Sounding like he was mangling a Men’s Wearhouse ad, Senator
Chuck Schumer said on Meet the Press last Sunday that he
welcomed the House’s debate on Obamacare because “it gives us a
second chance to make a first impression.” You are going to like
the way you look under Obamacare, says Schumer. He guarantees
it.
Meanwhile, the White House, even as it denied that
Obamacare represents a governmental takeover of one sixth of the
American economy, spent the week honoring Chinese socialists. The
White House got back in touch with its inner Mao, whom former White
House communications director Anita Dunn had called one of her
“favorite political philosophers.” Dunn had extolled Chairman Mao
before a group of high school graduates for his dogged commitment
to ambitious goals. The lesson contained within his life, according
to Dunn, was: “Figure out how to do things that have never been
done before.”
Obamacare’s expansion of coverage to tens of millions
while claiming to cut health care costs falls into that category
and will require Maoist means to pull off, though the last time the
Chinese met with Obama press reports indicated that even they
harbored doubts about the fiscal prudence of Obamacare. The bankers
of China would rather lend to hardheaded capitalists than
Alinskyite community organizers. They fear that America’s
dysfunctional federal government may one day default on China’s
loans.
For Obamacare to deliver on its promise of more coverage
at less cost, it would have to adopt the brutal rationing of the
Chinese system. Civility expert Paul Krugman let that cat out of
the bag last November when he blurted out on This Week with
Christiane Amanpour that “death panels and sales taxes”
represented the real solution to America’s debt problem. The
overseers of Obamacare, Krugman said, would have to stare down the
death panel critics and “decide what it’s going to pay
for.”
Obama’s coziness with the Chinese is first explained by
the federal government’s indebtedness to its bankers. But there is
also a hint of admiration in it for China’s brisk statism. Obama
too would like to preside over a command-and-control economy and
socialized nanny state.
Not that China’s idea of rigid regulation and education
corresponds perfectly with liberal America’s ideas. One can’t
imagine Obama’s allies at the National Education Association
embracing China’s level of educational rigor. They couldn’t even
abide Chinese American Amy Chua’s
excerpt in the Wall Street Journal on the teaching
style of Chinese parents.
According to Chua, “Chinese parents can get away with
things that Western parents can’t. Once when I was young — maybe
more than once — when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother,
my father angrily called me ‘garbage’ in our native Hokkien
dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed
of what I had done. But it didn’t damage my self-esteem or anything
like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me. I didn’t
actually think I was worthless or feel like a piece of
garbage.”
This sounds like a human rights violation that might
concern Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who once considered
herself a pioneer in the field of children’s rights. The upshot of
Chua’s excerpt is that Western parents give their children
“self-esteem” without teaching them any skills or forming them in
good character, while Chinese parents help their children acquire
skills and character without offering any blather about
self-esteem. The former parenting style produces delusion in
children, she says, while the latter produces “inner
confidence.”
Obama frequently talks about the need to intensify
American education in order to compete with China. But judging by
the liberal elite’s appalled reaction to Chua, such talk is
laughably empty. Obama’s America seems intent upon imitating
China’s worst qualities while rejecting its best ones.
