Healthcare Facts and Slogans
It’s been a pet peeve of my mine for quite some time now that the pseudo-conservative movement in this country has embraced, with relish, a rhetorical style that is almost Leninist in character. The aim, pure and simple, is to destroy the opposition. At the far end of the scale, you find the bizarre rumors and conspiracy theories that pass for everyday discourse. Witness the lunacy of the debate over Obama’s birth certificate. Some claim racism, noting that this ever-dwindling echo chamber – with a base in the old confederacy – simply cannot accept a black president and will do whatever they can to paint him as a usurper. This may well part part of it, but it cannot be the main reason. Why? Because I’ve seen this all before, during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Wasn’t he supposed to have murdered Vince Foster? Didn’t he run drugs from Latin America into Arkansas? Didn’t be assassinate a stream of political enemies? As they would say in Battlestar Galactica, this has all happened before, this will all happen again. Now, I’m sure many will immediately think: a-ha, but the left does the same thing. And sure, if you comb the blogs you will find some nasty stuff out there. But it’s not the same. The conspiratorial approach to politics is far closer to the center of power on the right than on the left. Not only do you have the whole noise machine in the media (essentially radio and TV, less so blogs), but you have Republican members of Congress engaging in this kind of apocalyptic rhetoric. Remember, the crazy attacks on Clinton culminated in a frenzied impeachment.
This is a style of politics that elevates the will over the intellect, and sees facts as malleable. It is warped and cynical version of post-modernism. Ultimately, it is relativism. Let’s talk healthcare.
When it comes to policy, especially healthcare policy, it boils down to either avoiding or distorting the actual issues, and instead sounding the war cry. You know the story. Obama is on the verge of nationalizing healthcare. It’s part of his dream to turn America into a socialist paradise. Never are these terms defined or is it explained why the person believes these things to be true. But that is not the point. The point is rhetorical total war. The point is to destroy the enemy. And they will marshal any arguments that they think will disgust people. Hence socialism. Sadly, there are many Catholics who play that game too. And here, the pressure points are a bit different, but the tactics are the same. You see, this healthcare reform is going to lead to a huge increase in abortion. And the latest – the plan involves euthanasia, cutting costs by killing old people. The latter point exposes the true intentions of many of these people, which is simply to destroy the reform attempt. Sadly, there is some semblance of a point on abortion, but the fact that they lump it together with all the other garbage tells me they are not serious. It’s rare to find somebody on the right claiming that they are totally behind healthcare reform, but will not support if government subsidies can be used to fund abortions in either private or public plans. No, in nearly all cases, they oppose it on some laissez faire free market grounds. They rally the unborn to serve their own political ends.
But let’s get into it. For when you actually spend some time studying this plan, you will see it is quite modest. If you actually looked at the proposals, you would see the public option is limited to those who can participate in health insurance exchanges, which in turn is limited to the unemployed, the self-employed and small businesses. The CBO thinks that only 27 million would be in the exchange by 2019, and only a small portion of these would be in the public option. For everybody else, it’s old-style employer insurance. This is already a huge compromise. So much for socialism.
And then there is the widely held belief that somehow costs are more out on control in public than private insurance, which is used to denounce the public option. In fact, costs are rising substantially more slowly in medicare and medicaid than in private insurance (7.3 percent versus 4.6 percent for the average annual increase in premiums over the past decade or so). Here’s another fact: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as medicare spending since 1970, they would be a third lower today. Ignorance on this issue is staggering. I’m thinking of the recent anecdote in wide circulation concerning the guy at a town hall meeting who told the politician holding court to “keep your government hands off my Medicare”! This is only slightly hyperbolic.
Remember, the aim of reform is two-fold. First, we must treat healthcare as a the basic human right it is. It is a scandal that 47 million are uninsured and a further 25 million are underinsured. It is a scandal that medical costs is probably the leading cost of bankruptcy in the United States. It is a scandal that the poor end up in emergency rooms, where the treatment hey get is too littletoo late, because they have no access to affordable primary care. It is a scandal that insurance companies prey on suffering by denying coverage, dropping coverage, and denying claims — something that again disproportionately affects the poor.
