Tag Archives: health care

Primal Scream Politics

Posted on by

“It’s times like these when the difference between political activism and self-expression and primal scream therapy become really apparent. Politics isn’t easy. Political change isn’t easy. It includes tons of reverses and inevitably involves not getting a lot of what you wanted, at least not at first. This doesn’t mean everyone needs to agree on policy or priorities. People don’t agree on things. That’s life. But that’s different from cashing out of the process if you don’t get just what you want.”

— Josh Marshall

I’m really annoyed by people who say Obama is “just like Bush” or isn’t the leftist we elected. That’s an incredibly naive and simplistic view. First of all, Obama never put himself forth as a leftist. But more importantly, being president of the United States is really an impossible job. The public expects you to change the world with a wave of your hand, but the only real power the Constitution gives you is the power of persuasion. You have no concrete way to make Congress pass laws; you can only try and convince them to do it. (This list of presidential paradoxes is worth reading.) Granted, if you are talented enough a populist, you have more leverage, but even so, there’s no guarantee that this will work.

The Constitution discusses the Congress before it discusses the presidency. (Literally, Congress had to come first; the first act after the Constitution was ratified was for Americans to elect a Congress, because Washington couldn’t assume the presidency until after Congress had certified his election.) Not only that, but it divides Congress into two bodies. Not only that, but one of those bodies isn’t even apportioned democratically. So right off the bat, even if everything is working well, our system of government is constitutionally set up to make change difficult. Throw in the spineless Harry Reid, the incorrect notion that the Constitution requires a 60-vote majority to pass legislation, and the cult the Republican party has become, and it’s a miracle that health care legislation has gotten as far as it has.

The problem is that if Obama tries to explain this to the American people, he’ll come off looking weak, because we like our presidents to seem strong. (We invest the presidency with monarchical trappings: the White House, Air Force One, “Hail to the Chief.”)

If only he could argue that terrorists were trying to deny us single-payer health care.

Politics is not primal scream therapy. The last decade would have turned out much differently if a bunch of Florida Naderites had sucked it up and voted for Gore. And don’t even get me started on the teapartiers.

Politics isn’t about magic ponies. Don’t drop out of the process just because you don’t get what you want.

1990 Pages

Posted on by

I’m tired of hearing people complain that the House’s health care bill is 1,990 pages.

First, here is the health care bill. The pages have wide margins and are double spaced, and most lines are indented at least once.

Second, it’s not like this is the PATRIOT Act, where members of Congress were given hardly any time to read it or debate it before voting on it.* Congress has been working on health care for months. Any member of Congress who wants to read the bill has the opportunity to do so. And anyone who doesn’t has staffers to read bills and summarize them — which is not ideal, of course, but it’s better than not having time to read it at all.

(* The same people who criticize the health care bill do not seem to have criticized the PATRIOT Act, except for libertarians.)

Third, although Joe Q. Public also has the opportunity to read the bill online, there is no constitutional requirement that members of Congress give us time to do so. “Good old-fashioned Americans” are always talking about going back to the principles on which this country was founded. Well, this country was founded on the principle that you elect people to represent your interests in Congress, and then you shut the hell up and let them do their work. You are not a lawyer and you have no idea how to read legislation. If you don’t like what your elected representatives do, you vote them out at the next election.

Okay, I’m being snarky. Of course we’ve always been a rambunctious country, and citizens have always had the right to protest against their government. But my point is that the founders didn’t create a direct democracy, they created a representative democracy. There was no Internet 220 years ago, no telegraph, and no expectation that the average citizen would read legislation. If you’re going to complain about getting back to the ideas on which this country was founded, at least know what you’re talking about.

If you want to complain about the health care bill, fine, but base it on something substantive, not on OOH IT’S TOO MANY PAGEZ!

Obama and the Gays

Posted on by

I watched Obama’s speech to the Human Rights Campaign on Saturday night. I was underwhelmed.

Many others have pointed out that it was the same speech Obama could have given as a candidate. As Dan Savage wrote, “Imagine all the wonderful things this guy is going to accomplish if he ever actually gets elected president.” Ooh, Obama mentioned Stonewall in his speech! What is this, 1992? Mentioning Stonewall is like buying a Hallmark card. It means you don’t really give a shit, so you’re going to resort to a cliché. What about Frank Kameny? What about Harry Hay?

Then there was the appalling email that the head of the HRC, Joe Solmonese, sent out a few days ago, apparently saying that we shouldn’t judge Obama’s gay rights record until January 2017. I don’t think he was saying what some critics claim; I think he was merely making the point that by the end of Obama’s administration, we will have seen progress on gay rights, and hey, let’s be optimistic and hope Obama serves two terms instead of one. But that’s not how it came off to some influential people, such as Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage and John Aravosis, and that’s not surprising given that the HRC has accomplished nothing except raising money and holding fancy dinners. To Sullivan and the others, Solmonese seems to be saying that we should wait until 2017 to see any progress. So we may as well have waited until 2012 to elect a Democrat.

Yes, Solmonese’s email was misinterpreted, but it serves him right. Oooh, hate crimes laws! Yay! As if hate crimes aren’t already prosecuted as crimes.

Meanwhile, my frustration with Obama is growing. I’m guessing that he’s waiting until health care passes before addressing gay rights, and that in early 2010, we’ll see him start to move on DADT. He’s afraid of bringing up any “touchy social issues” until health care’s out of the way, and he’s spooked by what happened to Clinton in 1993. But this is 2009, not 1993. Ending DADT is no longer controversial; nearly 70 percent of the public supports ending it.

To be honest, if the choice were between health care reform and gay rights, I’d choose health care reform, because that affects tens of millions of people and it’s one of the biggest problems our country faces. But who says there has to be a choice? Is gay rights really going to drain political capital from health care? Really? If it can survive fake death panels, it can survive DADT.

Obama, despite what the teapartiers think, is not a radical. He’s cautious about moving too quickly — in this case, perhaps too cautious. And nothing can excuse those awful legal briefs in which the administration defended DOMA. I’d be amazed if Obama actually takes any action against DOMA, especially since he’s on record as not supporting marriage equality. (Never mind that both Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA, and even Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman who wrote DOMA, think it should be repealed.) That said, if Congress passes the Respect for Marriage Act, I don’t doubt Obama would sign it.

Still — once again, we are lured for our votes and our money, but a Democratic president isn’t going to lift a finger to actually do anything to help us. If he doesn’t do anything next year, we’ll know Obama doesn’t give a shit about gay rights.