Why the GOP Will Fight Meaningful Health Care Reform to the Bitter End

[Time for change]

The Republican Party (along with some corporate-controlled Democrats) gives us every excuse in the book for opposing meaningful health care reform. But beneath all the meaningless babbling rhetoric lies a very simple truth: The passage of meaningful health care reform could spell the end of the Republican Party.

To understand why this is true we need to consider the over-riding message of today’s Republican Party, which was summed up on January 20, 1981, in a simple phrase by Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address, when he said “Government is not the solution to our problem”. With that simple minded idea, and the selling of it to the American people, President Reagan began the overturning of almost five decades of understanding between the American people and their government – an understanding in the form of a social compact, to the effect that the primary purpose of our government is to help us to solve our most pressing problems.


Creation of the social compact between the American people and their government

When President Roosevelt took office in January 1933, we were in the initial phase of the worst depression in our history. FDR commenced immediately to take active steps to bring us out of that depression, which were collectively known as the “New Deal”.

Some of the most concrete results of FDR’s efforts were the Social Security Act of 1935, the creation of several agencies that produced greatly needed jobs, labor protection laws that created the right for workers to organize into unions and a federal minimum wage, antitrust policies, the GI bill of rights, and to help pay for some of those programs, record tax rates on wealthy corporations and individuals. But perhaps just as important as these concrete accomplishments was the creation of a social compact between the American people and their government known as the “Second Bill of Rights”

FDR first began speaking about our country’s need for economic and social rights to compliment the political rights granted to us in our original Bill of Rights during his first campaign for President, in 1932. Though his whole twelve year Presidency and four presidential campaigns centered largely on advocating for and implementing those rights, it wasn’t until his January 11th, 1944, State of the Union address to Congress that he fully enumerated his conception of those rights in what he referred to as a Second Bill of Rights. The elements of that conception fall into two major categories – opportunity and security. Here is a partial introduction to FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, discussed in his 1944 State of the Union address:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or creed.

FDR then went on to enumerate those rights, which included the right to a good job, a good education, freedom from unfair competition (i.e. corporate monopolies), protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents, and unemployment, adequate medical care, decent housing, and adequate food, clothing and recreation.


The economic and social results of FDR’s social compact and accompanying actions

Results followed quickly. The steep slide in GDP was arrested in 1933, and began a steady rise in 1934, so that by 1940 it had nearly reached pre-Crash levels:



Unemployment rate closely paralleled GDP during this time period – inversely. Unemployment rate stood at nearly 25% when FDR took office. It declined steadily during his presidency, so that by 1939 it was below 18% – not good, but quite an improvement. Job creation during FDR’s first presidential term was 5.3% annually, the largest rate of job creation during any presidential term from the beginning of the Hoover presidency in 1929 to the end of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2009:



The New Deal didn’t just fade away after FDR’s death. Instead, due to its stunning success, most of its components lasted for decades. Largely as a result of this, we experienced for the next three decades what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman calls “the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history”.

As a result of the labor protection laws enacted during FDR’s presidency, the percent of non-agricultural U.S. workers who were members of labor unions rose from 10% to close to 30% during his presidency and remained at that level for many decades, until the anti-labor policies of the Reagan administration resulted in a precipitous decline in union membership. The labor protection laws and other New Deal innovations, such as Social Security and unemployment insurance, were instrumental in alleviating poverty in our country and producing a vibrant middle class.

Median family income is one of the best indicators of the economic health of a people. This chart shows median family income levels, beginning in 1947, when accurate statistics on this issue first became available. Family income rose steadily (in 2005 dollars) from $22,499 in 1947 to more than double that, $47,173 in 1980.


The political effects of FDR’s social compact and actions

Today’s Republican Party doesn’t talk about the economic and social results of the New Deal – except to lie about it. Nor do they care about the several decades of benefits it brought to the American people. But they certainly care about the political results. Let’s look at how the successes of the New Deal translated into several decades of political dominance of the Democratic Party.

