Over at Ricochet, Paul Rahe effectively destroys any argument that either Newt, or Mitt are genuinely conservative thinkers.
If I am right in my fears in this regard, the Tea Party impulse will dissipate; the Republican party will split; the Democrats will return in 2016; and 2012 will be seen in retrospect as just another bump in the long, gentle road leading us to soft despotism.
Even with their allegedly changed positions, they don't get it. As I've said, instinctually, they are big government progressives, failing to comprehend how their grand designs for alleged good government infringe upon individual liberty in new and unique ways. Paging Ann Coulter, who now appears to be as clueless as Mitt and Newt. More at link above.
Paul A. Rahe holds The Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western Heritage at Hillsdale College, where he is Professor of History.
The money left in our possession, however, is our own -- to do with as we please. It is in this that our liberty largely lies. Romneycare and Obamacare, with the individual mandate, changes radically our relationship vis-a-vis the government. The former presupposes that state governments have the right to tell us how we are to spend our own money, and the latter presupposes that the federal government has that right as well. Both measures are tyrannical. They blur the distinction between public and private and extend the authority of the public over the disposition of that which is primordially private. Once this principle is accepted as legitimate, there is no limit to the authority of the government over us, and mandates of this sort will multiply -- as do-gooders interested in improving our lives by directing them encroach further and further into the one sphere in which we have been left free hitherto.
Managerial progressives see only the end -- preventing free-riders from riding for free. And they ignore the collateral damage done by way of the means selected. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have no understanding of first principles. For both of these social engineers, citizens are subjects to be worked-over by the government for their own good. Both men are inclined to treat us as children subject to the authority of a paternalistic state under the direction of a benevolent and omniscient managerial class.
There is, however, this difference between Romney and Gingrich. The latter may or may not fully grasp why the Tea Party rose up against the individual mandate, but he recognizes that they did so, and he knows what is good for him -- so he has now backed away from the fierce advocacy of this despotic measure that once characterized his posture. The former is more stubborn. Politically, he is tone deaf. He seems constitutionally incapable of grasping the argument, he insists that the individual mandate is consistent with conservative principle, and he will not back off.
"She repeatedly passed up opportunities to ding Mitt Romney in the debates — a product, Rollins said, of preserving her options for sharing a ticket with him.
“There was some talk early on between her and her husband that she could end up as the vice presidential nominee,” Rollins said."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70950_Page3.html#ixzz1hyhlLZxE
Posted by: Ricky | Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 08:48 PM
Probably every word you wrote in your post is wrong. Paul Rahe is a moron, flip-flopping on issues such as this one (he wrote the opposite several years ago), and based on a quick survey of all the positions that Mitt Romney has taken (found for example at http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm) shows that he is not any sort of big government progressive. Oh, he's not perfect, but then neither was Reagan. He'll do, especially if tea party people get the right kind of people in Congress, and America will be improved, no thanks to you.
Posted by: A Conservative Teacher | Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM
With reference to the so-called "free riders" that the soft despots supposed want to "force to pay their share", one needs ask the question first "why do we have free riders to begin with?"
The answer is this: we have "free riders" to begin with because the social engineers like Mitt and Newt created them to begin with thru their government-enforced "compassion"!!!
Brillant ideas like the welfare state, forcing ERs to treat everyone, etc created the problem. So they create the monster and propose to "fix" the monster they created by taking away yet more of our Liberty and Money!
Brillant.....and they have the gall to call this "conservative" and Ron Paul "dangerous" lol
Posted by: Wylie E. Coyote | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 12:44 AM
Hey Wylie.......do a doobie man! LOL A Paulbot makes their appearance! Wait, I should say, "do a hooka pipe"! You muslim loving so called "libertarians". What a joke Ronny boy is. He's the perfect candidate for high school kids who are hopelessly naive.
Legal drugs dude! Woo-hoo!
Posted by: rssg | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 06:10 AM
rube paully is as dangerous as ofungus.
Party on stooges.
Posted by: sickofrinos | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 06:19 AM
"Paul Rahe is a moron..."
Well, hell. I guess you'd best put up your support for that blather.
And...personally...I'll take record over position papers any day.
When you do that, Mittens DOES show up as a Progressive. (See the period?)
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 07:12 AM
Just as a point of correction...
"free riders" don't exist because ERs have to treat people.
People got sick and injured before there were ERs, and some of them were unable to pay for their care. Before the state took the prerogative, people used to help each other via a thing quaintly called "charity"...or enlightened self-interest.
