Volume 7, Issue 35
He was not in the theater of conflict depicted. One of the events occurred when he was a U.S. Senator, not the Vice President. And, one statement of dramatic import was rendered at a ceremony where President Obama was the host dignitary, not Joe Biden. When informed of his mistake, Biden simply said, he was trying to emphasize the heroism and self-sacrificing commitment of men and women in the armed services.
The press has made great note of Biden’s liberal use of facts. Discussion and debate centered on whether such mixed renditions of fact are appropriate for making such a point empirically as confirmed reality. Biden’s further justification is that he did not state anything that wasn’t the total truth or conclusive in its nature. Therefore, what’s the difference?
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both top contending presidential candidates, also are guilty of conflating the facts of policy agendas for their advantage and convenience. The great difference is that they do not tell the whole truth in their merging of stories. They omit salient facts countering the validity of their conclusions. Bernie Sanders repeatedly relies on the Nordic example for universal health care. Sweden did, in fact, experiment with national health care in the late 1960s. The system faced collapse. By 1970, the Swedes realized that free enterprise was a necessary component to supply the underlying economic foundation for any free programs the state desired to offer. Sweden, like Norway, has the benefit of North Sea oil revenues. Their population of 9.9 million is compatible mathematically with their passive revenue. Still, they do not have universal health care today. There is competition in the system. There is private insurance. Citizens do have a choice. Recently, a Swedish economist questioned Bernie Sanders’ motives in what he suggested was deceitful advocation of policy for a presidential candidate.
Elizabeth Warren proposes universal health care, and, like Bernie Sanders, complete government management of the country’s financial systems. She has gone so far as to suggest that equal access to capital is a right and must be provided by government. She mistakes the term “equal access” with “equal opportunity.” A bank should not be forced to make a loan to someone who does not have a job, does not want one, and does not qualify. There is citizen responsibility in economic transactions. Capital can be provided as a government program. But the private sector should not be managed and coerced to provide it.
The idealism of socialism may have merit in its compassion for egalitarianism. However, the implementation of progressive expansion of government control must take into account the lessons of history where it has been tried and proven to have its limits. Sweden in the 1970s is an outstanding case study. Senators Sanders and Warren use selective facts from different examples in their conflating of policies, ignoring the facts that must be considered for any policy success.
In conflation, Joe Biden, at least, was attempting to express a truism. Sanders and Warren are attempting to distort reality.
What is it about reality that frightens progressives so much that they are intent upon distorting the truth into an alternative reality that does not exist in fact?
Further exasperating the analysis of the mindset of a socialist is the question of why they are not more curious about the lessons of history replete with failures of total government control. Why would Senators Sanders continue to use Sweden as an example without inquiring as to why socialism failed there? Why does Senator Warren continue to cite examples of government control of financial markets to produce economic social outcomes of her desire without asking the basic question of why it has failed in Europe?
Why do they ignore credible criticism published and readily available for review?
Why does the national press refuse to hold progressives to the same standard as Joe Biden?
It is an absolute conundrum how progressives can cite the tragedy, as they see it, of an individual, and ignore the sacrifice required by hundreds of thousands of independent individuals as a mere statistic. Their hypocrisy in compassion knows no limit. There should be balance in the approach and application of government policy. Freedom is the simple principle on which the fulcrum of government policy balances.
It would be negligent to make policy comparisons without any reference to Hong Kong today. Socialism is never a static model. To be maintained economically, socialism requires more and more government control. It has always resulted in economic dependence as in Europe today or total government control as is now experienced in China. Make no mistake about it. The citizens of Hong Kong are not protesting for higher wages or lower taxes. They are protesting against the government taking people out of their homes and imprisoning them without due process or rule of law. There is not a right to trial by jury. There is no right to appear before a judge. One is guilty until proven innocent. The demonstrators wear surgical masks to avoid computer facial recognition. Hong Kong police are now using what is termed the “blue wave” by adding blue dye in their water cannons. People get stained and are identified later through unreasonable search and seizure by police. The protection of our constitutional rights in America, which we at times take for granted, are non-existent in China. The Chinese government will continue to increase its control over its citizens, eliminating freedom to maintain the communist form of government.
Being curious and intellectually honest in considering all facts and circumstances of government policy should be the moral imperative of all leaders running for President of the United States. The only conclusion that one can reach of the incurious conflating by certain candidates’ government policy is that power is the ultimate goal, not service.
Reality is not frightening when freedom is respected. Liberty is the foundational principle that is as essential to human endeavor as the air we breathe.
In 1776, thirteen colonies took a revolutionary chance on self-government, driven by the belief that, in the trust of the people’s collective wisdom, the ultimate pursuit of happiness could be achieved. Escape from the dictates of the few obsessed with the denial of reality was the new hope: novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the generations.
Freedom is more precious to the human spirit than any security that increases government power.
Protecting the human spirit is the moral mandate of universal brotherhood.
In this effort to protect the human spirit, never be deceived by half-truths in denial of reality.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?