[As usual, there are many visual and audio elements in the video that I can't reproduce on the page. The editorial is free, and does not require subscription or registration (although we always appreciate either). You can watch it here.]
For the video impaired… here’s the transcript:
As if we’re not already overextended enough financially, the issue of National Health Care is now on the table once more vote. Here’s some perspective you might find interesting.
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe ingovernment economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country.
* * * * *
With the exception of the first two sentences, nothing you just heard was written by me. I was simply repeating, verbatim, the words of another American thinker and philosopher – although slightly edited to remove the references to the time in which these words were first spoken.
That time was 1961, and the philosopher who had such an astute grasp of the dangers of that impending socialism was a B-list Hollywood actor named Ronald Reagan.
Of course, most liberals would just as soon forget Reagan and all that he represented. The disturbing thing is that many high-level Republicans are calling for exactly the same thing. But those of us who continue to revere Ronald Reagan do so not out of a sense of nostalgia, or from an Obama-like Cult of personality, but rather because he clearly and unashamedly sets forth not policy positions but rather fundamental moral and ethical standards.
I will never “get over” Ronald Reagan because Ronald Reagan expressed with perfect clarity the values of discipline, optimism and individuality that my country and my moral code is based upon. That’s non-negotiable for me. Like Reagan, I was not born into this philosophy. Like Reagan, I came to these conservative core principles only after much study and deep reflection.
And I know that many of you feel the same way: that calls to abandon these principles from people ostensibly sharing our same conservative position is not a “hopeful, forward-looking re-branding,” but rather a retreat and surrender to the forces and philosophies we should be fighting tooth and nail, not emulating and accommodating.
You know, a Gallup poll taken just a few days ago revealed that 40% of the electorate identified themselves as “conservative,” compared to 35% who call themselves “moderate” and only 21% who identify as “liberal.”
Here’s Reagan’s electoral map from 1984:
Maybe if we started running again as actual conservatives, we might win some elections. That’s just a crazy little thought that I had.
I spoke Reagan’s words for him simply to get you to hear them fresh again. Go listen to the original; it’s a far, far better speech than I will ever be able to give. But not for an instant would I presume to be able to close it they way he did. So here it is… and we turn our back on this voice and this wisdom at our mortal peril:
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
17 Comments
1. John Galt:I knew from the very beginning that this was Reagan’s speech. I’ve listened to it many times. Where have you gone Ronald Reagan, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Jun 19, 2009 - 6:59 pm 2. Bart:My father has both an M.D. and a PhD. He is a practicing physician and has held for years that socializing medicine will indeed initiate a domino effect causing the seizure of our freedoms.
He is the smartest man I know and is RARELY wrong about anything (way back in 2002 he predicted that the housing collapse and subsequent economic turmoil would occur when it did). He thinks issues through carefully before delivering a well-informed, deliberate opinion. I am therefore frankly frightened for the future of our freedoms (nice alliteration, huh?), liberties and rights regarding socializing medicine.
Thank you for posting portions of Reagan’s speech. It was wonderful and unequivocal. Bill, all of the right people (It should be clear who I mean by that) seem to be staunchly opposed to this. Their opposition alone should be sufficient to wake the rest of us up and call our attention to the matter. I only hope it leads to the type of effective action to which you alluded.
Jun 20, 2009 - 7:57 am 3. daddyquatro:Excellent, as always, Bill.
Forgive me. I’ve been watching the internet feeds from Iran all day
Something has struck a nerve.
Her name was Neda.
I’m posting this same comment on every web site that still lets me in. Pass it along.
Post a link, if you feel so inclined.
Her name was Neda.
Jun 20, 2009 - 10:54 pm 4. Chinny:I think that the key thing to remember is that while we may have a majority of conservatives at 40% it is the liberal base (with the media in tow) that has the better organizational program to “get the word out” to the masses and spread their message of fear and loathing. It is important to write those letters, yes it is, but it’s just as important to become involved in the process of spreading the word. Your vote alone is no longer enough…action! WE NEED ACTION!
Jun 22, 2009 - 5:59 am 5. Ronald Reagan’s Clarity… “The Gipper” Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine « Frugal Café Blog Zone:[...] an outstanding piece onEject, Eject, Eject: Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized [...]
Jun 22, 2009 - 7:55 am 6. WayneB:Socialized medicine is a big one we need to fight, and my letter will be going out asap.
