« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

That Every Man Can Make Himself, Part II

The other day I wrote about Abraham Lincoln’s idea of what makes the United States great. His determination was that in this country “every man can make himself.” For that reason, we were and remain, in Lincoln’s words, “the wonder and admiration of the whole world.”

As Barack Obama’s approval rating dips, the Republican Party’s approval rating is still in the gutter. We have no compelling counter message to what Obama is doing. True, right now we really don’t need one. People will soon forget it. But as he continues down the path toward socialism, we need to prepare our countervailing narrative.

That every man should be able to make himself seems to me to be the right idea.

Barack Obama wants to socialize healthcare in America. As Jay Rockefeller said last week, the Democrats’ healthcare plan involves denying choices to Americans. And that’s just it — with the exception of the right to choose to abort your child, the Democrats want to give you lots of “rights,” but no choices about how to live your life. The Democrats’ “rights” are imaginary rights — rights that are not real, have no historic basis, and take money from you to give to someone else. Let’s be clear here: If it requires taking someone else’s life, liberty, or property, it ain’t a right.

And the Democrats know it. We all, in fact, instinctively know it. We know there is no right to universal broadband. We know there is no right to home ownership. We know there is no right to comprehensive, total government funded healthcare. But the Democrats are offering those up as rights.

We must fight back on a message of allowing each person to make their way in life.

Forcing responsible citizens to pay for the irresponsible denies the responsible citizens the resources to make themselves.

Forcing Americans into a healthcare system that takes away their choices on healthcare denies Americans their choice and puts the government in charge of their lives.

Adding trillions of dollars of debt forces future generations to cover this generations screw ups and denies them the resources to reach their full potential.

Driving up private sector costs to make public sector costs look cheap is a fraud on the American people.

We Republicans and we conservatives can fight amongst ourselves at the periphery on a lot of issues, but here is one area in which we cannot fight: the right of men to make themselves, i.e. the right of free men to freely act in a free society cannot be compromised.

Right now there seem to be too many Republican leaders and pseudo-conservative mouthpieces willing to compromise freedom for electoral gain. That electoral gain is not going to happen. The reason is simple. A Republican willing to sell out freedom for ephemeral promises will never outbid a Democrat doing the same.

The issues and policy positions the Republican Party must present to the American people are not those that the Democrats would offer marked down to wholesale prices.

No, the issues and policies the GOP must present are alternatives: freedom over equality. Independence over dependence. Property over poverty. Choices over mandates. The right to make and not be made.

When the Democrats offer Americans universal healthcare, we must not only show why their plan would suck away freedom and create dependency on an inherently dysfunctional system, we must also show that letting people freely make choices for themselves while government only provides for those who truly can’t is the ideal solution.

A number of people — too many — say that is too tough a sell. Friends, there is nothing tough about selling freedom. And more importantly, it is the right thing to do. Freedom sells. Americans instinctively know that government run operations are crap. They know it every day the mail shows up. They know it every few years they stand in line to get a new drivers license. They know it every time they have to fight with the social security office. They know it every April 15th.

It is our obligation to highlight just how dysfunctional government is. Obama, if you’ll remember, declared himself not about big government or small government, but efficient government. We prove him a liar, we win.

It is time for Republicans to return to fighting government. Government is that entity which stands in the way of men making themselves. It is time we turn the spotlight back on just how ridiculous government is.

We prove Obama a liar, we win. We undermine American trust in government to solve their problems, we win. And let’s be honest — the other side cannot win. While they keep highlighting failures of the free market as a way to undermine liberty, it is a hell of a lot easier to highlight the failures of government. A hell of a lot easier.

Now we just need leaders willing to speak up and make the case. Michael Steele, you listening? Eric Cantor? Mike Pence? John Kyl? Jim DeMint?

We’re waiting. Fighting for freedom is the right fight.

