I know, big surprise. I stumbled across an article by Wendy Kaminer that illustrates how many on the left mistake their own assumptions and assertions for indisputable facts, delusions that poison any attempt to understand or even accurately analyze people on the right. Kaminer starts off complaining about town-hall protesters, apparently incorrectly assuming that they all represent conservative Republicans.
Having openly applauded, tacitly supported, or simply ignored the Bush/Cheney national security state and the unprecedented expansion of unaccountable executive power, the right wing now defends freedom against the spectre (and it is only a spectre) of universal health care?The idea of a Bush/Cheney "national security state" is nothing more than a leftist myth. If there was a national security state under Bush, we still have one. But I guess it's not a big problem now that Obama is in charge. Calling anything Bush did an "unprecedented expansion of executive power" just reveals historical ignorance. Bush's minor expansion of executive power pales compared to presidents such as Lincoln and FDR. And opposition or lack thereof to Bush's policies is irrelevant to whether someone is opposed to different current policies.
the fury directed at "Obamacare" is partly fueled by angst about cultural and demographic changes (from gay marriage to the emergence of a non-white majorityThe fury directed Obamacare is based on a dislike for the known, suspected, and feared provisions of Obamacare itself. Kaminer is basically just accusing opponents of racism and bigotry -- because that's a typical mode of argumentation on the left. It's much easier to demonize your opponents than actually deal with the substance of their arguments, or to recognize that your own positions could be mistaken or at least open to question.
it also reflects a very limited understanding of repression and the role of government in everyone's life.This assertion applies very well to Kaminer herself. This is a person who apparently doesn't understand that people oppose various aspects of Obamacare for differing reasons, or that conservatives are not opposed to all forms of government. She makes a big deal about the supposed paradox that conservatives support Medicare, a government program, while opposing the expansion of government control over health care at large. But there's no paradox. Kaminer doesn't even grasp the basics of conservatism -- in this case conserving an established institution while opposing radical change.
The rest of her article is more of the same false analogy about how conservatives supported the evil Bush/Cheney police state, yet fear Obama's health care initiatives, which of course she sees as innocuous at worst. Even accepting her ridiculous BDS-driven assertions and characterizations at face value reveals that she doesn't understand that people could possibly take a differing view of national security issues, and domestic policies such as health care. I guess it is just too difficult to grasp that someone could support certain restrictions on freedom in the interests of national security, while at the same time oppose encroachments on freedom in other areas. This is pretty amusing because the same leftists hysterically shrieking about a supposed loss of freedom caused by Bush's national security policies, couldn't care less about freedom when it comes to imposing tighter government controls on health care, industry, and almost every other aspect of people's lives.