However, here is something I found while researching something else, and it is a significant indication as to how far we have already gone down the socialist path. Check out just how many Government Agencies we already have, making rules and regulations for nearly every facet of our lives.
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:15 am 7. M. Report:Norman Thomas Socialism > Liberalism
I vote for the other quote, err…
If Fascism ever comes to America,
it will call itself the American Party,
and denounce the actions of its opponents
as “Anti-American”.
Sound familiar ?
Jun 24, 2009 - 1:59 pm 8. Tantor:Hmmm. What a coincidence that the grandson of Norman Thomas is Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor at Newsweek, who thinks that Obama is kind of like god. Literally. Whodathunk a red diaper baby would be a leader in the media? Who? I’m flabbergasted.
Jun 26, 2009 - 5:00 pm 9. WayneB:M. Report (yeah, cute) – If you are referring to the quote by Sinclair Lewis, which was, “When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the Flag and carrying a cross.”, try to look up the quote before you post it, huh?
As far as a reaction to it goes, this article makes the point of how Lewis missed the mark quite well.
Jun 28, 2009 - 7:05 pm 10. Dougman:Good luck in your endeavors all.
Jun 30, 2009 - 1:24 am 11. WayneB:My marriage is through,
and give a s^!t’s gone.
I’m terribly sorry to hear that, Dougman.
Jun 30, 2009 - 5:08 am 12. Andrew:Bill you are insightful and inspirational. I hope you continue do write and produce video pieces for a long time to come. Your “Dowd Conundrum” piece is simply brilliant.
I did want to point out one important flaw in this article, which is that the poll you show is very misleading. If you will notice above, the question asked is: “How would you describe your political views — [very conservative, conservative, (or) moderate, liberal, (or) very liberal]? It’s important to note where the (or) is placed, because that is in fact what the graphic is based on. Before the first (or) are the two options “very conservative” and “conservative,” which are represented by the dark green “% conservative” line. The (or) is then followed by “moderate” and “liberal,” which correlates to the light green “% moderate” line. The second (or) is followed only by “very liberal,” which correlates to the final line “% liberal.”
It should be quite clear as to why this is problematic. The chart line representing liberals only reflects the answer given “very liberal,” while the line reflecting “moderate” reflects both those who answered “liberal” and those who answered “moderate.” Hence it is in fact possible for there to have actually been fewer people labeling themselves than liberals as conservatives, since we cannot know how many called themselves “liberal” and how many “moderate.” What we do know is that roughly 20% called themselves “very liberal,” which is in fact a significant number. At the end of the day, however, the chart tells us almost nothing.
I am always skeptical of polling data because it is virtually always produced in a misleading way such as this, and the information is then reproduced by those unaware of its spurious methods. It’s important to always read the question and scrutinize it as a lawyer might – it’s not a question of “is there something misleading here,” it’s generally only a question of finding it.
Thanks and keep up the good fight.
Jul 7, 2009 - 3:09 pm 13. WayneB:Andrew – I wondered about your analysis, so I searched for the poll Bill referenced above. The one I found is dated June 15, so I would suppose it is likely the same one. The question actually had 5 answers, not 3, and the graph above is the result of merging the “Conservative” and “Very Conservative” scores together, and merging the “Liberal” and “Very Liberal” scores together. It also was an enormous poll compared to other such things, so the margin of error is considered to be quite small.
Jul 10, 2009 - 5:18 am 14. Andrew:WayneB, my point is that there were indeed 5 options, however I am looking at the data and it shows as you say. I have to wonder why the word “(or)” is placed in its specific locations above the graph, as in these things such words are never placed randomly or without meaning. Perhaps you can explain their purpose, then. I am willing to submit that I may be a victim of my own attention to detail in this instance, but something still does not smell right.
Jul 10, 2009 - 2:21 pm 15. Kid L:Are you sure that Ronal Reagan actually wrote this speech?
Or, as an actor, was he simply hired to read it?
I’m guessing it was the latter.
Also, Chinny- “it is the liberal base (with the media in tow) that has the better organizational program to “get the word out” to the masses and spread their message of fear and loathing”
Quick question: How exactly is the ‘liberal base’ getting the word out? And what is the ‘fear and loathing’ that they are spreading?
Could you please point out some specific examples of both ‘fear and loathing’, and ways that the liberal base (whatever that means) is “getting the word out”.
