Why Don't They Like Us?
Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican Party has provoked another round of navel-gazing from Republicans about why people are fleeing the Republican Party and what Republicans need to do to turn things around. Former Republican Congressman Tom Davis, for instance, wrote today that the problem is too many ideological litmus tests:
Guess what, they're all wrong. As much as I wish that the problem with the GOP was its positions on the major issues of the day, that's not the problem. As dead wrong as the Republicans are about so many major issues, their basic pitch is one that could easily find majority support under the right conditions. The GOP's problem is twofold. First, we just concluded a period of history in which the GOP ran everything. And they did it really badly. They were corrupt and incompetent. They led us into an unnecessary and costly war; they got themselves embroiled in an endless string of scandals; and they presided over an epic economic collapse. People remember all those things very vividly and it has badly damaged the Republican brand.
But that's only half of the GOP's problem. The reason the Republican Party continues to bleed members has much more to do with the general attitude of the party's political and intellectual leaders than anything else. Rather than admit to any mistakes or take even the slightest bit of responsibility for the state of the country, they insist on blaming everyone but themselves. Rather than working with a popular new President, they insist on opposing his every move, attacking him relentlessly, and blaming him for problems that even the most clueless voters know aren't his fault. People may not follow the ins and outs of policy debates, but they can tell when one side is being unreasonable. They watch TV and they see a very intelligent, charismatic President who says a lot of very reasonable sounding things and exudes competence. And then they see a bunch of angry conservatives and Republicans who insist that that same man is some sort of evil communist who's going to destroy the country.
In other words, the problem is not the ideas, but the attitude. Republicans are coming across as a bunch of obnoxious, unreasonable a-holes. When you've just been voted out of power for manifest incompetence and your opponents are led by a very popular and reasonable-sounding person, you don't have the luxury of acting smug and uncompromising all the time. You have to acknowledge error and show some humility. You have to act civilly. You have to at least try to appear pragmatic and reasonable. But the GOP is not interested in doing any of these things. Those who are left in the party are ultra-partisan and utterly convinced of their own infallibility and moral righteousness. Until they lose that attitude and general combativeness, it won't matter what their ideas are. They'll just keep turning people off.
To end this cycle Republicans must do two things. First, we must focus on the broad principles that made our party strong: limited government, free trade, free markets and a strong defense. That's it. Believe anything else you want, but don't make those beliefs a litmus test for admission. Litmus tests are fine for a private club, but they're no formula for a successful political coalition.Olympia Snowe echoed this sentiment:
[W]e should, as President Reagan urged, "emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only 'litmus tests' of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty." We must heed these words to rebuild our party.Ramesh Ponnuru takes issue with this diagnosis, pointing out that it was the war in Iraq and the economy that really cost the GOP in 2006 and 2008, not their position on social issues.
Guess what, they're all wrong. As much as I wish that the problem with the GOP was its positions on the major issues of the day, that's not the problem. As dead wrong as the Republicans are about so many major issues, their basic pitch is one that could easily find majority support under the right conditions. The GOP's problem is twofold. First, we just concluded a period of history in which the GOP ran everything. And they did it really badly. They were corrupt and incompetent. They led us into an unnecessary and costly war; they got themselves embroiled in an endless string of scandals; and they presided over an epic economic collapse. People remember all those things very vividly and it has badly damaged the Republican brand.
But that's only half of the GOP's problem. The reason the Republican Party continues to bleed members has much more to do with the general attitude of the party's political and intellectual leaders than anything else. Rather than admit to any mistakes or take even the slightest bit of responsibility for the state of the country, they insist on blaming everyone but themselves. Rather than working with a popular new President, they insist on opposing his every move, attacking him relentlessly, and blaming him for problems that even the most clueless voters know aren't his fault. People may not follow the ins and outs of policy debates, but they can tell when one side is being unreasonable. They watch TV and they see a very intelligent, charismatic President who says a lot of very reasonable sounding things and exudes competence. And then they see a bunch of angry conservatives and Republicans who insist that that same man is some sort of evil communist who's going to destroy the country.
