Whenever I turn on the TV or radio, the news is right in my face: there’s obvious danger, desperate people are crying for help, trapped in wreckage that has collapsed after decades of corruption and shoddy work; outsiders are trying to rescue them, appealing for money, but it may be too late to save Martha Coakley.

I gave twenty-five bucks to Scott Brown’s senatorial campaign yesterday. I rarely donate to political campaigns, since we usually blow our money on extravagances such as food and chidren’s clothing (can’t they stop growing, at least for a year or so?) I’m quite sure I’ve never given money to a candidate who wasn’t completely pro-life. I don’t think I’ve ever donated to an out-of-state campaign, either.
But this seems important. Brown might be ostensibly “pro-choice,” but on life issues that are likely to come up in the Senate in the near future (the “conscience clause,” Federal funding for abortion, partial-birth abortion) he is on the right side. Even more than that, he has promised — in explicit terms — to fight the monstrous health-care legislation that is oozing its way through Congress.
I’m sure most pro-lifers in Massachusetts are planning to vote for Brown on Tuesday. For those who aren’t, do you honestly think that if the Federal government regulates all aspects of our health care that our country will be more friendly to life? Nonsense. Look at Western Europe — not, as many conservatives do, because of the quality of their health care. No, look at how they treat their own population. Once a national government starts taking care of its citizens like pampered children, it will start regarding its citizenry as a burden, and will take steps to lighten that burden. A look at Europe’s birthrates will help confirm that theory.
President Obama is a committed statist, believing that there is no area of human life outside the government’s regulatory sphere. Statism is the political ideology of the cuture of death, squeezing out the family, religion, businesses, private associations, and all the other institutions of free peoples. Absurdly, he spoke out today in the name of independence, saying that Attorney General Coakley would represent the people of Massachusetts over her party.
This is one of Obama’s favorite verbal ploys: accusing opponents of something he himself is doing, or saying he isn’t doing X, when he is indeed doing X. The whole reason he was in Massachusetts was to support a member of his own party’s senatorial campaign, so she would vote in lockstep with the 59 other members of the Democrat caucus. If he had promised to oppose the health care bill, or any other item on Obama’s agenda — which would signify something like independence — you can bet that he wouldn’t have made the trip.
“…[I]t’s easy to say you’re independent, and you’re going to bring people together, and all that stuff, until you actually have to do it,” said Obama at the 14:50 mark in his speech. He should know, since he’s managed to alienate virtually all Republicans since his inauguration a year ago. But maybe that’s not giving him enough credit. The polls tell us that independent voters across the U.S. oppose Obama by a 2-1 ratio, and that Massachusetts independents are going for Brown by a similar proportion. So it looks like Obama is uniting the country after all, just not in the way he had hoped.