Fox "News" employee, Mike Huckabee, the GOP's best "conservative" hope for 2012—at least among local Hucksters like John Putnam—has "apologized" for America on foreign soil.

That is, if you count Israel as "foreign soil," which many conservative evangelicals don't always seem to do. To some of them, America is a theological extension of Israel (or vice versa), and it is simply not possible to envision an American foreign policy in any way distinct from an Israeli one. But then I digress.

As I said, the Huckster (by the way, that is Limbaugh's invention for the venerable conservative) has committed an Obama-like act of rhetorical treason, at least if you judge him by the same standards that many conservatives judged Obama's remarks during his trips overseas.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

Former Arkansas governor and US presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee kicked off his visit to Israel on Monday by telling reporters that recent American policy toward the Jewish state has been "far more harsh" than that of previous administrations. He questioned US President Barack Obama's authority to dictate where Israelis could or could not live in Israel.

Now, I am certain—certain—that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck will blast Huckabee for dissing Obama and America far from the shores of the United States, and for essentially apologizing to the Israelis for Obama's lack of sympathy for Israeli "sovereignty."

I am equally sure that local letter writers to the paper will harshly criticize Huckabee for going to Israel and brazenly exploiting a U.S.-Israeli disagreement over what to do about the settlement issue in occupied territories.

Okay. Maybe I'm not so sure.

(Photo by David Silverman/Getty Images Europe, August 18, 2008)

Thomas Sowell ends his column in the Globe this morning with this:

If you cannot tolerate imperfections, be prepared to kiss your freedom goodbye.

The basis of that odd but predictable ending was a couple of quotes from Edmund Burke (at least there are still some around who will quote the Old Conservative rather than Rush Limbaugh):

It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated.

I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes.

Sowell's column demonstrates the problem with libertarian-conservative philosophy. Despite its rhetorically effective ("Less government!") but practically leaky ("Don't touch my Medicare!") approach, when it is consistent, essentially that philosophy entails a quasi-Darwinian view of life: Let the strongest survive, and let nature rule.

Shamelessly repeating the lie that the government is out to kill old folks ("do not be surprised when life-and-death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands—and out of the hands of your doctor—and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington" ), Sowell obviously has no interest in things like "universal health care" or "social justice." To him and other libertarian-conservatives, there is no such thing as social justice. There is only the hard truth that,

the universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to "solve" our "problem."

But that's not the "big question" at all. The really big question is, "Are we content with the state of nature, or is there something we can do about the inequality and injustice all around us?"

Surely, the answer to that question has changed since the 18th century. In Burke's day, there wasn't much that could be done about many "infirmities," even if they festered into "crimes." Thus it was practical (though no less ornery) to argue for a certain toleration of "evil," there being no workable alternatives. The tools to make possible "universal health care" or "social justice" simply weren't available.

That is the trouble with adhering to any static philosophy, especially one baked in the oven of the 18th century. Things change (as Edmund Burke knew and understood, of course), and as bright a man as he was, Burke could not see into our 21st century world, in which the resources (but not yet the will) are available to eradicate not just American but world-wide hunger and supply even the most remote tribal people with basic health care. Should we just continue to let people starve and get sick and die needlessly?

In many cases, it's not a matter of tolerating evil that we can't fix; it is generating the collective will to fix the evil that we can. And I suppose that is the difference between liberal-progressives and libertarian-conservatives, the optimists and the pessimists.

One group believes that not only is "social justice" a meaningful concept, but one which we should at least attempt to attain, even if we know we will inevitably fall short. These optimists believe government—we the people—can make things better. They have a larger and firmer—because it is more humane—principle of "freedom" that includes freedom from unnecessary suffering.

The other group, derisively dismissing any notion of social justice, is content with the sometimes ugly status quo, protecting a laudable and lofty—but for many, illusory—principle of "freedom."

To a sick man or woman, or a hungry little boy or little girl, an abstract, philosophical "freedom" means nothing; and in the face of such poverty, telling them, "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated," is a "crime," even a Burkean one.

