This article is poorly written and offers a mischaracterization of Ron
Paul's position (s). But I agree with the premise about fundamentalism.
Paul cannot openly say the truth for the same reasons people cannot talk
openly about homosexuality or issues of race. Bleeding hearts and various
other manipulators will use the truth to destroy otherwise good people.
I have a catastrophic health insurance plan because I don't want to die. I
would rather not pay the 500 per month I pay but if I get very sick I'd
rather be able to go to the hospital than die. That is a decision.
Like most Libertarians Paul supports pro bono care and he offers it in his
own parctice. He does not accept Medicaid or Medicare.
Kevin
http://www.viewshound.com/politics-usa/2011/11/19/fundamentalisms-of-the-left-and-right
Rigid, dogmatic thinking dominates both the left and right wing's
philosophies. There has to be a major change in people's thinking.
In an otherwise excellent book, The Myth of The Rational Voter, libertarian
economist Bryan Caplan strongly objects to the use of the phrase “market
fundamentalism” to describe hard-core libertarians. This term may sound
harsh and even a little offensive, but I think Caplan here doth protest too
much. There are many politicians and voters today who deserve this label.
Liberal New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman puts it well:
“It’s literally a fundamental article of faith in the G.O.P. that the
private sector is always better than the government, and no amount of
evidence can shake that credo.” Not convinced? Here’s just one (prominent)
example of this dogmatic thinking: numerous Republican politicians have made
the preposterous and false claim that government spending cannot create
jobs. The phrase market fundamentalist seems like an appropriate term for
these politicians and their libertarian/conservative supporters.
Ron Paul is the perfect, if extreme, example of a market fundamentalist. He
sees every problem in America as the fault of government; he never seems to
admit there could be such a thing as a market failure. If you think I
exaggerate, go back and examine his ridiculous answer to Wolf Blitzer’s
question in one of the debates. Blitzer asked him about the man who
voluntarily doesn’t get health care and then gets sick. Paul’s answer was:
“That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” This dogmatic
answer was the reduction ad absurdum of extreme libertarianism. Paul would
not openly say what any decent human being would say: We can’t let him die,
he has to be admitted to the emergency room; instead he evaded the question.
The supporters of Paul who yelled “let him die” were widely criticized, but
they were simply taking Paul’s doctrine to its logical, if inhumane, end.
Another group that can safely be called market fundamentalists are advocates
of “supply side” economics. They claim that that tax cuts pay for
themselves, or even more absurdly, increase revenue! This long discredited
theory led to the massive deficits of the 1980s. Even conservative
economists like Greg Mankiw (a top Bush economic adviser) have denounced
supply side economics as economic quackery. Yet, somehow, the supply-siders
are still taken seriously by many conservative publications. For example,
Stephen Moore, a supply side advocate, writes op-eds for the Wall Street
Journal editorial page. Bad ideas sometimes just don’t go away.
However, rigid ideology is not the exclusive province of the right wing.
Leftists have their own fundamentalist philosophy as well. I call it simply
government fundamentalism. Every article written by a leftist I’ve ever read
has a common, but ultimately absurd theme: government spending (other than
the military) should always be higher than its current level. I have yet to
meet a leftist who will say, “Once social spending reaches x amount of
dollars or x % of GDP, we’ll be satisfied.” Government spending is higher
than it ever has been in American history—but it isn’t enough. It never will
be.
The leftist Occupation on Wall Street movement is the perfect example of
this ideological dogma. They take as a self-evident fact that the top 1%
control the country and rig the rules to their benefit. The fact that the 1%
pay over 28% of their income in taxes and the top 0.1% pay over 30% of their
income in taxes is completely ignored, as it contradicts their party line
that the rich are exploiting the other 99%. Source: Tax Policy Center.
Another example of dogma over evidence.
Another complaint I have with many leftists is that they rarely, if ever,
acknowledge any legitimate limitations on the powers of the federal
government. This is not a straw man argument. In fact, there was an example
of this misguided thinking on display at a town hall held by liberal
Democrat Pete Stark. He openly proclaimed that there was nothing the Federal
government is forbidden from doing.
This is a hope more than an expectation, but maybe some thoughtful people on
both sides will realize that their ideologies are rigid, impractical, and
yes, downright absurd. Perhaps a movement like John Stewart’s March for
Sanity will sweep the nation and change the way many Americans think about
politics. I remain pessimistic. As a song (I think it was Civil War by Guns
and Roses) once said: Some people just can’t be reached.
Article category: USA
Article tags: Down with Dogma!
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
