Stop the Obamacare Insanity: Pass the 2015 healthcare bill.

The fallout of the AHCA crash and burn has seen some talk of moving left, but do they realise this the reason for failure in the first place? Leftist ideology is the underlying issue of Obamacare and anything short of repeal will a worst case scenario with the GOP being blamed for leaving this fiscal and social affliction in place. Repeal is the only sane choice at this point at this point in time.

Back when the Democrats forced Obamacare on the nation it should have been obvious that this was merely a stepping stone to national Socialized medicine. The Left made it clear in their words and deeds that they wanted socialist single payer, and the collapse of that dysfunctional monstrosity will push the nation further left with the added advantage for them that they can now blame it on Conservatives.

Over the weekend there were some who spoke of working with the nation’s socialist Left in solving the problem they caused in the first place. The main issue of the AHCA was that it in essence already took up the underlying assumptions and ideology of the Left and the reason it failed to garner any support.

At this point in time we only have three stark choices:

1) Leave the fiscal monstrosity of Obamacare in place in the vain hope that when it implodes as planned we can achieve a soft landing in the midst of chaos. This is predicated on the questionable belief that our side will have sufficient political capital at a later time to repeat the current process and avoid the left forcing socialist single party upon the nation.

2) Knuckle under to the nation’s socialist left and cut a deal that will see the same result as option number #1.

3) Take the legislation that was already agree upon and get it passed. It was reported this weekend from Andrea Ruth at Redstate that A Replica of the Successful 2015 Obamacare Repeal Is Languishing in Committee.

The trend of an impending Obamacare failure has been clear and admitted to by Trump and others. And it should be equally obvious that the inevitable result of options 1 & 2 will be the imposition of single payer on the nation at the behest of those who ostensibly oppose socialist schemes such as that. It is axiomatic that one’s political capital is at it’s maximum in the beginning of a term and diminishes over time, therefore it is imperative that this is accomplished now rather than later.

What could be worse for the GOP and Trump than to put in place national socialized medicine? Not only would they be eviscerating the solemn promises they made over 7 years, but it would see the imposition of something even more appalling than Obamacare.

Repealing Obamacare was the raison d’état for the GOP the last 7 years. This is why we voted for them and the reason they are in power today. To put it bluntly, if they cannot accomplish this task why on God’s green earth did we ever support those people? And why should we even consider supporting them ever again?

There is ONLY one choice: Pass the 2015 healthcare bill.

Comrades, it’s time to celebrate #VenezuelaHour!

Celebrate #VenezuelaHour in-place of #EarthHour to fully comprehend what the EcoSocialists would like to impose on the people of the earth.

Once again it’s that time of year where the Socialists of every nation illustrate what their horrific ideology would actually be like in practice with #EarthHour. But one only has to look at the “Worker’s Paradise™” of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to see their plans in full flour.

So instead of traditional celebration #VenezuelaHour will simulate the abject horror of living under the Left’s Socialist National agenda. However, one cannot get the full impact of this short a time span. The garbage eating contest would take up the better part of that time at best, but this is just to get the flavor of things.

Some suggestions to kick off the festivities:

First off there is the previously mentioned Venezuela version of “Recycling”, Searching through a dustbin trying to find some edible bits and chowing down – Yum! What better way to pretend to be one with Gaia but by eating that which is destined for a landfill in a place where “recycling” isn’t just a frivolous activity but a way to stay alive.

Forget about driving given that petrol is unavailable in a nation with the world’s largest oil reserves. One can only marvel at the special level of genius that it took to mess up the system to the point of requiring the importation of gasoline in an oil rich nation, but Nicholas Maduro was up to the task, Bravo Comrade!

Then there is the queuing up for hours to buy food and having it spoil when the power fails. And remember that bakery products are strictly regulated under the #MaduroDiet guidelines.

There is also the celebration of gun control – always a favorite of the “Colectivos” – where one can revel in the crime free paradise of Caracas (with strict people control) and dodge bullets merely trying to find something to eat.

And last but certainly not least, there are the wonders of #MaduroCare. The sheer horror of national Socialized medicine cannot be simulated but over the span of days in hospital. Who needs those newfangled contraptions and technologies from the 19th century anyway?

Meanwhile those of us celebrating the supreme benefits of liberty and the free market will be sure to turn on every light possible in our humble abodes as a way of ‘highlighting’ what those principles have brought to the world. We don’t have to live in the dark because freedom has illuminated the way forward.

[The requisite /sarcasm tag has been left out of this commentary as a way of reducing our carbon footy print – much like turning off the lights in a TV studio or have the background of a search engine coloured black]

Constructing the Linear Political Spectrum/Compass Part IV

“In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedomfascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.” Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard

Some definitions ideological terms are rife with internal contradictions, it is for this reason an extended discussion is necessitated when these are the subject. In the case of the term fascism, some of the internal definitions of the word need to be briefly addressed. For this reason we will use three references to set these terms in its proper place on the ideological scale

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term fascism:

“extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices”

How does one reconcile the pairing of “extreme right-wing” with “authoritarian”?

Please note how the  Oxford English dictionary defines the term Conservatism [that equates to right wing]:

(in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.

And how it contradicts with how the Oxford English dictionary defines the term authoritarian

“Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom”

The Merriam Webster dictionary doesn’t have this internal contradiction.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term fascism

“a political philosophy, movement, or regime…… that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”

In addition to these references, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines the term fascism:

“there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of general characteristics that fascist movements between 1922 and 1945 tended to have in common.”

“some observers have noted significant similarities between fascism and Soviet communism.”

