EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Republican Death Trip
Some of us were skeptical. A couple of months after Mr. Obama gave that speech, I warned that his vision of a “different kind of politics” was a vain hope, that any Democrat who made it to the White House would face “an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false.”
So, how’s it going?
Sure enough, President Obama is now facing the same kind of opposition that President Bill Clinton had to deal with: an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex.
This opposition cannot be appeased. Some pundits claim that Mr. Obama has polarized the country by following too liberal an agenda. But the truth is that the attacks on the president have no relationship to anything he is actually doing or proposing.
Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course. The provision requiring that Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling was introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican — yes, Republican — of Georgia, who says that it’s “nuts” to claim that it has anything to do with euthanasia.
And not long ago, some of the most enthusiastic peddlers of the euthanasia smear, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Mrs. Palin herself, were all for “advance directives” for medical care in the event that you are incapacitated or comatose. That’s exactly what was being proposed — and has now, in the face of all the hysteria, been dropped from the bill.
Yet the smear continues to spread. And as the example of Mr. Gingrich shows, it’s not a fringe phenomenon: Senior G.O.P. figures, including so-called moderates, have endorsed the lie.
Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is one of these supposed moderates. I’m not sure where his centrist reputation comes from — he did, after all, compare critics of the Bush tax cuts to Hitler. But in any case, his role in the health care debate has been flat-out despicable.
Last week, Mr. Grassley claimed that his colleague Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor wouldn’t have been treated properly in other countries because they prefer to “spend money on people who can contribute more to the economy.” This week, he told an audience that “you have every right to fear,” that we “should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”
Again, that’s what a supposedly centrist Republican, a member of the Gang of Six trying to devise a bipartisan health plan, sounds like.
So much, then, for Mr. Obama’s dream of moving beyond divisive politics. The truth is that the factors that made politics so ugly in the Clinton years — the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia — are as strong as ever. In fact, the situation may be even worse than it was in the 1990s because the collapse of the Bush administration has left the G.O.P. with no real leaders other than Rush Limbaugh.
The question now is how Mr. Obama will deal with the death of his postpartisan dream.
So far, at least, the Obama administration’s response to the outpouring of hate on the right has had a deer-in-the-headlights quality. It’s as if officials still can’t wrap their minds around the fact that things like this can happen to people who aren’t named Clinton, as if they keep expecting the nonsense to just go away.
What, then, should Mr. Obama do? It would certainly help if he gave clearer and more concise explanations of his health care plan. To be fair, he’s gotten much better at that over the past couple of weeks.
What’s still missing, however, is a sense of passion and outrage — passion for the goal of ensuring that every American gets the health care he or she needs, outrage at the lies and fear-mongering that are being used to block that goal.
So can Mr. Obama, who can be so eloquent when delivering a message of uplift, rise to the challenge of unreasoning, unappeasable opposition? Only time will tell.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
73 Comments so far
Show AllHector
Paul Krugman, for whom I have enormous admiration on all matters other than his devotion to Hillary Clinton, writes, "So can Mr. Obama, who can be so eloquent when delivering a message of uplift, rise to the challenge of unreasoning, unappeasable opposition? Only time will tell."
I have always feared that Obama was mostly about "eloquence" and "uplift" and not much about fixing the problems. The truly dispiriting fact is that all the other choices, including Clinton, Nader, Kucinich, the congresswoman from Illinois -- were worse.
Hector August 14th, 2009 9:37 am.............I understand your including Clinton in your collection, but Nader and Kucinich? Please explain worse.
odoco
Nader and Kucinich were two of the few running for president that did not cloak their true feelings, did not hesitate to take on the corporate interests, and did not hesitate to call for accountability of the previous administration.
So - how were they worse? Simply because an ignorant populace is too confused by rightwing smear tactics to actually listen to objective and accurate information. I hardly feel Nader and Kucinich can be demonized for their honesty.
"I have always feared that Obama was mostly about "eloquence" and "uplift" and not much about fixing the problems."
