I was talking to someone the other day -- someone I barely know -- and heard come out of his mouth one of the strangest things I've ever heard. We simply touched in passing on the health care reform that was just passed and he said, "Yeah, Republicans will vote against anything that is Democratic." Now, mind you, he's not the first. I've heard it from the mouths of members of Congress and even from the President himself. You know the idea: "Politics as usual." What is really interesting and, therefore, ultimately stupid about the idea is that it seems, when they say it, to only go one way. That is, "Republicans will always vote against the ideas of the Democrats, and only Republicans do that. Democrats, on the other hand, vote for what is good and right and principled regardless of whose idea it is."
What nonsense! When you look at that truly historic vote (understanding that "historic" may mean "historically marvelous" or "historically catastrophic") on health care reform*, it is quite remarkable that not one single Republican voted for the plan. Is the only possible conclusion "Republicans will always vote against the ideas of the Democrats," or is it possible that there are other factors in play here? Since there actually were Democrats who voted against the bill, I would have to assume that some Republicans may have agreed with the Democrats who voted against it and did not vote solely on the basis of political affiliation. I mean, obviously those Democrats who voted against it didn't do so because they would vote against any Democrat's idea, right? So they had another reason. What other possible reasons are there?
There is the possibility of one's constituents. If a representative comes from a group of people obviously and overwhelmingly opposed to the bill, a good representative will vote against the bill. You know, "the will of the people" and all that. Oh, sure, maybe that's idealistic, but if people are going to keep insisting that ours is a government "of the people", it has to remain a possibility. (Interestingly, it appears that most of the Democrats who voted against the bill came from traditionally conservative places.) It is not possible to conclude that the bill was just so perfect that there was not the slightest possibility that anyone could be opposed on the basis of principle, is it? Or, to reverse that, it is certainly possible that some might vote against a bill because, well, they genuinely think it's a bad idea. If a representative of the people genuinely believes that a bill before him or her is bad for the people, it is incumbent upon him or her to vote against it, regardless of its political source, isn't it? And this might lead to another possibility -- ignorance. It is possible (especially in the case of a bill the size of this one) that a government representative does not understand the bill well enough to support it. In a recent interview by Chris Matthews with Vice President Biden, Matthews asked whether or not the President had effectively communicated with the American people and, if so, why there was such resistance on the health reform bill. Mr. Biden responded with an explanation about how complex the bill is. We were left with very few logical conclusions. Either the answer was, "No, the President had not communicated effectively with the American people because the bill was so complex" or "Yes, the President had communicated effectively, but the bill is so complex and the American people (let's face it) are mostly too stupid to understand that we're left with this large resistance to the bill." (In other words, the President can't effectively communicate with the people because we're not smart enough to understand a complex bill.) Now, there are other possibilities, but these seem the most obvious and likely and they illustrate what could be a reason to vote against the bill. It's too hard to understand to actually support it.In one paragraph, then, I've offered several possibilities as to why people may have voted against the health care bill without including "politics as usual" as one of them. I'd like to think "I'm opposed on principle to that idea" would be a viable possibility, also, but I don't know how many of today's politicians (on either side of the aisle) are principled people.
All of this is aimed at that initial and irritating concept of "politics as usual". Is it possible that some Republicans will vote against anything that the Democrats might cook up? It's possible. But it's not remotely possible that all Republicans will vote that way. And, on the other hand, it must be admitted that there is very likely a close correlation of Democrats to Republicans who will also vote against anything that Republicans favor. I would love to find out who they are (on either side) and eliminate them because that's no way to run a government, but it is my conviction that 1) they wouldn't admit it, 2) they would be replaced by some of the same, and 3) they, like so many political ideologues on both sides in the country, might not even recognize it in themselves. All I'm asking, then, is can we please drop this nonsensical accusation and get along with the issues?
* Please note that this is not a commentary on the bill itself, but simply uses this very obvious, recent event as an example of the issues I'm addressing.
8 comments:
Well, consider the HCR legislation that just was signed into law.
