Tag Archives: health care

Op-Ed Columnist – Fear Strikes Out – NYTimes.com

by

Paul Krugman Fear Strikes Out – NYTimes.com gets it exactly correct in the New York Times; the politics of fear (and even hate) have lost.

Some excerpts:

” … The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made … And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation. …”

” … Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.

But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)…”

” … It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” …”

I wish Krugman didn’t get it so right. It saddens me that so many of my neighbors can be swayed with fearful rhetoric (remember the “War on Terror”) or that they don’t repudiate the intolerant and hateful among their ranks.

POSTSCRIPT
By the way, here’s what the right wing thinks of another recent racially-charged incident.  Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online says it is not racism on display when a 16-year old boy thought it appropriate to utter racial slurs over a Walmart PA. Rather, he claims that racism doesn’t exist in America anymore, that “We’re a good nation, among the least racist on earth ….” Apparently, Nordlinger has not been to those teabag rallies–you know the ones documented on flickr and to which I linked or the health care protests outside the capital–has he? I see a pattern here–in the persistence of racial slurs. But Nordlinger sees a pattern too. Along with the other folks over at National Review (search on National Review and racism) all this talk about racism is really reverse discrimination–reverse racism–against white men as an aggrieved minority. Or maybe its just another socialist ploy?

Health Care Liveblog – Real Clear Politics – TIME.com

by

From RealClearPolitics liveblogging of the health care debate.

“6:34 — I have to say, the Obama strategy is a pretty good one. He’s doing the easy part (spending) with the Democrats in office. If the Republicans win — and they certainly will with the governorships, if not Congress — they will be tasked with owning part of the hard part (tax hikes/spending cuts).

via Health Care Liveblog – Real Clear Politics – TIME.com.”

How idiotic is that statement? Well, just replace “Obama” with “Bush” and you’ll see. Think about it: Bush invades Iraq based on serially lying about WMD (among other things), violates the constitutions, spends a fortune for the Iraq fiasco, cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans, leaves an economy in shambles, with a >$2 Trillion in debt.  … so now Barack Obama has to own 8 years of Bush (and Republican) excess, which Republicans try to use to tar and feather him. (Interesting how conservatives always discuss fiscal conservatism after their failed policies push the nation to the brink of insolvency.)

Anyway, what realclearpolitics sees as merely a political strategy reveals their failure of vision. Real leaders stand up and face crisis in the face; they don’t flinch they lead. Fortunately for us, Barack Obama is just such a guy. He takes a questionable political stance (expanding health care) in the short term in favor of the long term view, preferring to do what is best for the nation and for all Americans (even the crazy old folks who bitterly detest “government takeovers” while greedily sucking up their medicare benefits.)  Good thing too. We finally have real leadership in the white house. We have greater fiscal responsibility, we have efforts to deal with the major problems of our era (immigration, global warming, health care.)

The point: leadership is about leading. Barack Obama is leading. If the Republicans stopped being worried about elections and started worrying about governing, they too could be part of the solution. Indeed, if republicans were part of the solution, it would be better for the country because it would generate faith in institutions, comity, shared responsibility, and join us all in a common goal. (IF you remember, Democrats joined republicans on education reform, expansion of the children’s insurance program, and even the war itself. They were not merely obstructionist, even though we might have been better off if they were.)

However, acting like leaders would force Republicans to run away from their base: the angry, fundamentalist, anti-government, ahistorical, racist, neo-nazi, shouting bullies. This may work as short-term policy, but in the long term haters lose. Americans recognize just how incongruous it is for the wealthy and for folks with advantage and with government healthcare (i.e. medicare) to decry the government that protects their freedoms. Indeed, the haters lost the struggle for African American freedom, the struggle against Jim Crow, the struggle for a corporate state, the struggle against labor, the battle to limit immigration (repeatedly), the war of corporations on children and communities and the environment, the struggle for women’s rights, the Civil Rights Act and so on. (And, by the way, Republican leaders–think Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower–actually have been important leaders in this struggle, so this is really not a partisan issue. History is on the side of greater freedom and expanded opportunity, not on the side of those who seek to curtail American’s rights and freedoms, even if they do so in the name of “small government.” Most Americans know the difference between expanded rights and responsibilities and  the hollow promises of those who want to impose their narrow religious, economic, and cultural views on the rest of us.