The second aim to to curb costs. It is absolutely insane that the average person in the United States pays more than twice as much as the average person in comparator countries for healthcare, with little to show for it. Rising healthcare costs at this rate are simply unsustainable. Again, people tend to focus only on the government balance sheet, whereas the true and hidden burden is being borne by workers in the form of stagnant real wages. Remember, private costs are rising faster. There are many culprits behind the escalating cost of healthcare – the profit-seeking motives of insurance companies, the inefficiencies from the proliferation of insurance schemes, the inability of medicare to bargain with suppliers, the over-reliance on the emergency room… Let us also not forget the problem of information asymmetry whereby doctors and healthcare providers get paid based on treatments ordered rather than being paid a salary or pooling income. There is a great deal of overtreatment that goes hand in hand with great neglect — we must own up to this. It is just another aspect of the gaping inequalities in our society.
Will the proposed reforms fix these problems? As I said, I think they are too timid. They will certainly cut costs relative to status quo, but perhaps not as much as they could. They will certainly move toward universal coverage. I believe this is probably the best we can do at this point in time. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to dismantle and entire healthcare system and build a new one from scratch, however desirable that might seem. This reform is prudent and incremental. It is also a moral imperative.
Let me conclude by pointing the finger yet again. (Surprise!) I’ve already criticized the Republicans for their fact-free sloganeering. But I must also criticize the media for being too bloody lazy to cover this debate, for giving equal time to wonks and bomb throwers, and for deeming Michael Jackson’s death a vastly more important topic. I also blame Obama. Quite frankly, what is he thinking? Why is be standing back and allowing so much obfuscation to envelop the reform process? People in the know are claiming he wants to allow congress to take ownership of this agenda, but this is a lousy excuse. It plays right into the hands of those praying for failure.
As far as Congress goes, my understanding is that Feinstein (maybe Boxer, I forget) is a big problem in the Senate and Pelosi is a big problem in the House. Kennedy has had to take a back seat. I’ve already called for Pelosi’s head. The Democratic leadership in the houses needs to be more interested in politics (the good kind) and less interested in ideological fetishes. There is no good reason the Blue Dog Democrats are able to act credibly as if they are not part of the reform process. Almost all of them come from areas very supportive of health care reform. It was a significant reason they were able to defeat their GOP opponents.
As for the GOPers, the party is worthless. They couldn’t care less about constituents. The remnant of the GOP is the white trash party.
So much hatred – you scare me.
Short translation of Minion’s essay: “Everyone who disagrees with me on anything is a lunatic, and I’m objective, while they are partisan. This includes allegations that health care will fund, mandate, and therefore massively increase abortion, even though I have absolutely no argument against those facts. I don’t even need to try to argue against it. I can deny plain facts without using any reasoning at all because I am more righteous than my evil opponents (though they are the ones who hate, not me of course). No facts indicating that I am supporting policies to increase abortion can change my own self-claimed opposition to abortion. I support an abortion-reducing demigod Barack Obama; that dogma is infallible and it inherently disproves anyone who would think a thought against it. If I say healthcare doesn’t include abortion and including abortion in healthcare doesn’t increase it, then those facts are true, period. Now you may comment to echo these vitriolic attacks against my enemies by calling them names like white trash. But anyone who criticizes my dogmatic position will be labelled uncivil.”
why not point the finger at trial lawyers too, you know the group subsidizing your ideologues? the jackpots and resulting over priced insurance only cranks up the cost of individual coverages and adds to the knee jerk reaction of the battery of tests
why are you not concerned that FOCA is baked into this hurry up mess?
remember the ‘stimulus’ that had to happen NOW without proper diligence that has done nothing but deepen the red ink, why is it no one is permitted to read and understand the content and real world implications?
please spare us this vitriol – you are acting in the same petty partisan slamming as pelosi and co.
