Liberals and the “Discrimination” Ruse

ENN ^ | March 11, 2014 | Walter Myers III

[enn247]

This weekend I was listening to a talk radio show discussing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where the subject of “women’s rights” came up. Sirius XM radio host David Webb had a liberal and a conservative guest providing opposing perspectives on the purported pay disparity between men and women. While it has been conclusively discredited that, as of current, women are being paid less than men as a matter of systematic discrimination, what never ceases to amaze is how liberals continue to parrot the charge that this is indeed the case. It appears that no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary, once a liberal declares some form of discrimination, they doggedly pursue it not because it is a real concern, but because it appeals purely to the emotions of the electorate and can be used as a political cudgel. Of course, this is the most cynical and dishonest type of politics, which can never achieve a good result because it is based on falsehood under the ruse that it is looking to protect some group of people.

In particular, the liberal guest on the David Webb show made the assertion that women have been discriminated against in the workplace historically and that we need to be vigilant this does not continue. Note the slight play on words here. He notes a historical issue, and then goes directly into rectifying a historical issue with absolutely no discussion of the current state of affairs. He repeated over and over that we can’t allow women to continue to be discriminated against, even though Webb and the conservative guest corrected him each time that he was not factoring in the status of women’s pay today, as opposed to what we all know was a problem in past history. It was intentional by this liberal, who did finally admit that not all people are equal, so we can’t expect equal outcomes, but again argued nonetheless that we need to make sure women are not discriminated against in the workplace in order to give the (still false) impression that this is a current problem.

Another falsehood the liberal threw in during this discussion was that before Obamacare, women were discriminated against systematically with regard to health insurance. Again, this is an emotional appeal that will work with many Americans who won’t bother to examine the assertion for its veracity. The fact is that insurance “discriminates” against all who would be potentially insured in what is called “fair discrimination” since no one is being treated unfairly. Insurance is based on risk, and thus the insurance company must “discriminate” as to whom it may insure or whom it may not insure as to keep the pool of insurance reserves integral to pay claims and make a reasonable profit. Women are typically a higher risk than men purely based on their biology, so of course their premiums are going to be higher. In the same vein, if a man is a smoker, then he will be of higher risk than a man who is not, and he will be “discriminated” against as well. So how does the liberal make the charge that women were being discriminated against before Obamacare, when anyone, male or female who was a not standard risk was going to pay higher premiums simply because they carried additional actuarial risk?

Finally, we see liberals are still in love with Obamacare despite its perverse effects. Even though the president continues to (illegally) delay its mandates, most families are not going to save an average of $2500 on insurance premiums, and are not going to be able to keep the coverage they already have. Many families will, in fact, be spending more to buy coverage they don’t need and don’t want in order to subsidize others in what is nothing more than a redistribution scheme. The system before Obamacare wasn’t competitive because each state monopolized what the insurance companies could and could not sell, but there was more choice than Obamacare. Instead of the federal government providing more choice and more competition, what it did was simply embed its footprint deeper into the economy and into the lives of Americans while severely limiting their choices and making insurance more expensive. So this is what liberals really are about. They are not about more freedom and more choices, but more government programs and more government control over the lives of Americans. And it is intentional. But what would you expect from people who would sell you one thing, offer something entirely different, and then tell you that you should be happy because they know better than you what’s best for you?

Walter Myers III is a libertarian-leaning, constitutional conservative who blogs on limited government, personal responsibility, and maximum civil liberties. He resides in Southern California and is formerly Chairman of Community Outreach for the the Orange County Republican Party. Walter sits on the board of Atlas PAC and is on the advisory board to the Hispanic 100, two pro-business Orange County Political Action Committees. Walter is also an active member of the conservative, pro-business Lincoln Club of Orange County. Walter holds a Master of Arts in Philosophy of Religion & Ethics from the Talbot School of Theology on the Biola University campus. Walter’s philosophical/political blog, Scientia Media, can be found athttp://www.scientiamedia.com.

[NRA1995]

Spot on!

[humblegunner]

Not much for comments, are you?

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:enn247/index?tab=comments

Don’t you like us?