A woman I know, who is close to my age and divorced, went on a date over the weekend. The gentleman with whom she spent a few hours that evening was someone from her church. They hadn’t previously known each other more than by sight, so much of what went on was their just getting to know one another.
After a nice dinner, they went out to the local yacht club, where he showed her his sailboat. Then they went for a walk at a popular park in the area, where they spent a long time talking.
He began by harshly criticizing the pastor of their church for not being socially conscious enough (Oh, yeah – you already know where this is going). Later, she mentioned that she’d recently gone to visit a 91-year-old friend who was recovering from open-heart surgery. He rejoined with a diatribe about how irresponsible it was to “misuse” medical resources by treating people of advanced age; such resources should be – you got it – reserved for people who are younger, those who can still contribute to society.
As one might imagine, this was upsetting to her, although she didn’t let on to her prospective beau. Who was he to say that this dear friend of hers, a woman she’d known her whole life, was not worthy of lifesaving medical treatment? She wasn’t an indigent. She’d worked all of her life, owned property and raised children. She had contributed to society.
My friend was perplexed with respect to this paradigm he presented, one that appeared quite immoral on its face. When she related the story to me, she also said that he had been very overbearing, even intimidating in expressing his opinions, in such a way that made her reluctant to challenge him.
The woman of whom I speak is not particularly political; in fact, I doubt she’s ever read one of my columns. When she asked for my interpretation, I told her I hoped my take would not upset her further, but given that she’d asked, I would elucidate if she so desired.
She did, and I told her that she had come across a liberal-socialist, and a particularly arrogant one, by her account. While obviously fairly well-off, he had developed an attitude whereby he believed he had the right to tell others – even millions of others – how their resources ought to be distributed. Given his way, of course her 91-year-old friend would have died, not having the right nor choice to pay for her medical care; in the system he advocated, the level of care she and everyone else received (save for those in positions of power, naturally) would be predetermined by an unfeeling, megalithic bureaucracy.
This is also the system that is being incrementally implemented under Obamacare as you read this. On the day it is fully implemented, millions who could have been saved the day before will die on the following day.
Another thing she wondered, given that they attended the same church, was Where is his relationship with God in all of this? On that point, I was also able to shed some light on the subject: This man’s religion, or spirituality, if you prefer, had been supplanted by his political philosophy, as is the case with so many of his ilk. His domineering manner was essentially religious zealotry manifesting, expressing the beliefs that had become his religion. The cruel dogma of his secularist view now eclipses the compassion of the Christian one. Certain people are no longer worthy of life.
I’m not in the habit of telling people how to conduct their affairs, but I did offer that were she to continue to get to know this fellow, she would likely come across a good many other incompatibilities between them.
Sadly, this gentleman’s attitude reflects that of many Americans and represents a major aspect of a malevolent doctrine that’s been rather effectively inculcated into our society. Millions of otherwise conscientious individuals have bought into the idea that this hundred-year-old con (socialism) is the way out of the difficulties we encounter as a result of inevitable imperfections that exist in societies run by human beings. And, despite the fact that others know better, they are intimidated via the use of invective and accusations of intolerance. The reality of the United States’ positive contributions to the people of the world exponentially outweighing any transgressions we have collectively committed is wholly irrelevant.
Well, we can no longer afford to abide those who do not have the intellectual fortitude to perceive the realities around them.
As far as relative worth goes: I believe that those who would consign the elderly or profoundly infirm to decrepitude and death are a waste of skin. For better or worse, however, I am not the arbiter of who ought and ought not have skin, even if theirs might better serve burn victims somewhere. A person’s worth is not quantified by their ethnicity, or color, or sex, level of education, or wealth; it is quantified by what’s in their hearts and minds.
And what resides in the hearts and minds of America’s leftists has more than spoken for itself. If nothing else, socialists have always been relatively good at killing people.