A few days ago, the center-right columnist Kathleen Parker presented her stark judgment about what Obama desires:
In other words, Republicans oppose Obama’s policies, not the man, because they believe the president will so inexorably change the structure of our social and economic system by mandating and punishing human behavior that nothing less than individual freedom is at stake. Under present circumstances, this hardly seems delusional. Does anyone really believe that subsidized policyholders with pre-existing conditions won’t eventually face other mandates and penalties related to their lifestyle choices?
At Restoration Weekend, from which I returned yesterday, luncheon speaker Monica Crowley told the audience that she suspects what the president intended was to pave the way for complete socialized medicine, to be created as a single-payer system after the existing ACA fails. As she put it in her blog, referring to Obama’s continued lower poll ratings,
Of course, Obama doesn’t care much about any of this, for two reasons: 1) he’s not running for re-election, and 2) he’s only interested in the “fundamental transformation of the nation” toward full-blown socialism/statism/dependency—of which socialized medicine is the cornerstone. That’s his end-game, and nothing—I repeat, nothing—will stop him from achieving his goal.
I believe that Crowley is correct. That is why it is so important that in 2014 Republicans not blow the possibility of taking both houses of Congress because they are waging a useless fight against the faction that one side or the other disagrees with in our own ranks.
Moreover, Sean Trende, one of the best of political observers, warns us that in the long run it is hardly certain that Obama’s low polls mean that liberalism has seen its waning days. Differing with others, including Charles Krauthammer, Trende makes a strong argument that such an overblown prognosis comes way too early. His overview of the American past shows that just as it seemed that one party or the other was doomed to permanent defeat, a changed situation allowed it to rebound and once again elect either a tough conservative or the equivalent left-liberal to dominate politics for another long set of years. He ends with these wise words of warning: “Obamacare’s collapse wouldn’t be a good thing for liberalism. It wouldn’t even be neutral. But it wouldn’t be the end of the liberal ideology, either.”
For such a result — to use the words of the late Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci — we need to wage a war of position, and to challenge the ideological hegemony of liberalism and liberal ideology. That means we must challenge the entire culture of liberalism in its most basic sense, and provide conservative alternatives to the entire set of liberal bromides that are continually put forth. It means we have to wage a fight in the universities, in the entertainment industry, and throughout the culture at large. This will eventually lead to victory in the electoral arena.
But in the meantime, let us start by working hard to keep the House and take the Senate in 2014 — two necessary goals to begin the job of repealing ObamaCare and creating a solid conservative alternative that would address the problem of health care for the currently uninsured, and that would not be the stepping-stone to a single-payer system.