MM’s beloved Democrats made the mistake of allowing a “no abortions” clause to slip into their proposed legislation–only to turn tail and take a quick “re-vote” to get rid of this very reasonable restriction, with the aid of some so-called Blue Dog conservatives bought off by the leadership. Why should we believe that people who who have repeatedly demonstrated that they lack the most basic respect for human life could possibly come up with a plan that would insure quality care for vulnerable people? Sorry, I don’t trust these people to reform anything.
I love the notion that conspiracies are more the characteristic of the right. Bush stole the election? 9/11 was an inside job? You only find these kinds of things when you “comb the blogs?”
Just unbelievable.
MM,
Good post.
First, it is impossible to overemphasize the craziness of the Republican Party these days. The actions of the GOP leaders are designed to gain Power and power alone. They exhibit no concern for the nation or the nation’s welfare. As a friend of mine whose history in the conservative movement goes back to William F. Buckley replied when I asked: “Where are the Conservatives?” “There are none,” he said.
Second, there is a right to health care just as there is a right to education. To my way of thinking, there is a great need to analytically explore what is entailed in the notion of “shared responsibility”. This notion is a correlate of the common good. We need to expose the hidden presence of the notion of the autonomous individual wherever and whenever it raises its ugly head.
Third, seeing merit in private sector health insurance is akin to wanting a bucket of cement tied to your foot as you descend to the bottom of the Detroit river! This system, and the inefficiencies that are necessarily implicated in it, is the major reason why health care stands at 17% GDP rather than 8% GDP. Overall, health care is crap in the U.S., especially if you need it. Medicine is superb, but health care sucks.
The best insurance plans in the U.S. are government plans. The VA plan is probably the best there is … period. It should be the model for the entire nation.
The impossibility of making it a model takes us back to the first point which has to do with the craziness in American politics. To bring sanity back and to continue to further health care reform after the current phase is completed, it will be necessary to drive the “wing-nuts” from power and re-establish the Republican Party on sound principles. This means, at bottom, dissolving its long relationship with the notion of the autonomous individual [Libertarianism in economics, e.g.,].).
Keep up the good work.
“I love the notion that conspiracies are more the characteristic of the right. Bush stole the election? 9/11 was an inside job? You only find these kinds of things when you “comb the blogs?”
Just unbelievable.”
This claim is, I think, objectively true. there are lunatics on both sides of the political spectrum, but those on the right are closer to the center of power.
The Birther/Truther difference is instructive: how many members of congress ever accused Bush of “ordering 9/11″?
Whereas, how many members of congress will simply admit that Obama is an American citizen?
why not point the finger at trial lawyers too, you know the group subsidizing your ideologues? the jackpots and resulting over priced insurance only cranks up the cost of individual coverages and adds to the knee jerk reaction of the battery of tests
My understanding is that it is a very minor part of health care costs. The number I’ve heard is about 1% or so.
phosporiouis:
How many members of Congress would deny that Bush stole the presidency? I seem to recall Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson asserting so for both elections, and doing so with little rebuke from the Democrats.
This kind of garbage is equal on both sides, and neither side has more a problem than the other. If the media weren’t harping on the “birther” stuff in order to embarrass the right, you would be able to see that the birthers are just a new entry in a long line of political weirdness that is common to both sides and frankly to any side in a democratic regime.
“This kind of garbage is equal on both sides”
Michael, this statement of equivalence is nonsense.
What candidate in the Democratic Party is even remotely equivalent to the Republican Party’s Sarah Palin? Yet, she is the most compelling person they have.
Are the “tea-baggers” the equivalent of those who made the AIDS quilt? Is the Republican defense of Terri Shiavo the equivalent of the Democratic defense of Sotomajor? Is the scientific community the equivalent of those who would deny evolution? Is there any Democratic parallel to the Birthers? Or the Tea Baggers? What is the Democratic equivalent of Nixon’s racist Southern Strategy which dominated Republican politics from 1968 to this day? Is there any Democratic equivalent to the mindless sneering of Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, or Michelle Malkin? Is the party of FEAR the equivalent of the party of HOPE?