Not content with taking the word of conservatives on TV and radio that the proposed health care reform legislation is a secret plan to transform America into a Nazi dictatorship, I sat down one long night and read the entire bill.

Well, I didn't read the entire bill because when I got to pages 934 and 935, I must admit I was appalled and had to stop reading. What I found there, that apparently no one else has noticed, has made me rethink not only my support for health care reform, but has made me reassess my hitherto low opinion of right-wing talkers.

Based on my discovery, I may have to issue a public apology to all conservatives, especially those fine folks who have endured much liberal ridicule while trying to alert the rest of us to what is coming.

Here is the ugly truth, first beginning with a screen shot of part of page 934 of HR 3200, and then an enlargement of the language found under Subtitle B—National Prevention and Wellness Strategy:






As much as I believe that eliminating right-wing radio and shutting down Fox "News" and even institutionalizing Glenn Beck would improve our national health, I just can't go that far at this time. This is America, for God's sake.

Therefore, I will have to withdraw my support for health care reform.

A few days ago, Rep. Ron Richard expressed his passion on the subject of autism:

As I’ve shared in the past, this is an issue very close to me. Many of us have loved ones suffering from autism. I believe it is imperative to see the passage of a bill that would ease the burden for families afflicted by the disorder.

The problem is that Richard, who happens to be the House Speaker, failed to bring up for a vote in the Missouri House a bill that would have provided some relief to families suffering from autism, a bill that had passed overwhelmingly in the Republican-controlled Senate and one which Governor Nixon said he would have signed.

According to the Kansas City Star:

"A spokeswoman for House Speaker Ron Richard said the bill was not brought up for a vote because Richard did not have “a strong consensus” to ensure its passage.

To that end, Richard has charged a "committee with the task of creating effective legislation directed at providing health-insurance coverage for individuals and families suffering from autism. This will be a bill that all sides can agree on and a bill that we hope will have widespread support in both the House and the Senate."

Reflecting the ultra-conservative character of the Missouri House, he wrote in the Globe, "I will not abandon my standards for popularity." So, you who suffer needlessly, take that !

Now, as speaker, Rep. Richard could have thrown his legislative weight around to see to it that a bill was passed last session that Gov. Nixon would have signed and which would have helped thousands of Missourians suffering from autism. But that's not the Richard way. And believe it or not, the point of this little excursion into the stone-hearted nature of Republican-controlled legislative politics in Missouri is not to heap scorn on Ron Richard.

It is to highlight something that was said last summer by conservative talker Michael Savage related to autism, and to highlight just how the right wing can take the slightest bit of truth and distort it into a monstrous and dangerous lie.

But first, I must mention that I receive a good deal of criticism claiming that the extremist views I attribute to conservatives are not the views of mainstream conservatives, and I am sure many will protest that Savage is not in the mainstream.

However, his show is broadcast locally every weekday from 5pm to 8pm on KQYX, sandwiched in between Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, who, unfortunately, are indisputably mainstream conservatives. Additionally, carried on 350 radio stations, Savage claims an audience of up to 10 million, and he has amazingly written four New York Times best sellers.

All of which qualifies him as a mainstream conservative in my world. Someone has to be listening to all that blather and buying all of those books.

Anyway, the mainstreamy Savage said on July 16, 2008, that autism is "a fraud, a racket":



Despite protests from autism advocates and offended parents, Savage himself suffered not a jot from his ridiculous remarks.

And he remained unapologetic.

He told the New York Times that he had no intention of apologizing:

“My main point remains true,” Mr. Savage, whose radio audience ranks in size behind only those of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, said in the interview. “It is an overdiagnosed medical condition. In my readings, there is no definitive medical diagnosis for autism.”

In the world of conservative talk radio, there is little one can say or do to jeopardize a lucrative career. But to their credit, some advertisers, including the insurance company Aflac, did withdraw their advertising from Savage's show. And, of course, other eager advertisers certainly replaced them.

