You know what? That David Frum blog post I referred to earlier deserves to be read in full. It’s very refreshing. It reminds us that it is possible for a Republican to think and express himself clearly, to make actual sense. And it’s been a long time since we’ve seen much sign of that. So enjoy this rare specimen:
Waterloo
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum | No Comments |
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
If more Republicans started thinking and speaking this way, instead of showing their fannies to get the tea partiers to cheer, Democrats would be in trouble. But the Dems need not fear; expect rational, civil voices such as Mr. Frum’s to be shouted down.
So why do two of your Holy Trinity (McCain, Graham, and Lieberman) continue to spout the party line? McCain was on Hannity last night blasting the bill and the process (which is where Republicans WILL be able to make political hay). The backroom deals, the bribes, the lies (Obama made several statements about how open the process would be that he completely backtracked on).
Whatever good pieces came out of this bill will be forever tainted by the way it was achieved.
All I can hope for is that this will be the final straw that pushes decent hardworking Americans to seek a third party.
Because… they’re Republicans? That reminds me, I’ve been wanting to know what Joe thinks of it all, but he’s been pretty silent the last couple of days. He’s only being mentioned in connection with the Energy Party bill that he and Lindsay and Kerry have been working on.
And THAT, of course, is why I like the three. (I always feel like I have to explain this to Doug, because it mystifies him.) They don’t have to agree with me on everything. NOBODY agrees with me on everything, or even on every important thing. For instance, my own dear wife could not disagree more strenuously with me on the subject of Iraq. But I’d vote for her anyway, any time…
Aside from the endless “war”, what did McCain agree with you on? Healthcare – No way. Energy? Don’t think so. Taxes – Doubt it.
Or should I say what did McCain 2008 agree with you on? McCain 2008 is a different character than McCain 2000 or McCain 2010 (who is showing once again that he is willing to say and do anything to pander to the far right in order to win re-election).
What really mystifies me is that you will deflect any suggestion that McCain is no different than any other politician in his ability to pander, flip-flop, lie, and court lobbyists. When McCain and Graham bare their partisan teeth, you give them a pass because you seem to think it’s just an act. When DeMint says the exact same words, it somehow is a negative trait. You apply selective righteous indignation depending on who says it. That’s either hypocrisy or denial.
More Democratic gloating/Republican slamming by Brad (the closet Democrat).
I must disagree that this bill is “forever.” If congress passes it, congress can change it. Meanwhile, let’s give it a chance to work. Also, as I understand it, this bill encourages small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees, by offering tax benefits; it does not require it, nor does it punish small businesses that do not offer health insurance. He is right, however, in asserting that the Republican party did it to themselves.
From National Review Online:
” The Origins of the State AGs’ Lawsuit [Stephen Spruiell]
I interviewed Texas attorney general Greg Abbott for my piece today on the state AGs’ lawsuit, and he told me something interesting which didn’t make it into the piece but which I thought I’d share: The lawsuit began as a request from the two senators from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint:
The conversation really began in December when the two U.S. senators from South Carolina contacted their attorney general, McMaster, about the Nebraska compromise, raising legal concerns about that. General McMaster assembled a group of attorneys general, including myself, and we all signed a letter that was sent to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid outlining our concerns about the constitutionality of the Nebraska compromise.”
The lawsuit began as a request from the two senators from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint
Secessionists like Lindsey Graham continue to be a black eye for this state.
Doug makes a good point about the Republicans making political hay about the healthcare process, particularly as most people won’t see changes from the bill before November.
Frum makes a very telling point about the influence of right-leaning talk radio upon Republicans, and yet how that influence is the opposite of constructive governance. What can the Republicans offer now?
And while Lindsey Graham has his detractors (and with some good reasons), categorizing him as a secessionist seems reminiscent of the Limbaugh/Beck-esque hyperbole.
And while Lindsey Graham has his detractors (and with some good reasons), categorizing him as a secessionist seems reminiscent of the Limbaugh/Beck-esque hyperbole.
Exactly. My comment was in jest. It is ridiculous to think of Graham as a secessionist because of the silly lawsuit. But I also find it ridiculous to call others names like neo-confederate, secessionist and the like for their silly actions. And this blog loves to engage in hyperbole over their silly actions.
Alabama Tea Party blogger Michael B. Vanderboegh: “My answer is violence, by getting their attention … If we can get across to the other side that they are within inches of provoking a civil war in this country, then that’s a good thing.”