It's like I'm living in bizarro-world, where Democrats champion a Republican plan (it is with minor variation, RomneyCare, a plan devised by Mitt Romney and conservative Heritage foundation — also, compare with 1994 Republican plan put forth in response to then President Clinton's effort). Yet NO Republican voted for this Republican crafted plan.
Naum,
Just a question. Are you saying that you do, in fact, believe that the only reason Republicans vote the way they do is to counter Democrats (the point of my post)? Would you also claim that Democrats do not do the same thing? Like I said, just asking ... you know, for clarification.
I would suggest that it isn't quite accurate to call the HCR plan "Republican-crafted". There are elements of some Republicans' ideas, to be sure, but I don't think the variations you mention are minor. But the real concern, the thing that bothers me most, is that so many in Congress voted against what so many in America wanted. At the time of the vote, polls said that somewhere near 60% of Americans were against it (the reason it has never been passed before). I have to wonder ... is the role of Congress to vote their conscience or to vote what their constituents want?
1. Indeed it is Republican crafted — it's essentially the same reform spearheaded by Mitt Romney in MA, with only minor variations. Go review Romney's MA HCR. Among those who helped design the Romney plan was the conservative Heritage Foundation. It's principal architect was MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who also advised the Obama administration. Although Republicans are now decrying the "individual mandate," it was the centerpiece of Romney's "Personal Responsibility" plan. See also a comparison chart with 1990s plan put forth by Republicans… In a sense, we witnessed remarkable political jujitsu by Democrats who alienated many in their own core to push forth and pass the opposition's plan…
2. I must admit, I can't fathom a reason why NO Republican voted for the bill other than steadfast reluctance for anything that might give credit to opposition party. And while there a number of Democratic congress critters you could say the same, you can't say that about the party body at large — they indeed crossed the aisle for GWB measures (i.e., No Child Left Behind, Iraq, Medicare Prescription Changes, etc.…). And here we had legislation endorsed by AMA, American Nurses Association, AARP, American Hospital Association, Catholic Health Association, etc.…
3. Polls are misleading considering that (a) recent polls show the opposite, that a majority favor HCR (b) most people are in favor of HCR once they are informed of the details included in the measure and (c) a good chunk of those opposing were those on "the left" that believed that the Republican RomneyCare proposal was an inadequate measure and/or giveaway to corporate interests. More essentially, Obama ran on a campaign of HCR and was elected by a majority of voters.
"you can't say that about the party body at large"
Interesting. So, in your view (essentially), Republicans play, at least for the most part (if not entirely), partisan politics without regard to principle or constituents while Democrats as a "body at large" are thinking individuals who generally try to do what is right? If that is your perception, why would you care about any arguments presented by Republicans (or conservatives, I would imagine)? They are not principled, but partisan. They are the party of "no". Why even bother responding to their ideas?
On the comparison of plans, I must be honest. I've never read the current 1,000 plus page bill. I don't know what is in it. To the best of my knowledge I've complained about only one aspect anywhere publicly -- the mandate for all to buy health insurance. But since I know precious little about the entire bill, comparing it to Romney's or complaining about it myself wouldn't be feasible or fair.
One point here. Republicans did a rotten job in George Bush's presidency. No fiscal conservative was happy with their spending. That's just intended to point out that, at least in my view, both Democrats and Republicans can come up with bad ideas. To me, I wouldn't condone an idea just because it came from my side of the aisle any more than I'd oppose an idea just because it came from the other side. But ... I guess that makes me not a Republican, eh? :)
But it's good to know that we can discard polls. I will if you will. It will sound bad, I know, but we really do need to be careful where we go for "truth", and that entails picking and choosing sources, doesn't it?
