The Hypocrisy Of Progressive Initiatives
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
You can tell a great deal from the “do as I say – not as I do” approach to conducting public policy. Prompted by a section of the book “We Still Hold These Truths – Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future” by Matthew Spalding, which offered an overview of the Progressive movement that took shape between 1890 and the 1920ies, I began a study of trying to learn the basis for the philosophy which seems to be currently in the driver-seat. Much of what I’ve come to understand so far has come from a book written by Michael Lux. This book, “The Progressive Revolution – How The Best In America Came To Be” has offered a very telling insight into the differences (as Lux sees it) between conservatives and progressives.
With very strong and clear differentiation, Lux cast the conservative movement as the enemy of good, champions of greed, corruption and continued empowerment of the elite. Looking back over the history of the United States, Lux portrays the time-frames where conservative ideals of limited government and reduced regulation as being the periods of the greatest corruption. In the spirit of the current political mantra, the President George W. Bush era is classified as the worst (or best example of bad) that we have ever experienced.
What has been interesting, with the deals cut by Senator Harry Reid in passage of the Senate’s version of the health care package, is that those arrangements for special consideration (the Louisiana Purchase to gain Senator Mary Landrieu’s “Yes” and Senator Ben Nelson’s deal to have the rest of the country pay for Nebraska’s Medicaid tab – to name just a couple of the more glaring examples) are supposedly just the way things get done in the hallowed halls of our government’s deliberative bodies.
Listening to a recent Nevada Newsmakers’ re-broadcast that was just the principle offered by a strong supporter of government health care legislation.
This approach of when is bribery not a bribe was further explained by Judge H. Lee Sarokin when he gave this observation in his blog post --
While I still have much to learn in my study of the Progressive movement, I’m starting to gain a much better understanding of what’s wrong about “Right” and what’s okay for the Left.
You can tell a great deal from the “do as I say – not as I do” approach to conducting public policy. Prompted by a section of the book “We Still Hold These Truths – Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future” by Matthew Spalding, which offered an overview of the Progressive movement that took shape between 1890 and the 1920ies, I began a study of trying to learn the basis for the philosophy which seems to be currently in the driver-seat. Much of what I’ve come to understand so far has come from a book written by Michael Lux. This book, “The Progressive Revolution – How The Best In America Came To Be” has offered a very telling insight into the differences (as Lux sees it) between conservatives and progressives.
With very strong and clear differentiation, Lux cast the conservative movement as the enemy of good, champions of greed, corruption and continued empowerment of the elite. Looking back over the history of the United States, Lux portrays the time-frames where conservative ideals of limited government and reduced regulation as being the periods of the greatest corruption. In the spirit of the current political mantra, the President George W. Bush era is classified as the worst (or best example of bad) that we have ever experienced.
What has been interesting, with the deals cut by Senator Harry Reid in passage of the Senate’s version of the health care package, is that those arrangements for special consideration (the Louisiana Purchase to gain Senator Mary Landrieu’s “Yes” and Senator Ben Nelson’s deal to have the rest of the country pay for Nebraska’s Medicaid tab – to name just a couple of the more glaring examples) are supposedly just the way things get done in the hallowed halls of our government’s deliberative bodies.
Listening to a recent Nevada Newsmakers’ re-broadcast that was just the principle offered by a strong supporter of government health care legislation.
This approach of when is bribery not a bribe was further explained by Judge H. Lee Sarokin when he gave this observation in his blog post --
“If the insurance industry offered Democrats huge campaign contributions to reject the health care bill, we would be outraged and call it "bribery," but when the Democrats themselves offer benefits for its support, we call it "compromise".”The thing that Judge Sarokin was upset by with Senator Nelson/Senator Reid deal was the restriction for having taxpayers pay for abortions – other than that the arrangement wasn’t a problem since the deal accomplished the end result – Senate passage of the health bill.
While I still have much to learn in my study of the Progressive movement, I’m starting to gain a much better understanding of what’s wrong about “Right” and what’s okay for the Left.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 12/28/2009 9:18 AM 
Categories: Nationalized Health Care
Tags: Senator Mary Landrieu Senator Harry Reid Senator Ben Nelson U.S. Senate Passage Of Health Care Legislation
Categories: Nationalized Health Care
Tags: Senator Mary Landrieu Senator Harry Reid Senator Ben Nelson U.S. Senate Passage Of Health Care Legislation
Hey, Doug, I have to agree with the author, Michael Lux. Too often conservatives hide behind claims they are the champions of disciplined spending. Then they cut taxes, primarily for all of their extremely wealthy corporate friends, while increasing the Federal Government's responsibilities, (Somalia, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan) and domestic debt. When that style of action requires raising taxes, the 'conservatives' hand the mess over to the states in the form of 'unfunded mandates.' It's a dishonest way of raising taxes at the state level for a Federal burden, or cooking the books as it's often called. Ronald Reagan and Dubya were the best examples of the absolute worst. Our current woes in corporate dishonesty (sub-prime mortgages, Enron, Qwest, MCI) were all due to cuts in taxes, and a lack of regulation during their administrations. I also believe Republicans have loaded the Health Care bill with expensive mandates just so they can claim the bill is a waste of taxpayer money. Are Progressives, i.e., Democrats blameless? No way. In their eagerness to get the bill passed, they may be making some very bad compromises. Why didn't Obama request the health bill be introduced in several parts? The first part should've been the law that forbade insurance companies from excluding people from coverage under their all encompassing 'pre-existing conditions' criteria. The other parts would then have been more comprehensible to Americans, instead of a 1,000 page monster no one has the time to read. Now the House will reject the Senate version, and the Senate will reject the House version, and not much will be accomplished.
Reply to this