In other words, the problem is not the ideas, but the attitude. Republicans are coming across as a bunch of obnoxious, unreasonable a-holes. When you've just been voted out of power for manifest incompetence and your opponents are led by a very popular and reasonable-sounding person, you don't have the luxury of acting smug and uncompromising all the time. You have to acknowledge error and show some humility. You have to act civilly. You have to at least try to appear pragmatic and reasonable. But the GOP is not interested in doing any of these things. Those who are left in the party are ultra-partisan and utterly convinced of their own infallibility and moral righteousness. Until they lose that attitude and general combativeness, it won't matter what their ideas are. They'll just keep turning people off.
posted by A.L. at 10:55 PM
41 Comments:
While I agree with A.L.'s general observations, I think one key problem for Republicans is that their policy mix is completely inadequate.
1) Unfettered market capitalism has failed. I'd add Free Trade to that since it's weakened labor significantly in this country. Tom Davis is big on "free markets" which will be a difficult, if not impossible sale.
2) Tom Davis again. He's for "limited government" but here's the problem. In the past, like 100 years ago, health care was simple and inexpensive. As such, it could be part of the marketplace as a nominally-priced consumer good. But over time health care became more complex and much more expensive. But health care is in reality not a consumer good, in the sense that the person "wants" to have operations and pay for same. What patients end up needing is a result of (bad) luck and the doctor's advice. There is little choice involved (w/ the exception of smoking and alcohol consumption). There is no shopping around, like for a television, when the transaction can be delayed or comparison-shopped, since information is hard to come by and to process. So, until health care becomes cheaper and ubiquitous (say with nanotechnology) it's preferable to take it out of the marketplace and move it under government supervision. But Republicans don't like that since it means a growth in government. How Republicans can campaign on smaller government when there's a growing perception that government management - essentially a monopoly - of health care will better manage the risk-pool and eliminate (insurance) middle-men, remains to be seen.
Quiddity, the thing is that past Republicans (even 'conservative' Republicans) attacked issues with a view to solving problems. They believed such activity should be measured, to be certain it was effective and efficient, but they believed in government activism, even if the most conservative Republicans added the tag 'when absolutely necessary.'
Now, the GOP attitude is completely different. Fiscal conservatism and pro-business economic activism has been replaced by a philosophy that business will solve all problems if government just gets out of its way. Today's Republicans are not 'conservatives' concerned for the status quo, but utopians looking to radically change the nation's economic and social structure. Like most utopians, they only recognize those who are with them and their enemies.
A.L.:
The reason the Republican Party continues to bleed members has much more to do with the general attitude of the party's political and intellectual leaders than anything else. Rather than admit to any mistakes or take even the slightest bit of responsibility for the state of the country, they insist on blaming everyone but themselves.This is the most factual set of statements of the post. The next two statements are nearly as factual:
People may not follow the ins and outs of policy debates, but they can tell when one side is being unreasonable. They watch TV and they see a very intelligent, charismatic President who says a lot of very reasonable sounding things and exudes competence.Just about true. The problem is that the very intelligent, charismatic President is lying through his teeth, just as he has his entire political career.
Competence? From the Obama administration? I've seen almost nothing competent coming from him or his administration. The reason he sounds so reasonable is a lapdog press that refuses to ask him any questions or hold Obama's feet to the fire on how he has hugely worsened the chance for the economy to recover. Having tax cheat Timmy, one of those who was supposed to be overseeing the banking system in his previous job (and didn't), run Treasury isn't exactly the sign of someone who is reasonable or competent.
But I wouldn't expect the left to hold Obama to any acceptable standard. The Democrats have been fervently more corrupt and incompetent, but the left has made a competent effort to bury that information. Last night's Obama-worshiping "press conference" is continuing proof of that.
Quiddity:
Unfettered market capitalism has failed.When in the last 100 years has unfettered market capitalism actually been in place in this country? That died decades ago.
In the past, like 100 years ago, health care was simple and inexpensive...But over time health care became more complex and much more expensive.As is always true with the left, they only explain half the story. The reason health care became more expensive is expanded government regulation (which is often unreasonable, but not always) of the health care industry and the health insurance industry (at all levels of government). The idea that health care is actually a part of the free market is a fabrication constantly perpetuated by the left. And the lapdog press continues telling the American people this fabrication.
AL-
Why are you cursed with such a disproportionate number of really stupid trolls?
SteveIL must have moved to Arkansas. Seems appropriate. Usual conspiracy theory Liberal Media crap? Too much regulation made health care costs go up? Media refuses to ask tough question? Compared to what? Bush ?? Who's administration had given special access to a fake reporter / male hooker to ask softball questions?
SteveAR is exactly the kind of Republican A.L. is talking about, and why they are rapidly turning into a minor player at best - but more likely a fringe cult from the South, missing only the white pointy hats.