The core of the Republican Party is so crazed it is beyond repair — literally, BEYOND REPAIR. The future of the Republican Party can emerge only after the current base has been shunted aside and dismissed as irrelevant to the future.
There is no comparison between the Democratic Party and the pretenses of the Republican Party. The latter is dead or on life support. It cannot be revived as is. To those, including myself, who have spent their life in Republican politics, it is a phenomenon that is simply embarrassing — for me, the party and the country. Let it die. Let it be reborn.
Second, there is a right to health care just as there is a right to education.
Given that the government running 90+ percent of the primary education apparatus in this country has resulted in our spending more per student than any other country in order to achieve some of the worst educational outcomes at the primary level in the developed world — one can hardly be surprised that people are skeptical of whether increased government involvement is really the answer to our healthcare woes.
Are the “tea-baggers” the equivalent of those who made the AIDS quilt? Is the Republican defense of Terri Shiavo the equivalent of the Democratic defense of Sotomajor? Is the scientific community the equivalent of those who would deny evolution? Is there any Democratic parallel to the Birthers? Or the Tea Baggers? What is the Democratic equivalent of Nixon’s racist Southern Strategy which dominated Republican politics from 1968 to this day? Is there any Democratic equivalent to the mindless sneering of Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, or Michelle Malkin? Is the party of FEAR the equivalent of the party of HOPE?
The core of the Republican Party is so crazed it is beyond repair — literally, BEYOND REPAIR.
One of the things I’m always glad to see around here is the complete avoidance of dualism in the way people think.
It’s the carefully nuanced understanding of how one party is synonymous with fear (in caps, no less) while the other is synonymous with hope that underscores how corrosive simplistic, tribal approaches to politics can be.
“How many members of Congress would deny that Bush stole the presidency? I seem to recall Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson asserting so for both elections, and doing so with little rebuke from the Democrats.”
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. . . neither of whom hold elected office.
Find me a single elected republican who will simply say “Yes, Obama is a citizen”.
And what democratic congressman has ever had to apologize to Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson the way Eric Cantor and Paul Gingrey (among others) had to apologize to Rush Limbaugh?
Both parties have their crazies, but the republican crazies are closer to the center of power.
Part of being crazy is not seeing that you’re crazy.
I am not so sure the Birthers are a fringe group of the Republican party.
From Sam Stein, today.
“Less than half of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America, a new public opinion poll finds.
Only 42 percent of Republican respondents in a Research 2000 survey, conducted for the liberal website Daily Kos, said they thought Obama was a natural born citizen; 28 percent said they did not believe Obama was born in the United States; 30 percent said they were not sure.’
Darwin Catholic,
Address the first issue: Is quality health care a right or not?
Address the second issue: Are you willing to identify with the core element of today’s Republican Party? Is there anything in their views — Southern Strategy, Tea Bagging, Creationism, Birthereism — that is worthy of an intelligent person’s defense? I hardly think so.
““Less than half of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America, a new public opinion poll finds.” And WHERE do the Birthers come from? 69% of them come from the South. Only 6% come from the Northeast, 12% from the West, and 12% from the Midwest. And WHAT Party to they belong to? 56% belong to the Republican Party, 9% belong to the Democratic Party, 19% are Independent, and 4% are Other.
That is just nutty.
Mark:
Hm…Daily Kos poll. Love the neutral source.
28% think he’s not a citizen. That means 72% think he’s a citizen or haven’t bothered to care about the controversy to have an opinion. Furthermore, I would imagine that 28 number has gone down since the recent coverage of it.
I would bet that the number of “9/11 inside job” proponents is similar in the Democratic party.
Phosporious:
Giuliani said it was stupid (I think it was on Matthews; I just saw the preview and changed channels) and Giuliani loves eating up GOP craziness. If I cared enough I could probably find a lot more Republicans.
Gerald:
Your comment was special. I’m going to post it on my blog.
“One of the things I’m always glad to see around here is the complete avoidance of dualism in the way people think.”
