The Freedom Caucus in the House is being blamed for the recent health care bill not passing. Some, including Republican leadership in the House and the President, are not only blaming them, but making asinine statements about them. President Trump went so far as to question whether they are really Pro-Life. The idea of a president who has only been Pro-Life since he started running for the office questioning anyone’s Pro-Life credentials is silly at best and offensive at worst. One columnist said that people who opposed the bill are “purists” who let a good thing go by the wayside because they wanted perfection. He urged them to remember the old saying “The Best Is the Enemy of the Better.”
This bill neither repealed or replaced the Affordable Care Act. It simply tweaked around the edges. After seven years of pledging to repeal the ACA, these members of the House and their counterparts in the Senate are being criticized for holding their compatriots to their word. Every time a Conservative questions this President other Republicans chastise them, usually with the already tired refrain “At least it’s not Hillary.” We raged for eight years at each occurrence of President Obama and others blaming George W. Bush for their own shortcomings. How is this any different?
I have a question for these critics. When is it OK to question this Administration? What is the step too far? What will be the “that’s all I can stands” moment that will make it alright to disagree? Threatening to limit the First Amendment (like when he threatened to expand libel laws to make it easier for him to sue people who “said bad things about him”)? Using executive orders to place limitations on the Second Amendment (which he wanted others to do before he ran for office)? Since so many of you have shifted positions on so many topics from “We must stand firm” to “This is OK for now” you’ll excuse us if we need a little clarity. You will let us know right? And after you let us know, you will stick with that position, right? We would hate to start going one way and then run into you folks as you shift quicker than my waistline when I walk in a pair of sweatpants (It’s really an ugly scene, believe me!)
Since you want me to understand where you are coming from, give me the same consideration and allow me to explain my position. This is not about holding out for an unattainable perfection. This is not about “setting my sights too high.” Believe me, I am well aware that there is no perfection in this fallen world. But if we truly believe what we say, we should stand on that. Every time we settle for something far less than the position we claim to hold, we make it easier to settle the next time. Every time we move closer to the Progressive position in an effort to get something, we lose ground. The aforementioned columnist stated that we must take these “small victories” because the most important thing is the complete defeat of Progressivism. How can we defeat them by moving closer to their positions? We already see Progressives trying to convince Libertarians that they are kindred spirits by saying they are “Social Libertarians.” They never tell the part about when their Political Progressive side tells their Social Libertarian side to sit down. shut up, and get with the program. If we are to overcome a philosophy that will say anything and take any position if it means they gain power, we must explain ourselves with as much clarity as possible. Make the differences clear and do not allow the Progressive movement to define us. That’s why after seven years of telling the American people that if they gave us majorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency we would repeal the ACA, we must not back off of that. If we just exchange one bad program for another, the people will rightly say “They’re no different than the other guys. They say what they need to say to get votes.” We are at a point where cynicism will consume another generation. We know Progressives will not stand by their word, we must. If we do, the defeat the columnist spoke of will happen.
If we are to attain the lofty goals we have set for the Conservative movement and show the American people just how effective a smaller, more efficient, and much less intrusive government can be, we cannot squander this opportunity by settling for half measures. I hope I have explained myself well. Thank you for your consideration.