“Sabotage” Is Liberal Code For Popular Resistance To Oppression

Just to pick one example among many of the rhetoric:

The Affordable Care Act Is An OK Law That’s Been Sabotaged

…Three of the problems with the ACA roll-out were not to due to the law itself, but rather, Republican intransigence…

“Intransigence” is not as problematic a word as “sabotage.” It is true that the Republicans have resisted the law in various ways.

It is also OK to make the case that, if the Republicans had cooperated with, and supported, the Affordable Care Act, then it would have worked. The argument is preposterous, but it is a natural one for a Liberal who believes in his god’s ability to work miracles.

I’m dealing here with the accusation that some party has been unethical and is responsible for making a good law (or an “OK” one, not work). I don’t remember many Leftists worrying about this principle when the Obama Administration publicly announced their opposition to the Defense Of Marriage Act—which was the law of the land and which the Executive Branch was supposed to enforce. But Liberals believe in Liberal “exceptionalism” so that double standard is no surprise.

The bottom line is that there is a huge part of the population that hates and fears what is in the Affordable Care Act. They don’t believe that government can “save” health care. They do believe that  government can inflict harm on people by trying to “save” health care. They don’t want to suffer harm. And they have had, over the months, lawful political ways to try to resist the implementation of Obamacare. They have voted people into office, both as governors and legislators, to do exactly try to fight the law.

This isn’t sabotage; it is political resistance.

The liberals think it is somehow “breaking the rules” for people and their representatives to fail to fully cooperate with their unpopular and feared law. When Kathleen Sebelius revealed that the law, as passed, had massively under-financed the implementation of the healthcare.gov website, Congress had two choices: they could vote to spend more money on it, or they could vote against doing so. How could any congressman from a district that overwhelmingly hated and feared Obamacare go along with adding to the deficit by giving the law more money to be inflicted on the people?

Why did Democrats expect everyone to give up and become compliant? In this context, that is really all “sabotage” can mean: you refused to give up and cooperate even though our law doesn’t work unless you do so. That just means the Affordable Care Act was, in that additional respect, built on fantasy rather than reality.

Conservatives opposed Bush’s expansion of Medicaid. Was it really shocking that GOP dominated states would go to the courts to argue they should not be forced to participate in a Medicaid expansion, especially when they knew the Federal money was a temporary teaser?

We still live in the vestiges of a Federal Republic. The law could not simply order states to build health exchanges. Any politicians who tried to do so would be in big trouble with the people of their state. So they didn’t build them, as was their right.

If the law could not work without their cooperation then it was a law designed to work in a different world.

“Sabotage” is a liberal code word for popular resistance—lawful resistance through lawful democratic processes. Liberals are accusing conservatives of not becoming liberals after Obamacare was passed.

Welcome to America, Liberals.