My comment has nothing to do with dualism whatsoever. What I AM saying is that there is no equivalence between the two parties when it comes to nuttiness. If you believe there is, demonstrate otherwise.
The Republican Party politics today is “beyond repair” because its core constituents are nutty. Moreover, it has become a regional party situated in the South. This is why the Southern Strategy still has appeal to its leadership.
Phosphorious
Find me a single elected republican who will simply say “Yes, Obama is a citizen”.
This is kind of like saying, “Find me a single elected Democrat who says that Trig is really Sarah Palin’s child.” That GOP congressmen and senators are not falling over themselves to say this is more a sign that the birther controversy is utterly idiotic than it is that GOP politicians have doubts about Obama’s citizenship.
If one thinks otherwise, it says more about one’s own sanity than the GOP’s.
Gerald,
Address the first issue: Is quality health care a right or not?
Obviously, it depends what it means by “right”. I tend to use “right” to refer to natural rights that one has unless some external force takes them away. (Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) In that sense, I would say no, since obviously you will not simply get quality health care without someone to give it to you.
However, the sense in which the Church now occasionally uses the term is different, referring instead to a duty which we as members of a community have to our fellow men. In the sense that it is our clear moral duty to provide care to the sick, I would agree that quality health care is a “right”.
Address the second issue: Are you willing to identify with the core element of today’s Republican Party? Is there anything in their views — Southern Strategy, Tea Bagging, Creationism, Birthereism — that is worthy of an intelligent person’s defense? I hardly think so.
Well, if those were the core elements of today’s GOP, I would agree with you. But I think your characterization is ideologically motivated and indeed laughable.
It is true that being out of power always seems to give more voice within a party to the sillier elements. We saw the GOP get silly under Clinton, and we saw the Democrats get silly under Bush. Now we’re seeing the GOP get silly under Obama.
But your question above would be equivalent to my saying to you: “Do you hold to the core tenets of the Democratic party? That Bush stole both elections, 9/11 was an inside job, AIDS was engineered by the CIA, and John McCain is a North Vietnamese Manchurian Candidate?”
“What I AM saying is that there is no equivalence between the two parties when it comes to nuttiness.”
Pelosi? Frank? Waxman? Biden?
Please, give this a rest!
If the Dems were really interested in health care, then why jam abortion down your throat (presuming you are in line with Catholic teaching on the matter)? It is shameful that as the country moves more towards a pro-life (anti abortion) position the Dems ramrod the atrocity down your throat.
“My understanding is that it is a very minor part of health care costs. The number I’ve heard is about 1% or so.”
I guess a doctor’s malpractice insurance coverage starting about $200,000 is now minor. The good part is the doctor can’t be rich since they have to pay so much to avoid the trial lawyers.
“If the Dems were really interested in health care …”
They are and health care reform will be signed into law.
“Pelosi? Frank? Waxman? Biden?”
What is this suppose to mean? The people you ridicule exercise great competence about policies with which you probably disagree. But none of them display nuttiness. They are not supporters of a racist Southern Strategy. They are not Birthers. They are not Tea Baggers. They are not Creationists. The list goes on.
Go ahead. Take a rest. It’s OK.
“Is the Republican defense of Terri Shiavo the equivalent of the Democratic defense of Sotomajor?”
Interesting comparison. No, they’re not equivalent at all. Terri Schiavo was the helpless victim of the very worst impulses unleashed by our Culture of Death. Judge Sotomayor, in contrast, seems to be a firm supporter of letting those impulses go unchecked. With federal judges chosen by the Left ultimately calling the shots, what will federally-run healthcare do for/to the Terri Schiavos of the future?
Michael Denton,
Though sometimes sponsored by DailyKos, Research 2000 has been known to have generally a good track record w/ polling.They were very good in the 2008 presidential elections. There is still probably a bit of bias, but not enough to discount the shocking majority it registered.
If it were purely a DailyKos poll, I would be much more sympathetic to your retort.
On a personal note, I have Republican relatives with otherwise normal lives who lend credence to the birther claims. An anecdote, yes. But telling I think.