Note that these two of these references do not mention the severe inconsistency of the term “extreme right-wing” directly paired with the term “authoritarian”. They do not state the tremendous incongruity of limited government conservatism connected with the requirement of an immense government necessitated by authoritarianism. These severe incongruities emphasize the bias in the formulation of some definitions, fortunately there are other references that are not rife with these inconsistencies.

Referring to the Encyclopedia Britannica on Totalitarianism:

“government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government.”

And

“Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to describe the new fascist state of Italy”

Clearly fascism is synonymous with totalitarianism and the polar opposite of limited government.  Thus we place this political ideology in the numerical range of 100 – 80.

The question arises as to why this term is not situated on the political spectrum on the ‘Far-Right’. The fundamental answer is that it does not belong there.

We Refer back to the basic principles that under modern ideological conditions the Right favours diminished governance while the Left favours increased governance. Moving Right signifies less government and this is incompatible  with any type of authoritarian ideology. This incongruity arises no matter where one might wish to arbitrarily place this or other ideologies on the scale.

It should be obvious that an authoritarian ideology would have a high numerical quantification in governmental power. Thus placing it in proximity to the ideologies of an extremely low quantification would result in a severe discontinuity. It should be obvious  that certain ideologies require the utilization of immense quantities of governmental power. One cannot control the economy and the people without an attendant bureaucracy of immense proportions. This despite the bait and switch of the sales pitch that these ideologies will result in the state ‘withering away’.

For example, placing it to the right of anarchy (0) would necessitate the discontinuity of scale trending from zero to the high quantitative value of an authoritarian ideology. This would be the case no matter where an authoritarian ideology was placed in relation to limited government and thus low quantification ideologies.

Then, as referred to previously, there are ideological terminology’s that are extremely vague and inchoate that merely refer to other terms that are extremely vague and inchoate. And ironically, those terms refer to that actually refers to the verb senses ‘restore (peace)’ and ‘bring back to the original condition’

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term progressivism:

“Support for or advocacy of social reform.”

Similarly the Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term progressive:

“one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action”

With equally vague specifications. Thus, one must the quantification’s of allies (or socialis in Latin) of those of the Socialist Left ( 70 – 60) in an attempt to place this political ideology on the scale.

The term Liberal is similarly all over the map as it were.

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term liberal:

“(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term liberal

“ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.”

A closer examination of this term reveals that it too is contradictory in nature. And in many ways Liberalism could be placed at two different points on the scale. Quantifying the ideology in terms of the classical sense of the word, one could rightly place in next to Conservatism. But other parts of the definition should place it in left field with the Socialist – Left and Progressives in the numerical range of (70 – 60)

It is for this reason that we use the term Socialist – Left instead of the that internally contradictory and vague terminology to label the Left

Video: Loch Ness Socialism

The Loch Ness Monster is a “cryptid” — something rumored to exist but without actual proof. The Socialist Utopia of the progressives is a cryptid too. In his latest Firewall, Bill Whittle shows why Good Socialism, like the Loch Ness Monster, is a giant, air-breathing creature that (conveniently!) NEVER COMES UP FOR AIR.

Constructing the Linear Political Spectrum/Compass Part III

“In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom – fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.” Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard

In the linear political spectrum the Right signifies less government, the Left more government. The scale runs from zero (0) to one hundred (100). The end and middle points are set by the easily quantified Ideological terms anarchism [zero 0], Totalitarianism [One Hundred 100] and Center or Moderate [Fifty 50].

As can be seen, some ideological definitions are easily quantified and positioned. Others have to be quantified within a reasonable range and placed on the scale. A third type are decidedly vague in principle or internally contradictory and thus it is difficult to numerically determine these ideological terms. It also should be noted that over time certain groups tend to gravitate to these ideologically vague terms. Most of the spectrum can be constructed with the first two types, while the third positioned within the ranges previously determined.

There are many cases where the ranges of the ideological terms overlap on the scale, thus logically follows from the fact that many are very similar to each other. It will also be seen that many of these ideological terms will be stacked up in certain areas.

Certain ideological groups perennially attempt to recast themselves with new or varying self-labeling terminology. These “New and Improved” political groups usually seek to leave failure behind with an altered name whilst advocating the same base ideology. Thus they tend to always be clustered in one area of the political spectrum. This is exemplified by the myriad of synonyms for the various collectivist ideologies. In these cases, these different ideological terms do not vary in the metric of the scale.

Libertarianism signifies minimal governance and therefor is placed at the Right end of the scale with a numerical value in the range of [Ten (10) to Twenty (20)]. Conservatism is rightfully placed in line next with a generalised numeric range of [Twenty (20) to Thirty (30)].

The ideological range of the Socialist – Left was previously determined to be about fifty (50) to one hundred (100). This can be further narrowed down by the examination of the definition of the term Socialism.

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term socialism:

“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

And

“(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term socialism:

“a system of society or group living in which there is no private property”

“a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”

Given that these definitions specify immense levels of government control and portend the transition to the authoritarian realms of Communism, this ideological range of this term can be narrowed down even further towards the higher end of the scale from seventy (70) to one hundred (100)

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term authoritarianism:

“The enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term authoritarianism:

concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people”

Clearly these definitions set a numerical range close to that of totalitarianism [100] on the scale within a generalised range of 100 – 90

By the same token Communism can also be similarly placed at the top end of the scale in a generalised range of 100 – 90

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term Communism:

“In this form of communism it was held that the state would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system. In practice, however, the state grew to control all aspects of communist society.”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term Communism:

“a theory advocating elimination of private property”

“a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

This generalised range of 100 – 90 would also apply to the term statism.

The term statism is defined by the Oxford English dictionary:

“A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs”