Hillary Clinton: I Will Change Our Country
- From: jose <josefsoplar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:55:39 -0700
Hillary Clinton: I Will Change Our Country
By Steven M. Warshawsky
In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband and political
benefactor Bill Clinton took office as the nation's 42nd president,
Hillary Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University
of Texas. In her speech, Hillary reiterated the theme that has been
at the heart of her political vision from the start:
"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of
the great challenges facing all of us in the West."
"Remolding society." This is the terminology of a utopian socialist,
one who seeks to remake society according to a narrow and dogmatic
ideology that claims to eliminate injustice, poverty, and unhappiness,
once and for all. Hillary's ideology is an amalgam of New Left
marxism and grievance feminism, the kind of unwholesome stew that is
commonplace on elite college campuses.
Significantly, the term "remolding" -- unlike such terms as "reform"
or "renew" -- reflects a sweeping rejection of society as it currently
exists: family structure (too patriarchal), economic organization
(favors the rich), social practices (discriminate against women and
minorities), and so on. In other words, someone who believes that
society needs to be "remolded" is someone who, at bottom, cannot see
any good in the American way of life -- and someone who, if she could,
would radically change that way of life. Who doubts that this
describes Hillary Clinton?
Lest anyone think that a more mature and experienced Hillary Clinton
has tempered her political objective, consider her recent speech in
Concord, New Hampshire, at an event over Labor Day weekend that her
campaign titled "Change We Need." In her speech, Hillary forthrightly
declared: "I will bring my experience to the White House and begin to
change our country starting on Day One." That's right: Change our
country. As her official campaign website illustrates, Hillary means
what she says.
Socialized Medicine
Returning to the cause celebre of her days as First Lady, Hillary's
official website proclaims that "America is ready for universal health
care. Hillary has the vision and the experience to make it a
reality." Hillary's plan for universal health care, i.e., socialized
medicine, will nationalize -- and ruin -- approximately one-seventh of
the U.S. economy. As night follows day, we will see shortages,
rationing, waiting lists, deteriorating facilities, less research and
development, fewer of our "best and brightest" going into medicine
(and more doctors imported from third-world countries), and lower
quality health care for most Americans (the richest citizens,
including Bill and Hillary, will be able to obtain high-quality
private care). This is what has happened in Great Britain under the
National Health Service.
What concerns me most, however, is the harm that socialized medicine
will do to the nation's character. Socialized medicine not only will
be an economic and humanitarian disaster -- it will undermine the
freedom, responsibility, and independence of ordinary Americans.
On this score, socialized medicine represents a giant leap beyond the
major "middle class entitlement" program, Social Security. Social
Security likewise promotes an unhealthy dependency on government (and
unjustly taxes current workers to pay for older citizens'
retirements), but at least it allows recipients to spend their
retirement checks according to their own interests and priorities.
In sharp contrast, under a regime of socialized medicine, a person's
choice of doctors, procedures, medicines -- even lifestyles -- will be
controlled by the government. You think HMOs are bureaucratic,
impersonal, and non-responsive? Just wait until Hillary creates an
HMO for the entire United States! Furthermore, under Social Security,
it is possible to maintain the fiction that each recipient has
"earned" his or her payment. With socialized medicine, on the other
hand, the redistributionist nature of the program will be
unavoidable. Every American, except for the rich, will know that he
or she is "on the dole." The result will be to spread across the
nation as a whole the same enervating and demoralizing "culture of
dependency" that afflicts the "beneficiaries" of the welfare state.
In truth, the rich do not have enough wealth that can be expropriated
to fund a national health care system. This means that taxes will
have to be raised, directly or indirectly, on all Americans to pay for
this program. The government thus will take everyone's dollars and
decide for us how the money should be spent on health care. The net
effect, therefore, will not be to redistribute wealth from "rich" to
"poor" -- but to redistribute power from the people to the
government. As with all liberal programs, the real goal is to replace
individual freedom and responsibility with an omnipotent and
paternalistic state -- under the control of a political elite ("the
vanguard of the proletariat," in Lenin's terminology, which still
rings true to liberal ears). Such a system of government inevitably
produces subjects, not citizens.
If Americans still believe in the fundamental principles on which this
country was founded -- liberty, self-reliance, and limited government
-- they must resist the siren song of socialized medicine.