The presidency
FDR was re-elected three consecutive times (four times total), and his Vice President, Harry Truman, was elected president in 1948, thus capping off 20 consecutive years of the U.S. presidency under Democratic control. It took a major war hero (who many believe was more responsible than any one person for our victory in World War II), Dwight Eisenhower, to finally wrest control of the presidency from the Democrats.

In conducting his presidential campaigns in 1952 and 1956, Eisenhower had to keep in mind that The American people who lived during the Great Depression, the New Deal, and the “greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history” knew what the New Deal did for them. He made this perfectly clear in a letter that he wrote to his brother on the subject:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are…. a few Texas oil millionaires… Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Eisenhower’s presidency was followed by eight years of the Kennedy-Johnson presidencies (1961-69), in which valiant efforts were made to extend FDR’s social compact to minorities. President Kennedy brought the case to the American people in a speech just four months prior to his assassination in November 1963. Here is an excerpt:

The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day; one third as much chance of completing college; one third as much chance of becoming a professional man; twice as much chance of becoming unemployed; one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year; a life expectancy which is seven years shorter; and the prospects of earning only half as much.

Kennedy’s efforts to pursue this social legislation were cut short by his untimely death. Lyndon Johnson then became President in November 1963 and continued to vigorously pursue the Kennedy-Johnson social agenda. Landmark social and civil rights legislation passed during the Kennedy-Johnson years included the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Social Security Amendments of 1965 which created Medicare and Medicaid (which many Republicans referred to as “socialized medicine” at the time), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Project Head Start, and much other legislation as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty.

These efforts were well under-way when Johnson won a landslide victory in the presidential election of 1964, defeating Barry Goldwater by a national popular vote margin of more than 22% and winning every state except for Goldwater’s home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, which were upset about Johnson’s civil rights legislation. It took the Vietnam quagmire to put an end to Democratic predominance in presidential elections, in 1968.

Congress
In discussing Democratic predominance in Congress I’ll focus on the House of Representatives, since changes in the Senate are slower to occur due to the fact that U.S. Senators serve 6-year terms. Nevertheless, changes in the Senate generally parallel changes in the House.

The GOP held the House and Senate, mostly by wide margins, from 1919 to 1931. Their margin in the House stood at 267- 163 when Herbert Hoover won the presidential election of 1928. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 put an end to GOP Congressional dominance, as they held on to miniscule leads in the Senate and House (218- 216) in the midterm election of 1930. With a deepening depression and FDR’s landslide election victory in 1932, the Democrats firmly took over control of both the Senate and House (313- 117).

With the onset of the New Deal and the brightening financial situation, Democrats then maintained control of both the Senate and the House during the remainder of FDR’s long presidential reign, mainly by huge margins. House margins during that time were as follows:

1934: 222- 103
1936: 339- 89
1938: 322- 103
1940: 262- 169
1942: 222- 209
1944: 243- 190

Over the next 50 years, from 1945 to 1995, the Democrats maintained control of the House in 22 of the 24 ensuing elections, by 70-seat or greater margins in 15 of those elections. The only two elections in which they failed to maintain control of the House took place in 1946 (when President Truman’s approval rating was a woeful 27%, and 1952, when Eisenhower won his first presidential election with a platform that included full support for continuation of the New Deal. The Democrats maintained control of the Senate in 19 of those 24 elections (They lost control of the Senate in the two elections in which they lost control of the House, plus three elections during the 1980s.)


The Reagan Revolution – Dismantling the New Deal

By 1980 the number of Americans who were old enough to remember how FDR’s social compact rescued our country from the Great Depression and set it on course for “the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history” was rapidly dwindling.

So it is that Ronald Reagan won the Presidential election of 1980 with his claim that “government is not the solution to our problem” and his promise to “get government off the backs of the American people”.

Following several decades of phenomenal economic growth, median income came to a virtual standstill in the 1980s. For the next 25 years, except for some moderate growth during the Clinton years, there was almost no growth in median income at all, which rose only from $47,173 in 1980 to $56,194 by 2005 (85% of that growth was accounted for during the Clinton years).

