The Case Against Hope For ObamaCare

I agree with James Taranto:

We resent being told how to feel, and we hope ObamaCare fails, spectacularly and quickly.

We hope it fails spectacularly because that would provide an emotionally satisfying dramatic conclusion. If Barack Obama is forced to spend, say, the last two years of his presidency contending with the undeniable failure of his signature initiative, that would be a fitting punishment for the hubris of his first two years, especially since the imposition of ObamaCare on an unwilling country was the main consequence of his hubris.

We hope it fails quickly for an additional reason: to minimize the damage. Imagine if the Post had written a similar editorial in 1917, after the Russian Revolution, titled “Everyone Should Hope Communism Works.” That would have seemed equally high-minded: If communism didn’t work, tens of millions of people would be made miserable.

Which, of course, is precisely what happened over the next 70-plus years. The Post might respond that that’s an argument against communism rather than an argument against hoping communism works. But when you put it that way, it’s not such a clear distinction, is it? The communist revolution would not have succeeded absent a critical mass of people hopeful communism would work. Nor would it have endured as long as it did if no one had an emotional interest in its perpetuation.

Unfortunately, many still have that emotional interest.

4 thoughts on “The Case Against Hope For ObamaCare”

  1. For this argument to make sense, Taranto would have to be right about Obamacare being as irredeemable as Communism. It’s an argument that doesn’t allow for self-doubt or intellectual humility, for the possibility that maybe Taranto can’t foresee how the law will play out.

    But I’ll give the anti-Obamacare voices this much: they aren’t lacking for certainty. They were certain it wouldn’t pass, certain it wouldn’t survive Supreme Court review, and certain it’d doom Obama’s re-election chances. Now they’re certain it will be a disaster. We’ll see.

    1. [Jim, taking a practice SAT]

      “puppy : dog :: kitten : X”? That’s impossible!

      [Checking the answers]

      “cat”! But for that to make sense, cats would have to be dogs!

      [bitter confused weeping]

Comments are closed.