Sharply Limited Energy Consumption
After the health care industry, Hillary has set her sights on the
energy industry, which literally drives the economy, indeed our entire
way of life. Without plentiful, cheap energy -- which, despite
complaints about rising gas and heating oil prices, Americans continue
to possess in relative abundance -- it simply is not possible to live
the kind of on-the-go, high-consumption, air-conditioned lives that
Americans enjoy. Where does this energy come from? It primarily
(85%) comes from fossil fuels, i.e., coal and oil and natural gas.
Alternative energy sources, such as hydro, solar, wind, and biomass,
cannot come close to fueling an advanced industrial and technological
society like ours. Nuclear power, about which Hillary says she is
"agnostic," has been neglected for so long in this country (it only
supplies 8% of our total energy needs) that it cannot be part of
anything but a long-term solution. The bottom line is that if we do
not burn lots and lots of fossil fuels, Americans cannot continue to
enjoy their high quality of life.
Hillary claims she is going to make our country "energy independent,"
i.e., not reliant on "foreign sources of oil." This sounds like a
worthy goal, but it is not remotely plausible. That is, unless we
severely restrict our consumption of energy, roughly one-third of
which comes from foreign sources (mainly oil used for gasoline). The
consequences of such a "belt-tightening" strategy would be to
drastically reduce both the size and vitality of our economy, leading
to massive unemployment and a lower standard of living.
Furthermore, Hillary's manifest belief that it is problematic for us
to buy oil from Canada and Mexico, two of our three largest "foreign"
suppliers, makes no sense. Indeed, the only way for the United States
to buy less oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela -- the true problem --
is to buy more oil from Canada, Mexico, and other friendly countries.
This would have the further beneficial effect of strengthening these
countries' economies and enhancing our trade relations. Yes, we
should drill more oil here at home, but the enormous size and
sophistication of our economy will require us to import oil long into
the future.
Nevertheless, importing more "good" oil is not an option for Hillary,
because she also agrees with Al Gore and the loony environmental left
that "global climate change is one of the most pressing moral issues
of our time." Accordingly, Hillary pledges to "lead the charge to
stop global warming" and "reduce carbon emissions and other pollution
that contribute to global warming." How do you reduce carbon
emissions? By not burning fossil fuels, i.e., by using less energy.
This is the logic behind the Kyoto Protocol, which the Clinton
Administration signed but the Senate wisely rejected. Should
President Hillary succeed in getting something like the Kyoto Protocol
enacted into law, the result, once again, will be severe harm to the
nation's economy, and to the American way of life.
Of course, leftists like Hillary believe that the American way of life
is selfish, excessive, and wasteful. So they believe that ordinary
Americans should be required by the government to make sacrifices,
e.g., by mandating the kinds of cars people drive (no SUVs). Such
measures, however, will have no meaningful effect on "global
warming." Global warming -- which refers to a few degrees increase,
over many decades, in average global temperature -- is an inevitable,
natural, cyclical process, upon which humans have little or no
impact. (For example, one of the alleged signs of global warming,
melting polar ice caps, is occurring on Mars!) Significantly, there
is no evidence that the Earth's climate is becoming more "extreme" and
less conducive to human life and civilization. On the contrary, a
small increase in the Earth's temperature, on balance, may have a
beneficial effect. Indeed, previous warming periods, e.g., during the
Middle Ages, corresponded with human flourishing. In any event, Al
Gore's nightmare vision of New York City under water is utterly
nonsensical, as is the belief -- mostly shared by those who think
Hillary should be president -- that driving hybrid cars or reducing
one's "carbon footprint" (a truly ridiculous term) will cool the
atmosphere.
In sum, Hillary's energy plan, if put into effect, would lead to
sharply reduced energy consumption, a shrinking economy, and a less
enjoyable way of life for all Americans. Except for the wealthy
moguls, celebrities, and politicians who are fomenting this global
warming hysteria. Their self-righteous satisfaction over "saving the
planet" will more than make up for their somewhat crimped lifestyles
in a less energy-friendly society. But the average American's
lifestyle will be severely impacted.
Even if Hillary finds it politically infeasible to fully implement her
energy agenda, under her presidency we surely will see higher taxes
(especially on the reviled oil companies), higher prices, and more
burdensome, costly, and annoying regulations (e.g., home lightbulb
requirements), all justified on the specious grounds of "energy
independence" and "global warming." I predict it won't be long before
President Hillary will be urging Americans to turn down the thermostat
and put on sweaters during winter.
