Image via Wikipedia

Last week I gave an interview to Brian and Bob of the Laid Off Podcast. They’re pop culture/political, and fun to listen to! We talked about TCT, Tancredo, and just whatever. There’s talk of a future team-up with a monthly segment by yours truly—I’ll keep you posted.

In the meantime, have a listen (my interview starts at around 27:12)!

| Download | Duration: 01:20:43

Show #54: We talk with Jeff from the Rocket Fuel podcast, and Teddy from the Constitutionalists today .

Tancredo…(drop out) before it’s too late.

Scott McInnis’ plagiarism, Tom Tancredo’s unexpected bid, and Maes’ primary win have made for an explosive gubernatorial race for conservatives. While it is indeed disheartening to see conservatives attack conservatives, I’ve been assured that primaries are “healthy.” I have to wonder: is still arguing a week after primaries with no resolution in sight also “healthy?”

As a co-founder of The Constitutionalist Today, a grassroots opinion journal, I’ve had the opportunity to hear from conservatives across-the-board. As most of us assumed that the “McInnis vs. Maes” battle would eventually resolve into unanimous support against Hickenlooper, Tancredo’s party change and subsequent entrance into the race obviously infused a free radical into the formula.  As a member of the grassroots myself, I’ve watched and participated in the debate with great interest over the last few weeks.

Some seem to have taken Tancredo’s move personally and have responded to the perceived betrayal by attempting to discredit him, even to the point of thoroughly researching his conservative record. While I welcome this kind of scrutiny and questioning, I didn’t take his move personally. I respect Tom (meeting him after his presidential bid was literally my first and only “starstruck” moment…is that sad?), and want to understand his move.

However, what most troubles me is the many arguments directed at Maes’ supporters that are nothing more than myths. Tancredo’s supporters (indeed, Tancredo himself) can’t seem to wrap their heads around why the liberty movement isn’t abandoning Dan en masse and flocking to Tom, so they’ve cooked up theories that are false and potentially destructive.

Here are my takes on a few of the more common myths being spouted:

Myth #1: Maes supporters are toeing the GOP party line.

In an open letter to Tea Partiers on 7/26, Tancredo accused Maes supporters of becoming “hard core Republican Party stalwarts.” This myth is pervasive, yet laughable and demonstrably false in two ways:

1. Tancredo pleaded with Tea Parties in December to not take the third party route. Why would he have to make this case to GOP loyalists? He wouldn’t! He knew then, and is counting on now, that their unflinching fixation on Constitutional principles makes them more prone to abandoning the GOP. Obviously there is no love lost between the liberty movement and the GOP, and the former would abandon the latter in one hot second if necessary and practical. TCT itself serves as an indicator: the establishment has been at our throats, and admittedly vice-​​versa, since issue 1 hit the stands in February.
2. In case anyone missed the primary, Dan Maes was the outsider. Tired of establishment picks being foisted upon them, conservatives that may have otherwise taken the third party route found their candidate in Dan Maes. To now suggest that these “hanging by a thread” Republicans are sticking with Dan because they are party loyalists is absurd.

Some of the grassroots remain with the GOP because they want to restore it to its conservative glory. Others remain with the GOP out of pragmatism and a begrudging acceptance of the two-party system. Almost all of the grassroots would vote third party in a heartbeat were it a practical scenario. Ironically, although Tancredo felt the need to reign in the third party-prone movement in December, he was actually preaching to the choir: the liberty movement was always going to work through the GOP process, at least until it proved itself broken beyond repair!

Myth #2: The Tea Party has “lost its mind” and is putting party before principle.

Usually offered hand-in-hand with myth #1, the myth that the Tea Party is betraying its roots and is now placing party for before principle is equally absurd.

First and foremost, Tancredo’s flip-flop has left him looking like the more ethically-​​challenged candidate to the Tea Partiers, to whom he addressed his December letter and July admonishment. Second, Tancredo supporters speak of McInnis’ plagiarism scandal and Dan Maes’ campaign finance violations equally, as if Maes’ fines equal an ethics breach of equal caliber. The “gotcha” game has been played ad nauseum with Dan Maes, yet nothing incriminating has arisen.

Furthermore, Tancredo hasn’t adequately explained his plan for winning. If Maes’ withdrawal is Tancredo’s only hope, then Tancredo has no plan. Unfortunately, due to a combination of events and timing, Tancredo’s move looks very egotistical to a great many conservatives. I’ve been over the scenarios back and forth and listened to every interview I can in the hopes that I can vindicate a politician I would otherwise support, but I have yet to arrive at the same conclusion as his supporters: that Tom is doing what he thinks is right. Unless his judgement is that poor, I suspect that Tom is doing what he thinks is right for Tom.

No, Tancredo supporters needn’t be surprised that the grassroots aren’t abandoning Maes en masse. In our minds, the principled stand, at the moment, is with the party!

Myth #3: Maes cannot beat Hickenlooper.

Admittedly and undoubtedly, I’m a political novice, as are many involved in the liberty movement. As such, others may indeed have a better “sense” about this sort of prediction, and the position that “Maes cannot beat Hickenlooper” is held by multiple conservatives whose opinions I respect, not the least of which would be Tancredo himself: “It doesn’t matter if I run or if I don’t, Dan Maes cannot win the election.”  I can’t help but wonder, however, if this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: those who don’t believe Maes can win are actively working to undermine him, thus assuring his defeat! Finally, Maes took both the assembly and primary against odds, and there are no reasons to bet against him in November; he has a clear message, an attractive personality, and a convincing plan. There are no crystal balls!

Myth #4: Maes supporters don’t think that Tancredo has the “right” to run.

Tancredo supporters have accused Maes supporters of undermining Tancredo’s “right” to run. Quite simply, while both Maes supporters and GOP stalwarts have expressed disappointment in Tancredo’s methods and judgment, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that Tancredo is somehow breaking the law or exceeding his rights.

Myth #5: Maes supporters are stabbing Tancredo in the back.

At no point has the movement abandoned support for Tancredo’s conservative policies, but Tancredo has doubled-​​back on one of his own stances: that third parties have the potential to split a vote. In agreement, the liberty movement worked for the better part of a year to see its candidate selected through the GOP primary process. Tancredo previously enjoyed massive approval from the movement at large, and would most likely have earned the GOP nomination had he run. The movement’s approval was such that Tancredo’s “defection” would have been welcomed had all GOP contenders ended up dead in the water. Tancredo offers the feeble excuse that “circumstances have changed,” which rings hollow to the movement whose candidate is viable and whose principles rise above “circumstances.” I can assure you that the more prevalent perception is that Tancredo is the one stabbing the conservative movement in the back.

#6: The liberty movement didn’t vote for Maes so much as they voted against McInnis.

The myth that the liberty movement voted against McInnis rather than for Maes is so much low-hanging fruit, thanks to McInnis’ plagiarism allegations and the tight primary results. “I have this feeling…that most of the people who voted were voting against the other person in the race,” said Tancredo on the day after the primaries. Were there truly a dearth of loyalty towards Maes, then Republicans would be jumping ship by the tens of thousands and joining Tancredo now that the primaries are over. Having interacted with grassroots organizations across Colorado, the TCT team can attest that the grassroots were for Maes much more than they were against McInnis or the establishment. As I wrote in our endorsement, he is viewed as “one of them.” In fact, the few grassroots members who did not support Maes probably cast their ballot for McInnis himself, in hopes he would step down and enable a more viable Republican candidate.

#7: Dan Maes isn’t the Tea Party candidate.

It should be clear to all that the Tea Party differs substantially from an organized party. It should be clear to all that the formation of an actual Tea Party party would be counterproductive at present. However, to say that the Tea Party cannot endorse a candidate because of some “you don’t speak for me” mentality is a delusion. Just as the Republican Party selects and endorses its candidates in a popular fashion, so too does the Tea Party “choose” a candidate democratically. John McCain wasn’t my first choice, but as the party pick, I could either vote for him or a third party. Similarly, Dan Maes may not have been your choice as a member of the grassroots, but as the minority, you have the choice to support him or go the third party route.

It’s true that the decentralized nature of the Tea Party prevents it from making an official endorsement; a Tea Party endorsement is de facto, often a combination of polls, localized endorsements, and a candidate’s affiliations with liberty groups. Make no mistake, however: even this de facto endorsement holds enormous sway, comparable to an official party endorsement. Mainstream media outlets routinely refer to candidates as the “Tea Party’s choice,” and voters respond.

#8: Dan Maes supporters would be singing a different tune if McInnis had won the primary.

An interesting scenario was offered on a comment thread:

…would those who have spoken out against Tancredo…done so if McInnis had won the primary? Would you be saying that McInnis was the Tea Party’s candidate? How would you be handling this situation if it were McInnis, not Maes who won the primary?

This gave me pause. What would I be doing? Encouraging McInnis to withdraw, I decided. As I’m not as personally offended by Tancredo’s decision, dangerous though I believe it to be, I would probably throw in with Tancredo and hope that the GOP wouldn’t replace McInnis. The more I think about it, however, the less logic I see in this challenge: okay, I’d throw in with Tancredo were Maes out of the race. So what? As I already acknowledged in Myth #5, Tancredo’s defection would have been welcomed were no viable GOP candidates available. It’s the assumption that Maes isn’t viable (see Myth #3) that is the root of the disagreement (and without merit, it would seem). What I found most refreshing, was a counter-question offered shortly thereafter:

…what would…Tancredo supporters do if [Tancredo] had run on the Republican ticket, gotten top line at the Assembly, and gone on to win the primary, whereupon Dan Maes (who had come in second) suddenly announced he didn’t think Tom could win and therefore was entering the race as a third party candidate, realizing he would split the vote and assure that Hickenlooper would win? Would you welcome Dan’s candidacy or condemn it as destructive of Tancredo’s legitimate win and of our conservative cause?

#9: Tancredo’s candidacy is “good” for conservatives.

Tancredo is undoubtedly the stronger candidate, even if for name recognition alone. That he’s the more conservative candidate is arguable. Both arguments are made moot, however, by his current position as third party candidate. Some have suggested that his entrance into the race offers some sort of “iron sharpens iron” scenario for conservatives, but this is the obvious purpose of the primary and destructive thereafter. Others have suggested that Tancredo’s candidacy should be viewed as an insurance policy, with two candidates going after Hickenlooper initially, and conservatives uniting behind one candidate before November 2. While I appreciate the optimism, this scenario is unlikely due to uninformed voters and the candidate’s egos. In fact, the only way I can see Tancredo’s candidacy contributing to the good of conservatism is if Maes were marginalized to the point that he had no choice but to drop out and Tancredo was there to pick up the pieces. I can’t imagine that the Tancredo camp is counting on this; would they engineer it?

#10: Maes is now the third party candidate.

I’d been hearing Tancredo out for several weeks, desperately giving him the chance to convince me that this move was not egotistical. My hope was all but shattered when, on the August 11 Caplis and Silverman show, Tancredo stated,  “I think Dan is really the third party candidate right now and so probably he should get out.” Similarly, his supporters continue to tout him as the “only true conservative,” and conservatism’s “only hope.” I’m beginning to wonder if Tancredo is going to blow up the Democrat Death Star with a single proton torpedo!

One of Tancredo’s favorite talking points in recent weeks has been, “the Republicans have done this to themselves. I didn’t do it to them.” I suppose that he was initially talking about his supposition that neither McInnis nor Maes were capable of beating Hickenlooper. However, Tancredo endorsed McInnis just days before the plagiarism story broke. Was he party to the GOP’s problems then? Tancredo apparently also had the opportunity to run for governor from the start but opted out; now he feels the need to save conservatism from the GOP with a third party run? Distancing himself from his party of three decades and claiming to be conservatism’s savior may sound genuine to some, but reeks of opportunism to others.

Fortunately, there isn’t a shred of evidence that Tancredo has any advantage over Maes whatsoever. In fact, he polls significantly behind (which is somewhat poetic, considering that he asked both GOP candidates to drop out based on polls). Like it or not, the two-party system has weathered yet another primary season, and third party candidates will once again only serve to sabotage legitimate campaigns in the general election.

Come November 3, there’s little to no chance that Dan Maes will end up as the “third party” candidate with less votes than Tancredo. We can ignore basic math and bicker for the next ten weeks, but unless Tancredo withdraws, Hickenlooper might as well call Two Men and a Truck right now for his move into the governor’s mansion.

What follows is a guest post by my lovely wife, who was obviously placed in my life to help me keep things in perspective!

Recently I was having a conversation with my brother and parents on skype regarding health care reform and our ever changing economy. I reiterated the fact of how much this new health care will cost and how our country appears in a state of economic decline. Add to that the postmodern era in which our culture thrives on relativism or the idea that everything is permissble and things really start to look grim. My mom paused during the conversation and said to me “Jenny, how do you have any hope? With all that is going on in the world and our country, doesn’t it all seem hopeless?” I thought her statement over for a second, and it dawned on me that not only did I still have hope, but all that is going on in the world only gives me more hope to trust in the Lord.

Let me be clear, my trials in no way compare to what Christians have to go through in communist China, however Jesus reminds us in his world we will face many hardships. Nonetheless, let us not forget amongst all this who is victorious in the end. Jesus had, currently has and always will have the victory! John 16:33 is a reaffirmation of this when Jesus states “In this world you will have trouble, but take heart! I have overcome the world.” This statement brings me to my knees. What an amazing promise from the one who loves us so dearly.