But the welfare state has enlarged the fraction of our population (which includes people here illegally) who have CHOSEN to ride free, and made that process much more likely by making it an "entitlement".
Many free-riders are not people of little means now, but people acting quite rationally in response to the distorted markets they see around them. A 28 yr old male with a good income can chose to put his money in snow-boarding instead of his own health and accident insurance, since he is assured he will be taken care of if...when...he is injured. His decision is totally rational, if morally lame.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 07:29 AM
"Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have no understanding of first principles."
--Paul A. Rahe
I would disagree here slightly. Mittens and Newt DO understand first principles...they just may not share the ones that define Conservative thinking.
It would be more accurate, perhaps, to say they "have no understanding of FOUNDING principles".
One of the things I admire Thomas Sowell for so much is his ability to never become confused in the thick of battle. As he considers very complex issues, he starts calmly from founding principles, and works forward from there.
Mark Steyn was saying just the other day that that trait was what made him a Rush listener, too.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 07:58 AM
I don't agree with this article. It is Mitt Romney doesn't understand of the principles because he tell so many lies on issues every day. Romney doesn't deserve to run again for the second time in a row. The conservatives and Tea Party will not vote for Romney. It is Karl Rove's fault. Just like exactly happened two years ago, when Sen. John McCain lost the election in 2008. If Donald Trump does run for President as Independent, I probably vote for him if Romney is the nominee. Romney can't beat Obama. The GOP is in big trouble and they need to have a clean house. It because of the conservatives don't have no home to go to anymore. The Rinos or Rockefeller Republicans need to leave the GOP and join the Democratic Party. The GOP is the home of the conservatives.
Posted by: m | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 08:59 AM
"The GOP is the home of the conservatives."
Those days are gone, Grandpa!
Conservatives...lazy, stupid conservatives, which is all of them, have only themselves to blame. They need to form their own party, like, 30 years ago. Time after time, they take the easy way out. They can all go to hell, worthless whiners and mammas boys that they are.
Posted by: Xiaoding | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 10:48 AM
"If I am right in my fears in this regard, the Tea Party impulse will dissipate; "
Corrrect. No leadership has emerged from the movement; America, it seems, is still in the process of learning it's lesson. There is no substitute for forming your own political party.
But, soft despotism, will rapidly change to hard despotism, and then a violent revolution will occur. It is the only way.
Posted by: Xiaoding | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM
If you are broke and you have cancer and you rob a bank, you go to prison where your cancer gets treated. Should we refuse to give the prisoner the needed medical care?
If your answer is that we should refuse, then your core values are way out of the mainstream of the society you are in, and your opinions about the issue are just noise.
If your answer is that the prisoner should be treated, then shouldn't we do the same for the broke but law abiding citizen with cancer?
Somebody has to pay for this. Modern medicine is much too expensive to be covered by charities. Much of the more expensive miraculous medicine we have today did not exist 50 years ago.
So how do we pay for it? If you do not have an answer, the individual mandate wins by default. Get an answer. Until you do, complaining about the mandate is just childish whining.
Posted by: Roland | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM
"Somebody has to pay for this. Modern medicine is much too expensive to be covered by charities. Much of the more expensive miraculous medicine we have today did not exist 50 years ago."
A stupid, unsupported...and unsupportable...set of false statements is not a rational argument.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 10:59 AM
Rags merely contradicts, never gives any reasons or evidence for support.
Posted by: Xiaoding | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 11:16 AM
That, of course, is a lie, dingy.
Can't you think of reasonssssss the statement I quoted is unsupportable?
Really...???
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Your mindless contradiction impresses no one but yourself.
Posted by: Xiaoding | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Huh.
So you can't think. Sad.
Well, I'll help you a little.
Are there no models of charitable outfits providing cutting-edge medicine for little or nothing?
Of course there are!
But is the demand for health care for the poor even in large part "cutting-edge"?
Of course NOT!
That is just a little taste of how STOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooid Roland's little BS bomb was.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 01:28 PM
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/29/fisker-officially-recalls-karma-over-battery-safety-issue/
So...
sparky DeLorean is having problems, too. The Green Goo car for the 1%.
More taxpayer money shot to hell by East German style central planning.
Heckuva job, Barry...!!!
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 02:18 PM
"Are there no models of charitable outfits providing cutting-edge medicine for little or nothing?
Of course there are!"
