the Massachusetts election epitomizes everything wrong with the country. How twisted that it only came about because one of the most enduring advocates of health care reform passed away. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and kicking, it wouldn't even be an issue. But this one is on the people of Mass., they have shown themselves to be as backward, gullible, miserable and narrow-minded as any part of the country. They should have enough sense to know that the current problems of the country are the complete fault of the prior president who was in office only a year ago. They were suckers for every Republican trope: the opponent is soft on terror, taxing the banks is bad because "they'll just pass it on the public" and don't let those liberals get out of control with their overreaching agenda--as though the Republicans don't do drastic, unprecedented things.
Obama is clearly at fault for at least two things: he should be savvy enough to know he cannot make allies out of his enemies, and he should have been much more aggressive about his own agenda, seizing on the huge momentum he had a year ago, and the historic unpopularity of his predecessor. He has allowed the Republicans and the talk show con-artists to control the discourse on health care reform, bogging the whole debate down with obsessing our minutae rather than hammering one clear, indisputable message: everyone should have health care, period. Instead, Obama and the chronically complacent Democrats have been on the defense and even making arguments in favor of reform that are beside the point: the current system is unsustainable, reform will save money in the long run, make it easier for business owners, etc. They are using their opponents' points to defend their own position, which is nonsensical. If you want to change a policy, you have to take control of the discourse that defines that policy. You must on the offensive and make the other side accountable for their position: why do you want to sit there and let people die when we have the money and technology to give them the health care that will save them? How can you turn your backs on America's families and children? Instead the Democrats passively argue against positions that have no credibility in the first place and thus are not worthy of debate. The question "How are we going to pay for it?" is really a statement: "I don't want to pay for it," and thus, dishonest. The American people have betrayed their own selfishness: they want health care not because it is vital and civilized; they want it because it is one more thing to have that someone else doesn't have; and if everyone were to have what they have, they couldn't go on believeing themselves to be better than everyone else, which is an ignornant and miserable mentality that is really hurting this country. As always, whenever they get into office, Democrats' main priority is just to stay there by convincing people that they are the better conservative party. Dems want to cater to this imaginary "middle" and the same cycle repeats itself: they alienate their liberal base, and allow their opponent to regain momentum and once again become the political aggressor. The health care debate exposes the folly of this imaginary "middle." There is no middle in the health care debate. Either you believe everyone should have health care and be able to get medical treatment when they need it or you do not. In the end, the never-ending so-called debate on health care is really not a debate at all--it is a way to forestall, delay, and eventually sabotage any effort to change the status quo. The administration and the people are to blame. Birds of a feather, as they say. I can only imagine how bad it will get when Sarah Palin--author of the #1 nonfiction bestseller in the nation and TV superstar--takes office in 2012. It really will be the end of the world. Meows!
M -
O -
Ed Dauterich -
Dear Supreme Court-
Thank you for a wise and enlightened decision in the defense of free speech. For years, corporations have been denied this right, but now, patriotic Americans can rejoice in equality and justice for all. Now that corporations have achieved all of the rights of human beings (not to mention hundreds of times the money and power), I hope to see them around more in public. Will Nabisco come to my church? Will GE split a PBR with me at the corner bar? Maybe Clear Channel will come over to my house and play piano in front of a roaring fire while we all sing traditional folk songs. That would be awesome.
Still, I do have a suggestion: In the interests of transparency, could we make sure that any candidate for political office who is sponsored by a corporation is clearly labeled as such? This has worked well for NASCAR and would be equally effective on Capitol Hill. Just imagine Harry Reid emblazoned with the Bank of America logo or Hillary Clinton wearing a skirt with GoDaddy.com plastered on the back of it. This would help us to know who owns our politicians. In addition, politicians should have to announce their affiliations with corporations at the beginning of every speech:
“Hi, I’m Barack Obama, brought to you today by Hostess Cupcakes.”
This would help everyday Americans, many of whom are underemployed and uninsured, to see that our corporate brothers are with us and our freely elected representatives in the struggle for human equality and decency. So thanks again, Supreme Court, and if Wal-Mart comes over to watch the AFC championship game with me this weekend, I’ll be sure to give you a call.
Yours truly,
Ed Dauterich
No comments:
Post a Comment