Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Render Unto Kasich: Ohio Gov. Offers Bibles to Critics of Obamacare Expansion
John Kasich claims to be a Republican. In fact, he launched his quixotic run for the presidency on the Republican ticket. Yet he continues to approach governance using the arguments of a random “Democratic Strategist” guest on MSNBC Weekend.
Speaking Tuesday morning at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Governor Kasich swatted away complaints about his controversial Medicaid expansion in Ohio with one of his now-expected sermonettes:
“Look at Medicaid expansion — do you know how many people are yelling at me? I go to events where people yell at me. You know what I tell em? I mean, God bless ’em, I’m telling them a little bit better than this: There’s a book, it’s got a new part and an old part. They put it together. It’s a remarkable book. If you don’t have one, I’ll buy you one, and it talks about how we treat the poor.”
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and, you know what… also give Caesar the things which are God’s.
While I appreciate the Governor’s offer of a free Bible, the copies I own say that I should help the needy. Nowhere does it claim I should subcontract my compassion to bureaucrats in some far-off imperial capital. Jesus didn’t demand social justice from the centurions, lobby Pontius Pilate to raise the minimum wage, or chain himself to a chariot shouting “Jewish Lives Matter.”
I’m a humble layman, but as best as I can figure, God wants me personally “to look after orphans and widows in their distress.” He asks my church corporately to “continue to remember the poor.” He asks Christians to “comfort those who are in any trouble.”
Frankly, it would be far easier if Jesus commanded his followers to vote for candidates who will complete this painstaking work for them. But He didn’t let us off that easy, Governor Kasich.
Published in General
I’ve been convinced the Constitution doesn’t make taxation moral. You could make the argument that the moral need to fulfill a public good supersedes the moral presumption against theft, but that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly moral to steal for any reason you can find a (even Constitutional) way to pass a law.
I will leave you to your blissful existence where the government is a roving band of marauders taking your property rather than a group of politicians specifically empowered by to do the same.
No, it is not.
I voted against my city’s mayor. (Granted, I’m not sure how much better the other guy would have been — but he would have been some better.) I voted for one city councilman who won — he’s the one who opposes spending money we don’t have. I voted against the rest of them as I had opportunity. I have in no way whatsoever acquiesced in their poor use of my money, or in any other bad policy they pursue.
City voters in general? Sure. Me in particular? No. And should that give the city some pause in how they spend my money? Yes. Does it? You can laugh.
Unless your point is that being a peaceful law-abiding citizen rather than a revolutionary is acquiescence. But there are moral reasons for being a peaceful law-abiding citizen that outweigh my objections to City Hall. Or conservative Ohioans’ objections to Governor Kasich’s Medicaid expansion.
(I actually go to the trouble of researching local candidates to the best of my ability. It’s a frustrating process.)
Why paint such a picture? So, it’s justified for thieves show up in suits with sophisticated language and kindly asks you to hand over your money several times before they beat you up and hull you away because several of your neighbors said they were allowed to? That makes it moral?
I have disliked Kasich for many, many years, but haven’t been able to put the dislike (or the reasons for it) into words that really do it justice.
Everybody in this thread is doing an excellent job.
It also appears that everyone is in agreement here.
There’s one thing I dislike more than a politician, and that’s a bureaucrat. John Kasich is the very definition of a big government bureaucrat.
He does. He has a terrible book on his bible study group, in which he (seriously) describes himself as “uniquely qualified” to explain the concept of bible studying to Americans.
I don’t doubt for a moment that his views on this are sincere, and that they are the result of many hours discussing the subject with his buddies in the group. They are embarrassingly theologically illiterate for a group that meets every two weeks; just about every issue he discusses is one that he manages to maintain a freshman’s sense of awe both at the profundity of the concept and at his own mastery of it. He admits that he doesn’t often read the text or the supplemental works before getting there, but other people do, and his study there is supplemented by intermittent church going, although it’s never really clear why he does the latter (he explicitly talks about not finding God there, but doing it because it’s what you do).
I think I’m with Brent on this. You’re providing reasons that acquiescence is a good idea, rather than arguments that you’re not engaging in it. You acquiesce every time you pledge allegiance. And you’re obviously right to do so. Launching a revolution over the Medicaid expansion would be manifestly nuts; even by the standards of terrorists and spree killers, it would be eccentric.
I think you and Brent are reading too much into my point, because I can’t imagine either of you really disagree with me that much.
I’ll acknowledge that in the broader scheme of things I’m giving consent to the existence of the government. But I don’t think the Founders meant for minority rights to go out the window unless those minorities were prepared to launch a revolution or otherwise act outside constitutional means to register their objection.
If you are elected with 60% of the vote, that means 40% opposed you. And then there are the people who stayed home. And then there are those who didn’t have a vote, or those yet to be born… And the politician in office governs all those people, and he should approach that with a certain humility. 60% doesn’t give you a mandate to run over the 40% because they acquiesced by not trying to throw a revolution and only did everything constitutionally in their power to oppose you.
Kasich just ended his presidential candidacy. This was a career limiting move. After this, he couldn’t even be a VP candidate. There is no doubt Kasich is the most Liberal candidate out there. To say that Obamacare is the biblical authorized version of healthcare policy is not only wrong but crassly demagogic.
