In an effort to regain momentum in the health-care debate, Barack Obama is attempting to reframe the push for government intervention as a moral issue.

Just a few short months ago, few imagined that Barack Obama would have trouble marshalling a Democrat majority for one of his major initiatives. He was the "messiah," "The One," and all he had to do was lead, and the Houses and the high and happy masses from coast to coast would follow. But that was before he stimulated us into stratospheric debt; proved he was anything but post-racial by rashly saying that dutiful Cambridge cops acted "stupidly"; and accosted us with Medical Mothra, a 1000-page, labyrinthine health-care bill that could only be adequately digested by termites. So now, with tumultuous town-hall meetings and a majority of Americans opposed to Obamacare, the president is trying to shore up support for reform by casting it as a moral issue.

This was Obama's strategy on Wednesday as he pitched his message to religious organizations during a conference call sponsored by the umbrella group "40 Days for Health Reform." And the president sounded a familiar note, saying, "These struggles always boil down to a contest between hope and fear" (what about the change?). He also said, reports Jonathan Weisman at The Wall Street Journal, "The one thing you all share is a moral conviction. You know this debate over health care goes to the heart of who we are in America. It is a core ethical and moral obligation that we look after each other." Obama then concluded with a rather unfamiliar note, saying "God bless." Ah, he knows his audience well. I'm sure that in the Muslim world it would have been Allahu Akbar.  

I frankly agree that health care is a moral issue, but the question is, what does morality dictate? And one thing it certainly prescribes is that we be consistent and intellectually honest. This brings me to a tangential point.

First, whatever happened to the leftist mantra that we mustn't legislate morality, hmm? I thought such a thing was the worst of impositions and that morality was a private sector province.

In reality, though, I'm happy to hear a tacit admission that we may legislate morality, as this is necessary for a mature discussion of what should constitute law. In fact, the only thing we should legislate is morality.

Especially since the only alternative is legislating immorality.

I'll explain. A law by definition is the imposition of a value or a corollary thereof. Yet a value is not a virtue, in that the latter is good by definition whereas the former could be a vice. Mother Teresa had values — but so did Adolf Hitler. The term "value" is part of the lexicon of moral relativism; it simply refers to something valued by someone or some group. So a king could value money and thus, indulging his greed, decree that every subject render to the throne 50 percent of his income. But while the tyrant could get away with this if he had the power, his law would lack the credibility of even the pretense of morality.

Thus, for a law to have been credibly made, for it to be anything more than a reflection of the powerful's desire, it must be the imposition of what is thought a moral principle. The law must state that there is something you must or mustn't do because, ostensibly, it is a moral imperative or is morally wrong.

For example, the only legitimate foundation for speed laws is the principle that it's wrong to endanger others. With tax laws, the principle would be that it's wrong to not help support the nation and/or it's a moral imperative to do so. With anti-discrimination laws, the principle would be, obviously, that it's wrong to discriminate. Now, some may object here, saying that they don't like these principles. But does it really matter if the principle is moral? Do we truly want it to be valid?

Of course we do. We want it to be not just a value of those with clout, not even just a conception (which could be skewed) of a moral principle but the real McCoy. In a word, we want it to reflect morality. And what have we just said?

We only want to legislate morality.

Now that all the Obamaites understand why their president is right about legislating morality, let's find out if he knows what morality is.

Many today believe that health care is a right. But can you have a right to something that is unattainable without the labor of others? Moreover, can something be a right if there is no reasonable chance to provide it for all? 

Rights are funny things. One might say that happiness is more important than health care; after all, what's the point in extending life if you're miserable? Yet the Founding Fathers didn't believe that happiness was a right — only the pursuit of it. Then, it's for certain that food is more important than health care, yet the Bible says, "A man who does not work, should not eat." 'Tis a point to ponder.

Speaking of faith, whether you believe in eternal salvation or not, there's no doubt that eternal life would be more important than extending this temporal one. Yet any authentic Christian will aver that it is not a right but a gift; we can't earn it and don't deserve it.

This isn't to say we aren't obligated to try to feed the hungry, heal the sick and evangelize the unbelieving, but is this because others have rights? Maybe it's because we have responsibilities.

Moreover, think about the ambiguity of the claim that there's a "right" to health care. My first thought is, "not enough data." What I mean is, suppose we accept that there's a right to food. Does this mean a right to scarf down caviar, pâté de foie gras and French truffles or to be a glutton? Likewise, saying there's a right to "health care" without specificity is silly. What level and degree of health care? To provide the most expensive variety possible to whoever wants it would bankrupt the system. And providing unfettered access to any level of care would lead to long waits and, ultimately, rationing. This is because when something is free, people use more of it — and often use it frivolously.

Thus, whether you believe health care is a right or not, from a practical standpoint it's a moot point. There is simply no way that government can provide every citizen with the modern, comprehensive, high-end health care of the Utopians' dreams. There are not unlimited resources, so there would have to be limited health care.

So what does morality dictate here? Well, the health-care Utopians seem to be driven by the communist ideal, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." The problem is that if you pursue this principle through government, fewer people will have means and more will have needs.

Repaving that saddest of roads with the best of intentions doesn't change the nature of the act. And what of ignoring history, wisdom and the laws of economics? What of, in the name of ideology, creating a system that will only exacerbate the woes of its victims? This is at best the work of a fool — at worst that of the wicked. And it's most certainly immoral.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

As always, as always - - - - - - Mr. Duke has hit the nail(s) 100% on the head(s). I swear, I don't think there's a group more confused, slippery and wishy-washy than the left. Now that is their right, but they don't have the right to spread their confusion to others and certainly not by fedgov force. Since confusion is the one and only thing that satan can create, perhpas we know who they're really working for?

report abuse vote down vote up

August 24, 2009
Votes: +1

danwhitehead1 said:

	Correction - - - In my above comment, I meant to refer to the left as the "liberal" left as I always do.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Lee Gonzales said:

	Facebook this article Although Duke doesn't write for the average reader, attaching this article to your facebook page will reach someone who appreciates this perspective on health care.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 24, 2009
Votes: +1

danwhitehead1 said:

	Thank you Mr. Gonzales - - - - - - I did as you suggested just now.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 25, 2009
Votes: +0

Mike Minich said:

... As we ponder the morality of spending unborn citizens dollars, or the reckless use force [law] when applied to medical care or environment. We are witness to the incredible burdens on the current and future ability of the people to grow and create, and a complete lack of responsibility of the legislatures who have immunity to their decisions. To work out morality at community or state levels is by far the best approach as demonstrated in California and Massachusetts. With great power, comes great responsibility and a greater fall when error reigns. I am in awe of the reasonableness and wisdom of limited government.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 27, 2009
Votes: +0

Mike Minich said:

	... I forgot to mention the immorality of borrowing from communist China.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 27, 2009
Votes: +0