Educated drivel.

Here’s Thomas Frank’s take on the essence of conservatism:

[Conservatism is a] movement that ordinarily celebrates Darwinian struggle and the destruction of the weak by the strong.

Oh really?

For outright distortion of a political philosophy this is hard to beat. I know a good number of conservatives but know of none who celebrates the destruction of the weak.

But Mr. Frank feels free casually to mischaracterize people who are very much energized around the danger of government’s demonstrated ability to destroy the weak -- as witness China, N. Korea, the Soviet Union, and Cambodia in the last century. Real “predator states” (a term he makes much of) but don’t look for Franks to develop any kind of an allergy to that kind of predation.

An English critic of government relief to the Ireland during the famine did not, to my knowledge, oppose relief to the Irish per se but rather objected to the use of tax money in a way that he believed to be unauthorized by law.

Our own James Madison disapproved of an appropriation of $15,000 for certain French refugees in the words, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Given the enormous sums expended in the U.S. for a vast number of improper purposes over the years, Madison cannot be said to have come down on the wrong side of the issue.

However, instead of supporting the advancement of the private sector (and, hence, its enhanced capacity for alternative charitable works), government has sought to drain it of resources, kill its vitality, and arrogate to itself vast powers that still cannot be found in the Constitution. All in the name of compassion and “caring” for the little man. And pursuant to the false claim that ours is a “living Constitution” from which new, unheard of congressional powers can be divined ad libidum -- a la The Great Karnak -- be the purpose but fine and kind.

Presumably Mr. Frank assumes that to oppose an exercise of government power for the worthy purpose du jour is prima facie evidence of just that depravity of spirit that rejoices in the “destruction of the weak.”

Clearly, from his Wall Street Journal piece, he takes the high road by arguing for a simpleton’s faith in government’s benevolence when government is able to operate free of the influence of lobbyists for health insurance companies, viz., “actuarial-minded hardliners.” No constitutional limit, no danger of tyranny, and no concern for profitability need be considered. Just trust government. And its “public-mindedness.”

Conservative depravity. Noble government threatened by the writhing, coiled tentacles of private greed.

Drivel. From but one from the ranks of legions of the educated clueless.

"Health Care and the 'Predator State'." By Thomas Frank, Wall Street Journal, 10/6/09 -- an article quite silent on the influence on government of campaign contributions by public sector unions, rich international currency traders, and Saudi kings.