Front page
Archive
Silflay Hraka?
The Warren?
The Warren's RSS feed

Email
bigwig AT nc.rr.com

Friends of the Warren
Silflay Hraka
Wizbang
Bad State Of Gruntledness
Jay Solo's Verbosity

Friends of Blackavar
Cold Fury
Sasha & Friends
Samizdata
Andrea Harris
OxBlog
Volokh Nation
Winds of Change
Chicago Boyz
The Dissident Frog, Man

February 07, 2004

Why the remaining Dems irk me...

I only figured this out today, after two months of my mother-in-law bouncing in and out of hospitals in England, dealing with clueless and rude doctors, obnoxious nurses, and a health care system that doesn't do anything for your health, and doesn't care.

I don't dislike the remaining crop of Dems for crude, low, partisan reasons - in fact, I quite admire Joe Lieberman (who dropped out) and I think Dick Gephardt would make an awesome choice for Secretary of Labor of Elaine Chao chose to leave.

No, I dislike them for real policy reasons.

In short, they want to give us the foreign and defense policy of France, the health care policy of Great Britain, and the court system of Russia.

That's why I can't stand them.

As for foreign and defense policy, you could look at it simplistically. The Dems have fought for years to eviscerate the military; most all of them (except for some honorable Cold War liberals) wouldn't think of supporting the military... well, unless it's useful for scoring some partisan points against a Republican president. And they believe in a French/German veto on U.S. foreign policy, just like France.

Alternately, you could take the sophisticated view, and note that with their unstinting insistence on nearly unanimous international approval for any military intervention, our candidates would hamstring any possibility of effective military response to anything. Witness France actions with respect to Bosnia, and Rwanda. Yep, sometimes being a dogmatic multilateralist means you are a handmaiden to genocide. In contrast, I think we should be as multilateral as possible, just as long as it makes sense and helps us toward achieving our foreign policy goals. If one of those goals is fighting tyrants, wherever we find them... well, relying on other tyrants for a vote of confidence is waiting for a gift that wont ever come.

As for the health care thing... there's only one way to look at that. Government never can provide the best health care. All it can do is ensure something like equality. But it's inefficient, it's sometimes stupid, and with the very best in health care off the menu, it doesn't take long to realize what kind of health care everybody is going to get. One other thing - as we've found out with HMO's, the law of supply and demand works. If you make all kinds of health care and "accessory" care (aromatherapy, accupuncture) free, then the demand for it will increase. Call it hording, call it hypochondria. If it's wiping out profit-driven, efficiency-obsessed health care corporations, what do you think the same principles will do to the public fisc?

With respect to the courts, one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship is that the courts are a mere extension of politics. Instead of applying rules, they make stuff up as they go along. In a dictatorship, it's usually meant to further the ruling party. This is what has happened in Russia. The courts - although now serious about enforcing contracts - are mere tools of the ruling clique.

In reducing the role of courts to a purely political role, the rule of law is also reduce, in fact negated.

The crux of the argument about the courts, between legal conservatives and activists, is whether the courts should be bound to the laws more or less as written, or whether judges should feel free to decide cases to produce whatever result is politically expedient or pleasing at the time.

This in turn produces bad government. Huh?

Well, when there aren't as many bad results, nobody gets pissed at the legislature, and throws the bums out. The lawmakers get sloppier because they don't have to answer to the people, and the judges don't complain because they get more power, and the lawmakers get even more careless because the judges will take on the tough problems, thus reducing the electoral risk for the legislators...

That's what is going on in Massachusetts right now in the gay marriage debate. As long as the highly politicized courts are willing to do the dirty work, legislators can evade responsibility. Meanwhile, the citizens are fuming, but unsure about how things can be fixed. After all, the left has captured the Mass. judiciary, the folks a little more to the right use that fact as a shield, behind which they shrug their shoulders - and on it goes.

And there's your Dem presidential platform in short.

A French veto on U.S. foreign policy; nationalized health care, a la Great Britain; and furthering the descent of the courts into the purely political realm, just like Russia.

Posted by Blackavar at February 7, 2004 11:35 PM | TrackBack
Comments
Good analogy. I wish I had thought of it. Posted by: El-ahrairah at February 8, 2004 12:23 AM
That is good: Foreign policy of France, health care system of England, court system of Russia. And don't forget the armed forces of Belgium. Posted by: Captain Holly at February 8, 2004 01:43 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?









Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.