But the Savage-versus-autism ordeal really illustrates not just the crassness of the right wing, but the sinister nature of much of contemporary conservatism, especially the variety found on radio and television.

As Catherine Lord, and expert on autism affiliated with New York University, admits in the Times article, there is a "kernel of truth" in what Savage asserts. Some children are diagnosed with autism by default, when nothing else seems to fit. But much more frequently it works the other way. Children with autism are misdiagnosed with something else. Ms. Lord said:

Any tendency to blame the children or to think they’re just being bratty if they misbehave perpetuates the myth that autism isn’t a learning disability. It’s a neurobiological condition, just like epilepsy or another medical condition like diabetes or a heart condition. It would be like blaming the child with a heart condition for not being able to exercise.

So, what you have is Michael Savage taking a grain of truth and turning it into a colossal and harmful lie.

And that's what makes mega-talkers like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh so successful among the gullible. From Obama's "association" with Bill Ayers—which morphed into Obama-the-terrorist-sympathizer—to Obama's health care reform—which has morphed into a Nazi plot to kill the unworthy via "death panels"—they bend, distort, and disfigure the truth until God, who is a Republican, doesn't even recognize it.

But God does recognize that Rep. Richard cannot continue to hide behind his conservative "standards" while autistic Missourians continue to suffer.

The following is a lengthy respone to comments made by Anson Burlingame and Geoff Caldwell (fellow Globebloggers) on my blog, "Civilization Fundamentals":

.

Anson and Geoff,

While I understand Geoff’s objection to my post, I do not understand Anson’s latest one. Originally, Anson posted a comment that began thus:

Excellent blog and rebuttal. We have both engaged constructively I hope in the age old argument of the "haves and have nots".

Then Geoff made his comment and suddenly the point had changed. Oh, well.

I will address a few of your concerns:

1. I posted a link to Anson's original entry, which allowed those so inclined to read the entire thing, so short of posting the entire blog myself, I don't know what else I could have done to be fair in that respect.

2. Anson’s original blog was about ”fundamentals”of health care. The word “fundamental” is instructive here. When someone purports to be discussing the fundamentals of something, they are discussing the foundation upon which everything else is built. It is fair to say that when you are examining the fundamentals you are examining the basic philosophical approach to a subject. So, keep that in mind, because I kept it in mind while reading Anson’s blog. It’s about fundamentals.

3. The blog began with this sentence:

I do not think that health care is a fundamental right for US citizens, do you?

I believe it is fair to say that when a writer begins a piece with that provocative statement, he means it, no? So, Anson does not believe that “health care” is a “fundamental” right. Okay? And Medicare is health care, right? So, ipso facto, Anson does not believe Medicare is a fundamental right.

4. In the body of Anson’s piece, he wrote:

If I get very sick and approach death, the government is supposed to do something about it. On a fundamental level isn’t that really what all the argument is about today as preposterous as it sounds?

Anson is declaring that the fundamental issue is whether the “government” is responsible for ensuring that people have some kind of treatment when they are “very sick.” He does not explain what he means by the government, but, as I pointed out, in our system, the government is us. So, in my reckoning, Anson is saying that collectively we have no responsibility to ensure people have adequate health care when they have a sickness unto death.

5. He then gives an elaborate caricature of “Susie,” full of numerous stereotypes (from my point of view), and then argues against that straw man for a while. He then states:

Is the government now responsible for Susie’s diagnosis and treatment for cancer? If you think so, I ask, why?

Well, I tried to explain “why” through use of “The Unwise Mountain Climber.” Just like I'm not prepared to leave the unwise climber on the mountain to die, I'm not prepared to leave Susie languishing in the streets, despite her bad choices.

6. Then, Anson wrote:

In my view the bottom line regarding the fundamentals of health care is that we all have choices to make in our lives. When we make bad ones I do not believe it is the government’s role to dictate the choices that I make (within realistic legal limits). I further believe it is not the government’s responsibility to “bail me out” when I suffer the consequences of bad choices. And I sure as hell do not believe it is the government’s role to mandate that I contribute to remedies for your bad choices. I may choose on my own to contribute to your care but the government should stay out of it.

