Conservatives tend to be pessimistic because they doubt that more possibilities will make lives on the whole better. They believe that there are obstacles that stand in the way of the permanent overall improvement of the human condition.
Of course there are obstacles! Welcome to life….
But in a world ever-changing, not keeping up and adapting to new information and new knowledge leaves others that much further behind. Too often, consideration as to what happens if progress is intentionally derailed because of irrational fears about change is left on the cutting room floor. Making things worse is certainly one objective, but … seriously?
So the assessment is that we take no risks? Give the possibility of “better” no opportunity whatsoever because … because, uh … why? No dialogue to explore the many less-than-perfect opportunities to move forward at least a step or two? Wait until the perfect and easy solution to ever-increasing complexities shows up unannounced? Must be nice and cozy in that cocoon of avoidance!
Obamacare is one of the more obvious issues of the day which—while far from perfect—was a step in the direction of providing needed care and coverage for millions in need. Offering a solution to that glaring problem [in this country no less!] is itself a problem? Its very complexity was a guarantee that it would not be a perfect solution. So better that we continue to let millions suffer needlessly because … because, uh … why?
I’m quite confident that as soon as the Benghazi hearings are concluded and Senate GOP members actually decide to grow a pair and address some reasonable accommodations on assault weapons—in other words, two days after hell freezes over—Congress will no doubt put forth their own health care alternative which they’ve been keeping carefully under wraps until all two hundred and forty-three efforts to repeal Obamacare have been successfully jammed back down their throats.
The next perfect solution provided by government will be the first perfect solution provided by government, but that realization is not an intelligent or even conscionable reason to do nothing. However such a glaring and often tragic need is addressed, addressing it is the critical point.
Filling the airwaves with idiotic allegations about “death panels” is merely an indication of how extreme the opposition was to helping others if it meant the big bad federal government was to play a role. Concern for those in need was a decidedly secondary consideration. If others were forced to continue suffering from inadequate care until a perfect non-government solution could be found, well … you know … we feel your pain. Really. We do! It’s just that if the federal government does something else that’s beneficial to millions in ways no other entity can do, well … we just can’t have that. You know … because.
We don’t have to dig too deeply into the Republican Party’s obstruction and opposition to most proposals from President Obama to understand that opposition was driven not by principled objections—offering alternatives would be the obvious way to address that … what a concept!—but by fears that a government doing well and offering beneficial assistance to millions invalidates the entirety of their mindless no-government philosophy.
The tens of millions of voters who would soon discover what life is like when the sole objective of society is to continue to cater to the powerful will certainly be an interesting show! Buy tickets early.
“Permanent overall improvement of the human condition” is the ideal, and our every effort should already be the primary objective of our governments, our industries, our communities, and ourselves as individuals. We won’t be getting there anytime soon, but does the realization that we’ll never get to “perfect” mean we don’t take steps to continue heading in that direction?
Putting into play the initial steps along a particular path ought to be an obviously preferred approach than doing nothing at all until … you know … later. Intensifying opposition by making up nonsense to manufacture anxieties, or the easier approach of just outright condemnation of the entire legislative effort and the implemented policy itself has certainly been successful.
There are, after all, pointless ideological principles and traditions to honor because … you know … so if millions have to suffer on the sidelines until … you know … later, well, that’s the price they have to pay to ensure our pointless beliefs and values rule.
But this all does beg the question once again: if lies and exaggerated fears are the tactics in play, then just how valid are the criticisms and opposition to begin with?
Adapted from a recent blog post of mine