The headquarters of conservative cheerleading for the Obamacare decision

Below are today’s Must Reads at All of them are articles celebrating or at least finding a silver lining in the Supreme Court’s approval of Obamacare—an approval based on the idea that the penalty for disobeying the individual mandate is really a tax, which in turn means that the Congress has unlimited powers over the citizenry, so long as it combines these powers with a penalty which it calls a tax. And all of the headlines have editorial subheadlines in which Lucianne Goldberg pushes the message that this historic victory for leftism is “really” a victory for conservatism. This hidden “truth” is so against the evidence that you have to be a gnostic knower to know it; indeed, all the conservative articles praising John Roberts’s majority decision, such as Charles Krauthammer’s and Sean Trende’s, have the tortured character of a gnostic construction. But of course that is the way gnostic movements always originate: as an escape from a reality that has become unbearable. The unbearable reality is that the American Republic under the Constitution is gone, and therefore conservatism is gone. They cannot face this, so they retreat into a gnostic dream world in which the Roberts decision is a win for our side.
Lucianne%20June%2029%202012.png, and the large strand of the mainstream conservative movement it epitomizes, is not about opposing the left, and is not about truth. It’s about keeping alive the illusion of a viable conservatism that opposes leftism, even after leftism has slain conservatism and conservatism is lying torn and dead on the ground.

* * *

On the same subject, see the entry, “The mainstream conservatives’ alternative reality.” However, that title should not be taken to mean that all mainstream conservatives are applauding the decision. Many see it as a disaster.

- end of initial entry -

Al H. writes:

I wonder why there wasn’t one article prior to yesterday by any so called conservative telling us it would be in the country’s best interest or even politically advantageous for the GOP if the mandate was to be upheld by virtue of it being a tax. That seems odd, since that’s all I’m reading about now.

LA replies:

Yes, it does have the Orwellian quality of “Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia,” doesn’t it? Roberts upheld all of Obamacare, including the mandate, and he did it according to a principle never uttered before in the history of the U.S., and within hours a major part of the conservative movement were eagerly calling his act a great benefit to conservatism and America.

Alexis Zarkov writes:

Of course the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare is a disaster of major proportions for both the country and Republicans. The court challenge started out as a long shot with virtually the whole of the legal professoriate ridiculing the opponents’ argument. Even the staunch enemies of Obamacare had little confidence they would succeed in the Supreme Court until oral argument. Then they were brimming with optimism. Indeed the online betting site, Intrade, had the probability of the Mandate going down at 73 percent right before the decision. Now we see a fit of mass delusion with conservatives trying to spin this disaster into a victory. To overturn Obamacare, the Republicans will have to take the Senate, the House and the presidency—in my opinion, a long shot. Although I see one bright spot. The Republicans only need a simple Senate majority. The Democrats can’t filibuster the repeal legislation because the Senate passed Obamacare under a reconciliation procedure. While the Republicans sound delusional, the Democrats sound insane. Obama and his press secretary are calling it a tax again as of Friday. First they tell us it’s not a tax. Then the government lawyer argues it is a tax. Then the Democrats celebrate Chief Justice John Roberts for recognizing it as a tax only to reverse this within 24 hours. Evidently the Democrats don’t believe in the law of the excluded middle—a thing cannot be and not be at the same. Am I living in a dream? Actually my dreams are much more logical then real life.

D. Edwards writes:

“I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”—William F. Buckley

John Roberts:

He attended Harvard College, graduating with an A.B. summa cum laude in history in three years. He then attended Harvard Law School where he was the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated from law school with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1979.

Elena Kagan:

She received a Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, at Harvard Law School in 1986, where she was supervisory editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Ruth Ginsburg:

In 2010 she was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Princeton University, and in 2011 she was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Harvard University.


a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from Harvard Law School.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 29, 2012 09:12 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):