Monday, September 14, 2009

Taking Conservatives Seriously: There Are So Many Socialist, Nazi, Totalitarian Regimes in the World

I never knew there were so many socialist, Nazi, totalitarian countries. After listening to conservatives discuss healthcare reform, my eyes have been opened to the fact that the United States is about the only place on the planet without a socialist, Nazi healthcare system. Even Israel has become a Nazi nation. Thanks, Tea Party movement. Your knowledge of world economies is stupendous!

Applying the Tea Party "logic," here is a list of socialist, Nazi, totalitarian regimes (i.e., countries with universal healthcare). Many of these countries use single-payer systems. Shockingly, many of these countries are also allies of the United States. Why is the United States friends with so many "evil" countries?

Hong Kong
New Zealand
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Korea
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom

There are a lot of articles on this issue. I used many different sites to compile this list. Here are links to two of the more helpful ones:

Universal health care - a quick overview around the politics of providing universal health care

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare « True Cost – Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit


Sue said...

Darren the wingnuts are just zombies for the entertainers Beck and Limbaugh. These idiots don't even know what they are protesting, ask them and they answer with words straight from the mouth of Beck!

Kansas City said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kansas City said...


I think you need a rest. As a matter decency and fairness, you cannot acuse "conservatives" of labeling any country as a "socialist, Nazist, totalitarian" and "evil" regime, without citing a single conservative leader of any significance and power as ever having said anything like that. You claim to reach these conclusions "after listening to conservatives discuss healthcare reform," but cite not a word stated by any conservative leader.

I recognize that one can effectively and fairly use exaggerated rhetoric in political debate, i.e., Palin on "death panels," but your attempt at exaggerated rhetoric or parody (or whatever you want to call it) is absurd.

What is it with you liberals that you feel compelled to mock and attack people you don't agree with? You seem to relish calling fellow Americans exercising their freedom of speech under the banner of "Tea Parties" with the derogatory and obscene "Tea Bag" movement label, while liberals often take offense when republicans call the democratic party the democrat party. You mock their knowledge of "world economies."

Your cohort Sue follows your lead by calling these fellow citizens "zombies" and "idiots."

The theme is clear. You think you are better than these people, so you take license to unfairly mock and attack them.

In the words of someone you probably like, Senator McCaskill asked a group of town hall participants, "what are you being so mean?" Or rude. Or hostile. The comparison and debate about our health care system versus any other contry can be made in a respectful manner without trying to demean those who disagree with you.

Kansas City said...

I thought that I would share this very interesting analysis from Real Clear Politics about the perception of lying:

"Here's a question: if I went out and made a claim I believed but no one else thought possible - that a greyhound could outrun a cheetah, for example - would that be considered a lie or just naive, wishful thinking?

The reason I bring this up is because Bob Herbert made a rather astonishing admission about President Obama's health care plan in his column on Saturday:

"The president also said, as he estimated the cost of his proposal at $900 billion over 10 years, that he “will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”

I'm sure he means it. But I have not spoken to anyone, either on Capitol Hill or elsewhere, who believes that is doable. (emphasis added)"

So Obama's assertion he can expand coverage and care without adding a dime to the deficit over the next ten years is, by the admission of even one of his most ardent supporters, a claim that virtually no one believes. Generically speaking, when someone makes a claim that no one believes it's characterized as a lie."

The Real Clear Politics analysis went on to compare how Herbert was mercious in accusing Bush of deception on Iraq and WMD, when Bush had plenty of basis to believe Iraq had WMD.

So, is Obama lying about being unwilling to add a dime to the deficit?

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

KC: Ah, a little defensive.

First, I didn't know the Republican Party was so elitist that its 2 million protestors --ooops, several thousand -- lack a voice. Only "leaders" qualify as "real" conservatives. Thanks for the clarification.

Also, it is abundantly clear that part of conservative discourse has described Obama and/or his policies as socialist, Nazi, etc. You certainly have not denied that, and you certainly know that liberals did not start that pathetic rhetoric.

