary Clinton was working in 1993 to impose socialized medicine upon us, the Washington Monthly, one of the purest strains of socialism within the liberal-progressive, mainstream media, editorialized forthrightly that a fundamental aim and benefit of Hillary Care would be forcing business leaders to sit for hours in crowded doctors' waiting rooms to receive medical care. There is more than a bit of nastiness in this liberal-progressive urge to smash what others have built and to drag people down to their level.
Why stop at health care? If Lyndon Johnson's equality-in-fact is the aim, the best way to attain it is to put everyone in prison. Everyone then would have tasks assigned by the political state's intellectual czars, along with identical clothing, housing, bedding, food, and drink.
As history shows us, that is the end point toward which all liberal-progressive governments proceed. Most people will not willingly give up what they have worked for all their lives to attain. Force of law, and ultimately of arms, is required to take from some to give to others. Some governments, the United States among them, have not yet traveled too far along that path, but all have the shining example of the Soviet Union to guide them.
Re: Destructive Social Justice
Social justice, sometimes called civil justice, refers to the concept of a society in which “justice” is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. It can also refer to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
Personally; I’ve never believed that the goal of liberal/progressivism has been equality. The unstated goal of such people is “sameness”. Your reference to the 1993 article in the Washington Monthly makes that abundantly clear. First we explore the mindset, and then we can branch out to actual application.
Liberal/progressives are truly blind to the potential damage their policies incur. The liberal/progressives’ belief in their own superiority is beyond arrogance. Witness their most fundamental conviction: Man is superior. God must be scrubbed from the lexicon so the secular elevation of Man may become complete. They are not damaging society but perfecting it. The ultimate achievement of Man is Government. Government is always benevolent, so ‘damage’ never enters the equation. They will begrudgingly admit to the possibility that their policies may have ‘unintended’ consequences: But will in the same breath proclaim that such things, once identified, will be easily repaired by additional regulation or higher levels of funding.
How do the liberal/progressives plan to enact this philosophy? To begin with, they must convince the largest cross-section possible that they are truly helpless to effect any change themselves. Bailing out financial institutions at the expense of underwater homeowners isn’t a mistake, it’s a policy. Moving heaven & earth to protect the position of union members in failing corporations at the expense of market investors further signals the ‘importance’ of not just belonging to a group, but belonging to the ‘correct’ group. Overstating the desperation of the economic situation, and then assuring the population that economic stimulus will work immediate wonders is deliberate falsehood. The administration knows that unemployment is a lagging indicator. It is the intention of this administration to utilize unemployment as urgency to pass further legislation.
Even now, the President states publically, that passing health care reform immediately is the best solution to our current economic doldrums. He’s already passed cap & trade in the House. Action in the Senate can take all the time it needs. The next important move on this legislation is the conference committee. It is the same with health care. The big push is to get anything through the House. Once that is accomplished the resulting bill is unstoppable, and any ‘unintended’ consequences of the legislation may be tweaked by further regulation at a later date.
The average ‘man-in-the-street’ may not comprehend the magnitude of these laws, but he is sure to feel their pain. A government mandated to achieve CO2 reductions has more than a reasonable interest in the car you drive, the places you go, the square footage you live in, the amounts of electricity you consume, and the lifestyle you live.
A government mandated to provide health care for all has more than a reasonable interest in the foods you eat, the quantities of those foods you consume, the amounts of exercise you get, your BMI, and the alcohol you consume.
Once all these are tied together, they effectively control you. Achieve the government mandated carbon footprint and BMI index or be fined. Pay ‘luxury’ taxes for exceeding mandated minimums. Eventually, the government will mandate a ‘maximum’ monthly allotments of official currency, kilowatt hours, gallons of fuel, and calorie amounts per person which may not be exceeded. Poof; ‘sameness’.
Hmmm, and them when the government determines, out of your required “end of life counseling”, that you should die maybe your body should be recycled to make food for the non-producers…OOPS that is the plot of Soylent Green, but then again the end of life counseling is in the bill passed by the House. Get ready!
“The Left does not perceive that poverty is the human norm, and therefore asks, ‘Why is there poverty?’ instead of asking the economic question that matters: ‘Why is there wealth?’ And the obvious result of the Left’s disinterest in why wealth is created is that the Left does not know how to create it.” – Dennis Prager
Can some advocates of nationalized health care please explain how getting everyone covered by health insurance automatically equates to an increase in the supply of health care available to cover those not now covered?
Instead of saying “so-and so’s belief in his own superiority is beyond arrogance” one may say “so-and-so’s belief in his own superiority is arrogant.”
Arrogance is already a state of mind beyond the norm. So to say something is beyond something that is beyond the norm conveys nothing additional about the thing being discussed.
Ruminator-
Correct in one guess. Saying that a “Liberal/progressive’s belief in their own superiority is beyond arrogance” does state that their belief is beyond ‘something’ that is already beyond the norm. That is exactly the point!
Sir,
I didn’t quarrel with your characterization, nor was your point missed.
Nothing is beyond arrogance except arrogance. You’re distorting the English language.
What you’re conveying is that someone’s arrogance exasperates you. We already know that.
Generally it would be odd to take someone to task for an instance of poor writing style. However, this isn’t just any venue. This is an intellectual website. We’re all asking for it, are we not? Here it is common for people to ridicule opinions, and persons who hold them, that are considered to lack soundness. When I visit the “Genteel Conservative” website I’ll remember to put manners before criticism.
[...] Destructive Social Justice [...]