I agree with just about all of it, but this part jumped out at me:
They watch TV and they see a very intelligent, charismatic President who says a lot of very reasonable sounding things and exudes competence. And then they see a bunch of angry conservatives and Republicans who insist that that same man is some sort of evil communist who's going to destroy the country.I think it's even more basic than that: they see a very intelligent, charismatic President who says a lot of very reasonable sounding things and exudes competence. And then they see a bunch of angry conservatives and Republicans who insist that same man cannot speak without a teleprompter.
It is so patently ridiculous that anyone pushing it is instantly branded as ridiculous. And that's just one example of how they've attempted to attack him over the past three months. That, and that sort of tactic, is why the GOP is not being taken serious by anyone but the hardest of hardcore supporters...and, of course the press.
The Republican Party is the new Terry Schiavo.
Dead-on analysis from John Cole @ Balloon-juice.com:
The only people left in the Republican party are crazier than an outhouse rat and have teabags hanging from their hunting cap. They are the people who feverishly emailed each other stories about Obama’s birth certificate, and who are convinced that joking about Obama’s teleprompter and making impassioned speeches about earmark reform are the only route to electoral recovery. They think Michelle Bachman is on to something and the Colbert Report is truth.
Luke:
SteveIL must have moved to Arkansas. Seems appropriate.
Yes I did. Just so you know, 3 of Arkansas's 4 Congressman are Democrats, as are both U.S. Senators, the governor, and the majority of the state legislature. They just don't seem to be as whacko as the leftists running Illinois, or the leftists in the White House and Congress.
Who's administration had given special access to a fake reporter / male hooker to ask softball questions?
As opposed to the "tough" question about Obama being "enchanted" from that pathetic and neutered New York Times "reporter"? I mean, was that really a man asking that question?
...but more likely a fringe cult from the South, missing only the white pointy hats.
Hmmm, the only Southern white pointy-hat type in Congress is Democrat Robert Byrd. Plus, it's rednecks and racists that keep re-electing Democrat John Murtha. It's amazing how the left keeps attributing their racism on everyone else.
SteveAR said:
The reason health care became more expensive is expanded government regulation (which is often unreasonable, but not always) of the health care industry and the health insurance industry (at all levels of government). The idea that health care is actually a part of the free market is a fabrication constantly perpetuated by the left. And the lapdog press continues telling the American people this fabrication.The main reason health care got more expensive is because health care is cheap when you don’t have the technology or drugs to treat someone and all you can do is watch the patient die.
I’ve never heard anyone on the left claim that health care is part of the free market. That’s a right-wing argument, usually with the caveat that all we need to make it a little more competitive by giving consumers more choices.
My left wing argument is that health care is already controlled by a small group of very powerful organizations, namely the insurance companies, the drug companies, and to a lesser extent the doctors, and that it would be better to put it under the control of the government, where you have the possibility that treatment of patients will have a higher priority than profits.
It's amazing that Republicans have any remaining adherents at all. Their fanatical religious base has put them on the unpopular, wrong side of all important social issues. They engage in unilateral unjustified war based on lies. They torture and try to cover it up. They completely mismanage the economy by failing to regulate dangerous new finmancial instruments. They are generally incompetent at running a goverment, perhaps because they think government is a problem and hence do everything they can to cripple important agencies. As a result they can't even handle a hurricane disaster. They do indeed come across as nasty, mean-spirited, bigoted, obstructive, dishonest, deceptive, corrupt, self-dealing hypocrites.
What is so beautiful, however, is they lack the ability to see themselves as others see them, and hence are doomed to remain perplexed and increasingly irrelevant and abandoned. All they can do is scream, lie, distort, call names, and attempt to deceive. Americans finally see them for what they are - a retrograde party suffering from a mass psychosis, and so wedded to faith-based reasoning that they have become unregenrative.
SteveIL - I actually agree with some of your isolated facts, except that you seem utterly incapable of putting anything into context. I also thought the question was lame (nothing compared to the idiocy that Bush got and gave). I thought Obama's answer was pretty good, considering. He tried, he considered it, gave a coherent and thoughtful response. Compared to Mr. Swagger it was pure oratory.
BTW, trying to make an equivalence between that reporter and Gannon AKA Guckert AKA "Bulldog" is pretty feeble, Steve.