I am sure many of you are familiar with the famous “Hope and Change” mantra from the Obama campaign back in 2008. Obama promised to bring Hope to a nation unlike they had ever seen. He was going to break the bondage of poverty, increase jobs, provide health care to the nation etc etc. (He has already carried out one of those promises, much to the chagrin of the majority). To several, Obama appeared flawless, and some people even appeared to worship him. What was even more sad than Obama promising the hope they were looking for, was how blindly they were following, trusting in a man that is simply human. After all, what human can bring a hope that only God can fill?

I remember watching the tears that were shed by faithful Obama supporters the night he won the election. FINALLY, our nation would be free from oppression and sorrow, finally there was hope. It troubled me to think that many people believed that until then, there was no hope.

Had no one told then, had they not heard, that hope comes from the Lord? Did they not know that God has, is and always will be there for them if they put their trust in him? Perhaps not, and if that is the case, God, the Lord Jesus Christ wants you to know that you can trust him, you can hope in Him, it is safe to do so. Here are just a few verses that remind us of this:

Psalm 71:5–6 “Oh Lord, you alone are my hope. I’ve trusted you, Oh Lord, from childhood. Yes, you have been with me from birth; from my mother’s womb you have cared for me.“
Jeremiah 29:11 “‘For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord. ‘They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.’”
Romans 15:13 “So I pray that God, who gives you hope, will keep you happy and full of peace as you believe in him. May you overflow wiht hope through the power of the Holy Spirit.“
Romans 8:24 “Now that we are saved, we eagerly look forward to this freedom. For if you already have something, you don’t need to hope for it.”

If we already have Christ, what more do we need? That is by no means a reason to be complacent about the present problems we face in our society, however, don’t get too lost in what’s going on in this world, that you neglect the One who made it. Even though I get upset about the change this current administration brings upon our nation, I know God is in control. To Him be the glory, praise honor and power forever!

I often lament political discourse’s decline in recent years, thanks to the advent of the Internet, to allow even most grossly uninformed yahoos to “shout” crass opinions in cyberspace. Then, however, I realize that my perception of history is most likely through rose-colored goggles, and that political discourse probably wasn’t limited to journalists and smoking jacket-clad gentleman. If anything, today’s populace is arguably more informed than any previous, information at one’s fingertips as it is.

In any case, once again Facebook has provided an opportunity to flex my fledgling political intellect, and I thought I’d share the experience. A liberal friend of my wife posted an article to her wall, with the caption, “thought you would find this article interesting. It was written a couple of days before health care passed and it speaks to how it actually decreases the number of abortions as a result of increased health care coverage.” The article she referenced, an op/ed by Nicholas D. Kristof entitled “Access, Access, Access,” was published in The New York Times on March 17th. Please peruse the op/ed, and feel free to critique my response, below:

Kristof’s op/ed mostly serves to point out the obvious without providing any compelling arguments for anything but. After insinuating that opponents to the health care bill either disagree with or don’t understand the obvious, he proceeds to use the obvious to incorrectly back up his own highly-contentious assumptions. Allow me to examine the flaws in his logic, and I’ll tack on an abortion portion to the bottom of my analysis as he tacked abortion to the end of his op-ed.

First of all, Kristof makes the argument throughout his article that increased health care access leads to longer life expectancy—indeed it does! Fully nine paragraphs were devoted to this little nugget of what should already be common sense. His argument is punctuated, however, by an unequivocal statement that he fails to back up: “President Obama’s health care proposal…unquestionably would increase access, while its defeat would diminish access.”

Perhaps it speaks to Kristof’s readership that he spent nine paragraphs “proving” a bit of common sense yet slipped his own “unquestionable fact” through in one sentence without a single argument to back it up. In fact, common sense itself refutes that Obama’s health care proposal would increase access: you cannot expand health care access to more people and improve its quality while saving money; either the bill provides more access at enormous cost or saves money by decreasing access. Furthermore, if we take into account the fact that 30–40% of medical professionals have said they will consider leaving the business now that the bill has passed, then the quality of care is guaranteed to decrease in either case! With regards to the claim that the bill will save money, any savings promised by the President are theoretical (preventative medicine and EMRs have both proven more expensive in reality, for example), and the bill is chock-full of very creative accounting gimmicks that make it appear deficit-neutral; the CBO can only crunch the numbers it’s given!

Kristof’s argument is further muddled by a failure to define his terms: while Kristof uses “access” and “coverage” interchangeably, I would argue that Obama’s health care bill only “unquestionably” increases health care coverage, speaking nothing to health care access. (So much for the article’s title: “Access, Access, Access.”) Perhaps Kristof synonymizes the two terms because coverage virtually ensures access in today’s health care environment, but, as we have seen in models of socialized medicine, coverage and access will move ever further apart.

Were we to buy-in to his premise that coverage guarantees access, however, the health care bill still makes little sense in light of its purported goals. While most of the uninsured are either uninsured by choice or just haven’t signed up for government programs for which they are eligible, let’s assume that the number of uninsured, usually touted as 30 million (or about 10% of the population), are truly unable to obtain coverage. Were this the case and Democrats only concerned with giving the uninsured access (er, coverage), then the healthcare bill would have provided for 30 million people with a pricetag closer to $60 billion, and would have easily passed with strong bipartisan support like Social Security or Medicare did.

However, the bill will instead provide coverage to these 30 million while dramatically affecting health care access for the rest of the populace, all at an astronomical price tag. Whatever the Democrat’s true goal behind the health care bill, it obviously isn’t simple altruism for 30 million uninsured! Ultimately, Democrats misread Obama’s election and polls favoring health care reform as a mandate to pass their version of health care, choosing to ignore that those same polls revealed an even greater majority was satisfied with their existing coverage!

To sum up, Kristof spends a majority of his article making a case for what we already know: access is better. However, he insinuates that opponents to the bill either don’t understand this or don’t want the underprivileged to have access, which is patently false. He then asserts that the health care bill will guarantee said access, which is debatable and, in my opinion, unlikely; in fact, one of the myriad of reasons behind the bill’s opposition is the suspicion that it will actually decrease access. Finally, Kristof fails to explain why, if the health care bill is only about coverage, it isn’t a much smaller, bipartisan bill that affects only the uninsured.

He concludes with a flourish: the bill is about access (it’s not, it’s not even about coverage), those against it are on the wrong side of history (hard to judge before history happens, isn’t it?), and pay no attention to the ugly, partisan, unconstitutional methods being used to pass it (hey, he actually brought it up, not me!).

---

At the end of his article, Kristof addresses abortion with a flurry of misleading statistics (Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics). Comparing abortion rates between a few western nations, he fails to provide the context of birth rates in those same nations. He goes on to suggest that cheaper contraception would reduce abortion rates when clinics and Planned Parenthood centers nationwide already offer contraception absolutely free of charge! Even then, contraception is already quite affordable and accessible at any gas station, supermarket, or corner shop.While I can’t argue that the bill won’t reduce abortions (it may), Kristof’s argument is only a red herring; worse, he knows it! The debate, of course, was whether taxpayer money would be funding abortion. Make no mistake: executive order or not, taxpayers will fund abortions unwillingly.

How do YOU feel about Facebook debates? I think they’re fun, but entirely counterproductive. As most of you know, you can set your “status” on Facebook, and people can then “comment” on your status. Post a politically-charged status message and away you’ll go!

Here’s one from early November, that got totally and hilariously out of control. I didn’t have the time to solidly put this guy in his place, so his last several posts pretty much go unanswered, but I did the best I could during a few breaks at work, and stopped the debate when I realized just how much this guy hates conservatives. Please note that this post is NOT family-friendly, as my opponent has some choice words for me and my conservative “ilk.” I’ve colored some of his more outrageous statements red.

Mike: [ORIGINAL STATUS MESSAGE] “No longer can insurance companies come between you and your doctors,”-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.….Only the government will come between us and our doctors…what a deal!!!!

Chris: hahaha so true…I can’t imagine what this will be like, the government can’t even distribute a vaccine properly

Brandon: When patients have no skin in the game, we all lose. Sounds like most other entitlement programs, eh?

Frank: The gov’t is trying to get people without insurance to have it. They’re looking for ways to make it less expensive, while Republicans would rather keep it exactly the way it is today. Any of us can be dropped from our health insurance policies for getting extremely ill — it happens. What do the Republicans want to do about any of this? Not a damn thing. What’s your solution? Let the market deal with it? If Wall Street was going to deal with this problem, they would’ve done it by now. Hell, they’re part of the problem anyway — insurance companies drop people when convenient because it’s profitable (and we all know that — gain from paid premiums and not paying out for services is a profit). OR what else do you think should happen, let these people who are underinsured or uninsured [and can’t get insurance because they can’t afford it or have “pre-existing conditions”] die (because they are, anyway)? Let the insurance companies continue to raise their exorbitant premiums without reason? Honestly.…? Are they hiring more people while they do this? Are they making things more efficient on their own? Do doctors prescribe drugs for EVERYTHING, and do patients SEEK drugs for EVERYTHING when they don’t really need it? This gov’t takeover of medical care rhetoric has got to stop. Insurance companies are already coming between us and doctors, and eliminating the idea of “pre-existing conditions” as a criterion to determine who gets care should be supported by every single American. But it isn’t. Why? Because some would rather take everything Fox tells them as the gospel rather than thinking for themselves. Obama got elected to deal with this problem. It was one of his campaign promises and he will follow through. And by the way, for those who still haven’t heard this because they refuse to listen, the “public option” isn’t for everybody. You have your own insurance? Good, keep it. There are many people who lose it everyday when they lose their job. Maybe your job or business is completely safe, but not everybody’s is. Stop trying to prevent other people from getting care, like you believe the gov’t wants to do. <— By the way, this is the biggest fraud to believe. These people are already not getting care or not getting enough of it, yet you believe the gov’t wants everybody to be in this boat with this bill? How gullible can you be? THINK.

Mike: hmmmm.…I will be required by law to have health insurance 18 months after the proposed law passes, or get penalized (taxed). My company says “screw you”, we are not paying our part of the premium (which is what most companies would do to save a buck, and I can’t blame them) so I am forced to buy the government option. From the looks of it (after looking through the bill), it will be double what I pay for my current insurance. So I am taxed by being forced to buy government insurance at a rate thats higher than what I pay now, or I don’t have insurance and get penalized.I’m being forced to buy a government product, or get penalized for not. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be forced by the government to do anything. So a government buerocracy is going to control my health at a higher price…sorry, but I don’t want it. Obama said this would not cost the tax payers a dime, isn’t the proposed plan up to 1.2 trillion dollars now? Isn’t there going to be a tax surcharge of approximately 5% added to people making over 500K/year? Our president is a liar in my eyes. Now don’t go crying Bush sucked, like the rest of the liberals do…because guess what? I know he sucked.

As far as a solution, I wouldn’t mind seeing the market work itself out, and maybe some restrictions placed on companies regarding dropping people with pre-existing conditions or possibly making it more affordable. Why doesn’t the President work to have a bipartisan approach to the problem instead of shoving this bullshit down our throat. The Democrats have wanted this government controlled takeover for years now. You all want to be so much like Europe.

And as far as thinking the government wants us all to be in the same boat with this bill.….….thats exactly what they want, and it will happen when the insurance companies go out of business when everyones employer does not offer them private health insurance. Why would any company pay for their employees to have health insurance when they don’t have to?

I don’t want to PREVENT anybody from getting quality healthcare.….I just don’t want to PAY for them to get the coverage.

Frank: We’re required by state law (usually) to have auto insurance. In order to own a mortgage, you have to buy mortgage insurance for it (which, by the way, is for the bank if you default NOT you), in addition to the fire and hazard, flood, and disaster insurance for your house. Or if you have an apartment, you should have renter’s insurance for your belongings. If you’re responsible, you have life insurance, which is the foundation of your financial house, which means you will at least not leave a burden for those you leave behind to pay for funeral and burial costs, besides giving them financial support for a certain period of time. So let’s see: want a house and want better? Mandatory insurance involved for ownership. Want a car? Mandatory insurance involved for ownership. Renter’s insurance is optional for renting out an apartment, but you might not own that much if you live in one, anyhow. Life insurance is also optional (if you don’t have pre-existing conditions — could be called “death insurance” by the right wing if Obama ever mentioned it), but if you don’t have it, you run the risk of bankrupting your surviving immediate family, if not immediately than in the near future. Health insurance is a lot more expensive and thus, is more disastrous when you don’t have it. It’s what should keep you going until life insurance would need to kick in. Talk about taxing all you want — you pay fees for putting things off all the time, whether it be timely maintenance for a house or car, charges on credit cards or loans, or undertaking a bypass procedure for not watching your eating habits. Of course, these are just the costs you can see. Yet, you don’t think health insurance is important enough to warrant a fee. By the way, the administration is dealing with the credit industry, as well. Republicans didn’t want to do anything about the problems there, either.

Conor: The difference between the insurances you cited and health insurance is not everyone owns a car, and therefore does not need to buy auto insurance. Not everyone owns a house. Not everyone has life insurance — if you’re single and renting why get life insurance? Yet Democrats want to mandate that everyone get health insurance. This bill isn’t about reform, it’s about forcing those without insurance to get it, and the bill will be paid by the young and the wealthy. We’ll see what happens in the Senate — this bill remains a long way from the finish line.

As for financial reform, any administration that has Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in charge of financial regulation is not serious about reform.