Terri Schiavo was the helpless victim of political opportunism. So unappealing was the drama that the crowd of Republicans we now have in office would not be able to find within themselves the motivation to attempt such a stunt again.
The Terri Schiavo episode has definitely made its mark in American political history. But not as you might think. No matter how it is glossed, it was not one of the Republican Party’s better moments.
Michael Denton,
“Your comment was special. I’m going to post it on my blog.”
I’m glad you judge it worthwhile enough to share with your audience. I’m sure you will introduce it with appropriate care. Have at it! LOL.
Darwin,
I didn’t notice your response until now.
Health care is and is not a right. I believe this is what you stated, and I agree.
To date, health care has not been deemed a “right” by convention. This denial sets the stage for the current struggle. Not surprising to me, the tide seems to be shifting, albeit slowly. This redefinition of what is conventional will soon become institutionalized and the U.S. will be better for it.
Apart from the express social teachings of the Church — and you are correct in your formulation — there is a philosophical argument to be considered that I believe is more persuasive in a political context. The tension that exists between the two notions of “right” that you mentioned is rooted in the distinction between two views of the individual: 1) an atomistic view such as found in Locke and Hobbs; and 2) a relational view that flows out of a doctrine of intrinsic relations (St. Thomas, NeoThomists, etc).
This distinction, not to mention its implications, needs to be elaborated more clearly and persuasively. As this is done, the effort to realize a “common good” will be strengthen and the prevailing sense of the “conventional” good will be expanded and enriched. To me this outlines the task ahead for a pluralistic society.
As for the second issue — what are the core elements of the Republican Party — I’m afraid I have to disagree with you. The Republican Party is a coalition composed of libertarian economic policy, religious right social policy, and neoconservative foreign and defense policy. But there is no leadership. The voice that commands the most attention is precisely what I said it to be. Neither Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, nor John Boehner command respect among the rank and file. The same is true of prospective candidates. The loudest voice is Rush Limbaugh and he trumpets the work of the groups and interests I referenced.
This is not unlike the Democratic Party after the rejection of Hubert Humphrey. Everything went out of control for three decades.
You say my motivation is ideologically motivated. But that is not the case. I have been aligned with the Republican Party well before you were born. I worked for Republicans in the House for twelve years. I occupied senior positions in two Republican presidential administrations. I worked for a governor for four years prior to him becoming President. My drive has never been ideological. Far from it. I have been driven by ideas and what can be judged to be prudential.
I say what I say because the Republican Party has gone astray. I watched the very beginnings of this starting in 1983 as Gingrich began his rise to power. I saw a power and ideological shift in the Party and was prescient enough to predict then that if those trends continued the Republican Party would rise and fall like a rock. It did. Now the Republican Party is irrelevant and of no consequence.
There was a logic to all this. It was present for all to see in 1983. The only difference between then and now is that fate has had time to express its will.
Trivialize my comments as you will. But I’m speaking as one who is deeply disappointed by what the Republican Party has done to itself and the country. It’s nothing short of tragic. I believe it is time for every serious Republicans to take a long penetrating look at the man in the mirror. Good Lord, the country could sure use some help!
You’re right, of course, Gerald – the country needs a functioning, even vigorous, opposition, and I say that as a registered Democrat who is to the left of almost all the current governing members of his party. The Republican descent into self-parody and the Politics of Paranoia concerns me, too.
The problem is not the government, nor the liberals or the conservatives, nor the free market, etc. The problem is living our faith in a state of mediocrity.
We are unwilling to give up our own comfort to help another. We are unwilling to sacrifice enough and we then complain about government programs attempting to take over the responsibility that we have abandoned.
It is so easy to love the unborn child if you are a catholic and condemn the mother if she ends her child’s life. It seems that those who take this stance do so because of their own insignificance and helplessness turned into a rage that demands to be heard through the association with the unborn.
The left seem to want to help the mother of the unborn child through programs that give her a better opportunity to bring her child into the world yet these also fall short in their impact.
