Paradigm Shift

While we have seen evidence in the past of the schism between the right and the left, it has never become as clear and defined as it has during the debate on Obamacare and nationalized health care in general. It often strikes me as amazing how people can look at the same question in the same setting and come up with such different answers. Clearly there is a difference in the base definitions that the two sides are using and how they see the world. I was listening to a radio program the other day that helped me understand it. It was a right wing radio host interviewing a left wing book author and the host asked if he supported Obamacare. Predictably the answer was yes, but it was the reason why that was interesting. The author said he believed that it was part of doing what the US Constitution prescribed, to provide for the common welfare. The radio host corrected him and quoted the correct language, that the government is to PROMOTE the common welfare, but it had no effect on the author. That an author, someone who makes their living with words, would completely disregard the differences between “provide” and “promote” is perhaps a ponter as to why people who read the constitution see issues differently than those who interpret the constitution, such as the book author in this interview. (Link to the US Constitution is in the upper right corner if you would like to see it.)

The definitions…
Promote: contribute to the progress or growth of
Provide: give something useful or necessary to

Synonyms for these words……
Promote:Advance, Boost, Further, Encourage
Provide: Supply, Render, Furnish

If, and this is another question, the American people decide that it is in the general welfare for everyone to have health insurance, the governments role is not to provide it, but rather to encourage it and help it become available. Nothing in the constitution says anything about taxing everyone to provide heath insurance to those that don’t have it.

There are examples of the government looking out for the general welfare in a positive way. The interstate highway system in an excellent example of the government promoting the general welfare. This system opened up opportunities across the country, single handedly creating new industries and jobs. (Not without a cost however. It also brought about the demise of the local economy since it was now just as fast and even cheaper to buy from across the country) In the early history of the United States this clause in the constitution was used to promote the growth of the country and providing it’s citizens with opportunities through actions such as the Lousiana Purchase and other land annexations that eventually redefined the United States’ borders.

On the other side we have examples of the government providing for the common welfare and they are all disasters. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Public Housing, the list of failures is as long as the list of attempts. I would prefer that the federal government start to act on the issues that the constitution requires, securing the borders from terrorists and illegal entry, defense and insuring our freedoms are protected and apply to every citizen. Leave the rest to us, the States and the People.