I agree with this statement in your second paragraph. Obama is more of a manager than a leader!
The second part of your sentence, though, I question.
As the following writer states in his post, both Nader and Kucinich challenged the status quo, including the corporate structure of this country. As candidates, they supported reform for single-payer health care, and both men were consistently populist on countless other issues, too!
I have been on Medicare for 8 years and have been very satisfied with the treatment I received. It seems to be impossible to circulate such a "radical" staement in any media. I am not afraid of "death panels". I am afraid of winding up ala Terry Schiavo. I want to see all US citizens to be eligible for this type of health care.
I have been on Medicare for five years and agree wholeheartedly with this comment.
As I've thought for some time Mr. Obama has no real fire in his belly for any meaningful issue and he always seems to be late to the party. He, unfortunately, is more a preacher than a teacher. I hope he doesn't turn out to be the standard American over-sold vacuous celebrity.
pangloss August 14th, 2009 10:12 am...........Too late for that particular hope.
I get a kick out of little things sometimes. The title of this essay for instance: Republican Death Trip (echoing Wisconsin Death Trip), and Morford's Dick Cheney Spins in His Grave (the thoughts and images are endless on that one).
What, then, should Mr. Obama do?...
-------------------------------
You ask the same g-ddamn question in every piece, Mr. Krugman!!
Here's the answer...AGAIN!
Mr. Obama should've nominated for the head of the FCC someone who believes in the Fairness Doctrine and breaking up media monopolies.
These ridiculous lies about "death panels" travel via the public airwaves to tens of millions of people via loudmouth propagandists.
There's no reason that corporate-sponsored Republican talk should comprise 98% of a.m. radio when this group is less than 20% of the population.
Rush Limbaugh's voice would be lost in a chorus of voices if the airwaves were returned to their rightful owners...the public.
The same goes for the free t.v. stations who've proven criminally unworthy of their licenses.
Drop an anti-trust sledgehammer on all their heads and break them up into a thousand small pieces!
The key to defeating corporate fascism is to take away their greatest weapon - the ability to control the discussion.
The fact that the country has now wasted two weeks discussing how the government is gonna kill grandma instead of the cost effectiveness of single-payer should be all the evidence necessary to rip the broadcast licenses from the claws of the corporations.
Cygnus-X1-isaHole August 14th, 2009 10:26 am..........Could not be clearer. Until the MSM is returned to the people, the masses will be at the mercy of whatever agenda the corporatists are pushing. It is an absolute necessity or the truth will NEVER be heard again. All other issues pale in comparison. We need to work toward a MAJOR PEOPLE'S NETWORK.
Right on, Cygnus
The airwaves belong to we the people because we the people HAVE CREATED THEM. They wouldn't exist without government action.
If you broadcast your ham radio on a "commercial" frequency, the cops and the FCC will take you away. The airways, in other words, have been created by public law. They wouldn't exist without law formulated by our public representatives, and enforced by public police.
No corporation, therefore, can claim to "own" a station, which has been created by public action. It is long past time to take back our airwaves and break up the private media monopolies.
Cygnus-X1-isaHole - Well put. This might be the only hope left for a nation addicted to TeeVee.
This is the crux of the matter. Corporate media is distorting the health care debate by giving this insanity credence.
How about calling them out for what they are: the moron vote. These people are racists, snake-handlers, flat-earthers and other forms of idiot. There's a Youtube video of one idiot woman demanding that the government keep it's hands off her Medicare.
All of this is funded by the insurance giants to continue to bleed us while providing no value that Medicare doesn't provide better.
Of course, since Medicare covers the most expensive part of life the insurance companies get a huge welfare benefit right there.
Put all state, federal, city and county employees on Medicare and the insurance companies would collapse.
America is allowing itself to be ruled be drooling idiots at the behest of cynical profiteers. No wonder everything is falling to shit.
"the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia"
What is significant about this very vocal minority is its effectiveness in closing down open civil discussion. This has been a spectacularly engineered PR campaign that must have Bernays smiling, if not disturbed, in his grave.
