Have you noticed how the debate over ObamaCare has shifted? First, it was the lie that Obama told about keeping our insurance policies and doctors. This lie was told to get ObamaCare passed. It was admitted to be a lie by the media – at first.
Then liberals figured out that accusing the President of lying was not a good thing for their careers. So he didn’t really lie; he oversold the program. He should have been more precise, but we can’t say he actually lied, certainly not on purpose. President Obama would never intentionally lie to the American people.
Now we’re being told that it’s a good thing that you and I may lose our original policies because what the government is forcing us to do – even though it costs more and may be what we don’t want – is really a better insurance policy.
This new narrative is designed to cover up the falsehood of the first and second narratives. This is the way liberals work, and it’s not just in politics.
Al Gore pushed Global Warming until Global Warming couldn’t be supported empirically, so the designation shifted to “Climate Change.” Any change in weather patterns can now be attributed to human action. Anything we do can now be said to contribute to “Climate Change” – even breathing and cow burping.
Even with all the disputed empirical evidence, President Obama is moving forward:
“President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.”
Sylvester Petro was a long-time student of the way liberals think and act. He wrote the following in his book The Kingsport Strike:
“Beware of the man who tells you that he will explain — fully explain — any complex human action or event by resort[ing] to ‘coldly objective,’ ‘empirically verifiable,’ ‘statistical data.’ He is deceiving himself, and perhaps seeking to deceive you. For in the first place we do not all see the same event in exactly the same way, let alone interpret it the same way — not even events which do not involve the complicating factor of human purpose.”1
Don’t ever think that in a debate with a liberal that putting the facts on the table is going to change a liberal lie. There’s too much to lose when a liberal has to admit he’s been wrong about the facts. Entire political programs are on the line.
Certainly some people change after being confronted with the facts. Ronald Reagan is a good example.
But for the most part, facts only get in the way of paradigm-laden worldviews. Even after decades of failed social policies where multiple trillions of dollars have been spent, liberals continue to push these and additional programs.
Cuba is an object lesson in failed economic principles, but these failures have not stopped liberals from praising the island nation even though Castro has laws to prevent freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, and freedom of commerce. But Cuba has universal healthcare. I was watching a documentary on Cuba and its description of the objective squalor and unsanitary conditions in parts of the island when the narrator said, “It sure is a good thing the Cuba has a national healthcare system.”
Liberals don’t want to be be confused by the facts because facts are not necessary when implementing liberal policies and programs.
- Sylvester Petro, The Kingsport Strike (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1967), 27–28. [↩]