Magnifisyncopathological

This blog has been tough on John Edwards. I've called him a flaming hypocrite (and a normal hypocrite), described him as essentially the same as Dick Cheney, and complained about his rhetorical collectivization. I don't like the guy.

But for a moment, I envied him.

The AP via Yahoo! News: Edwards backs mandatory preventive care

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

He clearly isn't worried about being attacked for supporting cradle-to-grave socialism. A dubious expression of political guts, to be sure. But how likely are we to hear a major party candidate say, "The whole idea of my plan is for the government to do nothing and let each American take care of themselves and those they love." No Republican has the balls to say that and Ron Paul's website is more concerned about attacking the fringes of health statism. The Libertarian Party platform is considerably better ("Current problems in such areas as energy, pollution, health care delivery, decaying cities, and poverty are not solved, but are primarily caused, by government. "), but they aren't going to get into power.

The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care "ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single American?"

"Because if it doesn't they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care," he said. "Because in my view, everybody is worth health care."

There you have it: perhaps the most elegant plop of misdirective, ethically confused, bullshit emotional extortion I've heard in a while.

If you disagree, you're painted a heartless bastard who doesn't think anyone is worth health care for the next news cycle. Idiots would blossom like mushrooms in cow turds, accusing you of thinking Good Ole Average American ain't worth decent health care. How could you believe universal health coverage would be bad? Doesn't it make sense?

In the face of that, appeals to principle and ethics that come off as callously abstract are hopeless. He's got a history of this. I've said before:

He's fundamentally no different at all to anyone currently seeking or thinking of seeking the presidency. He's just a little more honest about his goals and his means: more power for the feds and more will to use it.

So yeah, I envy John Edwards a bit. It must feel nice to be so upfront about a direct application of your ethics.

The horrible ass still needs slaves, though.