I think that they thought that the government should govern, in general, with regard to the welfare of the whole jurisdiction, with particularlism being useful chiefly in protecting against particularism. They also thought that some rights ought to be enumerated as deserving of special protection. I’m not sure that they thought that a minority of voters disagreeing with a particular decision that fell outside those protections should be particularly important to politicians. They broadly agreed with Burke’s view that he owed his constituents his judgment rather than his obedience. What am I missing?
Amen, brother. The world is totally upside down.
It’s been too long. He hung with a bunch of RINO’s. I thought it was McCain. Thanks for setting me straight.
Lets see here the Bible has over a thousand Scriptures related to or that are in reference to money. No were does it say we should spend money on health care (not that we should not either). In matter fact when it comes to sickness the directive is clear, pray for the sick. Heck the one time there was a lame man asking for money Peter said we don’t have cash money but we know God and will pray for you and the man was healed and walked.
Actually the bible is pretty clear, about alums is for Widows and Orphans. Not Wedlock mothers and able body men.
I think he may be the dark horse front runner.
I don’t think he’s the front runner, but he’s up there. I used to think that if Trump stayed strong, Jeb would be almost certain to win, but now I think Kasich might be in with a chance.
I wrote this at the beginning of March.
The most Liberal Republican running? I could be wrong, and I’m sure I am, but I don’t see how Kasich could be the dark horse.
Didn’t read all the comments, but skimmed enough to get the consensus. Could I add a couple of counterpoints.
1) This kind of language moves people between the 40 yard lines even if it rubs us the wrong way. I remember lefty Tim Kaine running for Governor of then still red Virginia, he explained it was his personal interpretation of his Catholic faith that caused him to oppose the death penalty. He won because enough people thought he was sincere, even if they disagreed with him.
2) Kasich accepted money to expand Medicare, he did not sign on for Obamacare all the way. His budget would have had a much larger hole if he hadn’t accepted it. I believe my Senator [Burr’s] alternative to Obamacare entails a pretty substantial bump in Medicare too, at least some of the alternative plans do.
3) I wish you guys could walk in my family’s shoes, with a young son suffering from schizophrenia, and look at the trillions of dollars our government pisses away on farmers and military boondoggles and other spending that doesn’t raise the agita that helping poor people get medicine does, and you would understand why we are so easily mocked by the Colbert’s and Stewart’s.
Doesn’t accepting that money obligate Ohio to keep on spending at the new levels, even after the the federal subsidy runs out? That was my understanding of the Obamacare subsidy to the states. Commit to spending more money in perpetuity, and we’ll give you money for a few years to get you started. Of course, many pieces of Obamacare have been waived away, so maybe I’m out of date in how the law is actually being applied.
VA was already well into purple when Kaine was elected. He followed Warner (who was popular) as governor. W was sliding in popularity. VA elected Webb the following year for Senate and Warner after that. We haven’t had a Republican Senator since. Up until 2000, VA’s legislature had historically been controlled by Democrats. VA was briefly red for a decade at best, but it had been getting redder until Warner and Kaine were governors. It’s moved redder again at the local level the last few years.
We are mocked by the Left because it is easier to mock than engage in honest debate. That the government wastes money on boondoggles is reason to end those boondoggles. It doesn’t follow that we should expand the number of boondoggles so more people get a cut of the action and thus make it harder to end the boondoggles.
Randy, I agree this current Medicare expansion is the equivalent of offering a teaser rate on a loan, but my point was that the viable Republican alternatives to Obamacare continue that aspect of his program anyway.
Whiskey Sam, I’ll defer to your knowledge of VA politics, but I do know being adamantly anti-death penalty was a politically courageous decision at the time, whatever your view on the merits. I’m a little allergic to Kasich’s bible thumping rhetoric too, its my least favorite aspect of what he offers, but I think he has the best chance of gaining us a substantial victory next year, padding our already conservative ranks in the Congress, and that he will not be worse than any other plausible nominee on the issues that we care about.
Kaine was courageous in sticking up for his beliefs, and Kilgore overplayed the negativity in his ads. I don’t know that people responded to Kaine’s opinion so much as his willingness to stand by it as a matter of faith under intense attacks for holding it. The problem I have with Kasich is not his choice of policy but that he claims a biblical backing for it when there is none. I concede that for much of the electorate that doesn’t matter since they tend to be as ignorant of what the Bible says as Kasich appears to be.
I’m not saying a minority deserves a veto over general policy, except what our system builds in. I am saying that if the government goes outside its authority, the fact that it won an overwhelming democratic majority in no way justifies or mitigates that abuse, because plenty of people who did not participate in that majority suffer too. I’m thinking Burke comes in on my side on this one.
Taking from Peter to pay Paul is poor policy, but if Peter is on board it’s harder to make a moral case against it. But if Peter objects to the robbery and opposes it by all reasonable means, including voting against the politician doing the robbing, it’s particularly unfair to Peter and an abuse of government power. (I’m obviously speaking of unjust taxation for illegitimate purposes, not necessary taxation for legitimate purposes of government.)
And I don’t think it’s reasonable to imply that Peter has in any way “acquiesced” by staying within constitutional limits in opposing the robbery.