Yep, Dems Can Be Nuts Too
Alan Grayson is making waves with his chart labeled, “If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly.” Republicans are outraged at this, and are calling for censure and so forth, comparing it to Joe Wilson’s broach of protocol on the floor.
Seriously, the hypocrisy is blinding.
Yes, Grayson is being an ass. But he is bringing up the rear behind a majority of Republicans. Obviously, Republicans don’t want you to “die quickly.” But neither are there “death panels,” a concept which (a) is pretty much equivalent to the nutballery that Grayson is pushing, and (b) which the majority of Republicans have been pushing, agreeing with, and/or condoning for the past few months.
In short, Grayson has just barely caught up with the majority of Republicans in being, to use the technical terminology, a dick.
For Republicans to call for his censure is as idiotic as it is hypocritical. Censure was called for in Joe Wilson’s case because he went way too far, shouting a terrible insult at the office of the president during an event of the highest order. What Grayson is doing now is simply what many high-level Republicans have been doing for quite some time now: lying on the floor of Congress about how the other party wants Americans to die. When Republicans do this, it draws criticism, but as far as I know, no calls for censure.
Who knows, maybe Grayson was aiming for just this: to use the same stupid lies against Republicans that Republicans have been hurling at Democrats, so that Republicans would become outraged and would be tricked into ironically decrying their own tactics.
Well I had to comment on this.
There are appreciable differences between Grayson and the Republican’s death panel.
The death panel sound bite was a complete and utter lie.
Grayson is making a point. 45,000 Americans are dying every year because of a lack of a rational health system. 45,000 Americans Dying!!!!!
Grayson rightly refers to this as a holocaust. 45,000. Those are big numbers. That’s nearly a half million over 10 years. Of our own citizens.
Those death’s are necessary price so that the health companies can pull down massive profits.
The Republican’s are blocking meaningful health reform. It’s as if they don’t care that American’s are dying.
Grayson is painting them into a corner, politically.
This is hard ball politics. And to be frank, I want Democrats to play even harder.
^ I agree with Mr Kane, here. Class War. Let’s get it on.
I considered that angle when I wrote the article. There are two ways of looking at it: number one, Grayson statement was factually untrue because Republicans do not literally hope for Americans to die (I give them at least that much; allowing people to die from their negligence and political game-playing is not the same as actively wanting them to die); or number two, his statement was essentially true as the incidental effect of blocking the current health care plan would lead to deaths, like the young lady in Ohio recently. There is no doubt that Grayson was closer to the truth than, say, Palin and her death panels. No contest.
But I decided to go with #1 on the grounds that it is the same take I would adopt if a Republican were to say the same thing about a Democratic plan. But I fully recognize the fact that the obstruction will cost lives. I simply saw it as an overstatement on Grayson’s part, that they overtly want you to die. I think it would be more correct to state that either they don’t care if you die, or else fool themselves into thinking that A has not connection to B. Or both.
I understand the frustration with the Democrats being weak-kneed and not as aggressive as the Republicans; as Maher has said, you wish that Obama took his smarts on policy and pushed it with the same single-minded determination and aggressive partisanship that Bush did for most of his presidency.
However, I also don’t approve of going as far out as they have gone in terms of overstating things. I think that an excellent case can be made with the facts. Instead of saying “Republicans want you to die,” one could say “The Republican obstructionism and political game playing will cost X million lives over the next Y years.” Top it off with, “Republicans want Politics, Democrats want Solutions,” and you’re going in the right direction. Use the facts–when Republicans scream about Obama’s spending, show charts displaying his molehill spending next to the mountain spent by Bush.
The trick is to get Democrats to be as unified on their message as Republicans. Get a sound bite and/or a visual like a chart, put it in the hands of every Democrat, and get every single one out there pushing the message. You can make it aggressive, pointed, and attention-grabbing without resorting to exaggerations.
There is a way to do this without resorting to approaches like Grayson’s which can be too easily discounted as purely political. People will look at his chart and immediately conclude that Republicans do not in fact advocate death. That may be the ultimate effect, but saying it like that makes it deniable, and the GOP is very good at defending their turf especially if you give them a handhold.
As Colbert said, “the truth has a liberal bias.” There’s more than enough ammunition; we should use it.
I think that Grayson’s message has value only in terms of showing up the GOP craziness; if he followed up his attack with a message that his beliefs were not so extreme but he wanted to out the GOP idiocy, then great. But becoming the GOP will only detract from our own legitimacy as it has from theirs–amongst people who think instead of gasp in fear.