William Kleinknecht writes about the Reagan Presidency and legacy in his book, “The Man Who Sold the World – Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America”. From the book jacket:

The myth of Ronald Reagan’s greatness has reached epic proportions in recent years. The public rates him as one of the most popular presidents, and Republicans everywhere seek to cast themselves in his image. But award winning journalist William Kleinknecht shows in this penetrating analysis of his presidency that the Reagan legacy has been devastating for the country – especially for the ordinary Americans he claimed to represent.

So how did one of the worst presidents in our history come to be seen in such a glamorous light? Some call Reagan the “teflon president” because none of his many scandals would “stick” to him in the public mind. But there was a very good reason for that. Kleinknecht explains in his introduction:

It cannot be disputed that there are legions of Reagan critics across the country. But why are they never seen on television or quoted in the media? Why is this dissenting view of Reagan’s “heroism” never in the public eye? … When it comes to media assessments of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the usual standards seem not to apply.

Let’s just say that our corporate controlled media wish to maintain his image. Kleinknecht sums up Reagan’s philosophy of government with respect to the New Deal:

Reagan stood against everything that had been achieved in this remarkable age of reform. His constant attacks on the inefficiency of government, a rallying cry taken up by legions of conservative politicians across the country, became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more money that was taken away from government programs, the more ineffective they became, and the more ineffective they became, the more ridiculous government bureaucrats came to be seen in the public eye. Gradually government, and the broader realm of public service, has come to seem disreputable… Politicians, imbued with the same exaltation of self-interest that is the essence of Reaganism, increasingly treat public office as a vehicle for their own enrichment.

To the present – Why the GOP will fight meaningful health care reform to the bitter end

Democrats finally began to reassert their political dominance in the national elections of 2006 and 2008, as the American public tired of more than two decades of Republican misrule. With less than 30% of Americans considering themselves Republicans it looked like the Republican Party could be on the verge of extinction.

As our country now stands mired in its worst depression since the Great Depression of the 1930s, one thing seems certain: If the Obama presidency, in conjunction with a heavily Democratic Congress, duplicates the brilliant successes of the FDR presidency, the political prospects of the Republican Party are bound to be dismal for many decades to come – just as they were for several decades following FDR’s presidency.

Health care now stands in the limelight. It is absolutely symbolic of the great divide between FDR Democrats and the do-nothing Republican Party of Ronald Reagan. A successful health care bill, following years of vitriolic Republican attacks, will show the Republican Party for the dismal failure that it is. It will show the no-nothing philosophy of Reagan Republicans to be the fraud that it is and always has been. In short, it will be impossible to maintain the myth that the American people are better off with a government that believes it has nothing to offer them except moral platitudes, military spending, and war. The Republican Party with their empty platitudes and promises will be shown for what they are. They will be politically dead.

Paul Krugman, in his book, “The Conscience of a Liberal”, sums up the current health care situation as well as anyone:

The principal reason to reform American health care is simply that it would improve the quality of life for most Americans…

There is, however, another important reason for health care reform. It’s the same reasons movement conservatives were so anxious to kill Clinton’s plan. That plan’s success, said William Kristol, “would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy” – by which he really meant that universal health care would give new life to the New Deal idea that society should help its less fortunate members. Indeed it would – and that’s a big argument in its favor…

Getting universal care should be the key domestic priority for modern liberals. Once they succeed there, they can turn to the broader, more difficult task of reining in American inequality.

But unfortunately, the current outlook for health care reform in our country is in deep trouble. It may or may not pass. And if it does pass it may be so watered down that it provides few benefits for the American people.

The Republican Party cannot afford to let health care reform succeed. Democrats who care about their Party, their country, and the American people cannot allow it to fail.