There are Good and Bad People everywhere. But you're doing that context thing again. Sure, Murtha - in particular - is a awful; he acts like a Republican after all. Most Democrats don't like him (except in the South - big surprise) and don't know why he doesn't just switch parties. How is he sweeping example of "Democrats"?
A.L.:
Republicans are coming across as a bunch of obnoxious, unreasonable a-holes. When you've just been voted out of power for manifest incompetence and your opponents are led by a very popular and reasonable-sounding person, you don't have the luxury of acting smug and uncompromising all the time.
Yet, that is exactly how the Democrats, and those on the left, have acted since 2000. Did they try to be more reasonable? No. Did they put forth any legitimate arguments on anything? No. They acted like obnoxious, unreasonable a-holes for 8 years, acting smug and uncompromising for most of that time, and were for the most part very uncivil. And it got them Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. There is no way I would take any "advice" from the left on how to win elections.
Hank Gillette:
I’ve never heard anyone on the left claim that health care is part of the free market.
They say it all the time, even though it isn't true (half of the country's health care is already government controlled). What the left wants is to get health care completely out of the free market.
...that it would be better to put it under the control of the government, where you have the possibility that treatment of patients will have a higher priority than profits.
Uh-huh. All it will do is lead to health care rationing. The possibility you think would happen won't, and it's been proven not to everywhere government controls health care. All it has led to is people living in pain for longer and longer periods, or people dying unnecessarily.
I have a better idea. Make all lawyers, especially litigators, government employees (at the various levels of government). Pay them all a set salary without any chance of earning a "fee" (bonus) when they win lawsuits. Not only will that make legal care, which is actually in the Constitution (the 6th Amendment), cheaper, but will make health care cheaper.
Luke:
Sure, Murtha - in particular - is a awful; he acts like a Republican after all. Most Democrats don't like him (except in the South - big surprise) and don't know why he doesn't just switch parties. How is he sweeping example of "Democrats"?
I doubt any in the South actually like him considering how he traiterously and falsely charged fellow Marines of cold-blooded murder. But Murtha is like that other face of the Democratic Party, Rod Blagojevich; they are the same, except that Murtha is still in office.
OT
Chrysler is going bankrupt (Chapter 11 restructuring). Obama's attempt to "fix" it failed. Miserably. It was incompetent of the Obama administration to follow the Bush administration's lead in trying to bail them out.
Steve, you do realize that the current US health care system already has rationing, don't you? If you are a millionaire, you get any medical service you need. If you are poor, you are denied many procedures straight off if it is determined that you can't make the co-pay. If you happen to have any condition determined to be "pre-existing", the insurance company is perfectly free to deny you any policy. If you're unemployed and can't afford the COBRA, you get no health care (unless you run to the emergency room, racking up costs to the hospitals that they have to make up by raising their rates on everyone else).
But, of course, in the demented minds of sloganeering GOP fucktards like yourself, Steve-O, a person's societal worth is based exclusively on their wealth.
You see, Steve, your posts are actually PROVING A.L.'s inherent point. Republicans had almost complete control for nearly a decade, and have nothing to show for it. Yet, instead of being chastened by their failures, Republicans are sneering and whining that dumb Americans just won't acknowledge their infallible greatness. If you factor in the rising lack of empathy from GOP leadership, such as calling people who lose their homes "losers" (hello Santelli), the baffling embrace of torture as acceptable policy, and the combination of warmongering and religious chest beating, it's no wonder that the middle is fleeing in droves.
Seriously, Steve, how can you win national elections with a singular voting bloc of white Southern Protestants?
Anonymous (12:05pm):
You give the game away in the first paragraph:
...(unless you run to the emergency room, racking up costs to the hospitals that they have to make up by raising their rates on everyone else).
That was caused by government, especially those on the left. The solution, then, according to the left, is to make things worse?
If you are a millionaire, you get any medical service you need. If you are poor, you are denied many procedures straight off if it is determined that you can't make the co-pay.
It's the same with the constitutionally-defined legal system, yet lawyers, especially on the left, never seem to want to fix that, do they? Notice how the politicians in the various levels of government are mostly made up of lawyers. It's no wonder legal care never gets reformed, except when the "reform" helps lawyers get wealthier.
The GOP is a mess, and I don't deny that. But the problem is that the leadership have become Democrats in all but name, and are trying to compete with Democrats on their level. Democrats didn't do that when they were out of power, simply whining and complaining for the last eight years, helped by a compliant media (last night's "enchanted press conference" was an apt example of that). Obviously, it works.