And frankly, I don’t want the non-thinking fearful idiots on our side.
I should say I liked what you said. Both times. But I don’t think it is an over statement on grayson’s part.
First consider what his part is. It’s politics. You can’t just let people hit you on the nose and not hit back. Obama plays the good cop. Someone needs to once in a while play the bad cop. Not all Democrats need to play by the same rules and in the same roles. The Republicans got this down to an art form. They have their David Brooks and they have their Sarah Palins, etc… There’s a barking back bencher, and there’s the thoughtful front bencher. And many other roles to be played.
Republican’s are going to fictionally scare the public with a lie, then you need a guy like Grayson to remind that public that 45,000 real people, real American’s are dying, every day, and the Republican’s don’t care to the point that they don’t want to do anything about it. Put them on the defensive to make them explain how their position is compassionate to the American people.
That kind of thing has to go on in politics. The Democrats need to have a guy like Grayson on their team, lurking in the background, to keep the Republicans honest.
And for the record, I don’t think Republicans, I mean the ones that make the decisions about politics, give a rats ass about every day Americans. Bush used the lives of American soldiers as hostages held in Iraq to get just about everything he wanted out of congress.
The Democrats lose political battles not because they are weeklings, but because they care too much about the real people, or at least care more than Republicans do.
Anyone who’s been through a couple of failed relationships will tell you, the person that cares the least controls the relationship. That’s the source of the Republicans power: they really don’t care that much. Bin Laden acting with the support of the Government of Afghanistan, at the time, killed 3,000 Americans, and Bush undermined the war their to go attack Iraq. Why? He didn’t care that Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans. He had a complete other agenda.
I believe these kinds of Republicans would rather American’s die quickly rather than threaten the profits of the health insurance companies. That’s in the proximity of Grayson’s statement. Let the Republican’s defend there position.
Yes, it helps to have the truth on your side. That’s what lead me to where I am. But, we aren’t going to win the battle on truth alone. If that were true, Bush would never have become President. You also have to fight, and show a willingness to fight. People get inspired by that. It’s great to have the thoughful front bencher in Obama. Greater still if we have that plus a fighting, barking, jabbing, punch-in-the-mouth if he deserves it back bencher to keep the debate in the front row.
Well said, Tim Kane. I agree with you completely.
An interesting take on this from Matt Yglesias:
Luis,
You’re right…Grayson is being a jerk. But he planned his actions. Joe Wilson apparently spontaneously reacted to the President’s statement, apologized quickly, and was censured. And the day after the speech the health bill was changed to partially ensure illegal aliens were not covered by the bill. And, of course, everyone seems to have forgotten Democrats, including a Senator Obama, booing President Bush during his both his 2005 and 2006 State of the Union addresses–because he tried to fix Social Security.
Are the majority of Republicans also jerks (and racist) for disagreeing with a health reform “plan” that costs billions, copies other (Medicare) unaffordable government programs, doesn’t address tort reform, doesn’t allow health insurance across state lines, doesn’t cut some of the mandatory “nice to have” coverages, and doesn’t de-link health care from employment.
And, I agree with Tim…it’s good to have someone get the issues out in front of the public–as Sarah Palin did with the death squads comment. Was it over the top…perhaps, but it was no worse than some of the archival footage of Ted Kennedy fighting for what he believed in…that was lauded by the press. And, as I recall, Palin’s comments also led to changes in a version of the health care bill, in which end of life counseling was eliminated.
However, I do disagree with the statement that conservatives don’t care. They just disagree that more government is the best answer to all our problems, that more bureaucracy is the answer, that spending 100 billion a year for the next decade to provide insurance (health care is already available) to the 10-20 million who can’t afford and don’t have insurance (the rest of the 47 million without insurance are healthy 20-30 somethings who choose not to buy insurance, illegal aliens, rich folk who self insure.) We should make health insurance more available, less regulated, and let the ultimate consumer of the health care be more responsible for how much coverage they get, and how much they pay for it.
Mark
Mark, et al.:
Germain quotes:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” – John Kenneth Galbraith
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Second Inaugural Address.
“Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes.
“It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary [or his campaign war chest} depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair
“I am an old Campaigner, and I love a good fight.” – Frankline Delano Roosevelt, 1940 campaign speech.
“If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote Democrat.” – Harry S. Truman, Campaign Speech, 1948.
