I'm Just Askin'...
|When is it leadership, and when is it ignoring the will of the people? Throughout the Bush Administration, we listened to the lefty liberals complain that then President Bush had a duty to listen to the wishes of the American people. It was their point of view that once a majority of people opposed the war in Iraq, he should accede to their wishes and withdraw our troops.|
The conservatives in our country rallied to his side, praising him for his strong leadership in spite of falling poll numbers and giving him high marks for doing what he believed was best for America, even if a majority of people did not support his actions.
Now we fast forward to the Obama Administration, and we find that the Hush Puppy is on the other foot, so to speak. President Obama has been a steadfast supporter of health care reform. He campaigned on it, has pushed for, and we are close to having a deal in place. Even though a seeming majority of Americans oppose the plan that is taking shape.
But now that the inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is different, both sides of the political spectrum are singing a different tune.
Now we have the conservatives saying that President Obama should heed the wishes of the American people and veto health care reform. And we have the lefty libs saying he is just showing strong leadership.
Is the concept of strong leadership only valid when your guy is making the decisions?
When is it socialism and when is it a hand up? Throughout the recent debates over health care reform and our economic bailouts, issues about which there can be legitimate differences, we kept hearing the words socialism and government takeover.
It seems as if socialism gets defined like this. We have socialism when the government steps in and proposes a system that modifies, or undercuts the free market system. Now mind you, I am not interested in arguing whether or not this type of action is actually a socialistic practice. What I am saying is that currently, many people in our country, primarily conservatives, define socialism as such.
This means if the government gets involved in health care, and disrupts the free market, or influences competition; it is guilty of socialistic practices. And this is bad, because socialism is an evil practice used by governments to enslave people.
But is it socialism when a government steps in and influences the free market in the agricultural industry? Currently US food prices are kept artificially high through a system of price supports and government subsidies.
If it is socialism when the government steps into health care in an attempt to lower costs to the consumer, how is it not socialism when the government steps into the ag business to keep prices high for the farmer?
Is it possible that like leadership, it is only socialism when people of the other side of the political spectrum propose direct government intervention and involvement?
I’m just askin’…