We can always count on Ezra Klein, one of the Obama propagandists at the Washington Post, to give us great insights into the liberal mind whenever he writes (and not in a good way). In a recent column he argues that there are no huge philosophical differences between Obama and Romney. According to Klein, the differences between the two candidates are simply technocratic in nature, which is to say that the differences are differences in degree only, not kind.
Obviously, Klein wants to downplay the choice voters face in this election because he no doubt believes such a strategy will help Obama get reelected, which would then clear the way for America’s continued movement toward the centralized, authoritarian “vision” of liberals today. But is Klein serious when he claims that the difference between Obama and Romney on healthcare is a “technocratic disagreement” over whether you get better results through federal or state policies? He is either clueless, which I doubt, or he is intentionally misleading readers.
The difference between regulating anything on a federal or state level is not merely a technocratic disagreement, but goes to the very heart of how a society chooses to organize itself. Everybody prefers a society that is prosperous for as many people as possible. To get there, we can either adopt a more centralized approach (which in many respects is where America is now), or we can choose an approach where economic and political power are decentralized. Because decentralization and the freedom that accompanies it work best, we generally should prefer markets and competition over central planning, and state control over federal control (although federal control is necessary in certain, dare I say, enumerated instances).
Most people go to hospitals and physicians that are located close to where they live, so healthcare is a local activity. Even if society chooses not to do healthcare through markets and competition, anyone can see that controlling healthcare on the state level would be the next best choice. Operating on the state level would be, let’s see, oh yeah, examples of “self-government” and “self-determination.” For those who, like Klein, have forgotten the concept, this would be where citizens in each state get to decide on their own how to provide a local activity.
Freedom would allow states to experiment in order to find what works best for them. And if citizens in any one state didn’t care for the approach taken in their state, they could “vote with their feet” and move somewhere else. Such freedom would not exist on the federal level, and the philosophical difference between state and federal policies is not a matter of degree. Liberals like Klein worship Big Government and are beyond understanding freedom, but hopefully there will be enough voters on November 6 who do understand.