2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat Boehner considers ‘almost un-American’
Posted with permission.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/what_boehner_considers_almost034970.php
What Boehner considers almost un-American
By Steve Benen
Over the weekend, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) described President Obamas State of the Union address, which he had not heard, as pathetic. Today, Boehner pushed the rhetorical envelope a little further.
This is a president who said Im not going to be a divider, Im going to be a uniter, and running on the policies of division and envy is to me its almost un-American, said Boehner.
Even for Boehner, this kind of rhetoric is cheap and inappropriate.
At a certain level, its tempting to think the Speaker doesnt even believe his own nonsense. What is it, exactly, that Boehner finds so offensive about President Obamas message? The notion of a Democratic president championing the interests of the middle class isnt exactly unusual, neither is the prospect of asking the very wealthy to pay a little more to help guarantee opportunities for all.
Indeed, theres nothing in the White Houses agenda that wouldnt have generated significant support from Democrats and moderate Republicans for the better part of the 20th century. Obamas economic vision is, at a fundamental level, about as mainstream as you can get.
It makes sense for Boehner to attack this, to the extent that he sees it as his job to reflexively oppose everything the president is for. But officials, especially those in key positions of authority, really ought to avoid words like un-American. Just because the House elected an oft-confused Speaker, who lacks a cursory understanding of public policy and history, is no excuse for American leaders questioning other American leaders patriotism.
Im reminded of a recent piece from Tim Dickinson:
Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver, he demands, or less?
The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: MORE!
The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Todays Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.
I suppose the follow-up question for Boehner is, was Reagan almost un-American, too? Were the lawmakers from both parties who approved tax reform in the mid-80s a bunch of socialist sell-outs?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)In for the SOTU. Fuck him. If he thinks it's so "pathetic" then he shouldn't be there.
LeftofObama
(4,243 posts)This is their favorite talking point.
Would someone please explain to me exactly what is to be envied?
I would love to be wealthy, but I know it's not going to happen so I'm happy just living the best I can from day to day. I'm just sick and tired of the repukes trying to take what I've already worked for.
The last thing I feel for the 1% is envy!
Edited to change there to their