Defeating Reagan

Robert Reich (as usual) has a simple yet incisive viewpoint on the historic significance of the health care legislation.

One key paragraph:

The significance of Obama’s health legislation is more political than substantive. For the first time since Ronald Reagan told America government is the problem, Obama’s health bill reasserts that government can provide a major solution. In political terms, that’s a very big deal.

It's worth a read.

Two Cheers for the Health Care Bill

America has now (provisionally) passed a bill providing health care for more than 90% of America. The Democrats say it's historic. That's true. Some Republicans are saying it's 'the end of our country'. Probably not.

But is it a good thing? Yes...if you believe that two out of three is good enough:

1) The Upside. More people will be covered. Insurance companies will be constrained in some meaningful ways (say goodbye to 'preexisting conditions'). Young people looking for non-existent jobs can stay on their parents health care plans until age 26. The caps on annual and lifetime benefits ostensibly will disappear. So, there is good news.

2) The Politics. Much is being made of President Obama 'spending all his political capital' to get this bill passed. This is a line of argument being promoted by the Republicans, so like everything else they've said on this issue, they're dead wrong. Obama showed he can, in the end, get things done. Something truly historic. In the midst of one of the most shamelessly vile, virulent and vindictive oppositions in America's legislative history. The Republicans, aided by a compliant, lap dog media, allowed themselves to lie and slander at will. And guess what?--it didn't work. Now where do they turn? Does it make sense for them to become even more lunatic? Could be. But they will drive themselves further from centrist voters.

3) The Downside. Mr. Obama's mistake from the start was to believe that he could bring all corporate and political entities to the table...and that they would eventually fall before his logic and his charm. That was never going to happen. He got played. He assumed when they said 'bipartisanship' they meant it. That ruse now has been put to bed. But in the process, some extremely friendly concessions were made to hospitals and drug makers (if not so much to the insurance companies). The road to meaningful health care reform...in terms of both service and cost control...has only begun. But more importantly, he now must now accept that his opponents will never stop opposing.

This downside can end if the President decides to call their bluff, and isolate them. For example, think Wall Street regulation. What if the administration proposed a bill that hard-capped the salary and bonuses of any bank executive whose company accepted money during the bailout? Of course, the free market ideologues would scream. But the Tea Partiers might shut up. On this point, the far left and the far right actually agree. Proving that the Republican party serves solely as pool boys for big business would be both honest and effective. Yes, it would be divisive. But at this point, what difference does it make?

Oh yeah, and one more thing.

Nancy Pelosi is now the world's foremost 70-year-old rock star.

Texas

Last year a couple old friends and I were sitting at a hotel bar in Dallas, being served by the sweetest ol' 60-something Texas lady you ever met. Y'all know what I'm sayin' here, darlin'? Seriously, she was the essence of down-home hospitality.

Then I said to her, "hey, I hear this governor of yours is talking about seceding from America. What about that?" I smiled as I said this, because, on virtually any level you can think of, this is preposterous.

Well, she stayed personable, but showed a new seriousness when she answered: "Well, of course! Why wouldn't we want to? I don't know anyone who doesn't think that's a great idea."

That got me to wondering about how a seemingly ordinary person could be so delusional, and I just couldn't help but conclude this was the final proof for something I've long suspected. America would be far better off if the Mexicans has just kept winning after the Alamo...or taken the rematch during the Mexican-American War. Texas is just plain wrong for America.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know good people who were born in Texas. I'm just happy they got out alive. But so much of what's wrong with this country can be traced to the ignorant bellicosity of that one altered state.

There's no need to go into a long list of specifics here. Just let me say that without Lyndon Johnson, an intelligent Texan who didn't have the balls to say no to Vietnam...and George W. Bush, a man without balls who invaded Iraq to make people believe otherwise, there would be a lot more safe and sound U.S. families today.

The reason I bring this up is the vote this week by the Texas Board of Education to alter the social studies content of schoolbooks sold in the state in order to promote the right wing view of the world. Planned additions to the history books include, “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.” Among many deletions will be any credit given to Thomas Jefferson for writings which led to revolutions in both the U.S. and Europe. Why him? Because he had the audacity to utter the dastardly words, "separation of church and state".