Those leading Republicans, and I don't leave Democrats out here, are stoking the paranoia not just catering to it.
Remember the protester who stood up during John Kerry's campaign at University of Florida?
Pleading; "don't tase me bro, don't tase me!". ZAP!!!
The first link shows the questions he asked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s
The second link shows him being tased:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
Where he had a point, and today's teabaggers don't have a clue. Still quite a double standard!
Wm, Another great CD article......or I should say great reader responses....and you pulled a good one from outta your hat.
LightsOut - Homer
It's been half a year since Obama took over, and so far he has failed to show he has as much testosterone as Sasha and Malia, much less Hillary. Given that he is apparently incapable of standing up to the right wing (or anyone else who speaks to him in a loud voice), what we have to look forward to is three and a half more years of a paralyzed, failed presidency.
The question now is how Mr. Obama will deal with the death of his postpartisan dream.
actually, mr. krugman, the question is how will barackstar deal with his diminishing chances, by the day, of re-election.?
The most stupid thirty percent of the electorate will always vote for the most stupid policy. They can't help themselves; they are stupid. They will always be exploited by the most unscrupulous. Hence, democracy inevitably fails.
"the death of his postpartisan dream"
Interesting. Was he dreaming, perhaps, that the red and blue facades of the corporatist party could be fully amalgamated under a single banner? If so, it exposes a rather naive failure to comprehend the system whereby the corporatocracy sustains the illusions of democracy and free choice among the peasantry.
Of course, it must be admitted that their hold on all the instruments of power makes the need for any such residual illusions increasingly questionable. Maybe he was only slightly ahead of the times with an open proclamation of a single-party state.
RV - "Of course, it must be admitted that their hold on all the instruments of power makes the need for any such residual illusions increasingly questionable."
Actually in order to maintain their 'hold on power' the Corporatocracy needs to keep 'the peasantry' divided. 'Red, Blue (and even Purple) States' is a convenient myth to keep 99% of the population unaware, uninformed and paralyzed with fear of the 'other'.
I interpret Obama's post-partisan dream as nothing more than campaign rhetoric.
As you correctly point out, the U.S. is but a single-party state (to which I would add) within which there exists a two-class system --- the have's and have-not's. The 'have's' are well represented by our government. The 'have-not's' - as the name implies - not so much.
I'm in total agreement with your assessment of the underlying purpose. I just wonder how badly they actually need the pretense at this stage considering some of the atrocities they've already pulled off with almost no effective popular opposition from any quarter.
Oh well. It's pretty much academic in any case. They'll no doubt continue to utilize their divisive tactics along with all other useful tools at their disposal.
Yes, I understood your original post and it does seem irrational to keep up the 'pretense' considering the extent of their control.
The thing that makes it less 'academic' is that we're dealing with irrational, paranoid, sociopathic, highly educated, extremely dangerous, powerful entities that would rather see the entire thing brought down (human civilization) than give up their exalted, arrogant, criminally-maintained status.
Answering affirmative to the following question should be the standard admission for any human wanting to participate in life on our beautiful, blue planet:
Are you spontaneously enthusiastic about everyone having everything YOU can have?
"So can Mr. Obama, who can be so eloquent when delivering a message of uplift, rise to the challenge of unreasoning, unappeasable opposition? Only time will tell."
Helloooo ?!? Time is already telling and so far the writing on the wall isn't pretty. Obama's even lamer than Clinton in triangulating.
On Grassley, technically he's correct that Ted Kennedy is receiving the best treatment for the same conditions most everyone else would have no chance of getting treated. Grassley knows and is scared to admit the glaring truth that the pols, people 65 and over, military folks and their spouses, all federal employees, and whatever special class I left out have single payer while the rest of us are shackled to the mercy of Big Insurance/Pharma.
PK can keep on apologizing for Obama while more voters put their foot down and try something new for what it's worth !
jbentham
Medicare and the VA are often cited as single-payer systems, but there are some rather hefty caveats to be acknowledged here.