There is no distinction made in this paragraph between types of government health care. Anson used, again, the term “fundamentals of health care.” So, a fair interpretation of this paragraph, as well as the entire blog, is that Anson is opposed to any government program to help people with health care (“the government should stay out of it”). Since Medicare is a government health care program, I concluded that Anson is opposed to it.

7. Geoff’s first response in his comment to Anson’s blog was:

Great points and thoughts.

So, logically, I assumed that Geoff concurred with Anson’s conclusion that government involvement in health care was not a good thing—including Medicare. If this weren’t the case, someone should have said so.

8. Since Geoff objected to my “misquoting” him, I shall do so in full:

Great points and thoughts. What irks me the most though is that what Obama and the dems are wanting to do has nothing to do with true "reform" of healthcare.
If it did they would be focusing on cost reduction instead of coverage expansion. There would be serious discussions on tort reform, portability across state lines, medical savings accounts expansion and more tax deductibility for insurance premiums.
All those above steps would put more of the control in the people themselves.
Unfortunately that is the exact opposite of what Pelosi and Obama are after. It is all about control and taking the first step to a single payor system (heard Barney Frank's latest comment?) so they can begin the rationing that will be needed.
I must admit, I never thought I'd see the day that to work hard, be personally responsible and make something of yourself would take a back seat to sloths and gluttons.

I will leave it to the discerning reader to determine whether this “context” makes his remarks any less offensive.

9. Anson concurred with Geoff’s comment by saying:

As usual, you and I are on the same wavelength.

Since, the “sloths and gluttons” reference was part of those comments, naturally I assumed Anson concurred with it, too.

10. Now, neither of you referenced my parents as "sloths and gluttons," obviously. But given the context of the discussion, it is fair to conclude that both of you were either sloppy in your writing (forgetting or failing to make a distinction between Medicare beneficiaries and others), or you consider all receivers of government benefits to be "sloths and gluttons." Apparently, you don't, which is good news. But I simply used my parents as an example of the kind of people who benefited from the kind of government programs you two were belittling.

11. Since both of you took exception to my reference to your “ancestry,” I will quote it and explain it:

My dad was born in 1909 and had an 8th grade education. Why? He had to go to work. My mom only finished 10th grade. Why? She had to go to work. Not being blessed with ancestors who were as talented as the Burlingames or Caldwells, they inherited a life that put a premium on work rather than education because to work meant to eat.

Admittedly, sarcasm doesn’t always play well in written form, but given the context of the discussion—the “fundamentals” of health care in which the government should not be involved, particularly if people make bad choices—I was merely using sarcasm to point out that some people make “bad” choices because they are the only “choices” they have. As I thought about my parents and the fact that due to economic necessity they both had to drop out of school (a “bad” choice that crippled their earning capacity for the rest of their lives), I also thought about those who did not have to make such choices, who by chance found themselves in a position to be able to finish school, for instance. Since my blog was a response to Anson Burlingame and Geoff Caldwell, naturally I used your last names to make a point. You both know that I was not commenting directly on your ancestry, just as I know that both of you were not literally referring to my parents as “sloths and gluttons.” We're supposed to be writers, for God's sake.

12. The reference I made to "guts" involving the abolition of Social Security and Medicare is obvious. Those who attend Tea Parties and shout at local town halls about how bad it is that the government is involved in our lives would not dare to organize against the end of Social Security and Medicare. That is called hypocrisy. If someone out of principle opposes government involvement, I can understand that. But consistency demands that the first place to start untangling government from our lives is Social Security and Medicare. So, I was saying to anyone so inclined, "Get out your paint and get going, boys and girls."

13. Finally, the point I was—and still am—making is that behind foolish statements like, ”I must admit, I never thought I'd see the day that to work hard, be personally responsible and make something of yourself would take a back seat to sloths and gluttons,” stands real people, who for one reason or another sometimes make bad decisions.

And we as a civilized people should be there to answer their calls for help—through our collective voice, the government.