Although flooding the commission with more than 100 different amendments to the state curriculum since the start of the year, one thing that will not be included are mentions of more Hispanic figures to serve as role models to the burgeoning number of Hispanics in the state school systems. A Latino leader called this an attempt to "pretend this is a white America". Maybe if Santa Anna had just refused to kill Davy Crockett 150 years ago, the board would have been more charitable.

Right now it's hard to look at our country and not see an excess of stupidity. I realize every generation of Americans believes the same thing, but really--even in the anti-Communist McCarthy panic of the 50's, things could not have been worse than this. (Oh, and by the way, the Texas Board also wants to change the textbooks to show that McCarthy was actually right about all that Communist subversion).

So, although it seems unlikely that I'll ever get to cast a vote on whether the great state of Texas should secede from the union, I just want to be on the record casting a hearty 'yes'. I actually agree with that nice bartender lady. It could only make us all better.

Ya'll know what I'm sayin' here, darlin'?

Dichotomies

While there's some disagreement as to exact numbers, current surveys show that Americans still receive more of their news from television than any other source. The Internet is certainly making inroads, but so is cable, so TV's overall leadership remains firm.

What also hasn't changed is the lament about how shallow 'news' coverage really is on TV...particularly when it comes to substantive discussion of politics and issues. Part of this is TV's fault. The amount of pure crap masquerading as news seems to rise every year. But part of it is endemic to the medium. A typical feature story on the front page of the New York Times couldn't be entirely read out loud by a TV anchor inside an entire half hour broadcast...even if they removed all of the commercials and the sports and weather blather.

So when TV news executives are persuaded to devote precious content to things that really matter, they reactively turn to dichotomies...the simple either/ors that comprise the dumbed-down shorthand of issues coverage. They're familiar to everyone:

Liberal / Conservative
Winner / Loser
Rich / Poor

Sometimes there are developments that require the creation of new dichotomies, to help 'explain' (and therefore trivialize) important issues. For example, the emergence of news as diverse as the 9/11 attacks, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement quickly attain their own dichotomies:

Security / Terrorism
Common Sense / Intellectual
Big Government / Lower Taxes

The fact that each of these examples contains loaded words that set up false comparisons is testament to the power of the right wing to manipulate the broadcast airwaves...but that's a topic for another time.

What's baffling is how, given the knee-jerk reaction to establish the either/ors, broadcast ignores the one that explains the most about America--not just now, but always:

Government / Business

With all of the empty words dedicated every year to the idea that America succeeds because of the natural inclination to moderate between polar opposites, virtually nothing is said about the need to have these two preeminent social forces--free market and regulation, in other words--balance each other. This is the dichotomy that matters most...and is considered least.

However, once in a long while a smart person (in this case, Robert Reich) will clearly make the case:

Anyone with an ounce of sanity understands government is the only effective countervailing force against the forces that got us into this mess: Against Goldman Sachs and the rest of the big banks that plunged the economy into crisis, got our bailout money, and are now back at their old games, dispensing huge bonuses to themselves. Against WellPoint and the rest of the giant health insurers who are at this moment robbing us of the care we need by raising their rates by double digits. Against giant corporations that are showing big profits by continuing to lay off millions of Americans and cutting the wages of millions of more, by shifting jobs abroad and substituting software. Against big oil and big utilities that are raising prices and rates, and continue to ravage the atmosphere.

If there was ever a time to connect the dots and make the case for government as the singular means of protecting the public from these forces it is now. Yet the White House and the congressional Dem’s ongoing refusal to blame big business and Wall Street has created the biggest irony in modern political history. A growing portion of the public, fed by the right, blames our problems on “big government.”

Ronald Reagan, the most overrated of all U.S. Presidents, achieved sainthood with the far right when he assumed our highest office with the assertion that, "...government is not the solution...government is the problem". That was the equivalent of announcing, "gentlemen...start your engines" at the Indy 500. Reagan firmly seated big business behind the wheel, and we all witnessed the inevitable multi-car pileup that extended through all eight years of the younger Bush's illegitimate reign.

Broadcast news is not comfortable dealing with this ultimate dichotomy...the thought that there actually is a role for government to counterbalance the natural predatory nature of corporatism. On one hand, the people avoiding this conversation are themselves employees of huge corporations, so their self-interest is not surprising.

But moreover, dealing with this essential counterbalance would inevitably lead them to the ultimate dichotomy...the one they can never allow themselves to tackle:

Right / Wrong