We have learned, through articles in the alternative media, that soldiers returning from Iraq are often shorted, or simply spurned entirely, when attempting to get medical attention for their PTSD and other psychological damage they've sustained. Severe and chronic illnesses due to their exposures to depleted uranium (weapons and armoring) are also often neglected. So while the VA is single payer, it's not a useful model for universal health coverage in these respects, at least.
Medicare, too, has its flaws; the largest of these, relevant to this context, is that while Part A is quite definitely a single-payer system, Part B (unless you are poor enough to qualify for state programs that will do the filling in of all those gaps left by Part A) depends on those self-same private insurance companies, offers a plethora of disparate plans and demands additional payments to both the insurance corporation of choice and separately also to Medicare on a monthly basis. And until congress decides otherwise, Medicare Plan D recipients get to pay (or forgo paying, but then also do without needed medication) the very highest prices Big Pharma demands.
jeremybentham, my apologies if I got a little jealous earlier. Thanks for giving the details of Medicare and VA. Those two have been under siege for at least the last 2 decades. I remember Dubya trying to privatize the VA by hiring yesmen to be put in charge of the VA and create scandals. Overall, most of Congress and the White House have made no bones about being open to further sabotaging Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and ultimately Social Security. I have already heard that they're planning on slowly sneaking it in through their health care scam to pay for bailing out Wall $treet too. Much as I don't like Sarah Palin, I'm afraid that she too is sort of correct that this bill is a backdoor to stripping off our seniors of the benefits they deserve. Never before has government gone this far to backstab seniors. It's just beyond outrage. :(
"On Grassley, technically he's correct that Ted Kennedy is receiving the best treatment for the same conditions most everyone else would have no chance of getting treated. Grassley knows and is scared to admit the glaring truth that the pols, people 65 and over, military folks and their spouses, all federal employees, and whatever special class I left out have single payer while the rest of us are shackled to the mercy of Big Insurance/Pharma."
Exactly!
And, who pays for their top-notch health care?
We do! "We the People!"
He cannot appease them. They don't want to be appeased. His best bet is to actually implement the changes he promised. They won't be any more outraged than they are now, and at least the country as a whole will be better off.
Even if he were prepared to ignore the nominal opposition party, his own won't allow it. That bipartisan/postpartisan reality is definitely not a dream.
THE OBAMA DEFENSE
I don't like my next door neighbor. In fact I am sure that he is a terrorist. So tonight at about 4 AM I am gong to torture and kill him.
I don't have to worry about being convicted for anything. I will just tell the judge and jury that it all happened in the past, and that I am looking forward to the future. That's the Obama defense, isn't it?
Thanks, Rich....great stuff, as usual!
Your post reminds me, once again, of Keith Olbermann during one of his "Special Comments" where he noted, "There is little difference, if any, between the two parties. There is only one party, the Money Party, and its symbol is a vulture."
amen amen amen
kw
I believe, that while Obama is probably best at speaking to crowds, he is sincerely trying to do his best as acting President, but he needs to walk an incredibly fine line in the sand, so give the guy a break. Americans seem to have this "single man saves the world" syndrom, but in reality, the President is not that powerful if he has to go against the interests of the real powers: Corporations, period, and everybody corporations can buy. Bush has shown how much power a President has, if he pursues corporate interests. Start wars, lie, break laws, shuffle money from the middle class to the super rich etc. etc.
If Obama goes openly partisan, then the country would be even more divided that it is now, maybe hopelessly divided. He is forced to try to come to some sort of consensus, knowing very well, how dirty the game is that the corporations, the Republicans and many Democrats play. He cannot confront the corporate machinery openly and the reason is the percentage of people who are brainwashed, aggressive, intolerant and stupid and there seem to be a lot of them around in the States.
The real grassroots movement must turn out stronger and more convincing than the Astroturf pack does. In the moment it seems it is the latter that call the shots.
Last year, during the interminably long, expensive campaign circus known as the 'presidential election' I seem to recall a certain candidate pleading with his supporters to, if elected to the highest office in the country, 'keep my feet to the fire'.