[bridgit]

1. Thank you for your post

:kick:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

3. I hope you're right about saving millions of lives. What I see in the bill, unless vastly improved..

is people forced to spend a lot of their money to purchase insurance without getting a whole lot of coverage in return for it. I have worked in the health care industry and have been a patient from time to time. People who have plenty of money and are just without insurance due to preexisting conditions will be helped by being able to purchase the insurance. People below 400% of FPL may get enough help to have insurance but the out of pockets are still going to be quite a hit for those who get sick. People over 400% of FPL will have a hell of a time paying the premiums if they do not have employer sponsored health insurance. I regret you feel the need to call this the 'teabag left.' The difference here is those on the left who are not happy with the bill actually have some facts on their side.

[msongs]

5. everyone who has a different view is a "teabag". nice smear of your fellow Duers nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Time for change]

8. I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that those who are concerned about the passage of

what they consider to be a too weak or harmful health care bill want health care reform to fail. Some of us would rather see no legislation passed than what we consider to be harmful legislation. But that is a far cry from wanting health care reform to fail. I think that almost all of us would rather see incremental positive change, progressing to much more positive change than no change at all.

[HamdenRice]

9. Did you look at the "previously existing condition" thread? The purists want us to die and go away

ie those of us whose lives might be saved by a less than Kuchiperfect bill.

[Time for change]

11. No, I didn't see that thread

I've seen sentiment that I consider unreasonably purist. But that's a lot different than saying that they want health care reform to fail. Rather, it's a difference of opinion on what we think a health care bill has to include in order to provide more benefit than harm.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

4. The problem is, the Democrats' plan is not a good one. It will hurt many people

It will help some, but at the cost of many others.
It will hurt the states, meaning education will lose.
It will hurt many senior citizens.
It will do little to slow medical inflation.
It will do nothing to limit the monopoly powers so characteristic
of medicine in our country.
I know it is disagreeable to lose the advantage of
such a large Democratic majority. But to use this majority
to put through a bad bill, a bill that caters
to the special interests and increases inequality,
that's even worse. I appreciate your ideals and concerns, but
we can do so much better than what the Democrats
are planning now.

[Time for change]

7. Yes, we can do better -- a lot better

I'm saying that either the failure to pass a health reform bill OR the passage of one that fails to provide much benefit to the American people will constitute a major wasted opportunity and will breathe new life into the Republican Party, whereas the passage of a good bill could very well be the end of the Republican Party.

That's why the Republican Party is doing everything they can both to water down the bill and to prevent passage of whatever bill emerges.

[Johnboi70]

10. Nice talking points... how about something to back up these assertions??

Your post reads like Republican talking points. It makes awful predictions, but offers no evidence.

I am particularly weirded out by your assertion that, "It will hurt many senior citizens." Exactly how is that, Sen McCain?? Will it hurt them by eliminating that Orwellian-named "Medicare Free Choice" plan that provides wasteful tax-payer subsidies to private insurers so they can "compete" with Medicare, despite their higher costs?? Surely, Medicare funds would be better spent on the elderly than on fattening the bottom line of the health insurers!!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Take a deep breath and remember....

Not everyone who posts on DU is a Democrat or even a lib. Some are GOPers in disguise.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. ??????????????????????? nt

[jpak]

23. Bullshit and....

:yawn:

[Johnboi70]

12. Nice post!! Very well researched...

... and spot on.

Have you considered why the Republicans would want to enforce social inequality?

I find it interesting that healthcare concerns are the biggest factor keeping people from starting their own businesses. When you combine that fact with Republican attempts to shut down net-neutrality, to send massive public subsidies to big business (such as our no-bid Iraq war funding and drilling on public land), and to selectively deregulate in a way that favors only the powerful at the expense of the little guy, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Republicans seek to extend the power and influence of big business over the economy. I wonder if big businesses are just trying to permanently shut down competition and lock in their own privileged status... As Adam Smith himself warned they would seek to do.

If that's the case, then the current healthcare system is just a way to control people's behavior.

[Time for change]

14. Thank you -- Yes, I've thought a lot about that

The Republican Party has long been the lapdogs for corporate America. They're richly rewarded in campaign contributions for doing that.

