That’s what Sheldon Richman says in this commentary on the current health care debate.
Advocates of what is called health-care “reform” must lack confidence in their case. Were they sure that more government control of medicine and medical insurance was a good thing, they would answer the opposing arguments rather than marginalize their adversaries as corrupt or crazy.
In debating a controversial issue, a good-faith participant rebuts the strongest possible opposing arguments. He doesn’t focus on easy targets, such as self-serving or ill-informed opponents, while pretending that legitimate arguments don’t exist.
The benefit of this for the Obama backers is that they never have to respond to the real case against government control. Sneering ridicule and dramatic exposés take the place of argument.
This stale “debate” tactic of only highlighting the easy targets and then attempting to broad brush all ideogical opponents into the “crazy” camp does a disservice to the democratic process.
If Obamacare is so worthy, Richman challenges, why not address the serious criticism?
It is true that many people who attend congressional meetings have little more than a gut-level aversion to further government control of health care and repeat inaccurate allegations about the various bills in Congress. Pointing out those inaccuracies is proper, but Obama’s defenders need to do more: They need to answer the critics who offer solid arguments for why government control would harm, not help, most people.