Why? We are not united in love and the system that each child is born into is still a system of competition that leads to violence and lacks the love of a true life of faith.
We continue to live as the rich young man and are unwilling to give up everything and follow Him. Our faith is weak!
Darwin
&
Gerald,
G:Is quality health care a right or not?
D:Obviously, it depends what it means by “right”. I tend to use “right” to refer to natural rights that one has unless some external force takes them away… the term is different, referring instead to a duty which we as members of a community have to our fellow men. In the sense that it is our clear moral duty to provide care to the sick, I would agree that quality health care is a “right”.
D:”The tension that exists between the two notions of “right” that you mentioned is rooted in the distinction between two views of the individual: 1) an atomistic view such as found in Locke and Hobbs; and 2) a relational view that flows out of a doctrine of intrinsic relations (St. Thomas, NeoThomists, etc).
First, I think Darwin is distinguishing between positive and negative rights- which is not a distinction that is dependent on an account of the individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
Second, on-
“Is there any Democratic equivalent to the mindless sneering of Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, or Michelle Malkin?”
Yes there is. He is the newest member of the senate.
Terri Schiavo was the helpless victim of political opportunism.
Which opportunists did you have in mind, Gerald, he mother, her father, or Dr. Paul McHugh?
The people you ridicule exercise great competence about policies with which you probably disagree.
Perhaps you might summarize what any of these four ‘greatly competent’ individuals have done with their life other than get elected.
What is the Democratic equivalent of Nixon’s racist Southern Strategy which dominated Republican politics from 1968 to this day?
Why not explain precisely what it consisted of and why it is thus deplorable (and while you are at it, what you had to say about it during the 18 years you say you spent in Republican patronage jobs.
Is there any Democratic equivalent to the mindless sneering of Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, or Michelle Malkin
Mrs. Malkin can be quite trenchant and occasionally very cutting, but she is also a vigorous a vigorous and prolific reporter with considerable moxie. I am not sure how she qualifies as ‘mindless’.
“Which opportunists did you have in mind, Gerald, he mother, her father, or Dr. Paul McHugh?”
The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, from the House Speaker and Majority Leader on down.
“Perhaps you might summarize what any of these four ‘greatly competent’ individuals have done with their life other than get elected.”
It’s all part of the public record. Go learn something.
“Why not explain precisely what it consisted of and why it is thus deplorable (and while you are at it, what you had to say about it during the 18 years you say you spent in Republican patronage jobs.”
If you need me to explain the Southern Strategy, then perhaps there is little to discuss. Why comment on something you know nothing about?
As for my involvement in Republican politics, national security affairs has nothing to do with electoral politics. Nor does it involve the stirring by candidates of the passions of the American electorate as dictated by the Southern Strategy. Nor does it have anything to do with “patronage.”
Your defense of Malkin is pointless. You might want to investigate the basis on which Andrew Sullivan periodically gives the Malkin award. Being trenchant and cutting says nothing about her intellectual and moral capacity or wisdom.
I think I have my answers.
Good.
Gerald-
Would that be the same Andrew Sullivan who called for publication of Trig’s birth certificate. He’s a real peach!
PS: To claim Malkin is bad is one thing- I might argue as much myself, but to point to the left’s Dobbs in saying so is telling.
ockraz,
“Would that be the same Andrew Sullivan who called for publication of Trig’s birth certificate. He’s a real peach!”
Yes, the very same one. He’s quite intelligent, I might add. He has demonstrated a capacity to persuade some of the most intelligent people in the country on a variety of fundamental issues. This is something Malkin could never do. Or do you think she could?
“PS: To claim Malkin is bad is one thing- I might argue as much myself, but to point to the left’s Dobbs in saying so is telling.”
Don’t know what you are talking about here.
Are you referring to Lou Dobbs? I can’t find any reference to him in my comments. If there is, it’s certainly not laudatory. He’s of the same ilk as Michelle Malkin?
