The Liberal convolution

LARRY ANDERSON
Larry Anderson

When Trump launched “repeal and replace” Obamacare, I was supportive but skeptical. Need is not the same as can do.

It is very difficult to repeal existing law which explains the left’s rush to nourish its sprawling octopus. The more tentacles it has, the more complicated it is to detach them from the body upon which it has glommed.

Initially, Obamacare was 2700 pages of partisan dysfunction. It has since grown exponentially in pages, cost and despair. Today, this panacea for health care is held together by the left’s political determination and disregard for public contempt.

How is it possible that something this misleading, inadequate and expensive can still stand?

Charles Krauthammer of the big brain shed light in a recent column: “The genius of the left is to keep enlarging the entitlement state by creating giveaways that are politically impossible to repeal.

“People hated Obamacare for its highhandedness, incompetence and cost. At the same time its crafters took great care to create new beneficiaries and new expectations. Which makes repeal very complicated.”

There you have it. The more Obamacare grows, the more power it has. The more power it has, the less likely it is to be fixed significantly. Instead, it becomes more expensive and less responsive.

You will recall Obamacare began with little public opposition because everyone knew health care needed repair. Liberals exploited the situation they helped create, propagandized their push for alleged reform, and dismissed alarm-sounding Republicans because libs had the numbers they needed to get it passed. Obamacare is exclusively a liberal dog.

Nothing has changed, at this point, due to the liberal trouncing in the recent election. The left is hanging on to its failure even as health care flounders.

Understand, for the left, good health care is secondary to its socialist mission. Therefore, total repeal of Obamacare is a daydream. Hope instead for someday amendments that will reduce costs and speed care and efficiency. Support those as they emerge while observing zero assistance from liberals.

Liberal Susan Estrich described another liberal message in a recent column. Said she, speaking of Trump: “Our undaunted leader…issued another travel ban that was greeted with precisely the same reaction as the first–widely attacked as unconstitutional, racist, ineffective, harmful to the United States, unfair to people around the world, reinforcing of stereotypes and alienating toward law-abiding Muslim Americans on whom we must depend to keep us safe.”

Like most of the liberal outcry, Estrich’s is false. Here’s why:

First, Trump has not issued a travel ban. He proclaimed by executive order a temporary hold against those entering the country for up to 90 days so all travel applicants from six Middle-Eastern countries could be thoroughly vetted before being allowed in. People who aren’t threats won’t be kept out.

The judges placing holds on the immigration stop are liberals from liberal judicial districts in liberal states. Just saying.

When Estrich stated Trump’s measure was “widely attacked,” she is referring to those on the left who attack everything Trump does. Actually, support for better security via closer investigation of potential entrants is well supported. Who doesn’t want to be as safe as possible?

“Unconstitutional” is based on the opinion of two judges, not the Supreme Court which makes the final ruling on Constitutional challenges. I am certain Estrich knows the Constitution is applicable to citizens and those who may be abiding here, not those who haven’t stepped foot on American soil, terrorists or not. Estrich is misleading her readers.

Ours is a national constitution, not a world one.

“Racist” is corporeal to leftist accusation, but terrorist issues are grounded in political and religious issues, not race. Wanting to be safe doesn’t make anyone a racist.

“Ineffective” how? The travel stop is not ineffective if vetting keeps dangerous people out. It has to be tried first, doesn’t it, before its effectiveness can be measured?

“Harmful to the United States…” how? Fully vetted visitors/immigrants will be allowed in. “Harmful” is when someone poorly vetted blows something up. Economically harmful? We won’t notice.

“Unfair to people around the world…” Who exactly? Estrich didn’t say. Her point is meaningless.

“Reinforcing of stereotypes…” I assume Estrich means the left’s laughable concern that all Muslims will be stereotyped as terrorists. Who thinks that besides no one?

“Alienating law-abiding Muslim Americans on whom we must depend to keep us safe…”

Get it? Muslims aren’t really a threat; they are actually our source of security.

Incredible. That is convoluted even for a liberal.

Larry W. Anderson is a retired educator, author, and lifelong Northwest Missourian.