To borrow a phrase “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to desire to be seen as reasonable … “
This is the thought that popped in my head as I read today’s editorial at National Review Online. I am reminded that Republicans have the uncanny ability to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory.
Last week the Senate decided to abandon the concept of ‘end of life counseling’ in its version of the healthcare bill. The debate around ‘end of life counseling’ has been ongoing for weeks but it was finally euthanized when the unemployed Sarah Palin dubbed them “Death Panels.” Days after her giving a name to the fear, Obama was at townhalls trying to downplay fears of “Death Panels.” Days after that they were removed from consideration. Any reasonable person would understand that the role that Palin’s purposeful hyperbole played in killing the provision and any conservative should be grateful. Unfortunately, the editorial staff at NRO is more interested in seeming reasonable than actually defeating aspects of the bill.
To conclude from these possibilities to the accusation that President Obama’s favored legislation will lead to “death panels” deciding whose life has sufficient value to be saved — let alone that Obama desires this outcome — is to leap across a logical canyon. It may well be that in a society as litigious as ours, government will err on the side of spending more rather than treating less. But that does not mean that there is nothing to worry about. Our response to Sarah Palin’s fans and her critics is to paraphrase Peter Viereck: We should be against hysteria — including hysteria about hysteria.
Apparently, to the editors at NRO, there is nothing more uncivil or unseemly than a position strongly held.
The irony of reading this editorial against hysteria, today of all days, should not be lost on any interested conservative. Were Palin and the protesters as reasonable as NRO would prefer we would not have had the “Death Panel” provisions removed from the bill on Friday and we would certainly not have the indications today that the Obama administration is ready to bail on a “public option” in order to get something passed. Remember, Republicans are in such a minority that there is absolutely nothing they could do to stop this, rather the hysterical masses with leadership from the unemployed Alaskan have gained the upper hand.
Now while I am happy about the apparent battle victories of the last few days, I am reminded that we are still a long way from winning the war and that when it comes to Republicans, the enemy is still us.
August 17, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Way to go for Sarah Palin! I'm glad she gave us a rallying point.
Just beware the recent backing off of the White House on the healthcare reform bill. Our President is a master of spin and is biding his time until we Americans forget about the legislation and he can pass it under our radar. It's all just a game…
August 17, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Hmmm, seniors mandated to be lectured about the cost effectiveness of dying.
And bureaucrats deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't.
Death panel seems like a pretty good description to me.
August 17, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Is this the same National Review that endorses Mitt Romney? Oh yeah, that one.
August 17, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Methinks much of this has to do with class-ism. The poly-syllabics at NRO don't like Sarah's working class aura.
I think they're already starting to miss Kathryn Lopez over there.
August 17, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I can't help but feel like all that is just a red herring. Sure, we spent the majority of our time arguing about death panels, but we still have the rest of the healthcare "reforms" to deal with.
I feel like they added those in there so they could "compromise" with the republicans and say, look, at least we're not having death panels!
August 17, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Working with the proposed version is like rearranging the deck chairs in the Titanic.
August 17, 2009 at 8:20 pm
As Sarah Palin herself said, it was the writings of Obama health advisor Ezekiel Emanuel as much as Section 1233 in the House bill that prompted her death panel remark. Dr. Emanuel addressed this in Sunday's Washington Post. He actually understands that there is a fundamental difference in the ethical principles he employs and those of his critics. The question is which set of principles will prevail.
August 17, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Sorry. The this should be the final link to my comment above.
August 18, 2009 at 12:32 am
Yeah, maybe the best thing to do is to ignore the elephants in the room, and let Sarah keep up the great work. Her unemployment IS my benefit! And anyone else's too who has aging parents or special needs members of their families. Keep giving the left hook Sarah, it's about time someone had the guts to take the kid gloves off!!!
August 18, 2009 at 1:45 am
"Death Panels" is hyperbole, but it is useful hyperbole in illustrating the truth.
Ramesh pointed to this fine post today showing exactly what Obama intended in his own words.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/08/obamas-talking-about-his-grandmother-again.html
August 20, 2009 at 9:02 am
The problem is not that NRO has a problem with strongly held positions. It is just dedicated to trying to engage in rational debate. They actually bothered to understand what the end of life counseling was and realized that describing it as a death panel was a gross distortion.
"Purposeful hyperbole" is useful in pointing out the absurd, but there is a point at which "purposeful hyperbole" just becomes a lie. I am a Catholic so I am a social conservative but I am not grateful that what should be a reasoned debate about how health care should be reformed is becoming a hyper emotional circus.
I love and admire Sarah Palin for the way she simply has to make any forthright statement which then causes the far left fringe to expose itself as the freak show that it is. In many ways she is what I hope the GOP becomes. The problem with Palin's description is that it confuses end of life counseling provision with the provisions for panels that would decide what procedures get covered under what circumstances. It boils down to either a lack of understanding of the Senate bill or a gross distortion of it. Which one of those things is good for the debate or good for Palin?