Gerald,
I used to read Sullivan all the time. I used to like him. (I don’t now, although I still hear him in the media a lot.) If you notice, I never tried to defend Malkin, by the way. My comment about Dobbs was to underscore the point that Sullivan also engaged in a (contemptible) call for a birth certificate.
ockraz,
“My comment about Dobbs was to underscore the point that Sullivan also engaged in a (contemptible) call for a birth certificate.”
I was never on board with his “Trig” pursuit. Seemed rather strange to me. Nothing I would have done. I noticed he has tried to defend his stand by appealing to unfolding events, but it still seems strained.
More critically, I opposed his views going into Iraq. I thought he was unaware of the strategic implications of where we were headed. He has since been humbled by his naivete.
The bottom line: Andrew Sullivan is one of the best bloggers on the scene. He rarely makes asinine statements, and usually has insightful views. I’ve read his books and they are top notch, whether one is inclined to agree or not. They are well-reasoned, philosophically and empirically. There are few commentators — no matter the affiliation — that I would say that about.
I am aware you were not defending Malkin. Perhaps I was a little quick with my comment. It’s just that I’m so disgusted with the level of dialogue that I’ve lost patience with the lot.
I appreciate the exchange.
“movement in this country has embraced, with relish, a rhetorical style that is almost Leninist in character. ”
If the conservatives are leninist, what do you call the Obama administration’s latest move:
Appearing on the White House blog creatively titled “The Blog” two days was apost that said the following(EXCERPTS):
“Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to “uncover” the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions….
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it toflag@whitehouse.gov.”
Huh?
I can understand the desire on the part of people in the White House to keep a handle on the claims and arguments being used in a policy debate, but . . . isn’t it theirjob to keep track of those?
But the White House seems concerned that it doesn’t have the resources to monitor everything that goes on in America “below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.” So they’re asking citizens to report “fishy” statements made by other American citizens to the White House.
Color me skeptical, but creating a program to “flag” e-mails and web sites that take a contrary position to the White House’s–a program that relies on citizens reporting their fellow citizens when they send or post something that “seems fishy” (meaning: contrary to the message the White House wants to get out)–strikes me as a bit orweillian.
Nathan,
The White House is seeking to correct false information. Its asking for people to report on fishy information, not fishy citizens. Calm down. You are not being sent to the re-education camps.
Actually, the White House may be breaking the Privacy Act of 1974 by asking citizens to report “fishy” political speech.
It turns out, even asking for citizens to report on each other may be illegal. According to the Department of Justice, “the purpose of the Privacy Act is to balance the government’s need to maintain information about individuals with the rights of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasions of their privacy stemming from federal agencies’ collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information about them.”
Further, anything is considered a “personal record” if it identifies an individual (an e-mail address would qualify), and “federal agency” specifically includes “the Executive Office of the President.”
Also, 5 US Code §552a(e)(7) commands that any Federal agency: “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;”
I’m no lawyer, but it sure sounds like the White House is violating the law by asking people to snitch on their friends and neighbors for engaging in “fishy” political speech or anything that runs counter to what the White House wants you to think.
My General Counsel’s office assures me that the White House and anyone else is free to collect public statements and respond to them.
:::scratching her head:::
I had no idea about the White House asking people report other people’s email. That seems like a bad PR move and too close to something the nazi did. Can you imagine the media’s reaction if Bush had try that scam? I don’t think Obama’s pr people are thinking.
I can see that website/blogs would be public statements (per Kurt) but aren’t emails considered private correspondances? just curious
I thought people getting stirred about the white house “fishy” email program was just partisan politics. I mean, come on… he is just trying to figure out what the rumors are so he can correct misinformation, right?
But then I heard Obama say, ‘I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess’…
What?! Do Presidents get to demand silence? I mean, that’s the funny thing about democracies. They’re not supposed to be silent. Healthy democracies are argumentative, boisterous, and a bit in your face. Silence is a characteristic of brutal dictatorships.
It reminds me of some old Simon and Garfunkel lyrics:
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
Hey, just imagine for one second if Bush had said this about national security after 9/11. Just imagine the outcry. Remember all the “King George” comments?