...the baffling embrace of torture as acceptable policy, and the combination of warmongering and religious chest beating, it's no wonder that the middle is fleeing in droves.
Spare me on the torture meme, the one that was embraced by Democrats as well (and any that said they didn't is lying). Warmongering? Who started all of this? Maybe Al Qaeda? Religious chest beating? Which religion? All I've seen is the supposedly Catholic Pelosi and Biden try to dictate the policies of the Church, only to get vehemently smacked down because Pelosi and Biden were, per usual, lying about Church policy. And when the middle has to pay for all of Obama's mistakes, they will make their voices heard.
Seriously, Steve, how can you win national elections with a singular voting bloc of white Southern Protestants?
What is it about the left constantly introducing their racism and anti-religious bigotry into the mix?
"It's the same with the constitutionally-defined legal system, yet lawyers, especially on the left, never seem to want to fix that, do they? Notice how the politicians in the various levels of government are mostly made up of lawyers. It's no wonder legal care never gets reformed, except when the "reform" helps lawyers get wealthier."
This is actually not true. At least bare bones legal assistance is available to everyone through the office of the Public Defender and Legal Aid. Furthermore, if a lawyer believes a client has a valid civil case it is customary to charge a contingent fee (the client only pays if he wins) giving anyone with a valid case equal access.
Liberals have defended contingent fees against attacks by conservatives who repeatedly advocate 'tort reform' and throw invective about 'frivolous lawsuits.' The idea that banning contingent fees will somehow stop 'frivolous lawsuits' is somewhat inane, as no lawyer is going to accept a contingent fee unless the case is legitimate and he has a chance of being paid. Yet the practice is attacked by conservatives.
Legal aid should be expanded and public defenders better funded, certainly, and liberals have advocated both.
To claim otherwise is a lie.
Eclectic Radical:
This is actually not true. At least bare bones legal assistance is available to everyone through the office of the Public Defender and Legal Aid.
Yeah, we know how well that works. The innocent Rolando Cruz spent more than a decade on death row (I don't know if Cruz used a public defender, but I doubt he had the money for a good lawyer) while the brutal murderer John Gotti was able to evade conviction three times after he became boss of the Gambino Family until an intelligent judge finally ruled that Gotti's attorney, Bruce Cutler, could not represent the mafioso anymore (because Cutler was part of that syndicate). A wealthy crook like Gotti could afford a wealthy crooked lawyer like Cutler while Cruz rotted. I thought "liberals" were all for equal protection.
In addition, those people who can't afford health insurance can go to any emergency room for care, all on the taxpayers' dimes (thanks to the Supreme Court).
The idea that banning contingent fees will somehow stop 'frivolous lawsuits' is somewhat inane, as no lawyer is going to accept a contingent fee unless the case is legitimate and he has a chance of being paid.
Yet, frivolous lawsuits still go on all the time. Obviously, it isn't working. My way eliminates the financial incentive to file them.
Legal aid should be expanded and public defenders better funded, certainly, and liberals have advocated both.
My way makes all defenders public defenders. It also enforces equal protection. The Rolando Cruz's and John Gotti's would have the same legal care.
SteveIL/AR, you seem like a smart guy. Articulate, organized thinking, don't seem to be doing the usual blind copying/pasting from a Right-wing website (or if you are, you're a good enough writer to "say it in your own words"). I appreciate those skills. What I do NOT get is your willingness to pull conclusions right out of your ass. It's totally weird. Like, "What the left wants is to get health care completely out of the free market". You obviously have NO idea "what the left wants". You could consider actually *asking*, you know... Instead you just make it up then marshal your obvious intelligence to bash your mirage. What a waste of time and energy, and dumb. I mean, "the [GOP] leadership have become Democrats in all but name"?? Compared to what, the KKK?
And stuff like "..the left constantly introducing their racism and anti-religious bigotry into the mix.." - do you have any idea how hypocritical that reads? It's blatantly talking about yourself and pretending it's the Other Guy. Sorry, it's not. It's you.
Luke:
What I do NOT get is your willingness to pull conclusions right out of your ass. It's totally weird. Like, "What the left wants is to get health care completely out of the free market". You obviously have NO idea "what the left wants".
