Thursday, November 11, 2010

Why can't Republicans learn the power of language?

What the hell is with us?  GOP politicians, pundits and partisans so utterly surrender the rhetorical high ground to the LSDs that it makes me pull out my hair.

Why are we debating the "Bush tax cuts"?  W cut taxes but those reduced tax rates are now the current, existing, real and actual tax rates.  Why don't we say "Bush tax rates"?  The difference is huge.   The former language concedes that somehow Congress is considering a further reduction in tax rates when, in fact, just the opposite is true. 

Why do we ever say "health care reform"?  The LSDs aren't reforming the health care system.  Changing yes, but certainly not reforming.   Nothing is done to reconnect the concepts of patient and consumer; nothing is done to expand the supply of health care; and nothing is done to clean up the massive fraud inherent in virtually all federal spending.  Simply put, we should always describe the concept of Obamacare or other expanded federal involvement in the health services industry for what it is, "socialized medicine" because that simply put, is what it is.  Everyone likes the concept of reform so why do we concede that concept when it is both inaccurate and deceptive during the health care financing debates?

Our culture war is being fought with words, thank God, so let's improve the quality of our ammunition.

5 comments:

RF said...

Can you state your definition of "socialized" and indicate which part of the new health care law fits that definition?

The Real Sporer said...

Seriously, the mandate for starters?

Taxing me to provide a good, and that's what health insurance is- an intangible good-for others who choose not to provide it for themselves. Health care is, itself, a service. Creating a right to goods and services is, itself, a pretty socialized concept.

Government control of healthcare decisions, including the IRS enforcement mechanisms is inherently totalitarian in nature.

In fact, the concept of socialized healthcare is such a 20th Century element of the socialism that is bankrupting Europe even as I type these words, that even Marx and Engles didn't really spell it out.

Risk pools are sort of inherently socialist, but at least when the bastards that run most insurance companies socialize the risk pool they don't have the coercive power of government to screw us.

RF said...

Sorry to point this out, but the stuff you mention has very little to do with any generally accepted definition of socialism. You may dislike the things you mention, but socialism they are not.

Somewhat ironic considering the title of your post.

Anonymous said...

Ted, if you were a "real conservative" who truly believed in individual liberties, you would not be supporting these wacked out attempts to limit individual liberties, including most of the "social conservatives" agenda. Become a true conservative and support the freedom to marry.

As for the language bit, if you had been really good with language, you would not have been relegated to second team in debate. Most people who call themselves "conservatives" these day aren't very smart, including your friend on WHO.

Anonymous said...

Before we decide who is and is not very smart perhaps this morning's anonymous aged and cowardly homosexual should learn the difference between "conservatism" and "libertarianism".

While conservatives certainly support a freedom agenda we recongnize that the traditional framework of American culture is the best model for social organization.

What is it with you libs and guns, God and gays? You oppose economic freedom, you oppose speech freedom, you oppose religous freedom, you oppose political freedom, and you oppose every lifestyle freedom except those involving sexual deviancy.

TFS (too tired to log in this morning).

Labels

Amazon Bookstore