Frank: People are “forced” to buy insurance if they choose to drive, and I’m sure that you’re one of them. So, tell me, do you bike everywhere you go, take the bus or subway, or just walk? Just curious. Does your hate of gov’t extend to the states, too, or is it just reserved for the feds?

I don’t go into the argument believing that the companies that offer health insurance want to drop their employees’ coverage to save a buck. That benefit is an incentive to get good people working for them, in the first place. If a company’s going to lay you off or fire you, they’re going to do it. Companies save money in all kinds of ways, depending on its business model and it’s philosophy, it may well just shed workers faster than shedding benefits. Do you really believe that dropping health insurance coverage altogether is the most viable option? But let me get this straight: you don’t blame companies for saving a buck by dropping this coverage, but you want to chastise Dems for looking to cover all who need it? Doesn’t that seem a little absurd? What is it — do you want people to go without the coverage? Do you wish that Republicans came up with the courage to deal with this while they were in charge? Do you not think this is an important challenge to meet? Do you think it should just be every man for himself, because that’s the way it’s been, and don’t look good? Which is it, man?

You’re not forced into buying the gov’t option. You’re forced into the personal responsibility that conservatives love to crow about all the time — to take care of yourself by making sure that you’re insured. You will be able to buy other insurance (I think the new legislation will make it illegal to use “pre-existing conditions” as a criterion that insurers use), or keep that which your job supplies — it’s how many people are insured. But what it looks like is that you don’t want this responsibility, after all. Again, nobody is forcing you to buy a gov’t product. This is the fraud, and I don’t know how you can still be saying this after it’s been disspelled. What you’re saying in effect, though, is that should you lose your insurance, you’d rather risk not having health insurance so the rest of us would have to shoulder that burden. That doesn’t sound very responsible to me.

And let’s put this to rest finally: a gov’t bureaucrat isn’t going to keep you from getting care the way the insurance companies are ALREADY doing that. No pre-existing conditions BS, no being dropped from coverage because you’re “too sick”. For the record, Obama more the likely said it wasn’t going to cost the middle-class. I doubt he said no taxpayer would pay more. The richest among us have done very well at our expense under Bush. As much a conservative as you seem to be, I KNOW, that you can’t possibly believe that they deserved every dollar they got, but maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you think you’re going to be one of them someday, so you carry water for their cause.

I agree, Bush did suck, but this isn’t about him. We know what he didn’t accomplish, even with all the tools, scare tactics, and Congressional majorities at his disposal. He could’ve worked on this, but he had other ideas.

Mike: Car insurance is a perfect example. Until last year my Massachusetts required you to buy in-state insurance. We could not buy a policy from All-State, Progressive, Geico, etc. One day we were allowed to buy Progressive, and guess what? 240/month to 80/month for the same coverage because of the competition. I honestly can see the government option is competition, but don’t you think that once it is in place all the private insurance agencies will go out of business since most employers will not offer private insurance?

The problem isn’t the fee for my health insurance, the problem is the fee for everyone elses. I thought it was not going to cost the tax payers a dime? Have you looked at the bill? I won’t lie and say I read the whole thing, but I’ve been looking it over, which is probably more than most of the Reps in the House.

Frank: I don’t know about you, but if I were one of those so-called uninsurable people, I wouldn’t want to be waiting for the market to come up with a solution. They have their own problems right now, on Wall Street. Of course, they’re rebounding faster than anyone else, these days. Besides, if insurance companies were going to do things on their own to hem in this perceived problem of insureds, they’d have jumped on it years ago. Insurance companies are some of the most crafty financial companies out there. They sell insurance for things that frankly don’t need insuring. Ever heard of pet insurance? Who knew, right? But there’s a market for that kind of thing. I’ll bet you that there are people out there who value a pet’s care over that of another American person’s care — I’ll bet you they exist. However, insurers aren’t looking to make their products cheaper, by any means — in fact, health insurance has skyrocketed in the past decade or so, and they even get gov’t subsidies. How nice. But you support that, no?

As far as a bipartisan anything, look at your Republicans. It doesn’t matter how much the Dems cave: THEY START OUT WITH A CONSERVATIVE-LOOKING PLAN EVERY TIME! WORST BARGAINERS EVER! AND REPUBLICANS STILL WANT IT ALL THE WAY WATERED DOWN. THEY GET THEIR AMENDMENTS IN TO DO SO, THEN THEY STILL HAVE THE NERVE TO VOTE IT DOWN. Bipartisanship, honestly?

Republicans don’t want that. Not the ones in Congress. It’s just really funny to see how Republicans complain about how “liberal” Obama is, yet he is as center-right a person as he could be after being elected. Maybe in his speeches he seems center-left, but he hasn’t really been following through with it. Are you serious? At least you acknowledge there should be bipartisanship. I agree on what you said with the provision and the possible restriction, but STILL. Republicans in Congress aren’t looking to do even what you mentioned. Is that out of line? If this public option wasn’t in the bill, they would fine something else to bitch about, because God forbid you actually help any people with government dollars in times of crisis — they might start thinking they’re in Communist Russia and move to Mexico.

Insurance companies going out of business is such a joke. Do you know how much these companies profit? Saying such a thing is nonsense. The only reason why big banks were going under is because they did a bunch of shady and irresponsible stuff with the tons of money they were being paid by the average consumer. Insurers will lower costs dramatically before they go bankrupt, and there’s no way in hell that will happen. Do you realize how many people in this country (and around the world) own health insurance from companies based here (or elsewhere)? It’s like saying toilet paper companies are going to go out of business because people are eating less. It’s fucking nuts — you and I both know this.

Also, on the question of why employers offer health insurance when they don’t have to, ask any of them. Employers *don’t* have to insure workers, today, as it is, yet you’re asking why would they if they didn’t have to.….…and yet, many still are. Maybe they have a conscience? Or maybe they think it’s good for their business. My best guess is that it’s a nice hiring tool. That, and assuming that a person wants to stay healthy by using it, it will keep them on the job and productive.

To Conor: Even though not all people have cars or houses, most people can be affected by those things — the only people who don’t really need to worry about those things usually live in or close to an urban area.

“Not everyone has life insurance — if you’re single and renting why get life insurance?” Good question… because everybody dies, and nobody knows when. Not having life insurance (or at least not having someone else insure you) is probably the most irresponsible thing done financially. You can save up for retirement, emergencies, and trips all you want, pay off all your debts, but if you don’t have life insurance, it’s going to have to be paid for — and if you’re filthy rich, then maybe you don’t need it… but even rich people own life insurance. Hell, that’s all the more reason to buy

“Yet Democrats want to mandate that everyone get health insurance. This bill isn’t about reform, it’s about forcing those without insurance to get it,” What’s funny is, most people without insurance want it. You won’t have to force them to sign up for a policy, they’ll be happy to get it.

“and the bill will be paid by the young and the wealthy.” I’m one of those young people who get insurance through my job — but hey, I’m smart enough to understand WHY I need health insurance.

“We’ll see what happens in the Senate — this bill remains a long way from the finish line.” What’s funny is — they were saying it was dead in the water just a matter of weeks ago.

“As for financial reform, any administration that has Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in charge of financial regulation is not serious about reform.” Well, you got me there.

To Mike: One of the key points was that health insurance companies don’t have real competition within many states. Maybe states could deal with this on their own. Maybe the public option isn’t the only way to make this happen (so that prices ultimately come down, which is definitely a primary goal — the gov’t doesn’t want business to lose jobs and tank, but they believe everyone should be insured, and they should be). Obama said that the coverage for these people electing the public option would be paid for by premiums collected. Unless you plan on electing that option, I don’t know how you’d be paying for it.

For the record, I don’t think the U.S. should adopt everything from Europe. However, if something is a good idea, we should have the brains to at least copy it and re-brand it. What the hell do you think capitalism is? How many companies offer the same goddamn product wrapped in a different-shaped package with a different label? Invention and innovation aren’t dead, by any means, but there’s a lot of duplicity out there. We shouldn’t prevent ourselves from using good ideas because we didn’t come up with it first. That’s called arrogance. We claim to know every damn thing. We should be able to improve upon another country’s idea, if it is indeed a good and fair concept.

Conor: Are you a life insurance agent? Ned Ryerson, that you? Life insurance makes sense if you have a future liability stream (mortgage payments, child care, income for a spouse if he/she isn’t working). If you have none of those things then I suppose you should have a little money set aside for a funeral in case you die so your family doesn’t have to pay out of pocket, but Walmart’s selling coffins for $999 now and there’s always cremation, so I don’t really see the need. Besides, who’s to say you can trust your counterparty anyway. You really trust AIG and friends with having your back in case you die?

Mike: Thats the key point. Have competiion and incentives to attract people. I can’t shop around for health insurance in other states, just like my example of car insurance. Get rid of the state mandates and we would be light years ahead of where we are now. Someone was talking about a health insurance company that offers incentives for healthy living. What is wrong with that? If someone doesn’t choose to get insurance though, why should they be penalized? It is a risk I’m not willing to take, but some may and thats their business. If they decide they don’t want coverage and they get sick..tough shit. It’s like the neighboring state of New Hampshire. They don’t have laws that require car insurance. I say let them, but at the same time don’t come crying to me if you total your car.

“For the record, I don’t think the U.S. should adopt everything from Europe. However, if something is a good idea, we should have the brains to at least copy it and re-brand it. What the hell do you think capitalism is? How many companies offer the same goddamn product wrapped in a different-shaped package with a different label? Invention and innovation aren’t dead, by any means, but there’s a lot of duplicity out there. We shouldn’t prevent ourselves from using good ideas because we didn’t come up with it first. That’s called arrogance. We claim to know every damn thing. We should be able to improve upon another country’s idea, if it is indeed a good and fair concept.” I agree 100%, but lets have a serious debate about it. We have republicans talking about death panels at town hall meeting, and democrats laughing about how they don’t have to read the bill. Both sides are messed up.

And for the record I’m not a republican, I’m just against most government control and the liberals seem to want more control.

Frank: Actually, I was licensed as a producer (agent) in both health and life insurance, so I’ve seen it from both ends how things can and do happen in those industries. Saw a lot of stuff happen because of other life insurance companies trying to pay out less or weasel out of things the same way health insurance companies do it. Ned Ryerson… is that from Groundhog Day? Love that movie…and Bill Murray & Andie MacDowell, but seriously, life insurance isn’t just about paying off debt. It would at the least be practical to have money set aside for burial (or cremation), especially because those things have grown in cost when adjusted for inflation [though they are the same services and types of caskets there always were] but ya know, “people without responsibilities” as you would probably put it don’t always plan ahead that far, especially young people. Wal-Mart’s selling coffins? Wow, the fact that I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not shows you the majesty of Wal-Mart. Fine, buy your casket there and hire some buddies to dig a ditch in the backyard if you’re doing this on the cheap. Most Americans don’t do it this way, however. Can’t say that I trust AIG, but I know that I’d rather have life insurance than not have it. As mentioned prior, people insure their cars to drive. Is your car more important than your life?

To Mike: Fair enough. Both sides are pretty damn messed up sometimes, which is why I can understand not wanting the fed gov’t to be in charge of most thing. Better to have some gov’t than none, though. Not reading a bill when that’s what they are paid to do and admitting to this does not sit well with me. Fine, you’re not a Republican, and I’m not a Democrat, but I am a liberal, and though I don’t think the gov’t should control everything, I do think they should be able to intervene when the other powers that be either aren’t pulling their own weight or aren’t trying to do the right thing.

Maybe Conor is right in saying people shouldn’t have to get insured if they don’t want to, as irresponsible as that may be (especially if we have to shoulder the burden if they get injured while uninsured, anyway), but I think that the people who don’t have insurance or enough of it who want it should be able to buy it. This isn’t about giving away free medical insurance, which I probably should have said a while ago. Medicare takes care of seniors, for the most part; and Medicaid is already there for the poor/people on welfare, disabled, and other groups; (S)CHIP is there for kids, now; but there’s a bunch of people still without insurance who likely aren’t eligible for these things. The public option allows for them to buy insurance they otherwise wouldn’t be able to get. I think most people would agree that it’s a lot better to have insurance when you don’t need it, than to not have it when you do. You might argue that this bill also forces people to spend money they don’t have.

The purpose of the legislation isn’t to bankrupt anyone, it’s to make this country healthier, assuming that doctors, surgeons, nurses, and hospitals know what they’re doing, right? There are stipulations in the bill to make it the public option affordable, and should insurers become more shrewd, there prices will come down, which will make insuring more people easier for them to do. They still profit in the end. In theory, the country is better off by having people get the care they need when they need it by not having an insurance bureaucrat –the typical middleman/boogeyman– hold up the works. Having insurance is only one part of this reform. What would be nice is if we could address the shortage of nurses out there. Healthcare is one of the largest industries in our country — it only helps to make things more efficient, and it couldn’t hurt to have everybody covered.

Would I rather illegal immigrants not be covered. Sure, but then again, I’d rather they not be here in the first place. I don’t approve of people in our own country breaking the law when convenient — I don’t approve of other people from other countries doing it, either, by coming here illegally and/or committing other criminal acts on our soil. Would it be inhumane to tell an illegal they can’t get emergency care? Yeah, but you know, native-borns and naturalized citizens with pre-existing conditions can’t get the care they need, and that’s not fair, and the illegal broke the law by not coming here legally or not being here legally. Maybe that’s an ultraconservative view, but I think we should be able to take care of our own, first. We send money all over the world to help people (which I don’t disagree with, wholeheartedly), but we scoff at helping out our own citizens? That’s crazy.