COMMENTS

  • Praying

    You take the points I made in my Diary yesterday (The best definition of Conservatives Yet) and distills the three basic tenants conservatism (the rights of individual citizens, their adherence to traditional morality and the principles of republican government, and their opposition to socialistic meddling with individual freedom), into one: Freedom. You can’t be free to succeed unless you are free to fail. The other point my post made, however, is that just as our nation was formed by the founding fatherS, we may need a group of leaders rather than just a single voice. I think that conservatives, while absolutely united in the idea of freedom, can be a varied and diverse group as far as other more peripheral issues. We do not, and should not, be a party that is everything to all people. But I think that we can, by emphasizing the important things that most Americans hold dear, appeal to a much wider segment of the population than we have in recent years. I think we also need to be willing to let the message start in the grassroots – it seems to me that there is more energy and excitement being generated in local “tea party” demonstrations and We Surround Them gathering parties (in response to the Glen Beck special on Fox tonight at 5) than in anything a “spokesman” for the Republican party has said in years. Maybe that’s OK for now?

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    Yesterday, I was talking about a site I’ve owned and haven’t developed, yet. I posted here for ideas what to include in it but via some emails with one contact I also had this to say:

    No, this site I want to be something more than a blog. I’d like it to be a conservative living resource center, something that explains conservatism in a way that reaches across politics and party affiliations, and provides a guide to living through good times and bad no matter who you are… and built on the principles that all men are created equal… and women too. I’d also like to be able to reach out to young people in ways that define their self-worth in healthier ways than our education system seems to be willing to do. It’s okay to sexify our kids at any age but teaching self-reliance, self-respect, and self-worth seem to be too hard for them to accomplish.

    Before I went into grad school, I worked for about 6 months for a counseling center as a parenting liason for people who had gotten in trouble with DCS. So many times, I heard those people say they wanted better for their lives than where they were and I’d help them research different options and show them that it was doable. I encouraged and tried to empower them and then I got in trouble. I wasn’t supposed to do that because these people were supposed to be hopeless.. you know? Nobody is hopeless unless they choose to be but these people weren’t going to be allowed to learn that. Most of them, who got the kind of help they got from me weren’t that bad off physically or mentally, just having nowhere to turn except themselves, their kids, and a system who didn’t care about them except for being a case on their rolls that kept them from having to take on new cases. Some small percentage shouldn’t have ever been on the rolls to begin with but there were others who were more concerned with their drugs than their kids, as well. It’s sad that’s what welfare and the liberal society has done to people.

    ]

    Isn’t this along the lines of what you’re talking about? If government would get out of the way, the ability is there.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Maggie_in_Indiana

    You just spelled it out so clearly.

    “If it requires taking someone else?s life, liberty, or property, it ain?t a right. ”

    That’s about as clear and simple as we can possibly be. And it’s so easy to understand that even the Obama voters can understand it. Thanks for reminding me of this simple idea,even though I’ve always known and supported it.

  • itrytobenice

    Very good.

  • Brian Hibbert

    But I can’t come close to your eloquence. Well done and I agree!

  • 1stRichard

    Being from the keister end of Massachusetts (Taxachusetts the Marxist welfare state) I know the loss of freedom all to well. We have had a mass exodus of productivity and jobs over many years. We have gone from manufacturing leaders to losers, we had one of the first planed industrial cities in the world to the first automobile manufacturer in the US, and it is all but gone. Our jobs and livelihood is being driven out by Taxes, Regulations andf Control. The largest employer in most every town and city out this way is now the state and local government, Big Government and Big Government Control and Regulation. The path we are on now, in my town the cost of our town government almost doubles every ten years, and the population, jobs and services decrease.

    But wait, what has this got to do with freedom and liberty? Everything! You want to work for your ?American Dream?, forget it because without the productivity of a free market of manufacturing most will be stuck in the cheap services sector flipping hamburgers. Your individual liberty will be shipped out of your community, stolen from you by Big Government Waste and Abuse, more and more will be lost if this is not stopped. Big Government is the Problem and Not the answer! We need leadership that can deliver this massage and can show the fortitude to carry out this new direction.

    Well I would like to chat some more but McDonalds is hiring and I got to go, I just lost a job as a millwright, my freedom and liberty stolen from me, ?every man can make himself? is gone and we need to take it back NOW!