Here is the last post that I wrote on that issue:
"Setting the Crown on the Corporate State"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6769019

And Nate Silver has done an interesting analysis that shows a strong relationship between insurance industry donations and voting against the public option:
"The Influence of Health Insurance Campaign Contributions on Blocking Health Care Reform"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6195406

[Johnboi70]

15. Great links!

I shudder to think what would happen in a globalized world where popular sovereignty is eclipsed by the multinationals. Truly, this is the challenge of our era. I fear it's going to be a long, painful slog.

[Crotchety_Radical]

13. in response

not a bad article - i agree with you and have for some time - even if GOP agreed with some of the health care measure they cannot let it pass, political suicide.

disagree with you on the GOP going extinct b/c it is around 30% - history shows that is generally how the population is split up
1/3, 1/3, 1/3

Hell, even in the American Revolution time period saw the population split up along the same lines

1/3 Patriots, 1/3 Loyalists and 1/3 Independents

[Overseas]

18. Giant K&R for this one. So well said. So true.

So sad that we don't have enough corporate-free Democrats to get the whole team to go all FDR on the Republicans and show them what works.

I really had hoped that President Obama would go all FDR in a more modern way, emphasizing the pragmatic reasons for it-- economic growth for all, for a nation devastated by the financial meltdown and wasteful reckless wars.

Thought his team would start off with Single Payer-- "Beat This!"-- the most pragmatic plan. Low overhead, high patient satisfaction, mixture of public and private elements.

FDR stuff was no dreamy pie in the sky-- it worked. So where is my New Pragmatism? That's what I'd hoped our new president would bring in to office with him.

Even the bipartisan stuff-- that could have been done pragmatically-- Republicans say they're for sound economic policies and a strong defense. After the last meltdown, FDR's policies putting people back to work succeeded at boosting the economy. (The wasteful Bush Wars weakened our national security by creating more enemies for us; continuing them would not be true to Republican goals of a strong America, therefore, we're pulling out ASAP, is the other bipartisan push I longed for from him.)

That was my secret wish. We'd finally return to the most practical policies, with President Obama as our 21st Century FDR, not because it was beautiful, but because it was practical. Thought he'd be all "Who can argue with what works? This is the quickest and most thorough way to help the most people."

And after a devastating financial meltdown, putting Single Payer right on the table as the moral thing to do after the country had suffered such devastating losses would have been such a pragmatic move too. It would have been a clear demonstration that the change we had voted for, so full of hope, had indeed begun in a way that helped every single person in the country-- national health security for all. Finally. At long last.

[Time for change]

29. Your wishes are indeed pragmatic

I have very ambivalent feelings about Obama. On the one hand, many of his actions have disappointed me. On the other hand, I recognize that he must be under great pressure. But so was FDR.

An editorial in The Nation, criticizing Obama's handling of the situation in Afghanistan, expresses well how I feel about it:

This is a tragic moment for the nation and for Obama’s presidency. It is true that it would have taken great courage for Obama to do the right thing and end his predecessor’s war. He would have faced harsh blowback from the right, the military and the media establishment. But in a war-weary and economically distressed nation, Obama could have used his impressive oratorical and political skills to marshal the public to his side. Instead, with this escalation, we see the continuing grip of the national security state, whose premises have been shared by conservative and liberal hawks for close to sixty years, and which essentially remain unchallenged among the establishment and the mainstream media. Obama is now at risk of being held hostage to this mindset, as a war bequeathed to him by a reckless and destructive administration becomes his own.

[Overseas]

31. I agree.

That's why my wishes remain just that-- wishes. How he could have used his skills to present the best FDR ideas in a new way, emphasizing their pragmatism and appealing to the common good.

The status quo of privatized health care/insurance, riddled as it is with greed and soaring profits created by dumping more and more patients, would have made a great case of a need for change. In addition to the bailouts to the rich that deserved to be countered by a tangible benefit for the rest of us.