Conor: Frank, two follow-up points.

I think Mike’s point, and mine, is that the government shouldn’t be responsible if an uninsured person gets hurt, just as they don’t have to buy you a new car if you total it without insurance. Where I think that gets dicey is if a guy is bleeding on the sidewalk outside of a hospital, but are hospitals really going to turn that guy away? My Dad’s a doctor and I know he wouldn’t. I’m sure both sides have tons of anecdotal stories to back their case and I won’t say I have all the answers.

One of my concerns with a public option as you believe it should exist is how will it be priced? Let’s say reasonable health insurance is $200/month at current rates. And let’s say the public option is $100/month (underpriced). Won’t everyone switch from their current car to the public option, effectively pricing the private market out of business? This is exactly what happened in the housing market, which led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac getting too big. Fannie and Freddie were underpricing mortgage rates and making them available to too many people, forcing the private market into riskier and riskier products since they were priced out of the conventional mortgage business, which is one reason (one of many, many, many) why we had a housing bubble.

Finally, the thought is by passing the healthcare bill we will increase coverage from 83% to 96% of Americans — healthcare demand will effectively increase by 20%. How will supply respond to increased demand at lower rates? Is it reasonable to think we’ll get more doctors and hospitals out of this, or less as older doctors retire and hospitals shut down since they’ll be making less money? Then where does that leave us?

Teddy: Whoa, Frank. I don’t reall have the time to do the research to do this topic justice, but here’s my take on your accusations:

Conservatives are NOT okay with the status quo — shame on Republicans for not fixing things on their watch, but Democrats aren’t the only ones who care about problems. Naturally, however, each party wants to go in a different direction — partly altruistically, partly not.

First off, you frame the debate as the “public option” and ridicule the notion of government-run healthcare. However, Democratic leaders from Reid to Frank to Obama himself have all touted the public option as a “means to an end,” that end being (drumroll) European-style government-run healthcare. In fact, the avowed socialist senator Sanders, from Vermont, may not vote for the Senate bill if it includes “opt-out” provisions for states (which are a farce, anyway) — I wonder why he’s so adamant about the public option? I spar with other liberals on Facebook, and I always have to ask them straight up what we’re debating — most often they admit that they want socialized medicine, ultimately, so I don’t even bother debating the public option with them.

Ultimately, a government-option will force most people off of private insurance. Big companies will use it to save the bottom line and small businesses that don’t currently subsidize insurance for their employees will welcome it — until their tax burden puts them out of business. If the Public Option is ANYthing like the existing programs like Medicare and COBRA, it’s obvious that 1) those currently insured will pay MUCH more than they do now and 2) the healthcare industry will get further shortchanged on every transaction. This is in stark-contrast to our free-market principles.

Just to reiterate some of the finer points made by my conservative friends, we of course are for personal responsibility and freedom. As far as freedom goes, if you CHOOSE to be a driver or homeowner, then you are mandated to purchase insurance — not for your own protection, but for that of the other drivers or your lenders. However, you cannot CHOOSE to be alive! While I wish that the freedom to purchase insurance existed and people were responsible or paid the consequence, we have this (good) reality of the Hippocratic oath, and laws supporting it that force healthcare providers to provide healthcare independent of a patient’s ability to pay. My jury is still out on mandatory insurance, as my principles are set in conflict.

However, mandatory insurance would be a MUCH more attractive option if the government hadn’t mucked things up in the first place. Not to start another debate, but government pressured banks to issue home loans to those who could not afford it (to pad numbers), and after a decade the racket collapsed, and government was there to point at, bail out, and “reform” their scapegoat: the free market.

Similarly, what prevents health insurance from working well now is (surprise!) government regulation. Democrats keep pointing to the competition-less states as reasoning behind the so-called “public option,” but they’re hoping you don’t notice that government is the one to blame for the lack of competition! Democrats keep pointing to what the “evil” insurance companies keep doing to their customers and how prohibitively expensive coverage can be, hoping you don’t notice that their stifling of competition enables the companies to do that! Democrats keep pointing to the ridiculous cost of healthcare, hoping you don’t notice that most of them are lawyers enabling their ambulance-chasing buddies instead of addressing tort reform!

Finally, of course, you accuse us of “hating” government. Rather, we have what is probably a healthy mistrust of our government, particularly in light of it having wildly exceeded its mandate as given by our tyranny-aware founders. Furthermore, we are realists who pretty much toss all the monetary figures in this debate out the window. We’ve seen all of our social entitlement programs wildly exceed their estimates (Medicare was estimated at $12 billion but has exceeded nine times that, $107 billion) and are doomed to become unsustainable from the onset.

These systems barely work in the nations that currently have them — indeed, European nations are beginning to encourage the free market to avoid complete collapse. Never mind that these aren’t countries of 350 million people! Never mind that the entire concept infringes upon our very American values!

One last, fringe point: if we are to assume that the “public option” will eventually lead to socialized medicine and a government takeover of 1/6 of our economy, what slippery slope will we be on? Conservatism wll be dead — no candidate will ever again be elected if people suspect that he/she will “take away our healthcare.” Can you say one-party system? The government will also have a sudden, vested interest in our health and lifestyles — will there be any part of our lives that they won’t be able to legislate in the name of “saving taxpayer dollars” on the healthcare program? It’s true that rationing currently exists, but it is currently decided by the market, and by those who take, yes, personal responsibility — rationing in the current system would even lessen if government lowered regulations like preventing competition across state lines. However, rationing would necessarily ratchet up under a government plan, and it wouldn’t be based on responsibility or the market, but rather on the whims of those in power. Call them “death panels” or not, several Obama medical advisors have papers out there that “rank” people based on usefulness to society, age, class you name it — it’s frightening stuff, and you should make yourself aware.

Er…THINK!

Conor: right on — if this were about insuring more people, that could be done for what, $30–40 billion? Frank — this is just another indication that this isn’t about insuring more people — it’s about putting government in control and, ultimately, socializing medicine.

Frank: “Thats the key point. Have competiion and incentives to attract people. I can’t shop around for health insurance in other states, just like my example of car insurance. Get rid of the state mandates and we would be light years ahead of where we are now.” Those are good points, too. Insurance is regulated by the states, which is probably why they don’t allow you to shop from state to state for it in yours, as some states are more strict about requirements for insurers than others and such. Still worth a look.

“Someone was talking about a health insurance company that offers incentives for healthy living. What is wrong with that?” I heard about this, too. It’s akin to “good drivers” programs for auto insurance, where the driver gets better deals for not getting into accidents and not having traffic violations. Less risk (of paying out for claims) involved, which is key to insurance companies. Nothing wrong with health insurance like this, but the industry has made it so that things get dramatically more expensive overall for no real reason, even if a person doesn’t get much surgery or use their insurance often.

“If someone doesn’t choose to get insurance though, why should they be penalized? It is a risk I’m not willing to take, but some may and thats their business. If they decide they don’t want coverage and they get sick..tough shit. It’s like the neighboring state of New Hampshire. They don’t have laws that require car insurance. I say let them, but at the same time don’t come crying to me if you total your car.” The difference is, your car is your problem — not having use of it, not driving one, all your problem. When you don’t have health insurance, you ultimately become a burden to the everybody else by going to the emergency room for emergency care or just become another statistic because you couldn’t get the care you needed anyway, I guess. People who need it should be able to get it — and getting people to buy it when it’s more affordable and available is probably the best way to not have them be more of a burden on everybody if and when something happens. The penalty would come only if you refused to pick one of many options which should happen when this bill is passed, that is if you aren’t already insured. If you’re eligible for any public-subsidized gov’t plan, people will look at that. If you’re eligible for the public option, people will look at that. If private insurance is what you want, then pick that. There have been several reforms mentioned. Obama says that he wants people to focus on prevention in terms of their health. It’s a hell of a lot easier to do that when you have health insurance, so you can get regular check-ups. I don’t know how you make people focus on exercise, eating habits, and avoiding risky behavior — but at least he’s doing what the gov’t can and should do here. The remainder of responsibility should rest on the individual to carry out a healthy regimen.

Teddy: Oh, one last point, Frank, in regards to your statement: “and should insurers become more shrewd, there prices will come down, which will make insuring more people easier for them to do. They still profit in the end.” We’ve already established that there is virtually no way insurers can compete with the government — if companies think they’ll save money by offloading employees, they’ll do it. Whether the government undercuts the private industry or not, they’ll go under.

In fact, just to beat a dead horse, the bill forces insurance companies to insure everyone, no holds barred. In case you’re unaware, the entire insurance industry is based upon MITIGATED RISK. I’m not sure what in the WORLD you’re asking for when you ask for insurers to become “more shrewd” under this bill. Unless by “more shrewd” you mean they realize that their business model is unsustainable and they fold, sending thousands to the government.

Frank: Does anybody remember when Obama said while campaigning that he as a senator and the rest of Congress has medical insurance options that the rest of us don’t and that as president he would make this a reality for the rest of us (giving us the same options that Congressmen have in terms of medical insurance coverage)? If you don’t, you probably didn’t vote for him.

Anybody heard of GEICO? This is an acronym for “Government Employees Insurance Company”. It was always a private company, but note that a bloc of this size would definitely command a fair premium from an insurance company, because risk is spread out and the amount of people (total premiums) is enormous. This is the way it works for a lot of things in this country, buy wholesale, get cheaper rates; if a whole bunch of people buy a commodity, it becomes cheaper. It’s actually fairly simple to become one of these blocs, and for insurance companies to take you more seriously as a group than as an individual. It’s how many businesses are able to afford to offer health insurance to its employees — group discounted rates. Hell, all you need to do is be part of “an association” of some pre-determined number (I forget what it is at the moment for MD), and you can get insurance as a group cheaper than it would be individuals. You could just be a friars club or fraternity or polar bear club or something and get a group discounted rate. Perhaps, the millions out there could do the same without gov’t help? Certainty is the key here, however. There’s no guarantee that an insurance company will insure your group to your heart’s content or give you as much as discount as you would be seeking.

Teddy: If Obama really wanted to give us “choice,” his plan would include fostering true competition between private companies (not with a “public option”) and focus on making health isurance “subsidies” from your employer portable.

Are you actually quoting from a POLITICIAN while he was CAMPAIGNING?!? That’s, uh, a little naive, no? I’d rather go with his speeches pre-campaign, which assured his audiences that his ultimate goal was socialized medicine and that a public option was his vessel of choice, and that the constitution’s shortcoming is that it says what government can’t do to you, but fails to ay what government must do FOR you.

Oh, and do little research into preventative medicine — sounds good, but observe just how much more expensive it is than standard medicine…

Frank: Fine, Conor, the gov’t shouldn’t be responsible for uninsureds getting injured or developing diseases (unless they are directly at fault). The solution is to just let these Americans die or remain hurt? I suppose unemployment, welfare/Social Security, Medicare, and all those other “entitlements” should be scuttled for the sake of reducing gov’t controls. It’s very easy to say that *everybody else who uses these things* doesn’t need them by way of the gov’t, when you’ve never needed it, yourself. I’ve been fortunate myself to have never used any of these services, but I know their value and I know why both Republicans and Democrats helped to pass them. Why make labor laws when people have the option of whether or not they want to work in a certain place for a certain person? Industry is not perfect, nor is gov’t, nor are the citizens of this country. Maybe the guy is out on the sidewalk bleeding because he couldn’t afford leukemia treatments that his insurance company wouldn’t pay for. Who knows? If the guy isn’t turned away by the hospital, we pay for it, still. I’d rather he were able to buy his own (if that be through the public option, then so be it), than my tax dollars pay for his care outright.

Why do you assume that everyone will switch to the public option? Businesses will still get their discounted rates. Insurance companies actually threatened that they will make their insurance a lot more expensive if the bill passes (even though they’ve been doing this ANYWAY) — they’d be crazy to do it without trying to be more conscious of the care they provide and stop pocketing the huge profits they make while making things more expensive for everybody for the same services, a la oil companies. You think the gov’t is solely to blame?

Anyway, aren’t conservatives saying that nobody wants the public option and that we don’t need it? Aren’t they the ones saying that the public option will kill people off and that the gov’t will come between them and their doctors? Who would want to sign up for that suicidal cult just to save money? Hell, if it’s just liberals, I would think you’d be pleased to be rid of them — maybe even sign up those at Gitmo for it. <– Isn’t it wrong that these guys get healthcare while good Americans can’t even afford it or get it?

Why is the assumption that gov’t insurance will be 50% of what “affordable” insurance is? I assume that somebody’s looking at what “affordable” really means in crafting the public option. The focus is making it “affordable” for the average American, btw — *not* dirt cheap. If it was going to be “free”, then I could see why you’d think the gov’t wishes to kill the insurance industry.. but it isn’t and the gov’t doesn’t. Our gov’t has been best friends with financial companies for generations — insurance companies are gov’t subsidized, already, even. As mentioned prior, some companies have little competition in certain states — we all know what effective monopolies and cartels do, and why they do it — raise fees and rates because they can.

An insurance company insuring someone they probably wouldn’t want to already have a mechanism for dealing with it: a higher premium. And guess what? If they can’t get help there, they can fall back on the public option. Now, as far as this bill saying that everyone would be charged the same rate regardless of their risk of injury or claim, whether that be through the gov’t or through private insurance is a different story. Being able to get insurance is the first key. These companies should be able to at least make an offer to new clients they wouldn’t otherwise insure. They shouldn’t be able to drop policies because they get sick, either. Making it cheaper for their clientele would be for the insurer to manage. They don’t do this unilaterally as an industry, because nobody makes them. They have all of these financially savvy people working for them for their profit. Why can’t those same people work for them to make them more efficient in dealing with patient care? Why can’t they improve the quality of their business as an industry and make it affordable on their own so that gov’t wouldn’t have to intervene to make a viable option in the first place?

