Conservatives, for right reasons and wrong reasons, are united in opposition to the current health care reform legislation. Unfortunately many liberals are falling into the trap of “stand by our guys” that already landed us in NCLB, Medicare Part D, and Iraq during the last administration (for which I apologize to all my liberal friends even though I opposed all of those). Of course liberals have little reason to listen to a conservative like me so rather than make my own argument today I’ll share the conclusion from Fire Dog Lake:
The Senate bill isn’t a “starter home,” it’s a sink hole. It needs to die so something else can take its place. It doesn’t matter whether people are on the right or the left — once they understand the con job that’s about to be foist upon them, they agree. That’s why Harry Reid and President Obama are trying to jam it through as fast as they can, before people get wise. So email the list to your friends and family, tweet it and spread the word.
I was going to add my own perspective when I first started reading that, but it is too well done to be condensed. Go read all 10 Reasons to Kill the Senate Bill.
Many people, liberal and conservative, seem ready to give up because the Senate already cleared their first 60-vote hurdle. That’s exactly what Reid and his company of non-representative public officials would love to see. Please don’t give up yet or settle for this poor excuse for reform. We may not agree on all the right directions, but almost everyone who’s paying attention knows that this legislation is not anything close to what we need. Let’s not allow the Senate to pass this just so they and the president can say they passed something – that is simply not a good enough reason.
I agree without reservation. There’s also a fine teaching moment here that we should not overlook.
The nation’s political system, at least at the national level, is broken. It is incapable of either being fiscally responsible and loyal to the Constitution (if you are a conservative) or responsive to the needs of the American people (if you are a liberal). It is capable of nothing other than serving its corporate masters by funneling taxpayer money (or money borrowed from the Chinese) to corporate special interests. Almost all rhetoric spouted by Washington politicians, beltway pundits, and the major media is designed to hide the truth and divide American opinion so we won’t focus on the fact that our government is no longer ours.
For example, we allow our entire government to be paralyzed because the Senate has set the bar for cloture so high they can’t meet it – giving the majority an excuse to fail. How many times have you been told in the media that all they need to do is pass a change to the rules by a simple majority (51 votes) to either eliminate the cloture rule, or move it to a lower threshold?
This entire “debate”, from the 2008 primaries to now has been little more than an elaborate charade. The leaders of both parties knew from the beginning that nothing of consequence was going to happen – no socialism, no death panels, no universal coverage, no public option. It was a nice show with moments of high drama (tea party anyone?). It would be Oscar material if the outcome weren’t obvious from the start.
I absolutely agree with you. The difference between us is that you believe that it is possible for Congress to be responsive to the needs of the American people (which generally requires Congress to spend large amounts of money) without automatically devolving into service to its corporate masters by funneling money to corporate special interests. In contrast, I believe that the only way to prevent that service to corporate masters is to not funnel so much money through Congress in the first place – reduce their scope and purse-size and the corporate masters will be forced to look elsewhere for an easy meal – one they apparently can’t find in a free market.
So with your new found kinship with Jane Hampsher, can we assume you, like her, will fight this bill because it doesn’t contain a public option or Medicare buy in?
Because that’s where she’s coming from (and I happen to agree with her).
If that’s the case, then I would concede to the sincerity of your links and blockquotes. If you find yourself on the side of one of most liberal activists because you simply want to see the reform fail, then I find this disingenuous.
Personally, I’m still in the middle here. I can see the benefit of progressives fighting to kill this bill, even if it means the health care debate goes into the midterm election runs. We’d get a better bill (probably) if progressives can amass that much influence. I can also see the reasoning in passing this bill, and progressives making enough noise they have influence over this bill, and secure dates to readdress what it lacks (guaranteed by the White House).
Either way, the fight FDL is launching is about progressive influence, not simply adopting the GOP/Teabagger memo to see all reform fail. Anything that leads to progressives finding a voice at least as loud as Lieberman/Collins/Nelson will be better for the country overall.
Jason,
You imply that there are only two options for my position – either I agree with the public option/Medicare buy in or else I am simply hiding my opposition to any reform behind Jane’s liberal credentials. Neither one is the case.
I have spent lots of time and energy trying to demonstrate that there are numerous reforms that I support regarding health care, some of them being the same as what Jane supports (no lifetime caps, no dropping or refusing to renew policies to name a couple of examples) while I do not agree with all of her positions. I agree with her position (it’s from FDL although I can’t remember if Jane was the author) that this bill does more harm than good. Even if we disagree about the proper solution I see nothing disingenuous about being united in not settling for something that we both think is worse than nothing.
I am convinced that there are some positive steps that a majority sized coalition of liberals and conservatives can agree on. That’s why we should kill this bill and focus on those areas of agreement. I think we all know that good reform will not happen overnight and that it won’t happen by either side ramming through what they want without regard for those who oppose them.
I know where Jane is coming from, and I know that we don’t agree on everything, but I agree that the Progressives should not be ignored in favor of Lieberman, Collins, and Nelson – neither should the Conservatives.
David, I guess I’m too cynical. I think that regardless of how much we reduce the scope of government, there will always be ample opportunity for corporations to funnel our money into their pockets. The military budget is a prime example. I also don’t see how we get a Congress dominated by corporate money to voluntarily reduce their own power and their own wealth by biting the hands that feed them. It’s kind of a chicken/egg conundrum.
What matters, to address Jasonthe’s point, is that neither “real” conservatives nor “real” progressives have the political strength to effect the systemic change that both, for different reasons, believe we should have. We may or may not be able to find enough common ground to start a movement for change, but unless we do, we will both continue to snipe at the powerful from the sidelines. The corporate media, aka bipartisan consensus or beltway establishment, spend a lot of time reminding us about the issues that divide us – and there are many and they are important. As long as we are fighting one another, they are laughing all the way to the bank (the one they own but we bail out).
You’re too cynical because you believe that we can’t reduce the scope of government enough to rid ourselves of leeching corporations – you’re probably right but we can reduce the number and influence of the leeches.
You are absolutely right that the real progressives and conservatives (as opposed tot he corporate progressives and conservatives – beltway insiders) cannot independently gain enough power to change the system. We need to look past our differences to fix the system. We don’t have to pretend that those differences do not exist, but we do need to focus on fixing the broken system that we both see if we are ever to slow the flow of money back and forth between politicians and their corporate “donors.”
It seems like the Democratic leadership is so desperate to be seen doing something that they want to pass this bill even if it is worse than doing nothing. Our federal political system is more about keeping the team in power than it is about doing the right thing. Just look at how brazenly votes have been bought with extra spending in specific districts, something that just a decade ago would have been a scandal.
Republicans have been just as happy to take destructive action as a defense against being seen as doing nothing. It seems to be a common malady in Washington. (Something in the water maybe?)