[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below]
That’s what TAP’s Paul Waldman calls the extremist Republican dead-enders in the House of Representatives, who are 30 to 80 in number, depending on how they’re counted, and are holding America hostage to their insane demands. Waldman despairs that “[t]his madness will never end” so long as there’s a Democrat in the White House and he’s likely right.
Andrew Sullivan, who calls the GOP “The Nullification Party,” has the best commentary I’ve seen so far on the insanity on Capitol Hill. Here’s the whole thing for those too lazy to click on the link
I’ve been trying to think of something original to say about the absurdity now transpiring in Washington, DC. I’ve said roughly what I think in short; and I defer to Fallows for an important dose of reality against the predictably moronic coverage of the Washington Post.
But there is something more here. How does one party that has lost two presidential elections and a Supreme Court case – as well as two Senate elections – think it has the right to shut down the entire government and destroy the full faith and credit of the United States Treasury to get its way on universal healthcare now? I see no quid pro quo even. Just pure blackmail, resting on understandable and predictable public concern whenever a major reform is enacted. But what has to be resisted is any idea that this is government or politics as usual. It is an attack on the governance and the constitutional order of the United States.
When ideologies become as calcified, as cocooned and as extremist as those galvanizing the GOP, the American system of government cannot work. But I fear this nullification of the last two elections is a deliberate attempt to ensure that the American system of government as we have known it cannot work. It cannot, must not work, in the mindset of these radicals, because they simply do not accept the legitimacy of a President and Congress of the opposing party. The GOP does not regard the president as merely wrong – but as illegitimate. Not misguided – illegitimate. This is not about ending Obamacare as such (although that is a preliminary scalp); it is about nullifying this presidency, the way the GOP attempted to nullify the last Democratic presidency by impeachment.
Except this time, of course, we cannot deny that race too is an added factor to the fathomless sense of entitlement felt among the GOP far right. You saw it in birtherism; in the Southern GOP’s constant outrageous claims of Obama’s alleged treason and alliance with Islamist enemies; in providing zero votes for a stimulus that was the only thing that prevented a global depression of far worse proportions; in the endless race-baiting from Fox News and the talk radio right. And in this racially-charged atmosphere, providing access to private healthcare insurance to the working poor is obviously the point of no return.
Even though the law is almost identical to that of their last presidential nominee’s in Massachusetts, the GOP is prepared to destroy both the American government and the global economy to stop it. They see it, it seems to me, as both some kind of profound attack on the Constitution (something even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts viewed as a step too far) and, in some inchoate way, as a racial hand-out, however preposterous that is. And that is at the core of the recklessness behind this attack on the US – or at least my best attempt to understand something that has long since gone beyond reason. This is the point of no return – a black president doing something for black citizens (even though the vast majority of beneficiaries of Obamacare will be non-black).I regard this development as one of the more insidious and anti-constitutional acts of racist vandalism against the American republic in my adult lifetime. Those who keep talking as if there are two sides to this, when there are not, are as much a part of the vandalism as Ted Cruz. Obama has played punctiliously by the constitutional rules – two elections, one court case – while the GOP has decided that the rules are for dummies and suckers, and throws over the board game as soon as it looks as if it is going to lose by the rules as they have always applied.
The president must therefore hold absolutely firm. This time, there can be no compromise because the GOP isn’t offering any. They’re offering the kind of constitutional surrender that would effectively end any routine operation of the American government. If we cave to their madness, we may unravel our system of government, something one might have thought conservatives would have opposed. Except these people are not conservatives. They’re vandals.
This time, the elephant must go down. And if possible, it must be so wounded it does not get up for a long time to come.
Sullivan’s commentary finally persuaded me to fork over the $19.99 for unlimited yearly access to his blog. I don’t look at it too often—question of time—and have had issues with him in the past, but I’ll pay a nickel a day for commentary of this quality.
Two pieces from The New Yorker: Ryan Lizza on “Where the GOP’s suicide caucus lives“—the sobriquet “suicide caucus” was coined by Charles Krauthammer—and surgeon and public health specialist Atul Gawande on Obamacare and obstructionism.
À suivre (malheureusement).
UPDATE: NYT economics columnist Eduardo Porter explains “Why the health care law scares the GOP.” A must read.
2nd UPDATE: TPM links to a hilarious, absolute must watch 4-minute video from “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” in which citizens on the street in L.A. are asked what they think of Obamacare vs. the Affordable Care Act. It rather confirms—if confirmation were neeeded—the irrelevance of opinion polls showing majorities of Americans opposed to Obamacare, as many people have no idea what it is.
3rd UPDATE: Nice commentary by Michael Tomasky on “What history will say about Obamacare and the government shutdown.”