Making a case against the Bush Wars would have been far easier if our legislators had had the courage and persistence to impeach the Bush Gang. Then more of the public would have been aware of how thoroughly that gang's brutal violence had harmed our national security.

Those were my two big hopes for making the case to revive the truth that government can be good and serve the people. The cruel plutocracy we've been building up since the Reagan era could have been stopped in its tracks.

But it seems like his team wasn't planning to make such a valiant stand against the forces of privatization and plutocracy. They didn't come in prepared to do battle for a change toward compassion and basic human decency. Even though circumstances gave them a great platform to do that.

That's why I am so very disappointed too. My hopes were beautiful and pragmatic. A moderate Democrat could have presented them as conservative ideas because they would result in a healthier economy and stronger national defense, supposedly conservative core values.

And yeah, I remember this FDR clip:

"We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob. They are unanimous in their hatred for me and I welcome their hatred."

[Overseas]

34. Furthermore-- Change is urgently required. Ecologically.

Thus making forgone modern pragmatism all that more poignant. We're facing Copenhagen. We could have "had to" (pragmatic way) dive into a massive green jobs retrofitting, and infrastructure deferred maintenance program, to create millions of jobs "to revive the economy" (purported and actual results) and be able to demonstrate clearly that we, on the eve of Copenhagen, are willing to make the group of changes called "energy efficiency savings" and "alternative energy development" for starters.

That would be a big step toward resuming a Leadership Role in our globe of interdependent economies.

It might even compensate somewhat for leading the way in "financial liberalization: (banking deregulation) and pushing toxic assets at the WTO last time and again this year.

But we've missed that Pragmatic New Economy chance. Could have been a freebee -- help the desperate US middle & lower classes and rejoin the community of nations in respecting science and reducing atmospheric deterioration.

I'm so sorry that the principle of Limited Government is still ruling the roost.

Such priceless opportunities lost.

When can we jump in again?

[Time for change]

36. Absolutely

Christopher Hayes expresses concern that the cap-and-trade bill is being framed by the Obama administration as a jobs bill rather than a climate control bill:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091221/hayes

I understand why proponents of a cap in carbon emissions chose this messaging strategy. They’ve done a ton of polling and focus-grouping, and there’s overwhelming evidence that people don’t care enough about the climate to motivate any broad support; that immediate concerns like jobs dwarf abstract ones like carbon dioxide. And prophecies of doom have a strong chance of backfiring and causing paralysis instead of catalyzing support.

But in so overwhelmingly focusing their rhetorical energy away from the central argument about climate, the good guys have created a vacuum that the armies of reaction have rushed to fill. Which is why you have this strange situation whereby support for the main proposition that humans are warming the planet is declining markedly while support for solving the problem remains steady…

There are other ways to create jobs, Republicans will argue... What Democrats will have to argue is that cap and trade (in addition to creating jobs) might also save us from global disaster. Unless we make the climate case alongside the other ones, we won’t be able to make that argument… It’s maddening that a well-funded industry of contrarians continues to wage a monstrous campaign of deceit, that the simple facts have to be fought for every day. But they do… You cannot pass a climate bill without talking about the climate. So starting with Copenhagen, the large, unwieldy coalition committed to making sure we don’t do catastrophic damage to our fellow humans around the globe needs to make sure we put climate back at the center of the climate debate.

[Overseas]

40. I see what they mean about the framing -- Need to be pragmatic about scientific realities too.

We need to learn to shout above or shove aside the crazies-- and deal with urgent climatic destabilization as well as our jobs.

Let us not do as we did with health care and debate as though millions of people were not desperately uninsured and bankrupt and dieing early due to predatory practices of private insurers.

Jobs are great. Rapidly melting glaciers that supply water to entire continents are not great. Rapidly accelerating climatic destabilization is not some unpleasantness elsewhere that we can ignore any longer.

We need to step past those who might welcome the warming as the hastening Rapture and deal with the 80% that realize we've got to go green. And drag along the other 10% that think it's too late for our grandchildren so full speed ahead.

I hope we all had our fill of Pulling the Plug on Grandma and can have more mature debate about carbon reduction.

