George W. Bush was criticized constantly for sticking to his principles in the war in Iraq. As public opinion for the war declined, many accused Bush of stubbornness and unwillingness to concede to public opinion. It seems some of the same liberals who criticized Bush for standing on principle have something in common with their counterpart, as many of them refuse to drop the unpopular public health care option. Cue the mainstream media critique…
Except this time, the mainstream media is condoning such adherence to principle, trying to carry liberal Democrats to the finish line. Paul Krugman is challenging Reaganism, as he laments how free market principles are hurting the chances of nationalizing health care. E.J. Dionne is desperately trying to save President Obama’s credibility by saying he kept the economic crisis from getting worse.
While some on the left are trying to help the Democrats save face, many are pushing a government takeover of health care despite the public opposition and despite the potential consequences for many in their own party (much like Bush and Iraq). Some of the same people who criticized President Bush for not conceding to public sentiment are now criticizing the public for not conceding to government.
Why is it okay for liberal Democrats to stick to a principle that is unpopular while a Republican president is criticized for the same practice? We all know the answer, but that is not the point. The point is that many liberals are openly showing who they really are, and in doing so are creating a clear contrast between the political ideologies represented by the two parties.
One party openly wants the government to expand authority and control health care choices, energy costs, the cars we drive, etc. The other believes in the principles that Paul Krugman finds so horribly wrong, which promote individual control of consumer choices. Let’s be clear: Today’s Democrat leadership is partisan and ideological. While one could say the same about Republicans, that just means that having an ideology is not grounds for criticism of one party over another.
Because there is nothing wrong with believing in principle, we shouldn’t criticize liberals for their stubborn stance. If politicians want to risk their political careers and those of their party members to protect an ideal, that is their choice. What we should be more concerned about are the principles themselves, and not the adherence to them.
Voters are tasked with choosing by which principles we want our government to abide. That choice is currently being laid out nicely, unlike in the 2008 election, where many on the left did their best to disguise their true intentions. If you didn’t know what those intentions were then, you do now.
Many liberals simply loathe George W. Bush, but they are showing some similarity to him with their principled stance on health care reform. Republicans can expose the left by attacking the principles, not the hypocrisy of standing for them.
0 Responses to “When Having Principle Was a Bad Characteristic”