"A Champion For Women"
Lastly, we should not forget that, after socialized medicine, the
cause dearest to Hillary's heart is using the power of government to
enforce the "equality" of men and women in all areas of life, from the
family and schools, to business and the military. The National
Organization for Women has a kindred spirit in Hillary, whom NOW has
endorsed for president.
Although Hillary claims to speak on behalf of all women, her brand of
feminism is primarily designed for middle class and professional women
who want to pursue "careers" without the hassles of children. Hence,
Hillary supports an unlimited right to abortion. She supports
"expanded access to family planning services, including for low-income
women" (i.e., Hillary wants to encourage poor and minority women to
"empower" themselves by having fewer children). She supports
comprehensive child care and early education programs. She supports
"a dedicated funding stream for age-appropriate, medically accurate,
comprehensive sex education." And she supports "giving new parents
support and training to promote healthy development for their
children." In other words, Hillary wants to make it easier for
working women to eschew the responsibilities of parenting, either by
eliminating children altogether or by having the government take over
the duty of raising them.
This is not all. Once women are in the workplace, Hillary complains,
"they earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn." So Hillary
intends to "strengthen equal pay laws and end pay disparities between
men and women." However, the "77 cents" figure (a common feminist
trope) has been debunked countless times, as it is not based on a
statistically valid comparison of men and women in the same jobs, with
the same credentials and experience. Rather, it is derived by simply
comparing the total income earned by women in the workforce with the
total income earned by men. Not surprisingly, given that women are
more likely to pursue lower-paying jobs and to work fewer hours than
men, their total income is lower. Once the correct apples-to-apples
comparison is made, the alleged pay disparity between men and women
essentially vanishes. But facts do not matter to ideologues like
Hillary.
If men and women do not work the same kinds of jobs or the same number
of hours, how does Hillary propose to "end pay disparities between men
and women"? One way will be to require employers to pay men and women
the same wages for "similar" or "equivalent" work, i.e., "comparable
worth" rules. Another way will be to require employers to provide
more paid time off to primary caregivers (mostly women) who have
children or elderly family members to care for. Another way will be
to require lenders to "increase access to capital and other support
for women-owned business." Businesses which fail to comply with these
increasingly stringent regulations will be subjected to punitive legal
sanctions. Consequently, instead of one's income being determined by
one's productivity, as measured by the marketplace, in Hillary's world
it will be determined by government bureaucrats based on feminist-
approved notions of "equity." The result, inevitably, will be to
reduce economic liberty, growth, and prosperity for all Americans.
Hillary Loves The 70s
As Hillary's campaign platform demonstrates, she seeks to return the
country to 1970s-style liberalism, with its limitless faith in the
power of government to create a "fair" society in a world
characterized by ecological crisis, a zero-sum economy, and
diminishing expectations. All of Hillary's major domestic policy
initiatives -- socialized medicine, reduced energy consumption,
mandating "equality" between the sexes -- come straight from the
Democratic playbook of that era.
This was the worldview that Ronald Reagan confronted and defeated more
than twenty-five years ago. Reagan recognized that at the heart of
contemporary liberalism lies a profound pessimism about the ability of
ordinary Americans to manage their own lives in a responsible,
productive, and decent manner. Reagan rejected this pessimism with
every fiber of his being. This is what people really are referring to
when they speak of Reagan's "optimism."
Hillary Clinton will never be mistaken for an optimist like Reagan.
She clearly does not believe in the ability of the American people to
govern their own lives, make their own decisions, and abide by the
consequences of their actions. Turning Reagan's famous aphorism on
its head, Hillary believes that government is not the problem, it is
the solution.
In 1980 the American people stood up and loudly proclaimed that they
still believed in a country based on individual liberty, self-
reliance, and limited government, however tattered those notions have
become over the years. Hillary Clinton claims they now are "ready"
for a new way. Indeed, I believe that the 2008 election will be a
referendum, not on the War in Iraq, but on whether the future of this
country lies in freedom or socialism. Let's hope the American people
make the right choice.
Contact Steven M. Warshawsky
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Don Surber: Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan?
- Next by Date: Moveon.Org Got Huge Discount from the Times for Petraeus Smear Ad
- Previous by thread: Don Surber: Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan?
- Next by thread: Christian American Fascist Propaganda - Ignore
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