It's not just jobs jobs happy happy -- it is an emergency measure.

[bertman]

35. I agree with your use of the excerpt from "The Nation", Time for change. And your ambivalence

toward our President.

My ambivalence was made even less ambivalent today when I read that he did not even MENTION the Public Option when he addressed the Senate regarding healthcare reform. Which to my way of thinking validates your points in the OP.

Having just finished reading "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" (thank you for the recommendation) and having just read this OP about FDR's actions, it occurs to me that both FDR and JFK had faced serious life-threatening illnesses/actions during their lives. FDR suffered from polio and had been the target of an attempted coup d etat. JFK had survived numerous severe illnesses as well as his days in the aftermath of his PT boat sinking in the Pacific. It seems that individuals who have come close to death often realize that death is not to be feared because it is inevitable AND that one must press on even at great personal risk if one is to accomplish great acts on behalf of humankind.

My humble opinion is that our President Obama is a man who has a strong desire to do wonderful things for humankind, but he is also a husband as well as father who loves his wife and daughters dearly. I have never heard of him experiencing anything like a major life-threatening experience that might give him the fearlessness in the face of impending death that both FDR and JFK exhibited.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Military-Industrial-Corporate Complex would strike at President Obama with a lethal ferocity if he were to try to stop or even slow down their drive for imperial hegemony. I hate to say it, but it is a fact.

Recommend this thread.

[Time for change]

38. I pretty much agree with all of that, bertman

Most importantly, the 2nd to last paragraph (before "Recommend this thread"). How they would strike is the question. It seems to me that the JFK assassination has generated so much skepticism towards our government over so long a time that assassination would be thought of as a last resort. They may be able to accomplish the same thing by turning the full force of the corporate media against him. But assassination is certainly not to be ruled out.

The idea that people who have faced death are less likely to fear it in the future is certainly true to some extent (How much so, I don't know, I've never seen a study on it). That is especially true of people who have had what some refer to as "near death" experiences, where they later report various experiences that sound like they believe they went to heaven and back. I've read some books on the subject, which I have found very interesting. As far as I know, neither FDR nor JFK had such experiences -- but the reknowned psychiatrist Carl Jung did.

So yes, I think Obama is under tremendous pressure, so sometimes I cut him some slack on that. I certainly don't know how I myself would react if I faced similar pressures. But on the other hand, I don't think that someone should run for president if they're not prepared to act in the best interests of their citizens, rather than the corporatocracy. But on the other hand, maybe some accommodation to the corporatocracy has to be made in order to accomplish anything. So many "on the other hands"!

[bertman]

39. Yes, so many "on the other hands". Not to drive a morbid subject into the ground, but the template

is there--lone nut: how many have already been arrested after threatening the President in his first 10 months in office? and that doesn't count the hundreds of other reported threats that we have not heard details about, but which the SS tells us are epidemic; "accidental" security breach: the now-famous SS screwup that allowed the two attention-addicts to get into the Presidential event and even shake hands with the President. I don't even want to go into the other scenarios that someone could think up if he/she were determined to alter history. And that's not even counting a full-blown M-I-C-C covert action.

In an alternate universe (or maybe even 50 years ago) we might expect to get presidential candidates and presidents whose intentions and actions focus on the best interests of the citizens. I think that era is long gone. Now they won't get enough financing to buy off the networks or the party heads, much less to run a campaign that could offset the onslaught of negative media that would be brought to bear against them. (Dr. Dean??)

I would like to think that a well-meaning although wishy-washy President might find the inspiration and courage to do the right thing if he/she had an activist, energized Congress pushing him/her like a strong ocean current that cannot be resisted. Looking around at the current crew, I see a enough to generate a wave. Certainly not enough to produce an "undertoad" of the proportions required for bucking the corporatocracy.

[Time for change]

42. I think

that if Obama gets assassinated, my first thought will be that it is a covert action, no matter what the initial evidence points to. It will take good evidence to convince me that it was a lone nut.

