Scott Brown's potential win

If Scott Brown goes into the election with the wind to his back and with the Democrats appearing desperate, he might just win. There will be no effective way for the Democrats to spin, or rationalize to themselves, even, this loss. Coakley's loss in Massachusetts will signal the implosion of the progressive agenda -- a solid rejection which can't be explained away.

Democrats preparing to vote on healthcare reform and cap and trade had better take notice -- there will be hell to pay. This morning I listened on the radio as Obama tried to encourage the Democrats to follow through with their healthcare plan in spite of public opposition -- Obama stated that the people would realize after the fact that the legislation is the right thing for them.

It's this type of arrogant and patronizing attitude that will get the whole Democrat Party in trouble.

The special interest war and healthcare reform

Congress has finally tackled a change so big it's brought out all the special interests at once. The unions don't want to pay, the insurance companies don't want to pay, pharma doesn't want to pay, the rich don't want to pay, the middle class doesn't want to pay, the doctors don't want to pay, the hospitals don't want to pay, neither the old people nor the young people want to pay, and women don't want to pay for abortions.

I'm pretty sure that if the poor could, they would not want to pay. All these interests aren't technically "special interest" groups, but they are being forced to specialize in order to protect their interests. The fact is that if this health reform passes, government will have to pick winners and losers, but that won't be the end, because healthcare is such a big part of our economy, groups will create alliances for political power to gain their advantages later. This is the wonderful world of Social War created by lovely bunch of social engineers -- it makes me want to salute something and sing.

We need to get together and talk

I'm not sure how legitimate the Greeks were under Pericles and his immediate predecessors regarding democracy and freedom -- afterall, there's the whole slave thing, and their foreign policy was rather despotic -- however, they represent an unsual outbreak of relative intellectual freedom which has been influential to this day.

After a long intellectual drought, America, and the rest of the world for that matter, needs an intellectual revolution, a rebirth of philosophy and free-thinking. A lot of the Sophists' brain-work was fanciful and esthetically influenced, and we do experience a good deal of this type of thinking, yet there is no widespread respect for intellectual pursuit as a vital means of human progress.

Tv, music, art, literature and entertainment in general have been dumbed down, filled with cliches and banal thought that take pride in being common, vulgar and anti-intellectual. We'd rather discuss warts, insecurities and sex than the perplexing problems of our time. Of course, there are faux-intellectuals whose pretentiousness is definitely a turn-off, more posture than substance, but there's a dearth of fearless free thinking.

In politics, free-thinking and intellectual pursuit are almost non-existent -- there are party lines and platforms and not much else. Something like a Constitutional Convention is needed to clarify our political thought in the 21st century. The internet might provide an informal forum for this Renaissance --however, presently, there's too much ignorance and too much partisan thoughtlessness. Each party has its talking points, spin and bullet-point positions, but not much progress is being made toward the development of new ideas to deal with our increasingly complex common problems. Plus there's no philosophy of the private realm, and so its power lies dormant in the face of an interventionist, nanny-State.

It's beyond time to re-think our position in the world, speaking here strictly of America, and to create a new foreign policy doctrine which is in line with peaceful trade and global stability -- even if our intentions can be proven beneficient, we've been too much the bull in the China shop, too intrusive, too insistent on our way of life. Perhaps it's time to pull back and re-evaluate who we are and what we want to be.

Domestically, we've relied too much on State power under the illusion that our politicians and leaders are more enlightened than the average tyrant. We've drifted in a mixed economy and welfare state to the point of confusion and identity crisis. What is the unifying theory which makes economic prosperity and compassion less antagonistic and more co-operative, genuinely helpful to those in need?

How can the State be controlled and the private realm strengthened so that a balance is struck which maintains the integrity of the Constitution and adheres to the philosophical principles first articulated in the Declaration of Independence? What are the objective, apolitical considerations we should address regarding the relationships between economic activity and nature? 

World citizens or patriots protecting a sovereign nation and culture, our impotent leaders speak of global responsibility in one breath and national interests in the other -- people superficially float the fashionable idea until the next new thing comes along -- the collective thrives and the individual withers -- political pundits discuss process while philosophy is a campaign promise to be broken when pragmatism calls -- everyone shrugs, what can you do?