And Graham and his crowd are refusing to do the job they were elected to do:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/gop-senators-refusing-to_n_511639.html
Y’know, I think some readers of this blog put words in other’s mouths. Just sayin’
I don’t think Graham is a secessionist, but I do think the Nullification legislators are starting down that path, don’t you?
@ Burl–
Thanks for those bits of brightness, ahem.
Sometimes I’m not sure whether I’m in The Onion world or some Brechtian epic drama. It sure seems like the Republican right and the Tea Partiers are holding their breath until they turn blue (or red?), or much worse. Revolution??!? Civil War?
“And Graham and his crowd are refusing to do the job they were elected to do” – just when I thought nothing could get more ridiculous…
Ya’ll need to read up and get familiar with C Street. DeMint lives in the subsidized C Street house.
C Streeters ” pray to be BROKEN”.
Hopefully DeMinted one , got what he prayed for.
I don’t think Graham is a secessionist, but I do think the Nullification legislators are starting down that path, don’t you?
I don’t think Obama is a communist, but I do think the socialist democrats are starting us down that path, don’t you.
Ridiculous. That’s how I find both of the above statements.
And the Frum piece was good. And I don’t think repeal will happen. But here’s what I do fear the Republicans will do. They will strip out the portions of the bill that were meant to pay for it while leaving the benefits. No cuts to Medicare or tax increases. After all that’s what the Republicans do. And the result will be more of the fiscal insanity that was the Bush years.
David, I’m sorry if you think such rhetoric is overboard, but I do think Kathryn’s got a point. That 10th amendment resolution lawmakers passed has pretty much the same aim as Nullification. And the philosophical roots of Henry’s health care lawsuit have some similaries as well…
Precisely David. And the result? Massive debt. We need health care; we also need to pay for it.
So you actually believe we’re heading down a path where a state, perhaps this state, is going to actually declare that it is no longer part of the Union? I don’t. I see grandstanding about opposition to big government. I see stirring up negativity and fear toward the party in power. But you believe actual lawmakers — not internet messageboarders, gun nuts hiding in compounds and vitriolic teabaggers — are heading down that path?
Come on now. The Republicans/teabaggers will either become more extreme making them even more irrelevant or they will become more reasonable. And if they become more reasonable and gain some power in Washington they aren’t going to want to talk about nullification. You never heard them talking about nullifying anything Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress did, did you?
I think it’s all for show. But even if that is their real goal, it’s not going to be achieved. Not even in SC.
And the philosophical roots of Henry’s health care lawsuit have some similaries as well…
But that’s my point. You could say that subsidizing health care for those who can’t afford it has some similarities and philosophical roots as socialism or maybe even communism. But you wouldn’t. Because you are more reasonable than that.
Do I think Henry wants to secede from the Union? Of course not. But his lawsuit reflects an attitude that goes beyond mere political disagreement. He’s doing it as a way of kowtowing to an attitude that this legislation is illegitimate not because of anything it does, but BECAUSE it comes from Obama, BECAUSE it comes from Washington. The people he’s trying to win over — and the lawsuit can’t really be taken seriously legally; it only makes sense as a political gesture — are the people who think that way. He doesn’t think he can lead the Republican party without those people on his side.
And the resolution I was referring to isn’t just LIKE nullification or reminiscent of nullification, it IS nullification. It’s not even about an issue; it’s about asserting the power and desire to say NO to the federal government, to say the laws it passes do not apply to you if you don’t want them to. There really is no good one-word description of what the resolution is intended to do except “nullification,” although perhaps you know of a word I’m not thinking of.
And nullification — the original one — was part of an effort to exempt South Carolina from the union without secession. But since it didn’t work, the state turned to secession. Do I think most of the lawmakers who voted for that resolution were thinking “secession?” No. But I’m sure some of them didn’t mind a bit if it suggested that to some of their constituents.
Ok, fair enough.
But when Kathryn said she didn’t think Graham was a secessionist but the legislators were heading down that path and you said she had a point, I thought “that path” was referring to secession.
The path of nullification previously led to secession. Perhaps there has been some rerouting–maybe to go around the Confederate Flag display or the Hunley Museum?
“If more Republicans started thinking and speaking this way, instead of showing their fannies to get the tea partiers to cheer, Democrats would be in trouble. But the Dems need not fear; expect rational, civil voices such as Mr. Frum’s to be shouted down.”
And in less than 24 hours Mr Frum was fired. So much for “rational, civil voice”.