I often run into this in discussions with Democrats. Please note I am an independent voter, so I view the machinations on both sides as amusing at best and chicanery at worst. However, it seems that my Democratic friends have bought in hook, line, and sinker with the notion that Dems are always championing the causes of the poor downtrodden souls and the Republicans are the party of big, heartless capitalists with no soul and no concern for their fellow man. I always point out that the Democrats have an equal number of lawyers, capitalists, and extremely rich members, and funnily enough they pass tons of "pork" bills too. And, there is a lot of money to be made in "helping the poor". One has to stop and ask, is this really helping the poor? Just look at the studies which show welfare recipients who are required to work or find a job, feel much better about themselves and their situation. It's not helping to give a hand out and not ask individuals to attempt to help themselves or set up programs that enable them to help themselves (job training, etc). That's slavery, not charity--it's buying votes with welfare checks. And frankly that is what I see many Democrats do, time and again, with their programs. It is not pure altruism that motivates many Democratic politicians in this regard.
Likewise, the Republicans have totally missed the boat in advertising themselves as the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves. Imagine the mileage they could get out of that if they actively worked to reduce government and tax burdens and simultaneously advocated and personally led the way in private charitable endeavors? They missed the boat on healthcare, and didn't appear to offer any constructive suggestions nor take their case to the media, or widely publicize another option that would provide preventative care to the uninsured. Both sides are too beholden to special interest lobbyists, and have too many cushy backroom deals to make the hard changes required in banking or healthcare.
Of course, in all of it somehow people forget that Jesus said "the poor will always be with you", and the passage in Deuteronomy to which he was referring applied to Israel, not all of humanity. While I can certainly see that command being extended to Christians as we are grafted into Israel, I don't see that working too well with sinful man at the helm (communism, anyone?). And again we are back to the issue of God's sovereignty, because what good god would allow any of his creation to suffer in poverty? Sinful man + limited, finite reasoning = sinful logic. Simple, but hard to acknowledge.
According to the tests I've taken, there is no political party that holds my views. That would include the Independents. I guess I'm stuck. Whether or not "politics as usual" includes the "party of 'no'" where each group automatically votes against the other, I'm really tired of ... politics as usual.
The obvious rejoinder in the accusation that the Repubs voted against simply to vote against, is that well, obviously, the Dems voted FOR it because it was pushed by Dems. We can rest assured that few people have read the whole thing, so that to support it without reading it is far more troublesome than to reject it because it just couldn't be properly read and digested to vote on it way or the other.
I'm unimpressed with the average independent for the posturing he does as being above the fray. "Oh, there's so very little difference between the two." Nonsense. There are stark differences between the curren philosophies of the two parties even if there is little separating the character of the average member of either.
Also, I do not judge a plan as Republican or Democrat (conservative or liberal) based on the person supporting it. I judge it on it's merits alone, which determine if the plan is a conservative one or not. Romney's plan was not, generally speaking, a conservative idea. How could it be? (As to the input of the Heritage foundation, I'll need to study that to have an opinion. One man does make an entire foudation.
There are Republican generated aspect of the HCR bill, or so I've heard. They could be there to mitigate the damage should it pass (which it did). I don't know one way or the other. But at the end of the day, even with those amendments, the bill still fell short for a number of reasons and thus, a "no" vote was the right vote.
Personally, I think compromise is overrated. If an idea is a bad one, I don't take solace knowing that through compromise it is "less bad". "Less bad" is still bad. For example, the compromise that lead to the ratification of the US Constitution meant that slavery was legal. That's a bad compromise in today's terms. Though we would not have had a United States of America without that compromise, we were not all we could have been. Compromise is a last resort and for lesser issues (health care is a lesser issue), holding out for far better ways to address the issues of concern are preferred. Do the right thing without compromise BECAUSE it's the right thing.
These days, I see very little coming from the left that is worthy of passage. Sometimes being the party of "NO" is noble and now is one of those times. Fortunately, the right DOES have better ideas and if the MSM was the objective body they like people to believe they are, more people would be aware of what those alternative, and superior, ideas are.
"it's the right thing"
That's the point. I believe that there are Republicans who vote for or against things not on the basis of partisan politics, but because they are convinced it is (or is not) the right thing. I believe equally that there are Democrats who do the same. The point of the post is that to label one side as "the party of 'no'" and say, "They just vote that way because they oppose Democrats" is a stupid lie.
Post a Comment