 |
| Paul Krugman |
The Tea Party has revealed itself for the fascist movement that it is. The NAACP provided ample research that the movement was racist. Among other things, the Nazis were racists. But their racism was just one indicator of their backward misanthropic beliefs. They don't just hate people of color. They don't like people who are not " just like" them. They have no humanitarian compassion. They are selfish. But more importantly, they believe that might is right. An essential characteristic of white supremacy is its "iron fist" fascist tendencies. How else could lynching and Jim Crow be explained? Being intolerant is not limited to the issue of race. At the CNN-Tea Party debate this past week, the audience cheered at all of the wrong times. They cheered when Governor Rick Perry defended the 235 executions that have taken place during his tenure as Governor. Even more, they cheered when Congressman Ron Paul, in response to a question about what should be the fate of a young (white) male in a coma but no health insurance? Should there not be a safety net, provided by the government? Should he be just left to die??? Congressman Paul said the young man had made his choice and that the government had no role in providing him support. To the amazement of host Wolf Blitzer, the cheers from the audience were in enthusiastic support for the notion that he was "free to die!!!" Columnist Paul Krugman explores the real meaning of Ron Paul's and the Tea Parties' stance on Americans being "Free to Die." RGN
Free to Die
By
PAUL KRUGMAN
Back in 1980, just as America was
making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the
change with the famous TV series “Free to Choose.” In episode after episode,
the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice
and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald
Reagan.
But that was then. Today, “free to
choose” has become “free to die.”
I’m referring, as you might guess,
to what happened during Monday’s G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose
not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months
of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking
your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should
just let him die.”
And the crowd erupted with cheers
and shouts of “Yeah!”
The incident highlighted something
that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this
point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.
Now, there are two things you should
know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed
in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted
doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received
the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by
the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy. People who can’t afford
essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes
they die as a result.
The second is that very few of those
who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer’s hypothetical
individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most
uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are
rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions.
1 comment:
cartier love
Post a Comment