A common warning about Obamacare and its individual mandate is that if the government can force private citizens to purchase private insurance it can force citizens to purchase other goods and services. A common sophism is that people are required to purchase auto insurance if they wish to drive a car. Except, no one is required to own and drive a car. It’s convenient, and it allows us to traverse great distances, but no one is mandated to own and drive a car.

Warnings aside, there’s little focus on what happens once the tables turn. There is no final victory in politics. I hope the politicians who are forcing us to spend money against our will remember that. It’s bad enough they exempt themselves from the policies they impose upon everyone, but how will they fare when they return to private life? Instead of warning our fellow citizens about the other things we shall be forced to purchase, why isn’t the current political minority salivating at the idea of abusing this against them?

The answer is that we, as Americans, have an aversion to political revanchism.

Third-world governments are famous for revanchist politics; the Philippines is no stranger to this practice. Each regime is fixated on the previous. The sentiment is that there can be no unity nor healing until the misdeeds of those who have left power are punished. Hyperbole, yes, but a person can be president one year and a political exile the next.

That’s just not how we do things in the USA, but in 2006 a seemingly vindictive Democrat-controlled Congress took power. In the years leading to that electoral rout, they did well to highlight the inconsistencies and follies of the Republican party. They even strengthened their majority in 2008. No matter what George W. Bush did to yield to the political minority between 2001 and 2005, and despite yielding further ground after Pelosi took the House, the Democrats wasted no time destroying him.

Something changed after our current president’s election. Normally, transitions of power between opposing parties lead to dismantling of policies. Gingrich’s Contract With America, aimed to stop Clinton’s leftward policies in its tracks. But in 2009, Democrats took a different turn: Pelosi intimated towards revanchist trials against Bush officials, including John Yoo. This was a sign they viewed the previous government as criminal, and it’s very disturbing.

I don’t think Democrats should share their power. I wasn’t a fan of them when they kept on begging for bipartisanship in the Bush years, and you won’t hear me beg for a share of power now. But consider how the election of Sen. Scott Brown was received by the Democrats. His election was a response to the policies they were railroading, and they went with it anyway. The next step, of course, is to hold them accountable for their own policies.

Are we fixated on vengeance?

Two awesome questions were posed to me today. First, I was asked by Technosailor why I oppose a $5000 tax credit to employers who hire those who have been unemployed, and whether I oppose Democrats out of spite. I do neither. I am an ideological nut, not a partisan one, and I’m not afraid to support Conservative Democrats who unlike Bart Stupak are actually willing to Do A Conservative Thing™. Anyone remember Governor Sarah Palin? Her high approval ratings were a result of cooperation with Democrats and Republicans. With their help, she provided much progress for the state while keeping focus on better governance and not on the political enemies she defeated.

The second question was by Joe Marier (whose twitter account is private, else I’d link to it): “can good governance overcome a culture opposed to it?” A similar point was made months ago in a quick Twitter exchange with Conor Friedersdorf, at the end of which he said (I paraphrase) that the point of politics is good governance, not winning against your opponent.

Can it overcome? The better question is, should it? I believe in Paine’s dictum that the government that governs least, governs best: not just on the scale of the Federal government versus the states, but between state governments and their residents. Since I am a conservative, I believe that the culture that opposes self-professed “good” governance is the culture that recognizes excessive governance. So as a response to Conor’s assertion, the point of Conservative politics is to allow for good self-governance by keeping as few statists in office as possible.

For all my fiery talk of keeping the American Left out of power, I have no desire to see these people criminally punished. I want them out of power, because their policies tend to be hurtful, shortsighted and naive. The ideal outcomes they propose come at incredulous cost. The policies have to be stopped; their ideas, discredited. That is all I aim for.

Nothing is set in stone.

I won’t discuss the prospects of repeal tonight, but consider Moe Lane, and this short list of things we were told we couldn’t do. No government entitlement program is permanent, nor is it an unmitigated good. One day there will be those who will have to tackle the prospect of ending the Medicare program as we know it, or face exponentially growing cost at the expense of our military spending and national defense. We can keep postponing his return, but one day we will have to pay the piper.