Las I checked, the right-wing base was doing a pretty good job at spreading fear and loathing:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907150016
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907160034
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907160034
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200907100039
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200907100039
and the list goes on and on and on and on and on….
And, last time I checked, Fox news killed the so-called “liberal” MSNBC in the polls.
And just how many listener do Rush, Hannity, Savage, Beck, Medved etc have?
I think there is a pretty decent funnel of misinformation set up that works pretty effectively to get the right-wing talking points out.
In fact, the one thing the right does MUCH better than the left is “get the message out”.
the problem is, people are getting wise; they’re not quite as dumb as Rush and Co would like them to be.
Granted, there will always be poor saps duped into some tea-bagging B.S. that they don’t even understand, but in general, most folks are wising up.
The entire POINT of Reagan’s recorded speech was to strike fear in the listener.
Jul 16, 2009 - 4:25 pm 16. JMC:It seems to have worked on you.
Ronald Reagon was THE defining person of my adult life. I had grown up Democrat—old-style, working-stiff Democrat. I was in my early 20s when he was elected, but still very much a child in many ways. One single incident of his election shocked me out of that sheltered child-world.
Iran had been holding hostages from the American embassy for nearly a year. I don’t remember the details, because, in my little protected world, I didn’t pay attention. I only know that long months of negotiations had brought no results. Then, out of the blue, came the announcement that the hostages were coming home…THE DAY AFTER REAGAN’S INAUGURATION! My eyes popped open at that moment, and over the next few years I stopped voting, simply because shifting loyalties had created a massive sense of uncertainty inside me. I began to pay attention to the “boring,” once-despised news programs…and immediately noticed that they were something my high-school journalism class had held up as anathema: SLANTED! Then I began to recognize things in the Democratic party that threw my loyalties into an absolute uproar. I began to recognize the rhetoric that had spouted from the lips of the despised “peaceniks” of the 1960s. My parents and my older brother, who was in college at that time and saw first-hand the bakground hypocrisy behind the anti-war protests, made sure I saw and understood the Communist roots of their ideology. Now I was beginning to see those same roots in the Democratic idology. The Democratic Party was no longer the working-stiff supporter it had once been; it had become elitist. So I began really LISTENING to Reagan’s speeches. Where I had once avoided “State of the Union” speeches like the plague, I began to pay atttention to them, and I liked what he had to say. From there, I began to listen to other Republicans. And I liked what THEY had to say. It became clear to me that American politics had undergone a fundamental paradigm shift, the two major parties had literally reversed roles, with Republicans now sounding more like someone who identified with the “working class,” and Democrats sounding like the elitists they had once accused the Republicans of being. The hippies had come of age. They had changed their appearance and manerisms and invaded the “party of the working class,” for where else would good Communists go? So now I’m a solid Republican, and my father is probably turning over in his grave. I know I’ve completely alienated the rest of my family…even the brother who taught me about the dangers of “hippie rhetoric.” He is so rooted in what the Democratic party USED TO BE that he doesn’t see what’s happened, and I can’t make him see it. Of course, he also doesn’t own a computer, so his only source of current events is the media. When I try to tell him about what bloggers are saying, and other online news sources, he does not think they’re professional journalists (agreed, a lot of bloggers aren’t) and views them as no better than the tabloids.
I didn’t like any of the major Republican candidates this last election, but my vote was solidly for McCain simply because I utterly despised Obama. Why couldn’t people see the way he could talk for hours and say absolutely nothing? The way he could deliver speeches that had his sycophants cheering but never even came close to answering the question he was asked? “None are so blind as those who will not see.” Truer words were never spoken.
I’m sorry to say the Republican party lately hasn’t been much better, and I’ve started looking to history for the answer. I found it, and a very disturbing answer it was. I can sum it up in three words: McCARTHY WAS RIGHT! (He just got a little carried away.)
You know, perhaps it’s almost Freudian that it took months before I stopped mistaking “Obama” for “Osama.”
Sep 27, 2009 - 9:36 am 17. Abortion Healthcare Bill is Unacceptable and Unconstitutional « The LABVIRUS.COM Blog:[...] Former President Reagan warned about the difficulty of opposing socialistic healthcare ideas. He stated: “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism, or socialism, on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.” [...]
Dec 22, 2009 - 12:31 am