Skip to content

Diffusing violence…can we still do it?

June 27, 2017

That depends a lot on whether we really want to diffuse it.

In yesterday’s post, a man was quoted registering his distaste for the “all politics, all the time” tenor of the healthcare debate.

He wasn’t alone. If every person with something to say on that issue had been quoted, you would still be reading Monday’s piece.

At about the same time the post went live, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on the so-called travel ban, basically upholding the President’s legal and Constitutional right to regulate who gets into the country, at least over this limited time frame.

Between healthcare and the travel ban, the Twitter-verse lit up like a Roman candle. Nancy Pelosi went on another over-the-top rant, and liberals everywhere blamed Neil Gorsuch, and by association President Trump, for the vote on the travel ban, apparently not noticing that the vote was 9-0. Late night “not-comics” and the left-wing media tried to make it all about Trump’s Supreme Court pick.

At the other end of the spectrum, one  man responded to the SCOTUS decision with just two words…”F-ing A.”

Perhaps it’s just that the rhetoric has never been turned down by either side since the election, but to put it mildly, people are pissed.

The reason the quote was chosen yesterday was because the gentleman sees that we need a way to effect change without triggering real shootouts when people get together to “discuss” their differences.

The left seems to actually want all-out violence.  Either that, or they are just so in love with their own voices that they don’t see the danger.

For those of us who have seen this exact same climate erupt into street warfare in the 1960’s and ’70s, we know that it takes a long time to get basically law-abiding people to decide to answer violence with violence, but once that line is crossed, blood runs in the streets.

Believe it, folks. Liberals bleed real blood too.

We’re not talking about simple disgust with brain-dead has-been actors, no-talent comedians, and stupid politicians here, or a generational clash between youth and the old fogeys.

There is a very real sense that the survival of our representative democracy hangs in the balance.

There are numerous living laboratories illustrating the fallacy of liberal governments ever making things better and we aren’t talking Greece here. There are examples a lot closer to home.

The state of Illinois has long been run by liberals, and they’ve finally run it into the ground. The unthinkable has happened. They’ve run out of Other People’s Money.

Facing almost insurmountable debt and mass exoduses of citizens and businesses, you now have someone suggesting, apparently in total seriousness, that the state should be carved up and awarded to its geographical neighbors.

The column in the Chicago Tribune by John Kass proposes the unthinkable (and probably unworkable) solution for the bankrupt state of dumping the problem on its neighbors. How very liberal of him.

Just throw Illinois away.  Wow. Now there’s a real window into life under liberals.

There is of course another solution for being in the hole. Stop digging.

Bite the bullet and admit that for the foreseeable future, the state MUST redefine necessity and allocate all of its discretionary revenues toward paying it’s overdue pension and vendor bills, and not to trying to create Utopia.

Even California has had to admit that they have no way of paying for universal government owned healthcare even for their own state.

The proof of the impracticality of central government planning is all around us, if we care to examine it.

It’s getting the left to accept the evidence in front of their faces that’s the real problem. To them, there is always more money out there somewhere, if they can just manage to corral enough of it.

Unfortunately, at some point there just isn’t any more OPM money. Liberals and conservatives alike need to heed that truism.

At some point the government trough will run dry, if the country proceeds with the policies of the last two or more decades.

That brings us to the current universal healthcare debate. No one wants to be “mean”  but Medicaid was never designed to be a national insurance plan.

At some point, the economy is supposed to improve enough that most of the able-bodied people on expanded Medicaid can earn enough to pay for health insurance that they want and that fills their needs.

By any of the ordinary laws of finance, that should free up more money for those that really need help without increasing the amount of money by a few dozen billion a year.

Obamacare and indeed any mandatory coverage program takes that choice away. That’s the crux of the argument over “essential” benefits.

Not everyone needs ob-gyn services. In fact, more than half the population doesn’t need them, based on age and gender alone. They should be available, but not mandatory.

On the right is the idea that if you need more services due to age or physical condition, that is somehow always your fault. Thus you get people paying five times more than their younger counterparts because they can’t escape the inevitable consequences of aging.

Another factor is the mismanagement of government giveaway programs like college loans. Many of our younger population can’t even afford their student loan payments, much less pay for any more than the most basic catastrophic health insurance coverage.

That situation was almost solely created by the left, and bought into by the right in an effort not to be “mean.”

Between educational elitism that teaches that there are only a relative handful of expensive colleges worth attending, pushing degrees that have no relationship to earning money  in the real world, and creating a national entitlement mindset, two entire generations have all but lost their real-life survival skills.

That’s regrettable, but it doesn’t mean that the situation can or should continue.

In so many ways, a lot of the divisions that are tearing the fabric of our society apart were created by people that didn’t want to be “mean.” Their intentions were good, but woefully shortsighted.

The left equates common sense with meanness. The right thinks that what’s really mean is creating an artificial world that cannot forever repeal the laws of survival.

That’s a huge chasm to bridge, and money alone won’t build that bridge. That reality is breeding a state of frustration that will or perhaps already has already ignited a national fuse, and a short one at that.

Hopefully someone finds a way to pull the fuse, i.e. the inflammatory rhetoric,  before it reaches the blasting cap, but time is short.

From → op-ed

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: