Inquirer Editorial: Republicans drinking tea-party brew

Even people who disagree with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's unvarnished libertarian views can appreciate that he never pulls his punches in expressing them.

Of course, there was no need for the Texas congressman to fret about that in Tuesday night's tea-party debate before a crowd of folks who also believe less government is the best government.

They applauded Paul, especially when he suggested it was preferable to let anyone who could but didn't buy health insurance stay sick, rather than have taxpayers pay for that person's medical care.

"That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," said Paul. When pressed by moderator Wolf Blitzer, Paul said he didn't mean society should let the uninsured die, but "we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves."

Only U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota was asked the same question. She instead chose to see how many times in a minute she could say Obamacare (five). Maybe Bachmann thinks if she keeps saying Obamacare, people won't notice she has little to say about anything else.

Too bad Blitzer didn't ask the other six candidates his hypothetical question about an employed 30-year-old who lacks health insurance but needs intensive care. The query addresses the crux of the nation's dilemma in trying to figure out an appropriate mix of taxing and spending.

The tea-party crowd's applause for the health-insurance position of Paul - a physician - is in keeping with that movement's belief that America works best when people sink or swim without "socialist" intervention by government.

Bachmann said it was time for people to stop depending on government for drugs, retirement, health care, housing, and food. "This isn't going to work anymore," she said. "We have to be an ownership society, where individual responsibility, personal responsibility, once again becomes the animating American principle."

She, Paul, and other tea-party fans believe most Americans are ready to embrace the "objectivism" philosophy of Ayn Rand, who said no man should "subordinate his life to the welfare of others . . . the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern."

If that had been the prevailing view when Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were proposed, those programs would not exist. If the next president embraces that view, there's no telling what will become of those programs or others that aid Americans who need public assistance.

Voters must keep that in mind as they evaluate all the presidential candidates. This election, maybe more than any recent election, will be a referendum on what Americans want this nation to be - one that holds out its hand to assist others, or one that says it's everyone for himself.