    ****************
    Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

    James Madison

  • Rod_Patrick

    A higher DOSE compared TO DEM’s OWN side effect-prone MEDICINE.

    Kidding aside, EE, I think you’re exactly right on this. If we can come up with better alternatives, the people on the other side will start listening to us again.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I’m just mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. ;)

  • HMHaanpaa

    I am angry and will take it some more. The question is how long? By being divided, we have been conquered. The central issue is freedom and the D brand has changed the definition so it involves decision making and choices – let Government make the decision with fewer and fewer choices. When and if the R brand can change the definition back to the individual there may be a chance. I also think it will take more than one person to accomplish. Right after the election was a circling the wagon moment. I am seeing a few wagons moving in the “right” direction and that is good, but do I trust the driver of the wagon?

  • Alberta

    Being in Canada I dont see a lot of the local stuff in America so maybe GOP does run ads, so if they do, just ignore this.

    It seems to me a list of promises with the line: ?If it requires taking someone else?s life, liberty, or property, it ain?t a right. ? at the end would be a cute little ad we could run.

  • kweiss01

    These are points we can all agree on, I think.

    Unfortunately, the Democratic machine is doing a very good job of sending us off on tangents, e.g. the latest “uproar” over Steele’s comments about homosexuality being a choice or not.

    We need to focus like a laser on our core message.

  • omar

    That’s a risky argument. You have to show the plan eliminates all choices because if their plan still has choice and doesn’t create obvious burdens then your argument falls apart. And I assure you, they’re going to make it look like it saves money and you don’t have to do it. If I remember correctly Obama?s healthcare plan he touted during the campaign isn’t even truly universal, Hillary?s was much more progressive. In part one you talked about the difference between equality and equal opportunity. That?s all it should be, universal healthcare should be an equal opportunity for everyone to get the care they need. It shouldn?t be stuffed down our throats, I have great healthcare through my employer, I don?t want universal. There?s no reason universal healthcare can?t be done right. Why couldn?t it be a discounted opt-in plan, I dunno honestly I have no idea what the best solution is but we have a problem and people are clamoring for a fix, what is it, 30 or 40mil uninsured? The highest costs in the world and we don?t have the best care? Instead of being whole hardily against universal health care a proper alternative should be offered. We have good people going bankrupt from healthcare bills. As it is, all those uninsured create huge problems when they do get sick and are forced to seek help. It’s not a right if it treads on other people’s freedoms but it doesn’t have to. Me and you and everyone else having proper healthcare SHOULD be a right. No one should ever be forced to make a choice on required healthcare because of cost. When you just give this blanket response that it?s all bad and everything is great the way it is you necessarily sideline your self from the discussion. Get involved; propose a better plan and then everyone is happy. It doesn?t help anyone if all you do is point a finger and pretend we don?t have a problem.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Universal health care and private health care cannot coexist for any extended period of time. One will always be at war with the other, and since no one can compete with the confiscatory power of the federal govt, eventually the govt provided health care will drive out any private options.

    This limits freedom and choice of the consumer. Erick doesn’t have to list all of the alternatives to the universal/single payer govt system.

    I even think you could stretch to make a Constitutional argument against the single payer system, as it limits one ability to exercise their right to freedom of association.

  • omar

    “eventually the govt provided health care will drive out any private options.” I don’t think that’s happened anywhere else. So far as I know, Canada still has private healthcare as well as many European countries. If your saying that theoretically 100yrs after implementing universal healthcare private healthcare would disappear because it can’t compete then I’d have to ask if that really matters. Your so gung-ho for freedom and free markets then if the private systems are so much better then they’d certainly offer alternatives that people would take and definitely seem to in other countries. Universal healthcare should never be intended to cover everything, private healthcare will never go away.
    And I don’t think erick has any responsibility to list alternatives, All i said is that blanket statements of refusal on principle eliminate discussion and ignore the problem. Politically speaking, we have a problem that needs to be solved and absolute refusals make it impossible to find a solution that makes everyone happy.

  • Aaron Gardner

    We could reduce the cost of health care by embracing euthanasia…should we consider that a viable option and actually debate it? No.

