In Part Six of this series I explained how liberals use false compassion to sell socialism to gullible members of the public.  In this installment I focus on how liberals use emotionalism to advance their agenda.  When emotionalism is the strategy, the left’s favorite issue is healthcare. Socialists believe that healthcare should be free and universally available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.  “Free” universal healthcare is the five-hundred pound gorilla on the list of a socialist’s most important issues.  On the surface, this is an appealing concept. Wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in fantasyland where healthcare and all other necessities are free? But that is the problem.  With the exception of the liberals among us, Americans don’t live in fantasyland.  Where we live, nothing is free.

Emotionalism, particularly about healthcare, is an effective tool for socialists. But there is a problem here that socialists conveniently ignore.  Nothing is free, and especially not healthcare.  In fact, few things are more expensive than healthcare, and liberal policies like Obamacare just continue to drive up the costs. Even with all of its abundance, America has finite resources.  There are simply not sufficient resources in this or any other country to provide high-quality universal healthcare fully paid for by taxpayers.  When economists point out this inconvenient fact, socialists quickly play the emotion card and portray them as “hard-hearted” misers who don’t care about their fellow human beings.

What emotional liberals conveniently gloss over is that in its own imperfect way, the free-market system results in better healthcare for the poor, the wealthy, and those in the middle—just as it results in better cars, homes, food, and everything else needed by human beings.  This is because the free market provides incentives to be productive while socialism provides no such incentives—in fact just the opposite.  On the most fundamental level, the free-market system gives people the incentive to improve themselves economically so they and their families can enjoy better healthcare, homes, cars, food, and all of the other human necessities. Socialism, on the other hand, provides no such incentives.  Why should people work long, hard, and smart to improve their economic circumstances when the government will take their hard-earned money from them and give it to an unproductive person regardless of that person’s sloth, lack of effort, or ineptitude, and all in the name of fairness and redistribution of wealth?

Left-leaning politicians such as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and their fellow advocates of bailouts, handouts, and entitlements claim to be more compassionate than free-market proponents, but their emotional appeals for “fairness” are just empty words.  If they really wanted to be fair, they would be more charitable in giving of their own substantial wealth rather than taxing Americans who work hard to provide for themselves and their families.  It is easy to be compassionate with someone else’s money.  But where is the fairness when left-leaning politicians who enjoy perquisites most Americans cannot even imagine take resources away from hard-working Americans who are just barely eking out a living and redistribute them to people who make their living playing the system?  This is the hypocrisy of the left and its deceitful use of emotionalism.

This is the seventh in a 10 part series on Socialism:

What’s So Bad About Socialism? (Intro)

How Do You Define Socialism? (Part 1)

Beginnings of American Socialism in Public Education? (Part 2)

Socialism’s First Casualties (Part 3)

14 Reasons Socialism Won’t Work in America (Part 4)

Socialism’s Fundamental Flaw that Liberals Simply Ignore (Part 5)

 

Most Effective Tool Used to Sell Socialism to Americans? (Part 6)