Also, "professional" politicians may not use the exact terms Nazi or socialist, but they do it in code - by evoking fears of planned economies -- which is what socialism and Nazism embraced. "Obamacare," they argue, will amount to a "government TAKEOVER of the healthcare system," "RATIONING of care" "INFERIOR service," and "DEATH PANELS." This terminology describes practices and common critiques of planned economies and Nazism. The terminology is also FALSE AND DECEITFUL. Republicans are blatantly lying about proposed reforms in order to portray the policies as socialist. That's awful.

Finally, I have not demeaned any tea party, anti-commie/imaginary socialism movement participant -- although I do believe that I am "better" than they are in the sense that I do not go around carrying signs saying "unarmed this time" or which make blatant appeals to racism. But I guess "better" is a relative term.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

KC: The is Obama's revenue projection a "lie" is another failed trap. See: Is "Rosy" Back? Economists Question Obama's Economic Forecasting
and Which Candidate Will Keep His Campaign Promises AND Reduce the Deficit? Neither!.

Kansas City said...


You have to be honest. When you use the derogatory terms "tea bag movement" and "tea baggers," you are demeaning and disrespecting those people and you ought to acknowledge that and stop doing it. It reflects more poorly on you than it does on them.

As to the extraordinary small number of participants who are expressly racist or really threaten violence or carry Nazi signs, you can criticize those people without unfairly characterizing the movement. I'm sure you were all over the anti Iraq war movement because a small number of demonstrators compared Bush to Hitler, right?

Now, because signficant conservatives don't say anything like you are accusing them of saying, you resort to how you perceive them and the "code" in which they are speaking.

When no one of significance says anything that characterizes Obama or proposed health care legislation as Nazism, you claim "government TAKEOVER of the healthcare system," and "RATIONING of care" and "INFERIOR service" somehow refer to "common critiques" of Nazism. Yeah, the Third Reich and Hitler were big on healthcare reform.

The "DEATH PANELS" rhetoric is a reference to health care rationing based on advisory panels in proposed legislations and arguments by some advocates for health care reform. The actual subject of the criticism has nothing remotely to do with the holocost [sp?] of Nazism and it is very effective political rhetoric. However, because "death panel" could be viewed as raisign the spectre of Nazism, I think it is fair for you to argue that Palin should not have used that langauge. But the intelligent discussion is about whether the proposed reforms will increase the rationing of health care and, if so, whether that is justified.

Your "planned economies" characterization also is fair rhetorical description of some criticisms. When govenment heavily regulates about 1/6 of the economy, there obviously are "planned economies" aspect of the legislation.

You seem to implicity acknowledge that Obama is lying when he claims he will not sign legislation that adds a dime to the deficit. The issue is what he said last week, not what you wrote six months ago. So whether it is lying or "wishful thinking," which is more significant - what Obama said or what a few protestors have to say?

Remember, for what I assume are the vast number of your readers who are intelligent observors, honesty by you is extremely important. Tell us why the Tea Party movement is wrong, don't ridicule and mock them.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

KC: Until you mentioned it, I had not realized that I used the phrase "tea bag." I looked up the controvery, but that's not where I was coming from. So cool off.

Second, I don't owe any "respect" to the Tea Bag movement. Valuing free speech does not mean that you respect the group or its message. I can support the right of the KKK to organize and print and distribute literature, but I do not respect the KKK or its speech. There is a huge difference.

Also, I do not know what you studied in college or beyond, but the common critiques of "planned economies" (socialism/communism) is that the government "takes over" the private sector and allocates supply based on its own formula. The "death panels" is a direct reference to Nazism ,and some of the tea crowd has been talking about "brown shirts." One town haller called a Jewish guy a Nazi for supporting a public option. Also, under socialism the government literally "takes over" the means of production. YOu can try to evade reality all you want, but the fact remains: conservatives have politicized healthcare reform as socialized medicine; conservatives have described a public option as Nazism; professional politicians have legitimized these arguments either through silence or using the coded language typically used to criticize planned economies.

Finally, regulating an economy is not the same as socialism; nor is it the same as a "planned economy." Also, doctors and nurses -- the ones who practice medicine -- want this reform. I value their input far more than a bunch of people (and their enablers) who wouldn't know socialism if it bit them in the arse....

Real Time Analytics