There's a hunger for principled direction alongside a need for dependence in a world made scary by the demonization of risk. The juvenile idea that somewhere, somehow, someone has the answers and resources and will catch us as when we fall creates of illusion of security, and, yet, no one is asking what they must do in case no one comes.

The idea that the State is the fountain of all rights and that democracy trumps all has placed us in a position of domestic war between groups dependent on the State -- even when government tries to do something, like healthcare reform, the results are convoluted due to the balkanized interests who fight for advantages and protection. If we could all come together in search of a better environment for healthcare services to take place, we could accomplish the goal, but we're torn in two dozen different directions.

There's a lack of thought in all this -- we are gradually reverting back to survivalist instincts in packs of competing interests. As the Greeks found out, excessive democracy weakens and diffuses society to the point of paralysis, opening the way for despotism and ogliarchy. Our Founders had a good idea with a representative republic bound by a Constitution. Our intellectual energy should be spent on a modern unification of this idea, a clarification of the principles as they relate to our present society.

Beware of Pyrrhic Victories

Who knows what the Democrat strategy is for getting to single payer, government-run healthcare, but make no mistake -- that is the goal. We'll read accounts of disappoint that Joe Lieberman is blocking Medicare expansion and the public option is dead. Don't leap for joy, yet.

An exchange can be the accepted temporary agreement, and an exchange can be just as heavily regulated and "government-run" as a public option. If bureacrats get in the middle and it's impossible for private industry to do their thing, then the game is under the control of government. If private insurance is set up to fail by burdensome regulations, then the Democrats can implement their changes gradually until the private sector is effectively out of the picture, becoming mere clerks following orders from on high.

This could have been the strategy all along, knowing that there was never enough support for a public option. A public option, proper, could have been the red herring which gets congress to gladly accept an exchange. But an exchange is a public option, and it will be run by government -- however, it will be framed as private when it's not functioning properly, so that government can slowly mold it to what they orginally wanted.

More on the healthcare reform scam

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

WASHINGTON -- After days of secret talks, Senate Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday night to drop a full-blown government-run insurance option from sweeping health care legislation, several officials said, a concession to party moderates whose votes are critical to passage of President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

In its place, officials said Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage, with the possibility of greater government involvement if needed to ensure consumers of sufficient choices in coverage.

Additionally, the emerging agreement calls for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the 65-and-over population.

Dishonesty within government is running rampant, even moreso than usual. Anyone who's paid attention to the healthcare reform issue knows that a lot is at stake, so you would think politicians who have to answer to voters would be honest and make sure the public understands exactly what's happening with one sixth of the economy, and with something as personally, physically and psychologically important as their healthcare.

Yet, the Democrats are playing politics all the way, pretending they are listening to opposition to a public option and government intervention while going full-speed toward creating a structure which will insure government-run healthcare. When Democrats says they are providing more "competition", this is a code-word for government intervention. The State wants to control healthcare, so the State will insure that all its influence and power goes into destroying private insurance and herding the public into the gates of the government corrall.

When the Democrats say that "if" private insurance companies don't cooperate, the government will have to step in, then you can be assured circumstances will lead to government being "forced" to step in. If politicians were honest, they would tell the public they are devising the structure whereby they will take over healthcare, and that the only reason they aren't going directly to a single-payer system is that they don't think the nation is ready for it quite yet (anyone listening closely realizes they have said this -- it's just not reported by the main media) -- but they will manipulate what they set up to achieve single payer, government-run healthcare.

This is an insane game being played by grownups and I can't imagine anyone believing that government is primarily concerned with competition, lower costs and better healthcare. Their primary concern is establishing control of healthcare, and control is what any bill coming out of the congress will achieve.

The American people are showing some opposition, but the opposition is not widespread and diverse enough to stop this insanity. Those in society who call themselves liberals will have a lot to answer for when this healthcare monstrosity becomes a reality. This type of healthcare reform has been pushed by the left for decades, and now it's about to happen. It sickens me that people are calling themselves "liberals" while promoting one of the biggest State power-grabs in history. I will never call anyone else on the left a "liberal" unless they can prove they are actually liberal.

The word "liberal" has been perverted beyond recognition. And, I will stop using the term "progressive". I will call those on the left who have been pushing this statist agenda what they are -- statists or socialists -- they both mean the same thing.