Can We Just Stop All the Shouting So I Can Think?

Opponents of health care reform are making so much noise that I find I can’t even think straight. I am not sure I like all the provisions of the bill that was signed into law, but how am I to carefully consider these things with all the shouting?!

I am beginning to think this is an intentional strategy. If none of us can think, we can’t consider the issues. If all we do is shout back, we lose time we could be using productively.

There is no question in my mind, many on the Right are overreacting – and it is not just those on the Left who agree. David Frum and Joe Klein, both of whom could be considered a friend (certainly not an enemy) to the Right, both point out the overreaction.

Let’s take a look at just a few examples. Note the exclusion of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Overreaction is a standard part of their game and we all know it.

The Wall Street Journal called the bill a “federal takeover of the U.S. health-care system,” and Dennis Prager calls the debate a Civil War! and goes on to say:

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R – South Carolina) has begins his rant with this:

There’s no fixing the government health care takeover Democrats forced through on Sunday. It must be repealed.

Repealed? Really? Is that the best approach? Bill Kristol is on the repeal kick too. One of my favorite bloggers had this to say about repeal:

And how about a legal challenge? It’s nice to see the GOP is now in favor of “activist judges.”

DeMint goes on to say:

After telling Americans in 2008 that they would lower spending, taxes and insurance premiums, Democrats passed a bill that breaks every promise. Using secret deals, kickbacks and carve-outs, Democratic leaders jammed through legislation to control more than one-sixth of the nation’s economy.

The plan will explode the national debt, raise $569.2 billion in new taxes, force taxpayers to fund abortions, and impose unconstitutional mandates on every American.

All of this was done in the face of overwhelming public outrage and bipartisan opposition in Congress. This process has been an insult to our democracy and threatens our nation’s prosperity and freedom.

The rhetoric gets worse, though. David Limbaugh had this to say:

The Democrats’ passage of socialized medicine Sunday night will spell either the beginning of the end of this great nation or the beginning of the rebirth of its freedom. The choice is still in the hands of Americans.

Is this guy serious? I understand rhetoric and I understand value overstating one’s point can have but this is just too much. He goes on …

To borrow a phrase from President Barack Obama, “let’s be clear” on a couple of things:

First, it’s not an exaggeration to say Obamacare is socialized medicine; in fact, it doesn’t go far enough simply to say it represents the government takeover of our entire health care system. It is also a major step (begun long ago) in the complete dismantling of the unique American constitutional experiment and of the social compact between Americans and their government. Obama’s now-realized goal of fundamental change is to make the government the people’s master instead of their servant.

Secondly, we should not suffer gladly those painfully naive people who will continue to say that Obama and his obedient congressional Democrats are not radical. It may make people feel better about themselves to promote congeniality and bipartisanship, but to fantasize about such quixotic goals under this type of radical assault on our nation is tantamount to enabling it.

Government takeover? Dismantling of the social compact? Radical assault? There is more …

Thirdly, Obama and the Democrats have been unconscionably deceptive about their aims, even though Obama couldn’t help but reveal his extremism from time to time. He certainly promised “fundamental change” but was so vague that many assumed his idea of “hope and change” meant something consistent with American values. Others knew full well what grandiose plans he had in store to overthrow America’s social compact. There was no mistaking his intent when you examined his radical background and radical relationships; his extremist position on human life, including supporting a form of infanticide; his promise to redistribute wealth; his obvious grudge against America; and his experience as a street agitator in Chicago.

Obvious grudge against America? Street Agitator?

I don’t want the government to control every facet of my life, but is that really what this will lead to? Do we not live in a democratic republic where we can influence the laws of the land? Isn’t that what this is all about?