Anyhow, I'd like to add an optimistic note from Peter Dale Scott in his book, "The Road to 9/11 -- Wealth, Empire and the Future of America", "The truth always wins out in the long run" (emphasis added). That's an inspiring quote coming from someone who has as good a handle on our shadow government as anyone I've ever read.

[Aragorn]

19. stop

making sense.

[MadHound]

20. And the funny thing is, this isn't even meaningful health care reform that the GOP is fighting

This bill is a wet dream for the insurance industry, a mandated monopoly with a weak, weak public option. But the GOP continues to fight this, and despite the huge majorities the Dems enjoy in the Congress, and despite their control of the WH, they still continue to cave on this issue.

That's why the GOP continues to fight, because they know that by doing so they can make a bad bill worse.

[TroubleMan]

21. I've always been saying here that Reagan was worse than bush II.

Not only does the brilliant post you've made show that, but there are so many things outside of economics that made him horrible:

1. Enacting draconian drug laws and preaching "just say no," while his lackeys were selling drugs as part of Iran-Contra. Iran-Contra was largely responsible for the crack epidemic in the 80's, but Reagan gained huge political capital being an anti-drug champion.

2. Busting unions.

3. Not did he only defund large portions of government, but he appointed people who were ideologically opposed to the mission of the section of government they led. Other times he would appoint the most corrupt people in order to ruin the department or have it riddled with scandal (like he did with HUD).

4. While preaching small government, he had the most government spending in history (up to that point), and increased the federal deficit to astronomical levels.

5. Cut taxes on the ultra-rich nearly in half and shifted that tax burden onto the poor and middle class by increasing payroll taxes.

[Time for change]

30. Very nice summary of why Reagan should be rated one of our worst presidents

I don't know about being worse than Bush II. But certainly a very good case could be made for being one of the worst two.

[western mass]

22. Sorry, the Democrats are the problem

The GOP opposes health care reform. The Democrats make sure that meaningful health care reform never happens by failing to fight for anything but fake "reforms" that only solidify the stranglehold of the health insurance lobby. Two sides of the same coin. Bad cop, good cop.

[AlbertCat]

33. Sorry, GREED is the problem.... and has no party loyalty.

Dems are not perfect but in the past the average person did better under them. We'll see if this is still true. I think so....tho' far far far from perfect.

The thing at this point is to not let the passage of a bill now...whatever form it takes, be the END of it. "We did something so now we need to move on." (I hate that phrase!)

[Tippy]

24. ENOUGH is ENOUGH,,,,,,,

I beleive the time is right to jump on this band wagon, and I ask you to jump with me.....

Please ask your friends, family, and like-minded co-workers to join you in signing the open letter:

www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/EnoughisEnough

Working together, we're unstoppable. Thank you for everything you do.

[Time for change]

28. Signed -- Thank you

[Tippy]

41. I Thank you, Wish more would have been willing lend a hand,,,,

[yurbud]

25. send it to the white house and the blue dogs who seem intent on blunting the effect of health care

reform to please the right and their corporate patrons.

[Tippy]

27. I've sent it to everyone I know

But the more who join/sign this the quicker it will happen. The Blue Dogs in my State get phone calls once a week and some times more often. They do pay attention when voters from their districts call or write, simply because THEY are votes. At the present time you have to realize Republicans..are making those calls.

[kenny blankenship]

26. While I agree about the nature of Republican opposition - said so myself many times

many moons ago - the Republicans AREN'T the problem here. Their opposition is a given and arises from the essential principles of their party. National health care contradicts everything they say is true about the world and human nature.

It's the Democrats who're sabotaging health care. And they ARE sabotaging it.

[Demeter]

32. And This Is Why I am a Democrat

Thank you for simply and clearly explaining everything.

[Zoeisright]

37. I wish I could rec this a thousand times.

That's exactly right. Repukes have always tried to hurt this country any way they can, because they don't care about Americans - they care about themselves. And they've lost on every single issue and they will continue to lose. Because they're wrong.