Now, kw, you believe we should 'give him a break'? If one man can't possibly go up against the corporate powers that be, then why have elections at all?
There is actually plenty that Obysmal could do. There are a plethora of suggestions within these posts. Number One would be to use his particular oratorical skills to actually educate the masses on any number of issues. His feeble attempts at this regarding the coming Health Care debacle, I mean, reform, do not bode well, I'm afraid.
This whole mess can be laid at the feet of traditional left-leaning media. If outlets such as the New York Times had made it a point to represent the mainstream of society rather than pandering to the liberal elite, there would have been no conservative market niche for Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. to exploit. Now that they are well-established, the extreme right-wing media give a loud voice to the newly disenfranchised ultraconservatives and preclude having reasonable discussions about these issues.
Huh?
Hey, somebody put this guy back on his leash, okay?
His comments make about as much sense as Palin's Death Panel rap.
Rupert Murdoch staked Rush Limbaugh for five years before he made any money from him. That was not the fault of the New York Times.
It is true that the corporate media panders to the liberal elite, if you mean "liberal" in it's classic sense of lazzez-faire economics of the metropolitan, financial elites. But the liberal elite are not leftists.
You badly need to read "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky, and anything by Robert McChesny.
That "Death Trip" title is apt.
Some societies emphasize cooperative behavior in pursuit of the general well being (health care, education, etc.) while tending to limit competitive behavior to the pursuit of improved methods for providing those neccessities. (Norway, Finland)
Other societies emphasize market competition in pursuit of the private acquisition of wealth. When unrestricted, this leads to intensifing concentrations of wealth and power. In these societies, cooperative behaviors (universal health care, labor unions) are regarded with fear, suspicion, ridicule and outright violence. (The U.S. & Russia)
Aggressively competitive systems are inherrently subject to the laws of entropy, meaning the disordering of structure and the loss of capacity for useful work. As wealth and power are increasingly concentrated instabilities manifest and the wealthy and powerful apply increasing resources to maintain control - like burning matches in the dark to find more matches, until the last available match is burned.
Entropy describes the fate, over time, of physical systems: winding down to "heat death".
However, living organisms demonstrate the opposite. Over time, life systems wind up (evolve), gradually increasing in complexity and capability. Much of that process is trial and error.
Many attempts succeed. (Norway, Finland)
Others fail (U.S., Russia)
If Obama (or anyone else) can't fix it, Entropy will. And in the long run, that might be best for the Norways and Finlands that are left.
The Democrats are carrying their bi-partisan olive branches and expect the Republicans to appreciate them. However, as usual the Reps are armed with spears and swords and are cutting the branches to pieces. Wake up, Dems, and get on the offense instead of constantly playing defense.
I hate to say this but please read what RichM wrote in this thread. The answer will disappoint you but it's better to know it.
Republican Death Trip
That's what I wrote a few days ago, something like this: In this haunted house called the United States, one of the overwhelming national characteristics is the death trip.
This country loves death the same way it loves football or insultingly stupid television programming. Obama is the embodiment of death every bit as much as any Republican praying for the end of the world.
Indeed. A death trip fueled by fear and ignorance.
“Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.”
-Thomas Paine
Yes yes! But who gives a shit. The bill is bullshit any way. Whatever passes has been written by the insurance companies along with Big Pharma and the hospital rackiteers. What we really need and want, single payer universal healthcare like the rest of the industrialized countries, will nver come to pass here in Amerikkka. The greed is too great. Teh corruption is too widespread and the people are too ignorant to change any of it. Let's all sit down and have a fucking beer! Coors anyone?
Despair is just as much an enemy as ignorant resistance. Pull up your pants and get to work. When millions around you are suffering and dying, you have to do something. Do you have a guarantee of success? No. But if you work at it, at least you can claim to be a human being. And in the meantime, study how to become more effective.
I was with you until the "Coors" part. How about New Belgium Brewing?