That industry is going to become more proficient because of this option. You guys argue that the market will solve the problem, why don’t you believe that the market will figure out how to make services cheaper while still making a profit? Why wouldn’t it be possible for other smaller or medium-sized insurance agencies that are more efficient to pop up that may be able to offer the same or better coverage due to market forces? Why is it that you guys have so much confidence in the market until it comes time for them to actually do some legwork and figure out how to make things better for the consumer?

To Conor, with regard to demand being so high for health services, I will just reiterate, you believe that the markets will take care of everything, well, why wouldn’t more hospitals or clinics be built? Why wouldn’t some of this unspent stimulus money held onto by states, go toward that kind of thing? Some tort reform is part of the healthcare overhaul, and rates for paying medical providers through the public option is being outlined.

To Teddy, right, it isn’t just about insuring more people. There is more to this healthcare reform bill than we are discussing, but for whatever reason, the public option appears to be THE MOST IMPORTANT piece of the puzzle for those who discuss the issue, so I’ve focused on it, myself. Let’s get off this “socialized medicine” thing, too, btw. Countries with universal healthcare are healthier on the whole than we are, so I wouldn’t be 100% against the idea, if the object is for us to be the best. Drug companies get so much taxpayer money through gov’t subsidies it’s already to the point of “socialized”. That’s right — the gov’t helps businesses with our money, but note people aren’t the healthier for it. We’re living longer lives, but it isn’t because we’re living better lives. Food companies put all kinds of additives and preservatives in what we eat, nevermind the pesticides and antibiotics applied to raw goods that are processed before they make their product. Then drug companies give us a quick fix to deal with the problem caused because of the food (and whatever else is in our air or water). I’m not going to drop my Oreos because I want to live a healthy life, but I will say that eating better is worth looking into. Having affordable health insurance for those in the middle-class who need it is worth a shot.

Teddy: So I’m confused — you’re for socialized medicine and admit that it is the endgame of the public option? Or does my use of the term simply offend you? I will call a spade a spade — “public option” is misnomer enough, but I’m sure you’ve heard Democats already renaming it to the “competitive option.” Nonsense.

Yes, eating better should be encouraged and government should keep an eye on certain products, but “socialized medicine” will lead to control (read “loss of liberty”) on an unprecedented level.

“Having affordable health insurance for those in the middle-class who need it is worth a shot.” Wait — are you saying this is a crapshoot? Are you saying that “we might as well try it” in light of the avalanche of potental consequences? It will NOT be affordable (you can’t give better care to more people without costs rising), and a vast majority of the middle class are perfectly happy with their coverage.

Frank: Unfortunately, insurance companies are not bound by the hippocratic oath. Tort reform is necessary, BUT what conservatives want to do with it isn’t. You want to eliminate the ability for somebody to sue, essentially. Have you ever lost a limb or the life of somebody you cared about because of medical negligence or malpractice? It happens. Medical providers make mistakes — nobody’s perfect. They do a service that everybody needs — that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be accountable for mistakes they made. If conservatism (the movement, not a party) dies because everyone agrees that gov’t-subsidized healthcare is something they need, then so be it. Have you ever met a Whig? Old ideas and parties disappear just like companies and industries when something supplants them or they just aren’t necessary any longer. They thought the economy would crumble without slavery, too, but I guess they didn’t know everything in the olden days…

Rationing’s okay for the market to do? Wow — that’s news to me. The gov’t already has a vested interest in what you do and the lifestyle that you have. They want you to pay taxes just for having a job on American soil or winning the lottery or doing well with your investments. They care if you go to school. They hope you join the military. They care enough to put a meaningless warning label on a pack of cigarettes for the would-be nicotine addict who will buy one and ultimately die from any number of assorted ailments associated with smoking. They care if you’re a terrorist or affiliated with one of those groups so much that Bush decided phone companies should be able to tap your phone at any point to give the gov’t that “vital info”. They care enough to have labor laws, social programs (not just entitlements), and policies governing what is and isn’t illegal for you to do. Do they always do things because they’re good people? Hell no, but some are, and some have good intentions and know that gov’t is there to serve the people.

The public option is there should you need it — like the millions who already do. For those that don’t have insurance, it’s better than nothing. That’s all that needs to be said, really.

“Yes, eating better should be encouraged… and government should keep an eye on certain products, but “socialized medicine” wil lead to control (read “loss of liberty”) on an unprecedented level.” Why don’t you just come out and say it’s Communist medicine and Stalin-in-a-bottle will kill you? Are you for real? There are things that our gov’t does that are worth being alarmed about, and this isn’t one of them. Somewhere between 1/6 and 1/10 of our population is without insurance and the market won’t address that — if that isn’t cause for the gov’t to act, when you somehow believe that it should with all-out job creation and growth for what appears to be 10% of the employable market who are currently without jobs, then what is?

“Having affordable health insurance for those in the middle-class who need it is worth a shot.” Wait — are you saying this is a crapshoot? Are you saying that “we might as well try it” in light of the avalanche of potental consequences? It will NOT be affordable (you can’t give better care to more people without costs rising),” Mighty literal, aren’t we? No legislation crafted is perfect, I agree, but should Congress sit around and wait for things to get worse before acting? Republicans have been voting “no” on any bill designed to actually help Americans, in the name of making Obama out to be a liar and appear ineffective. That’s why they go out of their way to be partisan with EVERY single issue. EVERY thing Obama says or does is WRONG to them. EVERY issue is something to get worked up about and be against. That doesn’t appear the slightest bit strange?

“and a vast majority of the middle class are perfectly happy with their coverage.” Then what the hell are you concerned about? These people can continue to pay what they are for what they are happy to be getting and people who currently can’t even get insurance or get enough of it can have a leg to stand on. This bill isn’t directed at those people — it’s directed at those without insurance or those who are underinsured. You say they’re happy — well, do you think they will become unhappy with their insurance the second this bill passes? How many of them are conservatives and right-wingers like yourself? You guys say that the country is center-right and are against this public option. Fine, let them keep their insurance. This isn’t for them, and we know that.

Teddy: What a bad day to be distracted by a debate.

“It’s better than nothing. That’s all that needs to be said.” I disagree that it’s better than nothing, so that’s not all that needs to be said. Thus the robust debate on the issue and the all but 50–50 split on the House vote!!!

“Stalin-in-a-bottle will kill you.” Um…what?  The public pays for the fire department, and, in turn, the local government enforces “fire codes” to minimize its use. Under social medicine, the government will enforce personal “health codes” to minimize its use. This results in loss of liberty. You mitigate that with talk about uninsured, but that doesn’t deter me — what was it about those willing to trade liberty for securty deserving to lose both? 1/6 to 1/10 may be uninsured, but the vast majority of those are personal decisions — often simply failing to sign up for programs which they already qualify for. No, the maket won’t address these uninsured — the market is based on people willing to pay for something. 10% unemployment is a result of a bad economy, and yes that inspires me to act by deregulating and pursuing free market principles. 10% uninsured is also a travesty, and inspires me to the same.

Yes, I am “mighty literal” when we’re debating with facts and figures. Republicans are the party of “no,” not because they want things to get worse, but because they believe that the legislation being introduced will MAKE THINGS WORSE. Standing consistent on values isn’t “strange!” As I said before, neither party is 100% altruistic — maybe some are trying to make Obama look bad, but what about the Dems? Absolutely everything they’ve pushed through is very left-wing, and has been done in back-room meetings, with technical moves, and with very little compromise (remember that the public option was all but dead a month ago). Having said that, they DO have that “right” as the majority in both houses, the White House, and the governorships, and I’m just glad they haven’t “accomplished” more.

“What the hell” am I concened about is exactly what I’ve been debating. Even the CBO shows that millions will be forced from private insurance onto the public plan. For the record, here’s what you said in your last post: “it’s directed at those without insurance or those who are underinsured.” Two posts above, you wrote: ” right, it isn’t just about insuring more people.” So, um, yeah.

“Let them keep their insurance.” They WON’T be able to! That’s the point! You’ve already quoted Obama’s campaign promises, so I’m sure he also got you hook, line and sinker when he says that we’ll be able to keep our insurance. EVERY fact check shows this false.

Oh, and I can’t keep up with your posts, but you mentioned rationing in the private sector being “news” to you — OF COURSE there’s rationing — there’s rationing in EVERY market — infinite wants, limited resources, you know? This brings us absolutely full circle back to Mike’s original post:

“No longer can insurance companies come between you and your doctors,”-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.….Only the government will come between us and our doctors…what a deal!!!!

Wish I had more time to make these responses more robust — back to work!

Frank: Actually, for those people who this public option actually affects, is it better than nothing. Do you think they prefer nothing over something? I haven’t seen throngs of people on the street saying “I can’t get insurance and I don’t want this public option to help me to that end,” probably because that would be lunacy. Doesn’t stop teabaggers from spewing nonsense, though, I concede — not to lump you in with a bag of nuts.

“The public pays for the fire department, and, in turn, the local government enforces “fire codes” to minimize its use. Under social medicine, the government will enforce personal “health codes” to minimize its use. This results in loss of liberty. You mitigate that with talk about uninsured, but that doesn’t deter me — what was it about those willing to trade liberty for securty deserving to lose both?” There appears to be some kind of a what you would call in philosophy a fallacy here: insurance companies penalizes you with higher premiums for risky behavior that costs them money and look for ways to minimize your usage (outside of the problems of drastic dropping of coverage and denying benefits wholesale, I mean) — a business model that works for them and you guys support the market here — yet the government doing the exact same thing would be totalitarian? WOW.

What exactly are these personal “health codes”, anyway? That you get off your fat ass every once in a while and do some crunches that don’t involve chips and dip? Please indulge us. If in order to do this public option, a person has to take a physical and maintain some kind of decent health (that which they can control, anyway — obviously this option is for many with pre-existing conditions, yes?), then what’s wrong with that? You conservatives want to bar people from its use altogether before it even begins, yet you want to nitpick about how a person maintains eligibility for it, too? Which is? We should have it and there should be zero guidelines for who is eligible and how or we shouldn’t have it because no important to you needs it and the market will handle those pesky uninsurables? Please explain.

It didn’t bother you when Bush, for the sake of “security”, did any number of things to your civil liberties — I’m positive that you were a strong advocate there. But the Nazi Communist-in-Chief, LMAO, wants to make everybody worse off with socialized medicine and kill your grandma while forcing illegal alien terrorists to forge birth certificates for aborted babies while he enslaves and subsequently kills all white people, especially those who teabag, and gives away all our jobs and houses to the Chinese Europeans. Well, if your task is to scare the be-jesus out of the American people, Mr. President, Mission Accomplished! :^)

“No, the maket won’t address these uninsured — the market is based on people willing to pay for something.” My guess is, you really haven’t read everything I wrote. There are people out there who are willing to pay for something, but can’t get it. That’s what the public option would be there for — that’s what bugs me about this issue. The loudest people don’t know what they’re talking about. The poor are covered by Medicaid. This isn’t about them. It’s not about people who are covered, anyway. It’s about those who aren’t covered and can’t get coverage or don’t have enough. SHEESH.

Deregulation is responsible for the financial mess that we’re in, as it is. You should try to temper your rhetoric with the reality on the ground. This bad economy didn’t just come out of nowhere. I saw it coming, because I tried to help people out of subprime mortgages months before the fallout of the market occurred. Peoples’ houses were already being foreclosed on for a couple of years, really, before that happened.

Facts and figures, huh? You can’t face the fact that the public option may actually help people by way of the gov’t when there is no other option except to die or remain untreated or be helped on our dime as it is (*if* they are helped at all) — you can’t figure out that the business community hasn’t dealt with the issue that’s been around for years. Facts and figures.… no, you’re literal about a phrase used casually when I’ve been pretty clear about what I believe and what this bill actually does.

What’s strange is, the Democrats were the so-called “party of no” a little while ago, for the same reason you claim Republicans are. They were called unpatriotic, remember that? Haven’t heard that from the other side, this time around, even though the whole of the Republicans vote things down without an afterthought of what it means to do that. The difference is — Dems are trying to solve actual problems. Listen to the Republicans — you’ll see they never have this nation’s best interest at heart. They weren’t socially nor fiscally responsible while in power before, what the hell makes you think they changed their ways? “The black guy’s in charge? Oh shit!” LOL There’s an old saying: “Republicans run to win; Democrats run to serve”. Republicans will stop at nothing to make a failure out of Obama. Rush Limbaugh, not a politician but somebody your ilk looks to for guidance WISHED for his failure. Really? While I hated Bush with a passion, from his stubborn arrogance to his unapologetic favoritism to his lack of intellectual curiosity and overall dimwitted persona, I can honestly say that I never wished for him to fail this country.

I never want my gov’t to fail me, because that means my money goes to waste. I’m sure much of it does, already, but that can be fixed. Think Republicans want the job of fixing it? Hell no. They say “cut the size of gov’t” and what’d they do while in power? Grew it until we wound up with the largest deficits and debt in our history. But I guess “playtime” is over now that the Democrats are in power. NOW, they’re going to act like responsible adults. Well, do tell — how will jobs come back according to them: More tax cuts that helped get us into the financial crisis which led to the increase in unemployment? Cutting services so more people suffer while the country struggles to recover? Taxes are the enemy. Services are the enemy. What is it that the Republicans resolve to do? NOTHING. Let the problem solve itself. And if that doesn’t work, well, at least the people can blame Obama and the Democrats for it, because they were in power.

