Steven M. Warshawsky has the must read piece of the day about Hillary Clinton. It’s nothing we don’t already know about her, but Warshawksy outlines Hillary’s marxism so well that it’s the most persuasive and compelling piece about her that I’ve read so far. Here’s a portion:
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?
So Hillary publicly admits she wants to change our country. Does anyone doubt that she will begin with socialized medicine? Warshawsky addresses how Hillary’s plan for socialized medicine will fulfill her goal of changing our country but will destroy it and the American spirit in the process:
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.
Mr. Warshawsky also discusses how Hillary wants to change our country regarding our current energy consumption and environmental regulations (reducing our use of fossil fuels, mandating what kinds of cars we can drive, and reducing other conveniences Americans have enjoyed) as well as the “inequality” between men and women, a myth that has been pedaled by the NOW crowd for years. Be sure to read all of the article.
The author ends his piece with this:
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.
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.
Mr. Warshawsky is absolutely right. Herding the American people into a socialized health care system flies in the face of everything this country represents, which is rugged individualism and independence. Our nation was created over 200 years ago in response to the over reaching government control of a dictatorial monarchy. Hillary and those who agree with her want to return us to that dependence on government because they don’t understand or want that rugged individualism and independence. Well, actually, they want them for themselves but not for the rest of the country’s population. Instead of her current campaign slogan of “Change We Need,” it should read this way: “Freedom For Me But Not For Thee.”