Watching American politics from the outside, so to speak, has been a very interesting process for me. I don't devote much space to American politics on the blog, but I do keep up with things "back home". After being pleased with the turn of events in the Presidential election, I have spent much of the last year being mildly disappointed with the tepid attempts at promised change by the new Administration. And repulsed by the behavior of some of its foes on the Hill and in the media.
The Dems have allowed the opposition to own the airwaves--at least the airwaves that make it this far--and have not been effective in responding to their complaints, both legitimate ones, and the false ones like socialism, death panels, totalitarianism, and apologizing to the jihadists. Further, when they have responded, too often it has been poorly, worsening the debate by sinking to the gutter level of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. WH spokesman Robert Gibbs should be looking for a new job.
Last year, a solid majority of Americans approved of HCR, but that majority has slowly eroded as the right-wing conspiracy got its (largely fallacious) message out with virtual impunity, until on the eve of the vote only about 45% approved. And this is when the pro-HCR people run the WH and both houses of Congress!
While I admire Obama's ability to stay on message with the bipartisanship stuff, that message is wearing a little thin, when you consider the response: Charles Grassley once said that even if the health care bill had in it everything he wanted, he still wouldn't vote for it. They weakened the legislation to suit Republicans who were never going to approve it anyway.
Today I am able to breathe a little sigh of relief that the Democrats did what they think is right--health care reform has been part of the liberal agenda, after all, since the Truman era. And part of the conservative agenda as far back as Teddy Roosevelt.
And I am not so much happy about the bill itself, which I think is flawed, as about the fact that they managed to accomplish it. It has been a goal of conservatives and Republicans for decades to show that government doesn't work, that it is part of the problem, not part of the solution. To some extent, the incompetence of the GW Bush administration was intentional--make sure government doesn't work, so you can say, "See? Government doesn't work!" Refuse to fund regulatory bodies, then wait for bad stuff to happen--"Told ya! Regulation doesn't help, let's just deregulate!"
The GOP was counting on gridlock, its ability to filibuster, delay and derail the Dem agenda, as its primary platform to launch a return to power in the 2010 midterms. Now they return to the status of the Party of No, who stood up for the insurance industry during the week when WellPoint raised its rates by 39% and the Dems provided some measure of relief for many Americans.
A few days ago (before the House vote), I was chatting with an acquaintance, a fellow English teacher known for his distinctive headwear, when the topic of health care reform came up. It was his opinion that it is not the government's job to provide for the well-being of its citizens. I don't recall his exact words, but they were to that effect.
I asked if he remembered the DOI or the Preamble to the Constitution--you know, that bit about "provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ..."? That Preamble states the purpose of our government, and the rest of the Constitution describes the ways and means of going about it. Article I defines the role of legislative branch. And the HCR bill seems reasonably part of its role in promoting the general welfare of the people.
Shortly after this, he pointed out that Al Gore (?) was a "nigger-lover", and during the ensuing discussion of the plight of the black man in America, he suggested that if I love them so much, why not marry a "nigger woman".
I allowed as how that was vaguely possible, but I was definitely up for finding another place to sit at the bar. He apologized and coaxed me back into my seat--I'm always willing to give a drunk guy a second chance after he's gone too far. Been there myself, and all that.
But it got me thinking. All these people flecking at the corner of their mouths with rage during "Town Halls" and "Tea Party protests"--they're mostly not drunk. What is motivating this anger?
A lot of them seem to be my age and older, and they've seen a lot of change in America during their lifetimes. Crazy people fly planes into buildings. One movie ticket costs more than the whole entire date used to--and the movie sucks, and gives you a headache. Most everyone has a flip-open Communicator in his hip, just like in "Star Trek", only they call it a
cell phone. A black man is President--even if you're not a racist, surely there's a moment when you wonder if they're gonna dig up the Rose Garden and put in a watermelon patch ... or something.
People don't like change, as a rule, I guess. I'm often unnerved by change myself, yet I picked up and moved halfway around the planet. And believe me when I say change can be good. Just as assuredly, it can also be bad.
But the fact is that Obama ran on a platform of change, including health care reform, and was duly and properly elected our President. As the neocons liked to say a few years ago, "Elections have consequences."
Still I ask, why do these "tea baggers" refuse to acknowledge the election results, and why are they, like my pal in the bar, so willing to call people names? And why has the Republican leadership married itself to them?
All I am saying is, "Give change a chance!" I can honestly say I gave GW Bush a chance, as did I think most Americans (even though more of us voted for the other guy--the nigger-lover). In fact, after September 11, 2001, Bush's popularity ratings soared into the 90% range.
Yet Obama could singlehandedly capture Osama bin Laden today, rip out his heart and feed it to the WH rottweilers, and a significant proportion of Americans, including every Republican member of Congress, would ask what took him so long. And complain that heart-ripping-out should
not be covered under the new health care program.