And you know perfectly well they are are just filling gaps in a (broken) system that carries the overwhelming bulk of the financial burden.
"But is the demand for health care for the poor even in large part "cutting-edge"?
Of course NOT!"
Do you really want to pretend that because most treatments are still at the level of stitches and penicillin, we can ignore the massive increase in total costs due to triple bypass surgeries and dialysis machines and liver transplants?
Posted by: Roland | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 02:23 PM
"And you know perfectly well they are are just filling gaps in a (broken) system"
No. I know they are performing a role that they held BEFORE BIG GOVERNMENT broke the system.
The "massive increases" you pretend are attributable to MASSIVE market distortions IMPOSED by BIG GOVERNMENT.
For models, look at Lasik, plastic surgery, and veterinary medicine.
Dummy.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 02:36 PM
Okay. I give up.
We can just ignore that modern medicine has a basic, underlying, unavoidable cost that is vastly greater than the costs of stitches and penicillin.
So let's pretend. That always makes for good politics and policy.
Posted by: Roland | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 02:48 PM
"We can just ignore that modern medicine has a basic, underlying, unavoidable cost that is vastly greater than the costs of stitches and penicillin."
Another STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid attempt at misdirection.
Nobody BUT YOU said any such thing.
Nobody BUT YOU suggested we ignore anything REAL, liar.
"Unavoidable cost"...!?!?! You have NO idea WTF you are talking about.
So...for you...giving up is an EXCELLENT idea.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 02:58 PM
Rags, when you got booted from MM I was one of the guys who said I thought it was unfair.
I was wrong. You are nothing but a stupid, antagonistic jerk.
Posted by: Roland | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 03:05 PM
Let's start at "first principles", just to honor the base post by Dan...
Roland believes that there are "free goods". This is a delusion held by most ignorant Collectivist boobs, and it is refuted by one of the most basic laws of economics.
Charity cannot pay for medical needs, but BIG GOVERNMENT compulsion CAN.
Just toy with that. Turn it over in your mind, and see how MANY ways it is not just wrong but really moronic.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 03:06 PM
Sorry you can't deal with the challenge to your delusions, Roland.
I'm a 'orrible, 'orrible man, I know... I just suffer stupid rather poorly. Call it a flaw...
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 03:20 PM
"Roland believes that there are "free goods". This is a delusion held by most ignorant Collectivist boobs, and it is refuted by one of the most basic laws of economics."
The individual mandate is precisely about recognizing someone has to pay for it.
Posted by: Roland | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 03:41 PM
Pay for WHAT, Roland?
See, this is ALSO one of your root delusions.
Take your "prisoner" BS. First, the prisoner is a FLUCKING PRISONER. We have to feed him, too.
But does he get prime rib roast? Not for my money.
Do we have an obligation to provide him a liver transplant? I would argue we do not.
Under state health care, you CANNOT provide free goods to people. SO treatment WILL be...MUST BE...rationed.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 03:48 PM
"Under state health care, you CANNOT provide free goods to people. SO treatment WILL be...MUST BE...rationed."
It appears you think the individual mandate is the same thing as single payer. It is not. The individual mandate is simply the requirement individuals be prepared to pay for their possible future medical treatment. It becomes necessary because the society we are in will otherwise rob you and me for the money necessary to pay for the deadbeat's treatment.
Obamacare is a perversion of the individual mandate, a near perfect model of how not to do it. They did it that way on purpose, so that it would fail and they could shove single payer down our throats.
Posted by: Roland | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 04:21 PM
No. I understand what ObamaCare is. What I said applies.
Read your second paragraph carefully. What you suggest is that we codify the "robbery" to benefit the "deadbeat". We formalize it, bureaucratize it.
In doing that, we convert free people to wards of the state. Those are just the broad strokes, and there are too many other AWFUL implications and policy requirements to even attempt to deal with here.
What I advocate is that MOST ALL OF US be expected to act as intelligent, responsible, self-governing people. History shows us that we WILL help those who really cannot help themselves.
This is simply...though not easily...done. By removing the LEGION market distortions in health provision, and letting the market work its magic in this area as it does wherever it is allowed to function. See computer, personal, etc.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 04:36 PM
"What you suggest is that we codify the "robbery" to benefit the "deadbeat"."
It is already codified. I am for minimizing the distortions.
Posted by: Roland | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 06:28 PM
You need to give up again, Roland. A practice is not a legal code.
Posted by: Ragspierre | Friday, December 30, 2011 at 06:31 PM