Republicans have always specialized in running candidates that accept the most important premises of liberal governance and make themselves indistinguishable from their Democrat counterparts. They should patent their pale pastels, which blend in so effectively there is no discernable ink contrasting their talking points to Democrat policies.
In 2012, Republicans concocted a brilliant electoral plan. In a race fought over healthcare, they managed to nominate the only human being in America who implemented Obamacare before President Obama did. Now that the Democrat front-runner is Hillary Clinton, the original godmother of single-payer healthcare, Republicans are on the cusp of nominating the one man in the GOP who has long championed Marxist healthcare policies.
In case anyone thought Donald Trump has indeed undergone a cathartic change since deciding to run for president and is no longer promoting New York values, he wants everyone to know if you oppose universal healthcare, you don’t have a heart. Here is what he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos this morning:
We’re going to work with our hospitals. We’re going to work with our doctors. We’ve got to do something. You can’t have a — a small percentage of our economy, because they’re down and out, have absolutely no protection so they end up dying from, you know, what you could have a simple procedure or even a pill. You can’t do that. We’ll work something out. That doesn’t mean single payer. And I mean, maybe he’s got no heart. And if this means I lose an election, that’s fine, because, frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country. We can’t let them die on the sidewalks of New York or the sidewalks of Iowa or anywhere else.
Somehow Trump “opposes” Obamacare, but believes that if you don’t champion something similar to it you have no heart. He declined to defend “single-payer,” which he championed for years, but left out the fact that he praised Canada and Scotland’s dysfunctional Marxist system during one of the early presidential debates.
What’s worse than Trump’s support for the Democrat position on healthcare (wait, how is he going to debate Hillary again?) is the way he articulates this position. He uses the most antiquated tool in the Marxist/Alinsky shed, which is to play on emotions over intelligence, thereby achieving neither sound policy nor compassionate outcomes. Let’s not even discuss the constitutional powers of government; evidently that is never a factor with Trump.
Had Trump spent more time studying the government he seeks to run instead of pandering for the endorsements of Bob Dole and his less charismatic mini-me, Terry Branstad, The Donald would understand that we already spend hundreds of billions on Medicaid, S-Chip, and an array of state programs for those who would “die on the sidewalks” because they have no money. Medicaid alone will cost us $350 billion this year. The “dying on the sidewalk” Alinsky argument is a non-sequitur. The real question is what happens with the rest of us. Either we are all forced into single-payer, which has been Trump’s long-standing position. Or we are forced into something similar to Obamacare’s coverage mandates that he won’t specify. Here are the results of such a plan from my personal experience:
This is the outcome of a liberal “heart” in which no middle class family will be able to afford health insurance with dignity. When you pursue increased coverage at the expense of reducing costs you achieve neither objective. I can’t wait to see the premiums under Trump-care. Then again, under single-payer the problems will go much further than health insurance but will spill over to healthcare itself. Perhaps he will then take his rode show onto universal housing, college, and transportation.
Many of us who believe immigration is the single most important issue have tolerated Trump’s New York values on many critical issues so that we could engage in the long-overdue discussion of national sovereignty. But as Trump devotes less time to immigration (shocker!) and promotes one left-wing idea and talking point after another, the circus has come full circle. Moreover, doesn’t Trump’s Alinsky thought process on healthcare sound awfully similar to his immigration views he harbored prior to running for president?
“You have to give them a path and you have to make it possible for them to succeed…“You have to do that.”
“How do you throw somebody out that’s lived in the country for 20 years?…You just can’t throw them out.”
Again, it’s not just the positions he took in recent years that are problematic, it’s the way he expressed them. Trump’s comments are not taken out of context; they are clearly coming from a deep-rooted liberal intuition on the most critical issues facing our nation. You might even say they come from the “heart.”
As someone who has fought for national sovereignty over the past decade I can tell you there is no such thing as a politician who is to the left of Susan Collins on most issues but is somehow aligned with Jeff Sessions on immigration. If you believe that in your heart I have some property to sell you in Ciudad Juárez.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.