Has Andrew Sullivan ever heard of the “weapons of the weak?”
Any group that loses elections or is out in some manner can still use other tools to challenge the powers that be. Some can be downright drastic.
Their party may not be very successful right now but each and every one of those recalcitrant reps was elected via popular vote and sent to Washington by the people of their region. That means that they have support. You can say that their voters are deluded and stupid but what can be done about that? Get new constituents? Exile the old ones? Force them to vote differently? Yell at them until they see the light?
From where I sit it’s the country that’s split – the people – and it’s a problem. And everything I hear leads me to think that this is getting worse. I don’t know what to do about. I am not even sure it can be fixed.
Last week my colleagues at RT were asking me to explain the shutdown. While I navigated through the logistics (the budget process and the congressional math) fairly successfully, I was utterly helpless when trying to explain why certain representatives oppose the healthcare reform, or better yet, universal healthcare. It went something like this:
me: [trying to provide some historical & socio-economic context on the GOP’s Randian devotion to survival of the fittest]
them: but WHY? [cue the ‘deer in headlights’ faces]
me: well, some people just dont believe in universal healthcare
them: what do you mean?
me: they just dont believe that everyone should have the right to medical care, whether preventative or emergency or treatment-oriented
them: but…everyone DOES have that right!
me: no, not in the US
them: [cue face of a 5-yo told that there’s no Santa] but…WHY?
me: [trying some religious faith analogies]
them: [stumped]
Can I take a stab at it? I have family members in the US who are against it and their objections seem to be the following:
1. They don’t trust the government. They think it will become just one more bloated, expensive and inefficient government program that will do nothing for them while making the 1% a lot richer..
2. They believe other social programs like Medicare and Social Security will suffer. Eventually, they think “Peter will rob Paul” to the detriment of everyone.
3. They see a connection between “who pays” and “who decides.” If the state is running it (paying for it) then it follows that the state will be making decisions about people’s healthcare. See first point.
“But it’s the law!” You know if I had a centime for every time someone said that to me, I’d be a rich woman. Just because something is the law, doesn’t mean that people don’t agree with it or have reservations about it or even fear it.
None of the people I know in the US who are against Obamacare want to live in world where people don’t get care. But they aren’t convinced that this is the right way to go about it.
And nothing is going to rile them further than being told that they should just sit down, shut up and do what they are told because it’s for their own good. Just because something is the law doesn’t mean that governments get to stop explaining, convincing, evangelizing (if I may use that word). When the law was passed and after the party was over, the proponents of Obamacare figured it was a done deal. It’s not. And today here are the consequences of that.
My .02.
Victoria – thank you for the insights. I do think that for the most part you’re describing the people who, while they might oppose this particular legislation, arent represented by the 30 nuts in the House willing to sacrifice the welfare of millions just to ‘get something’ (see Stutzman). That’s the sane opposition, so to speak. But here are a couple of things that stump me:
1-“Just because something is the law, doesn’t mean that people don’t agree with it or have reservations about it or even fear it.” – no, but they still have to follow it unless it is no longer the law. And the way to get rid of the law is to either repeal it legislatively or invalidate it through courts (not by effectively laying off a million people) – and the opponents of the ACA failed to do either.
2-“None of the people I know in the US who are against Obamacare want to live in world where people don’t get care. But they aren’t convinced that this is the right way to go about it.”
a – There are plenty of people – private citizens and public figures – who have gone on record (=on TV and Interwebs) to basically support the survival of the fittest approach (‘if you’re too dumb/lazy to get a proper job with healthcare, no, you dont get access to it);
b – the people who arent ‘convinced this is the way’ have failed, in all this time, to provide any kind of alternative solution other than ‘the market works best’ – even though the reason we need the reform is bc the market leaves millions without care and millions more at risk of losing everything should they lose their health or their job tomorrow, which is straight up inhumane.
Anna, Thank you for a very stimulating conversation. I live outside the US and it does look a bit like cloud cuckoo land over there on the other side of the Atlantic. But when I talk to friends and family over there via email, I hear real concern about what Obamacare means. Some are for (but hate it because it’s not a real single-payer system) and others are against for the reasons I mentioned. I agree that shutting down the government is not the best way to show one’s disagreement (though it’s providing all sorts of amusement for my French friends).
I will stand by what I said about the law. Laws can be dumb. They can even be evil. I don’t think that obeying them in all circumstances can be justified. I even think that there are impediments to our even be able to challenge laws that are unjust because we are trained for the most part in obedience. J.C. Scott wrote a wonderful book that I reviewed in a post where I applied a few of his ideas to a very different context:
http://thefranco-americanflophouse.blogspot.fr/2013/04/subservient-citizens-and-anarchist.html