    As far as the govt running private health care out of business goes, the point is that a private corp can’t confiscate your wealth like the govt can, this will affect the private corp’s ability to offer services at a reasonable price because of the market share that the govt will demand. This will cause further erosion of the private corp’s customer base causing an increasing burden on those who don’t move to the govt system.

    The private sector may never actually disappear but that won’t matter to those who can not afford the services they offer.

    What you endorse would result in a free market that only exists at the highest side of the margin, on the low end of the margin we would probably see a huge black market for services the govt no longer offers due to cost overrun issues.

  • omar

    I really want all perspectives in the debate (the one that should be happening in congress) but the extreme perspective of outright refusal makes that hard.

    Oh, and black market health care? What do you mean by that? People who will pay for further services the government won’t offer but private healthcare won’t have a product for them? Because the way it works elsewhere is kind of like what you said, free market at the higher ends. Those who can afford it get supplemental healthcare to cover the gap between the absolute basics the government covers and everything else that people still want. But “those who can afford it” aren’t the extremely wealthy they’re the middle class (this is in reference to what happens elsewhere).

    Oh, and if you’re gonna throw out the euthanasia thing, I’ll play cuz this is an interesting side issue. The problem of prolonging life at extreme expense. This happens a lot and what do you do when you might bankrupt your family for another 6 months. This is probably the most touchy issue I can imagine, but it comes down to costs and we as a society have to start taking a hard look at our selves.

  • Aaron Gardner

    like euthanasia…the govt should not be able to mandate an expiration on life…so we don’t debate it because it is not a legitimate function f\of the govt.

    With the black market thing you are right and wrong….at the higher margin will be the specialty services that aren’t covered, but at the bottom side there will be a black market for the poor to still bridge that gap. How large that market is is in relation to how strict the govt becomes with the services it does decide to offer….think of back alley abortions, but sub abortions for something the govt decides it won’t fund.

  • omar

    just a little tidbit… if there was going to be a black market it would already exist right now. We already have poor people who can’t afford healthcare your suggesting that things would somehow get worse because people wouldn’t have some of the coverage they want when right now they have NONE of the coverage they want.
    And your also forgetting we aren’t talking widgets, we’re talking healthcare, you can’t go anywhere for surgery or complicated procedures. So… yay, hospitals get more money? There’s no stopping anyone from going to a hospital and getting whatever treatment they want, they’ll just be bankrupt in seconds. I don’t think we need to worry about a black market. [talking point] We need to worry about our high costs and millions of uninsured. [end talking point]

  • Aaron Gardner

    medical care can easily be transferred to a black market…it doesn’t have to be widgets. Besides your entire reply to me is a strawman because you changed the variables to fit your argument….the govt will have to choose what services it will provide for “free” any other services will not simply go away, the demand will exist no matter what…the only question is who will be providing the supply for that demand.

  • Brian Hibbert

    The UK does.

    When Canadians don’t want to wait for their government health care, they can cross the border and get whatever they need here. In the UK, if you don’t want substandard government run medical care, you pay for private health insurance and go to a private hospital.

  • omar

    the demand’s not goin anywhere. but the only supply is the healthcare system as we have it. universal healthcare shouldn’t replace all the private hospitals and doctors. So, yeah i guess someone could pay a shady doctor to do a service the government doesn’t pay for but… you skipped my most important point, How would the black market get worse than it is now?

  • Aaron Gardner

    Seriously do you even read these posts…I covered this already.

    The govt has no money of it’s own, it can only borrow and tax. there is a limit on how much they can tax, that limit being 100%, that would still leave them short to pay for all of the expense that would be incurred.

    And again if universal health care doesn’t replace private health care then it isn’t universal.

  • omar

    man… we need to work on sticking to the topic. I would never ever want a government plan to replace all healthcare that’s obviously dumb. We’re ironically on the same page. All I started out saying is that a solution is needed…

    on an unrelated note, I hope you’re enjoying our debates as much as I am. I can respond less regularly if you’re genuinely getting angry or annoyed. Oh, and sorry the lgbt one honestly got a little too personal.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I only wish that you were better informed so we didn’t have to cover so much ground….;^)