“For the record, here’s what you said in your last post: “it’s directed at those without insurance or those who are underinsured.” Two posts above, you wrote: ” right, it isn’t just about insuring more people.” So, um, yeah.” Let’s clarify and put into context what I said. “(The public option)‘s directed at those without insurance or those who are underinsured.” “right, (the healthcare reform bill) isn’t just about insuring more people” [and it isn’t]. Got it?

“but you mentioned rationing in the private sector being “news” to you” Actually, what I said was: “Rationing’s okay for the market to do? Wow — that’s news to me.” What I was getting at is, you believe that it’s okay for the private insurers to do this, and apparently, you do. So, you support rationing.

You say “every fact check”. Show us your facts and figures. Give us ONE unbiased website or something, PLEASE, since you say that EVERY one says the same thing with regard to everyone needing to fall back on the public option.

I already discussed Mike’s original post and he understands how much of a crock that really was. The premise of having a public option is so that there isn’t someone keeping you from getting the care that you need. Insurers TODAY DO THIS. If you don’t know that, welcome to America. If they weren’t dropping policies of those who paid their premiums and became sick, and turning people away who may otherwise pay premiums but had pre-existing conditions, there wouldn’t be a need for a public option — just more regulation on insurance companies “pricing people out”, like you believe the gov’t wants to do to the insurers.

I’d like to pose this question: What if the public option was as cheap as the cheapest private health insurance option on the market in the U.S. and it was available to all the people who couldn’t previously buy insurance or buy enough (for reasons I’ve discussed ad nauseum) but had the money to do so? What would be your reservation about this option then?

Teddy: Teabaggers, nuts, ilk — your posts are perpetually partisan and defamatory. You then proceed to inform me of my own beliefs (“It didn’t bother you when Bush, for the sake of “security”, did any number of things to your civil liberties — I’m positive that you were a strong advocate there.”), when the fact is that I’m conservative or even libertarian before I’m a Republican.

So I’m beholden to my values and skepticism of government, and you’re beholden to…your party perhaps? I’ll let you fill that in. In any case, neither of us set out to change each other’s mind, but perhaps to influence others collaterally and maybe sharpen our own debating skills in the process.

This is the hard part — exiting gracefully due to time constraints yet not looking like I’m turning tail — let’s just imagine that the moderator has called “time.” I’d love to go paragraph-to-paragaph with you ad nauseum, but I just don’t have that kind of time. In fact, I’m the Internet manager of a conservative newspaper launching in February — a newspaper that happens to be affiliated with the 912 Project and the Tea PARTY movement (please, not “baggers”), both organizations within which you’d be hard-pressed to find a Republican, racist, ignoramus or someone who is saying “no” for the sake of saying “no” without any conviction. Please know that…

Hats off to you! You made some excellent points, are well-informed, and stick by your convictions. We’ll have to agree to disagree on most things, yet agree that we want our nation to succeed.

PS — Are you sure you really convinced Mike of anything? I never saw him concede any of your points.

Frank: First, yes Mike understands exactly why it isn’t true. He doesn’t have to concede anything to prove this. He doesn’t have to change his “belief” to understand what I explained, just like a Christian can acknowledge that evolution exists without completely banishing the idea that God exists. He doesn’t have to nod or pat me on the back to agree with my point of view and still keep his own, because he has his own background and experiences to pull from (hopefully not just the media helps him form his opinion). We are Americans and he and I have had arguments on message boards in the past, anyway. What do we do? We argue and later wipe the dust off our elbows and knees and move on. There’s nothing wrong with debate. My “tactics” aren’t any different from yours, Ted.

You see me as a liberal through and through, and on many things I am, but not everything.

Teabaggers are nuts. Have you seen them? Have you listened to them? It isn’t because they are conservatives, it’s because they are nuts. I “inform” you of your beliefs, and I suppose you believe you haven’t done this?… We are each partisans. Defamatory is pushing it. I have no doubts about your allegiances. I brought up Bush because the exact same people who now claim to be the champions of fiscal and social responsibility are the same people who supported that monstrosity. The same people who claim to care about “civil liberties” (conservatives, since when?) are the same ones who say that Obama of all people is trying to take them away from you, which he really isn’t, but you didn’t have a problem when Bush ACTUALLY did this and bended any rule or law to get his way. If you did, you certainly didn’t say anything for eight years. You just patted him on the back and said “You’re doin’ a helluva job, Bushie” and defended him at every corner. He needed A LOT of defending, because he was always doing something absurd. But the guy who is actually trying to clean up the messes he left behind or the ones he outright ignored or exacerbated is said to be the troublemaker…

In other words, most conservatives or neocons don’t seem to have any integrity. <– That may be partisan to you, but it’s true. These teabaggers are guilty of that. That didn’t do this while Bush brought Big Brother to the big time. They didn’t do this while he grew our deficits and debt to the highest they ever were. What’d they do? Go “rah rah” for tax cuts that didn’t benefit them much at all, for laws that took away from their civil liberties, for policies that have made us less safe, for a war in Iraq which has never had any consistent justification which has pushed up closer to being bankrupt. But NOW, they care about the kids and grandkids. NOW, they say we’re under attack from within. WHERE WERE THEY FOR EIGHT YEARS? *NOW*, THEY’RE SCARED?

^And you wonder why I called them” nuts”? They ARE. I don’t agree with everything that Obama does: appointment of Geithner, which Conor mentioned many posts ago, is one of those things.

No, I’m skeptical of government, just not the way that you claim to be. On the one hand I’m liberal and I see need for gov’t and its utility, not for everything like you believe, but for several things. On the other hand, I’m black (and a minority in this country, same thing but separate for what I’m about to say)- which doesn’t mean anything to you, but I’m aware of what this government for all that it promises is capable of doing to its own people and to other people in other countries. The so-called liberal media always tells you what they think, what you’re likely to do or diseases that you’re more likely to have or what kind of person you may be. I’m aware of the iniquities and the intrinsic problems within our institutions. I studied American history for a minor in college, and have always had an interest in it. I know how laws have been used to get things and take them away from people. I grew up lower middle class and I’m moving upward. I understand the problems of gov’t, of ours in particular. I know why people don’t trust all that is gov’t, but you know, gov’t itself isn’t the enemy. It’s greed in gov’t and outside of gov’t.

I don’t have a party, but I am liberal and I root for the Democrats, because even though they are just as bad sometimes as the Republicans, they at least seem like they give a damn about something other than just trying to offend and ward off anyone who isn’t a white Christian fundamentalist or GOP tool.

No, I don’t think you’re running, Ted. Leaving is part of everyone’s day, just like when I didn’t respond right away. I have to say though I don’t wish you ill in your endeavours with this 912 thing, whatever that’s supposed to be, I don’t hope that you’re successful in trying to rally people who carry signs that say “We didn’t bring our guns this time” and plush toy monkeys with “Obama for president” shirts on them. I’m not saying that there aren’t liberal idiots out there on that fringe (I’m met uberlibs that are also knuckleheads), but fortunately, those people don’t wield firearms and God around with reckless abandon. Your tea partyer/teabagger (some of them call themselves this, go figure) crowd would be akin to the neoconservatives in the Middle East and we know what they do with their Allah and munitions.

By the way, why did the neocons pick something from liberal Massachusetts to represent their movement? Tea Party? Do they understand what it was about? Do they understand why there was a rebellion? Do they understand that conservatives were on the wrong side of that fight? I always thought tea parties were a bit elitist, anyway, why would “real Americans” associate themselves with that?

^Ah, partisanship.

Teddy: Re: Me and my “ilk”

I’m sorry to be back, but after attempting to bow out gracefully and make sure that you understood that while I contested your positions, I respected them, you continued to grossly misrepresent my opinions and poke fun at those who believe as I believe. At the risk of just giving you more fuel for your misguided fire, I felt that your relentless attacks warranted one *final* response.

First, and just to clear the air, I want to reiterate that, after rereading his comments, Mike has never conceded to your claim that his original post was a “crock,” nor has he admitted to “understanding exactly why it isn’t true.” At most, he probably understands why YOU believe it isn’t true. Second, you claim that we share debate tactics; to the contrary, you’ve spent most of the time attacking your opponent on ideas you’re not even sure I hold, while I’ve only responded directly to ideas you’ve presented. You are pulling parallels out of thin air, stereotyping, insulting, and even claiming to have convinced others of things you haven’t…

“Teabaggers are nuts. Have you seen them? Have you listened to them? It isn’t because they are conservatives, it’s because they are nuts. I “inform” you of your beliefs, and I suppose you believe you haven’t done this?… We are each partisans. Defamatory is pushing it. I have no doubts about your allegiances.” I see a Tea Party member every time I look in the mirror and hear one every time I speak. I am not nuts. I have not informed you of your beliefs as you have me of mine, and yes — you continue to be defamatory. You should have SERIOUS cause to doubt my allegiances.

Let’s be clear: while I’ll acknowledge varying degrees of “liberalism,” you seem to have lumped varying degrees of “conservativism” into one group — the “nuts?” The enemy? You tell me. I’ve never dubbed you “liberal through and through” as you suggest; that, my friend, is what psychologists call “projection.”

The Tea Party and 912 Project movements represent conservative values and libertarian principles, and are composed of non-partisan Americans. Perhaps you have the misconception that they’re an “arm” of the Republican party—indeed, the party has tried to affiliate itself with these truly grassroots movements—however, you would be mistaken. If the Republican party truly represented these people, then the movements would not have a need to exist.

True, the people in these movements most likely voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but as you’ve attested, “voting for” and “supporting unilaterally” are not the same thing. In many cases, these people were simply voting against Gore and Kerry, just as they certainly were voting against Obama in 2008—the certainly weren’t voting FOR McCain! Surely you’re aware that the conservative base supported Huckabee and Romney overwhelmingly in the 2008 primaries, and had no desire for McCain to be its candidate! The few people in these movements who did support Bush unilaterally during the last eight years were one of two things: politically unaware, as we all have been at some point, and were only awoken by the sizeable shift in power to the “left,” or they were truly partisan, Republican loyalists who have only now (rightfully) decided that the Republican party doesn’t sufficiently reflect their conservative values. Those members who WERE “politically aware” during the last 8 years opposed Bush vehemently and often — from prescription drugs to illegal immigration, from the Patriot Act to every budget he signed! Many libertarian-leaning members even disagreed with the wars, as Ron Paul represented during the Republican primaries!

Somehow you’ve labeled yourself superior because you disagree with your candidate on a few minor points? As if we always toe our party line? Because you support a party that “mostly” appears to care more about what you care about? As if we find that our party perfectly represents us? What you have repeatedly suggested is that suddenly, in January, conservatives (plus Republicans and neocons) completely changed their ideas and value system…probably because they lost, and possibly for racist motives!

Your assessment of the right as Bush zombies, nuts, and RACIST is patently absurd. Your backhanded compliments are not appreciated. Your supposed grasp on history is suspect. Know these things, and understand why I believe you to be ignorant on many issues and therefore unworthy of further debate.

Mike: Just to clarify a few things:

1. Farank is right in saying that I have my own experiences to draw from. The media does not play into my opinmion of what I believe a public option is.
2. I see where Frank is coming from, but do not support it. I’ve always been open minded enough to know that I’m obviously conservative on most issues, but I can totally see where the left draws their opinions from, and acknowledge them at times. It may seem like someone convinced me of something, but I’m merely stating the fact that I can see where they are coming from.
3. I’m still convinced that after a period of time, we all will be on the public option, and at that point the government will come between our Doctors and us. There is no convincing me otherwise.
4. I didn’t want to take down my status, because I feared we could not continue our debate.
5. Frank is the only liberal that I’ve talked to (and I’m surrounded by them here in Boston) that can explain his views with facts and drawing from his background. Thats why I enjoy it when he comments on my posts.

Frank: Yes, yes, I know… I drew you back into the fray, but not to fight, to clarify. Misrepresent your opinions? What *are* these so-called opinions, I wonder? Me, poke fun? No, no — I’m infuriated that people with the same available information don’t bother to look at any of it. What are your beliefs? That Obama is a Nazi Communist Socialist, whatever the hell that is? :^) You say you don’t trust the government — do you trust the current Republicans to run it? It’s so strange — the people that don’t trust any gov’t want to run the whole thing so badly, and people like yourself (but those in the lower echelons) are ready to support it, full speed ahead, even after Bush proved that you can’t just support a guy because you like his possible grilling skills and tastes in beer.

Mike doesn’t have to say anything for me to know that he understands what I said. He can read. He can think. He doesn’t have to concede a damn thing, just like you don’t. How do you know whether he’s “convinced” or not, and what does that mean? Because he doesn’t change his view, that means he doesn’t understand mine and how I arrived at it, after spelling it out, or why something is true or not true? Give Mike some credit.

Let’s see on the right-wing, there are centrists (on the left; these would be called conservative Democrats, if they were Dems), which might as well be lumped with moderate Republicans, only slightly more conservative, but as far as conservatives and neocons being separate entities, it’s hard to really pull these two apart, except for maybe academic strata — there are still conservative elites, and maybe those rare rank-and-file conservatives who actually don’t support Palin or Bush or these type of disgraceful people and show it by giving answers like “I like him/her because they sound just like me [ignorant]”, those are few and far between, really. If you think Fox News is fair and balanced, for example…that should tell you something.