Mark:
Not really. Also in Obama’s speech, there were various disapproving noises from the Republican side, and that is nothing new. It’s pushing the line, but not crossing it. Wilson, on the other hand, vaulted clear over the line and then some. No president has ever been heckled in a joint session of Congress before. Huge difference in protocol.
First, to address the racism call: that is based upon not simple opposition to health care reform, but rather an overall opposition to everything Obama says and does, plus the polling data which shows that this is primarily a Southern concern, and with the Appalachian effect and many people being upfront in that region about race being an issue… and the fact that this same crowd has been focusing especially on African-American members of the administration, along with, well, a dozen other points–it all comes together to suggest that racism is a big part of current opposition to Obama.
To say that they are being called racist because they oppose certain policy points is more unfair an accusation that Grayson himself put forth.
Let’s be honest, that’s not the real reason for the opposition, or else we’d have had a compromise bill out weeks ago. Obama can reason and compromise and come to an agreement over stuff like that, easy. But that’s not the reason why most of those on the right are opposing him. Let’s not pretend different.
Yes–bad changes. The provision was actually one authored by a Republican, and it was a provision to allow seniors, if they so chose, to get reimbursed for counseling to prepare for end-of-life issues, such as preparing a living will. It was a great provision, totally optional, and would have helped a great many people prepare for the worst in ways that would greatly alleviate suffering by themselves and their families. And Palin killed it by completely distorting it.
That is not a plus point in this issue.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Obama’s plan, the public option and all, would save consumers truckloads of money. You fall prey to the effect I mentioned earlier: that Americans now would rather pay a $10 fee than a $5 tax. What extra we spend on social insurance would be more than made up for by how much we would save not paying for private insurance. Everything bad they say about social insurance is true about private insurance, and then some.
Bureaucracy? Try the regiments of private insurance company lawyers. They stand between you and your doctor far more than would any bureaucrat. Spending? Try a single-digit operating cost for government-run insurance as opposed to double-digit profit margins for private insurance, above and beyond their own operating costs.
If health care reform passes with a public option, your will be able to get insurance with a pre-existing condition, you will not be dropped when you get sick or lose your job, you will pay lower premiums and have far more options than you have today.
What you describe is just another scare story intended to make people believe that government-run insurance is somehow worse than private insurance. That just ain’t so. Ask the majority of people on Medicare if they would like to lose that insurance, and instead pay a lot more for private insurance.
Tim:
I am going to use some of those. Hard to remember the last time I saw so much truth packed into so few words.
@Luis
and that is nothing new. It’s pushing the line, but not crossing it. Wilson, on the other hand, vaulted clear over the line and then some
If our conservative friend here had any grasp of history he’d know that booing is common in parliamentary systems. Yelling “You Lie!”, not so much.
it all comes together to suggest that racism is a big part of current opposition to Obama.
The racism IMO isn’t directed at Obama personally but is more a form of classism. “Community Organizer” translates into “Nigger Organizer” in the typical reptillian brain of the now-Republican South. Fear of Teh Mexicans is also behind the care for aliens thing. If we wanted to solve the undocumented alien problem we would start throwing employers in jail.
You fall prey to the effect I mentioned earlier: that Americans now would rather pay a $10 fee than a $5 tax. What extra we spend on social insurance would be more than made up for by how much we would save not paying for private insurance. Everything bad they say about social insurance is true about private insurance, and then some.
Good points, Luis. What Mark’s ideology fails to allow is that private citizens historically suck at economics and optimal behavior as an economic agent. Most of us by nature cut corners on retirement savings and insurance. This was the need solved by Social Security in the 1930s. There are also various market failures associated with medical care for seniors, hence Medicare of the 1960s.
Some people just don’t think that we Americans can have good government. I don’t understand these people. Well, maybe I can, since good government is mildly redistributive (ie not pay-for-play) and if you’ve got yours in the present status quo that’s the last thing you’d want.
Government mandate — basically forced enrollment — is profoundly anti-libertarian yet also really, really good public policy, right in-line with the General Welfare clause of the constitution. With mandates should come assistance for those who can’t afford to pay, but the overall effect of a strong mandated program — public single-payer or the private mish-mash we have now — will be to put the long-run fiscal health of the individual in balance, much as the Social Security does for retirement benefits. Which reminds me, with the stock market at 1998 levels still it’s a damn good thing that the Democrats blocked the idiot Republican attempt to destroy the program.