"The end justifies the means" is an unstated rationale that guides much liberal thinking and rationalizes immoral behavior in service to a supposedly greater good. But a column I've just read stretches this twisted ethical calculus to a new level.
Columnist Michael Cohen, in an op-ed for the New York Daily News, tells us, essentially, that President Obama's lie that people could keep their health care plans if they liked them is not just defensible -- because it was in service to the greater good of imposing Obamacare on an otherwise unwilling populace -- but darn near laudable.
Obama is to be praised for having the courage to deceive us because we are not enlightened enough to know what is in our best interests. The headline of the column is "Behind Obama's lie, our own immaturity." The subhead digs the knife in further: "We can't handle the truth."
Where would we be without the superior wisdom of liberals and their altruistic willingness to engage in fraudulent coercion to speed us along the evolutionary food chain?
After conceding that Obama uttered this lie at least 34 times, Cohen admonishes us that "before we fully castigate the President for his rhetorical flights of fancy, it's important to keep in mind that Obama was -- to a large degree -- telling Americans what they wanted to hear. In fact, he was giving them the type of comforting assurances they insist upon getting before backing any major policy change from Washington."
Well then, by all means, all praise to Barack, the benevolent deceiver in chief, for his comforting assurances. Though Americans may not be fully aware of it, deep down they want their leaders to trick them with promises of better things because otherwise, they would never have the sense to embrace the far-reaching reforms that only liberal academics and community organizers fully comprehend.
Cohen goes on to argue that though Obamacare "is the most far-reaching piece of social policy since the Great Society ... most Americans are largely unaffected by it." And "this was not accidental." No, the plan was "minimally invasive," because "politicians knew Americans would never go along with reform if they saw it as something that would disrupt their own lives."
Let's unpack this a bit, shall we?
In the first place, Obama's assurance wasn't just an innocuous case of over-promising or a "rhetorical flight of fancy." We now know that when Obama made the promise, he was fully aware that as many as 93 million people could lose their plans.
Group White House Says Doesn't Qualify as "Terrorists" Kills Three Americans in Afghanistan | Katie Pavlich
Grassley: Will Loretta Lynch's Qualifications Transfer to Correcting Serious Problems at DOJ? | Katie Pavlich