Maybe you don’t believe that you’re nuts, and maybe you aren’t because you can hold a discussion without pulling an expletive out of your butt, but that doesn’t mean you’re golden.

“Projection”, huh? Let’s see: “I spar with other liberals on Facebook,” “and you’re beholden to…your party perhaps?” “You’ve already quoted Obama’s campaign promises, so I’m sure he also got you hook, line and sinker” You even go so far as to add: “In fact, the avowed socialist senator, Sanders, from Vermont may not vote for the Senate bill if it includes “opt-out” provisions for states (which are a farce, anyway) — I wonder why he’s so adamant about the public option?” attempting to conflate being liberal and supporting this public option as part of this healthcare reform bill with Bernie Sanders being socialist and also supporting it.

What are my “attacks” on you, anyway? That you have no integrity? Well, did you support Bush? Did he not bend rules or at the least dance around morality to get his way? Did he not take away civil liberties, like you claim Obama is doing? Have you held a consistent view about civil liberties for the past eight or so years? Are you sure you’re not a hypocrite?

I’m not “superior”, but I actually *use* the ability to see when things don’t make sense and say something about it. I am a natural skeptic. Conservatives do always toe your party line, at least in the end. You didn’t like McCain until they put crazy Palin on the ticket. I mean, I dunno if you guys were tricked into liking Bush or what, but once that was the message, you guys didn’t let go of that bone. Somehow, outing a CIA agent became non-treasonous. Somehow, torture became “necessary”. Somehow, corporate interests became more important than personal interests. Somehow, the Iraq War became more important than looking for Osama bin Laden and dealing with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, even though they were responsible for 9/11. Whatever they tell you to say, you parrot. Whatever they tell you to believe, you pray for it. The same people on your side who claimed they supported our troops, when it was found out that troops didn’t get enough armor, weapons, and food in some places, actually had a nerve to say (to paraphrase), “well fuck ‘em, they signed up for it.” Are you sure you’re not a hypocrite?

Ron Paul, huh? Well, the vaunted Fox News didn’t seem to take a liking to him, even though that guy could speak the truth. I didn’t agree with him on everything, but I understood where he came from. THAT guy is a conservative. He was the new McCain, ya know, before he made a right turn to be more like Bush. He went from being against torture (for good reason, right? Vietnam, hello) to being FOR it, for example. But Paul? I can honestly say he’s probably one of the few respectable conservative politicians still left in Congress. So on that, we can agree.

My assessment of the right wing is dead-on. Maybe moderates that lean that way don’t exhibit all those things (if I thought Mike did, we wouldn’t be able to chat in a meaningful way), but the GOP, Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the whatever else resembles that machine is as I described. My grasp on history, especially recent history, isn’t suspect. Maybe you should try re-reading what I wrote and see if you can disprove any of it. You disagree, but you don’t explain why you believe I’m wrong.

It isn’t that you all changed your minds in January. There were people who I debated who were ALREADY trying to place the financial crisis at Obama’s feet before Election Day. For eight years, they dodged, lied, twisted, and changed the subject when confronted with the realities of Republicans in power. They wanted to forget that Bush existed so badly that they didn’t even invite him to the GOP Convention. That’s pretty fucked up, but they were READY to place blame on Obama before he was even elected.

Somewhere along the line, being smart became a negative. Speaking properly became a negative. Celebrity, negative. Saying that America isn’t perfect, negative. But there’s more to this. They did pretty much act like zombies and latch on to whatever message was being relayed through their propaganda networks.

Did they care when Bush sat there for seven minutes on his ass not knowing what happened, not asking anybody, not getting up? HELL NO. Did they care when he ignored New Orleans? WELL, DID THEY? They went right along with Bush and Fox News when they said national wiretaps “Terrorist Surveillance” was necessary, and that telecom companies should be protected against lawsuits. “Well, I’m not doing anything wrong, so I don’t have anything to be scared of. Let them do it,” they said. But they were already saying that Obama was weak on national security because he was inexperienced. Then, the next idea was that he was a terrorist and a terrorist sympathizer. Then, somehow he became Hitler’s and Mao’s bastard lovechild in blackface. So, you guys have a lot of weird ideas, and you aren’t very consistent with any of them, except that you don’t like liberals.

There’s not a whole lot more to say about your “tea partyers”, that I haven’t already said. Let’s be clear: “racist” doesn’t mean “Ku Klux Klan”-style racist, but the element is there. Some of this “movement” is politically-cloaked racism. That’s why I asked if you heard or saw anything of these people — because you don’t seem to understand that whatever you think you’re aligning yourself with, it’s worse than your typical neocon douchebaggery.

No further debate — typical tactic “I’m taking my ball and going home”. Well, fine. That’s the best way to end a debate. To show that you really don’t understand how you come to your own conclusions.

Read these signs. Pause if you need to. Look at *everything*. Listen to the people. Listen to what they say. This video has very little editing to it, and it’s not really needed, anyway. These people are expressing their honest views — and they aren’t in the minority. They represent you, as you them.

This is only one video. There are others, there are people who call in to shows and guest on shows, and there are blogs out there with “tea partyers”, and they hold many of these same views.

If you don’t see anything wrong with what these people are showing or saying, and can’t fathom why people would insist that they have something wrong with them, then you are one of them.

How about this: “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.” That was the consistent message of the Bush Administration to dissenters of any of his policies, which were usually Dems and independents. You didn’t have a problem with this, though, I’m sure of it.

Can you imagine the uproar there would be if Obama came out and said this to Tea Partyers and the like as an all-in-one shield for opposing his ideas and policies?

Teddy: To clarify, you said: “I already discussed Mike’s original post and he understands how much of a crock that really was.” I think you meant he understands why YOU think it’s a crock, so, naturally, I asked: “Are you sure you really convinced Mike of anything?” to which you replied, “Yes Mike understands exactly why it isn’t true.”

See what happened there? You consistently say Mike understands it’s a crock and why it isn’t true, but what you’re MEANING to say is he understands why YOU believe it to be an untrue crock. I keep trying to point this out, then you say, “Mike doesn’t have to say anything for me to know that he understands what I said. He can read. He can think. He doesn’t have to concede a damn thing, just like you don’t.” That was my point — you said TWICE that he conceded when he didn’t. “Give Mike some credit,” you say. Um, I never took any from him.

Perhaps I’m a bit literal, but that’s entirely necessary in a debate, lest things get misconstrued and out of hand (as they did).

—

Again, the debate is OVER, Frank! Yeesh.

Yesterday, I was respectfully withdrawing due to time constraints, with a “hats off to you,” and “we agree to disagree.” Now, however, I realize that time constraint or not, you have no respect for those who disagree with you (except for Mike, for whatever reason), and not only do I not have the time for debate, I’m also not a masochist.

Your latest rant was once again chock-full of stereotypes, full of “you guys” this and “neocons” that, even after I tried to clarify the playing field for you, point out the legitimate ideas held by conservatives, and demonstrate their independence from some kind of “right wing thought machine.” Your privilege to decide who is worthy of being taken seriously and who is a crackpot is opinion, not fact, and counterproductive to debate. Your ramblings and accusations are based on your own perceptions of recent events, loaded with assumptions, and continue your attempt to drag a civil debate on the merits of a “public option” down into petty partisan mud-slinging. CONSIDER: my mere mention of the possibility of socialized medicine an eternity ago has been steadily perverted by you into “Obama is Hitler’s and Mao’s bastard lovechild in blackface.” Huh?

Again, I have NO PROBLEM with your beliefs, but you have no interest in a principled debate of the issues and I have no interest in, nor time for, anything but that.

To take umbrage with three of your latest accusations:, I’m not turning tail or taking my ball home; I am consistent with my ideas, which are not “weird;” I have a full understanding of how I’ve arrived at my own conclusions. I simply am no longer eager to share them with you; to repeatedly put my proverbial lamb to the slaughter. What kind of fool do you take me for? Actually, you’ve already answered that…ad hominem and ad nauseum.

I do not have the time nor the desire to discuss the merits or faults of legitimate ideas with someone who poo-poos them outright because of his own misconceived notions.

—

Interestingly, you earlier suggested that I was one of the “loudest people,” indicative that I didn’t know what I was talking about. However, the pattern I see is:

1. Mike posts status, gets some props.
2. You disagree with Mike and said “proppers” in civil debate.
3. Mike, Conor and I disagree with you in civil debate.
4. Your responses steadily decline in intellectual prowess, failing to address the merits or shortcomings of our ideas and instead focusing on what you think of the kinds of people that hold these ideas.
5. Eventually, I’m no longer debating your ideas or defending my own, but defending myself from an undeserved ONSLAUGHT of personal attacks based upon your own deeply held opinions and beliefs.
6. Not a fool, I try several times to withdraw from the so-called “debate” while retaining my dignity, only to be drawn back in. Shame on me, and shame on any conservative passers-by who have watched in amusement.
7. So, take note of the frequency and length of the posts in this thread, and really think about who is the “loudest.”

Mike: Frank, I remember watching that video when you posted it a few months back. My only problem is that it seems to show only the whackjobs and people who know nothing about the government and how it works. If I had a videocamera and attended the Obama inauguration I’m 100% sure I could make a video showing the whackjobs on the liberal side. I could actually do the same thing by driving 10 miles down the road to Cambridge, MA on any given day and make a similar video and post it on youtube saying look at these liberal idiots. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/13/cnn-video-2006-bush-hitler-mustache-no-outrage-called-look-alike Look at the video in the corner.

Frank: Mike, I know the left has called Bush Hitler, and even though he really isn’t, I see what they were getting at. They were outraged that Fox News, regardless of how wrong Bush was on some issue, would come to his aid or spin it in such a way as to make him a hero. So, there’s the propaganda arm, which by the way, they flipped a switch as soon as Obama came into office on how they held up support for the American president. Bush used strong-arm tactics (politically) to push through what appeared to me at the time (and still does) as stuff that took away civil liberties under the guise of security. Things that gave him more power. He expanded executive power over the other branches of gov’t, and Cheney in particular expanded his own role. Not only did he and his allies do this. They tried to silence dissent (which was mostly from liberals at first) at every corner by calling them all terrorist sympathizers and unpatriotic. He claimed that God chose him to be president. He favored the interests of business over people. He went to war in a country that didn’t attack us (no attacks or attackers came from them), and got many thousands of people (including our own troops) killed for what still hasn’t been explained. He used torture as a tool, denied it at first then tried to justify it. The way he ran our government felt totalitarian, stubbornly arrogant and totalitarian, seemingly fascist as each branch of gov’t, Fox News, and talk radio parroted the exact same talking points of the day, which the “liberal” media even echoed. Did he kill millions of people? No. Did he take over countries?… not exactly, just occupied. Was he a hateful person? He said some ignorant things and used inflammatory rhetoric, but he wasn’t the villainous Hitler. Now, Cheney, that guy has a few evil bones in him. Out of all his mayhem, der Fuhrer did give us something useful, though — the Volkswagen. Sadly, I’m still searching for something good that Bush left behind.

Mike: I agree with your last sentence 100%

Frank: With regard to the video, Mike, fair enough. I’m sure if we walk the streets, like Jay Leno does for his “Jaywalking” segment, you can find a lot of idiots. But something tells me, that these aren’t the exceptions to the rule. It isn’t just that they don’t know how gov’t works, these people are genuinely scared of Obama. SCARED. Scared, because he has a Muslim name. They like to throw out his middle name “Hussein”, because this calls to mind “Saddam Hussein” for most Americans, which we think of as an evil sadistic murderer, today (nevermind the fact that our gov’t, with Bush, Sr., as CIA Director and demigod Reagan made him an ally against Iran when they “needed” him). How many people do you know do this? Is that genuine? They call him Muslim, as if that’s an insult. He isn’t, his name is, his father was, and he was raised that way and converted to Christianity, obviously, but what if he were?

If they aren’t scared of this, they’re scared of him being black. Now, not everybody that calls him “socialist” is using it as a code word for the N-word, but many do use it this way. They claim he wants to turn the entire country into a welfare state, which I guess they think all or most black people are in, (nevermind the fact that 90% of welfare goes to white people in our country — thank you “liberal” media conditioning). These leads me elsewhere:

I support a woman’s right to choose (in general), but I would make sure that my woman wouldn’t want to have them (and she doesn’t), if I were worried about it. It seems as thought they think he’s going to make everybody get mandatory abortions or something. That’s something I never understood, though — the people who probably can’t afford to have kids or don’t want to are the ones that have the abortions (though I think you should use contraception, abortion kinda seems late to be dealing with that), but these other people that act like they care so much aren’t for any kind of public assistance or social programs, they don’t trust public schools, don’t want students to learn sex education, with regard to race = want to keep minorities — who they claim have the most abortions — out of their neighbors, and in many cases are against contraception of any kind. They want you to keep the baby, but they don’t care what happens afterwards. They don’t care about the circumstances. They don’t care if the kid grows up without a father, which often leads to that child becoming a criminal or irresponsible in their own life. They don’t care if this child is ultimately neglected if not by the parent(s), then by “the system”. They don’t want you to learn how not to get pregnant in the first place — that’s why the Bible Belt is rife with the highest teen pregnancy rates. The same people talking about Obama taking away civil liberties are the ones who want to take this one away.

Just like I support the right to chose, I support gay marriage. Note, however, that I would never get one myself. It’s not about me — it’s about them. Civil liberties? These people aren’t even seen as people, they’re seen as abominations. They’re sinners, they’re choosing to be gay (like some Republicans, apparently). Obama hasn’t really dealt with this, at all. I guess he’s not as liberal, as he could be.

And speaking of Obama, why is a Communist? Why is he simultaneously a Nazi? All he’s really done is tried to make sure that people have health care, so that’s one less problem to deal with, in an already fucked up economy, since people are losing it, often losing their homes or jobs, because it’s so expensive. And he’s tried to jump-start the economy (or at the least stop the bleeding) on Wall Street. I don’t agree with him continuing to bail out companies that aren’t even keeping up their end of the bargain, let along throwing lavish parties and giving themselves golden parachutes (even if Bush started it). If he didn’t try to do this, then you’d say he doesn’t care about American workers or our economy, right? What was his choice? Tax cuts? Because that worked SO well before and businesses didn’t still slash jobs like tech companies and the Big 3 auto makers? Or does he slash services for people who are basically not working anyway, so more people are worse off?

What do you want to do? Throw a national bake sale? But no, he’s a Commie, he’s a Nazi. And while we’re on that issue, who is he killing? What fascism? Is he telling you that you’re not patriotic by dissenting? Is he telling you that you can’t think what you want? Is he coming up with new ideas like the Patriot Act and National Wiretaps? Is he trying to take over a continent? Are the Democrats anywhere near as aligned as the Republicans were when they were in power?

Perspective. Mike, I know, that not all the tea partyers are as nutty as the ones on that video, but a lot of them have misconceptions, ones that are capitalized on by talkings heads like Hannity and Glenn Beck, which have aligned themselves with this “movement”. <— And that, my friend, tells me that something reeks. When you have those two in your corner, you’ve got to be doing something pretty fringe.

Coming back to add, that 40% of the stimulus *was* tax cuts, which Republicans fought for, and then proceeded to vote against. Thank you.

Sent to me by two sources, both of whom are associates of TCT:

<rant>

Originally a status update that was WAY too long…

I need someone to explain something to me: whether I’m born with the disadvantage of a genetic defect or into a historically-oppressed people (whether or not they’re still oppressed), am I owed something? Have my personal responsibilities been dissolved?

News flash: we’re ALL born disadvantaged in one way or another by no fault of our own, and often by someone else’s fault — the solution is never finger-pointing, guilt-tripping, and blame-gaming others, especially those who played no role in your disadvantage. No! Smile! Soldier on! Rise above!

Towards that end, feel free to lobby for an “indigenous people” day if it’s important to you, but don’t point fingers and try to abolish another’s celebration. Do you REALLY think we’re celebrating the disease, plunder, and rape of a continent? Do you REALLY think that us celebrants are even responsible for any of that? Rather, we’re celebrating an epic turning point in global affairs that ultimately gave rise to the beacon of freedom that is America.

In response to the belief that it’s somehow “insensitive” to celebrate this holiday, particularly when said belief is held by bleeding hearts or inexplicably guilty consciences: suck it up. To the very few who may have been indirectly affected by the negative aspects of Columbus’ voyage, let me point you to my first paragraph (we’re all disadvantaged — rise above) and my second paragraph (we’re obviously not celebrating your disadvantage — give us the benefit of the doubt).

Everything done by man is a mixed bag, and you celebrate the good while learning from the bad.

Hi, my name is Teddy, and I’m an annoying Facebook user.

Facebook friends are typically acquired across the full spectrum of one’s life, and many accept a virtual friendship invitation with the expectation of hearing random updates on another’s personal life. I have exceeded, nay, demolished the expectations of my Facebook friends by turning my Facebook account into a frequently updated political blog.

My wife has been embarrassed by my sarcasm at times, several people have “unfriended” (even flat-out “blocked”) me, and who knows from how many dozen friend feeds I’ve simply been hidden? To be frank, while Facebook is a great way to track politicians and pundits from my own feed, I suspect that is a poor forum in which to express my political convictions. Aside from scanning my “political beliefs” field and noticing that I’m a Facebook “fan” of a few telling publications, most of my friends are probably annoyed to know which articles interest me on a daily basis, and some may even be angered by my commentary on each.

While I may yet post politically to Facebook from time to time and will surely link this blog to my Facebook account in some fashion, no longer will I assail my captive audience of 262 with several daily posts railing against the left! I’m not sure if I’ll reach more people or less from here on out, but without further ado I bring you my political blog: An Obamaly.

I have a lot to learn about the blogosphere, from legality to anonymity to etiquette, so feel free to watch with perverse curiosity as I sink or swim.

(I’ll begin by building this blog backwards for the next few days, fleshing out the archives with my original Facebook posts-enjoy!)

I know that this Obamaly promised more original content after my wedding, but I still haven’t found the time. I did, however, find this nice group of essays about the emergence of Progressivism in our nation at glennbeck.com. Particularly hard to post, these articles clearly implicate my namesake, my great-grandfather’s godfather, as one of the original progressives. This just underscores that I’m a computer nerd and graphic designer, and I’m picking up this history thing as I go!

American Progressivism

by Ronald J. Pestritto
Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College

I. Who were the Progressives, and why are they important?

Many on the left today call themselves “progressive,” and they do so not just because it’s a nicer way of saying “liberal,” but also because they very much intend to revive the political principles of America’s original Progressives, from the Progressive Era of the 1880s through World War I. Why would leftist politicians, like Mrs. Clinton, purposely identify themselves with this Progressive movement?

The reason is that America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals. Most people point to the New Deal era as the source of big government and the welfare state that we have today. While this is perfectly accurate, it is important to understand that the principles of the New Deal did not originate in the New Deal; rather, they came from the Progressives, who had dominated American politics and intellectual cultural a generation prior to the New Deal.

We have no less an authority on this connection than Franklin Roosevelt himself. When FDR campaigned in 1932, he pointed to the Progressives – and in particular to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the source of his ideas about government.

In terms of the personalities who made up the Progressive movement, some are familiar to us and others are less so. The movement was comprised of well known politicians like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt; but it was also comprised of intellectuals and writers who are less well known but who have been very influential in America. There were folks like John Dewey, who was America’s public philosopher for much of the early 20th century. Even less well known was Herbert Croly, but Croly was highly influential, since he founded and was the first editor of The New Republic – which became the main organ of Progressive opinion in the United States, and is still one of the most important journals on the Left today. I should add here that Woodrow Wilson actually fell into both of these categories – he was both a well known politician and president, but also was, for decades prior to his entry into politics, a prominent intellectual (a college professor and president of Princeton) who wrote many books and influential articles.

As I’ll explain in my next piece, these Progressives wanted a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills. Here’s the order of the points we’ll consider in the pieces to follow:

1. What did Progressives think about the American founding, and why did they want to eradicate its principles?
2. How did we get today’s excessively powerful presidency from the Progressives?
3. What was the connection between Progressivism and Socialism? Were the Progressives actually Socialists?
4. What are some of the critical connections between Progressivism and what’s going on in our country today?

II. The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding

As I mentioned in my last piece, America’s Progressives aimed for a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government. While our founders understood that our national government must have the capacity to be strong and vigorous (this is why the Articles of Confederation were failing), they also were very clear that this strength must always be confined to very limited ends or areas of responsibility; government, in other words, while not weak or tiny, was to be strictly limited.

The Progressive conception of government, on the other hand, was quite the opposite; Progressives had an “evolving” or a “living” notion of government (yes, we get the term “living constitution” from the Progressives), and thus wanted government to take on whatever role and scope the times demanded. The Progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with George III, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that we should adjust accordingly.

Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government. They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult. “Progressivism” was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders.

This is why the Progressives were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents. Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government. And Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!” This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters.

In the next piece, we’ll consider how the presidency was transformed under men like Wilson and TR.

III. How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency

As I explained in my last piece, the Progressives wanted to disregard the Constitution in order to enlarge vastly the scope of government. As a practical matter, how was this to be done? It happened in a variety of ways, but principal among them was a fundamental change in the American presidency.

Under the system of our founders, government was to have sufficient strength and energy to accomplish its ends, but those ends were strictly limited by the Constitution. The principal way in which the Constitution keeps the government within its boundaries is through the separation of powers. As readers of The Federalist and of Thomas Jefferson know, the point of separation of powers is to keep any one set of hands from wielding all of the power in national government.

The Progressives, especially Woodrow Wilson, hated the separation of powers for precisely this reason: it made government inefficient, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to expand the power of government so that it could take on all of the new tasks that Progressives had in mind. So they looked to the presidency as a way of getting around this obstacle.

Under the original system, the president was merely leader of a single branch, or part, of the government, and thus could not provide leadership of the government as a whole. In his book Constitutional Government, Wilson urged that “leadership and control must be lodged somewhere.” The president, Wilson pointed out, was the only politician who could claim to speak for the people as a whole, and thus he called upon the president to rise above the separation of powers – to consider himself not merely as chief of a single branch of government, but as the popular leader of the whole of national politics. Wilson even contrasted the “constitutional aspect” of the presidency – its constitutionally defined role as chief of one of the three co-equal branches of government – to the “political” function of the president, where he could use his connection to public opinion as a tool for moving all of the branches of government in the direction called for by the people.

It was in this way that Wilson believed the original intention of the separation of powers system could be circumvented, and the enhanced presidency could be a means energizing the kind of active national government that the progressive agenda required.

In the next piece, we’ll consider whether the principles of the Progressives made them socialists.

IV. Progressivism and Socialism

Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism. There are several things to consider in answering this question.
First, when considering the relationship of progressivism to socialism, we must be clear that we are talking about the similarity in the philosophy of government; we are not suggesting that America’s progressives were the kind of moral monsters that we see in the history of some socialist or fascist regimes (although it is the case that their racial views – particularly those of Woodrow Wilson – were indeed morally reprehensible).

Second, we must also bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it. In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs). The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes. The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble.

Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception. Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual. Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called “Socialism and Democracy.” Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It “proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,” Wilson wrote, and “that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.” After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory. It gives all power to the people, in their collective capacity, to carry out their will through the exercise of governmental power, unlimited by any undemocratic idea like individual rights. He elaborated:

“In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

Roosevelt, too, argued for a new conception of government, where individual natural rights would no longer serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing. He called in his New Nationalism program for the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property rights, which had been serving as a brake on the more aggressive progressive policy proposals, were to be respected, Roosevelt argued, only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social usefulness. He wrote:

“We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

In the next and final piece, we will consider the some of the most important connections between the original progressives and the resurgence of progressivism today.

V. Progressivism and the Current Crisis

There are important connections between America’s original Progressive Era and the crisis we are facing today, and it is useful to consider these connections on two levels.

The first connection is at a general level, and concerns our abandonment of the Constitution. The present crisis did not appear out of nowhere, and didn’t simply begin with the election of Barack Obama. Politicians of both parties spent the better part of the 20th century disregarding the Constitution, as they looked to have government step up to solve every conceivable human problem. Thus it ought to be no surprise that the Constitution’s limits on government aren’t even part of the conversation today as our politicians debate the new interventions in our economy and society that seem to come daily.

Such a state of things would have greatly pleased America’s original progressives. As I’ve endeavored to explain in these pieces for the newsletter, progressives believed that the role of government should be determined not by our Constitution, but by whatever the needs of the day happened to be. This is why they sought to eradicate talk of the Constitution from our political discourse; today, that goal seems to have been realized.

The second connection between the original Progressive Era and our situation today has to do with policy. The progressives knew that our original system of government was not capable of handling all of the new tasks that they had in mind for it. So they envisioned creating a vast set of bureaucratic agencies. They argued that Congress should enact very broad and vague laws for supervising more and more facets of the American economy and society, and then delegate to the bureaucratic agencies the power and discretion to enact specific policies. Both Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt conceived of government in this way.

The New Deal certainly went a long way toward implementing this progressive vision, and what we have seen in our own situation with TARP and the various other interventions is simply greater steps toward the progressive plan. Our Congress has simply said to the Treasury agencies: here’s a trillion dollars, here’s all the legal authority you need, now go out, determine what is in the public interest, and spend and regulate accordingly. That is the progressive vision of government, in a nutshell. For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

1. American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.
2. Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today. This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

Here are some words of wisdom that will ring true to those of us who are Taxed Enough Already! Check out the comments below for my own take on proggressivism.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. –John Adams

If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. –Mark Twain

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then, I repeat myself. –Mark Twain

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. –Winston Churchill

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. –George Bernard Shaw

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. –G. Gordon Liddy

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. –James Bovard

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. –Douglas Casey (Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown)

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. –P.J. O’Rourke

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. –Frederic Bastiat

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. –Ronald Reagan

I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. –Will Rogers

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free! –P.J. O’Rourke

In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. –Voltaire

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you! –Pericles (430 B.C.)

No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. –Mark Twain

Talk is cheap…except when Congress does it. –Anonymous

If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative when you’re older, you have no brain. –Anonymous

The government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. –Ronald Reagan

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. –Winston Churchill

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. –Mark Twain

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. –Herbert Spencer

There is no distinctly native American criminal class…save Congress. –Mark Twain

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. –Edward Langley

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House — with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. –John Kennedy, to an assembled group of scholars in the White House

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. –Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. –Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. –Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. –Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. –Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. –Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. –Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. –Thomas Jefferson

Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. –Thomas Jefferson

A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government strong enough to take everything you have. –Thomas Jefferson