I think I've read enough of those on the left to understand what they want. Hank Gillette provides a good idea of it himself:
My left wing argument is that health care is already controlled by a small group of very powerful organizations, namely the insurance companies, the drug companies, and to a lesser extent the doctors, and that it would be better to put it under the control of the government, where you have the possibility that treatment of patients will have a higher priority than profits.
That's pretty typical of what I've seen come from the left.
As far as racism, the bigotry from the left, whether it has to do with race, religious affiliation, gender, or whatnot, is also pretty typical. Considering how the left treated Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Mitt Romney (while ignoring the Mormonism of Harry Reid), Sarah Palin (who is a genious compared to the utterly moronic plagiarist Biden), and others, and it is done en masse by the left, the only ones being hypocrites (and racists and sexists, and so on) are those on the left.
Steve, wasn't this the same Mitt Romney who actually had to give a speech during the primaries to Evangelicals that was pretty close to a public apology for being Mormon.
Sorry, Steve, but Republicans are the ones who demand a religious litmus test as a precondition for being the party leader.
As for poor Michael Steele, you should read up on what your own party says about the guy.
Steve, another case-in-point post, right on queue.
"I think I've read enough of those on the left to understand what they want. Hank Gillette provides a good idea of it himself:
'My left wing argument is that health care is already controlled by a small group of very powerful organizations, namely the insurance companies, the drug companies, and to a lesser extent the doctors, and that it would be better to put it under the control of the government, where you have the possibility that treatment of patients will have a higher priority than profits.'"
Which I agree with completely. It's nothing like your "What the left wants is to get health care completely out of the free market" which I do NOT agree with. You use hyperbole to create a straw man argument, an opponent that doesn't exist in the real world. If you actually cared about the discussion you'd try to understand the difference rather than just pull it out of your ass.
I don't know who your opponent here is, because it's not "the left" - what you describe and falsely paraphrase doesn't exist.
I liked your comments very much and agree with you wholeheartedly. I believe you are right on. Will see if anyone in the Republican party ever gets to the same results.
Reagan famously said that the government is the problem. Every Republican in power since has striven to fulfill that dictum.
Please stop feeding the trolls. It is a never-ending conversation. Neither of you is going to leave this site satisfied with the other's arguments. Just put it in a post and move on.
Moving on...
I have seen a lot of posts wondering what conservatives are up to with what liberals are describing as a lack of self-awareness, and I like Mahablog's description the best in saying the republicans need to get back to being shrewd again. Republicans got a lot of power in the past eight years with very little political effort. They stopped being effective politians and started focusing on being strong ideologues. They could afford to be puritans when everyone was scared into voting republican and the best the democrats could offer was John Kerry.
People like Boehner and Steele, who are simplistic 'soundbite' republicans were quite effective after 9/11; that's all it took for republicans to stay in power then and thus the soundbite republicans gained the most power. But that time is past, and it's time for the politicians in the republican party to take power back from the ideologues. Ideology is a luxury in politics; it is the luxury of the majority. Republicans are never going to win back power if the heavy hitters are Palin and Steele, unless they wait for the Dems to flame out, which of course is quite possible, and I think it's a shame for all the republicans out there who need better representation in congress yesterday and aren't getting it.
Luke:
Which I agree with completely. It's nothing like your "What the left wants is to get health care completely out of the free market" which I do NOT agree with.
You are trying to have the best of both worlds (Mr. Gillette's premise that the various health care industry companies should put a greater priority over patients than profits, and have the companies remain in the market), yet there is no logical way that can happen. You agree with Mr. Gillette's argument but then disagree with me when I say that the left wants health care out of the private (free) market.
These are businesses, and the first rule of business, and every economist and business person, whether from the left or the right, will agree, is to make a profit. Profit allows for expansion, profit allows for more hiring, profit allows for more and better research, profit allows for further investment. If a business doesn't make a profit, it doesn't stay in business. Although the left would say that profit is a four-letter word, it isn't. You may say that the left only wants to stop those who make excessive profits, but who is really to decide what are excessive profits? I say the market best determines that, and the market has a proven track record that it does a good job of it. If the federal government is to decide what are excessive profits, then it goes against everything the Founders wanted for this country, as well as many of the provisions of the 5th and 14th Amendments, especially the equal protection clause (government would prefer certain firms over others). Any attempt by the government to control profits is a violation of the Constitution (I know it has been done, but it wasn't right then, and it isn't right now).
Therefore, you can't agree with Mr. Gillette and say that you want the health care companies in the various industries to remain in the private market because the priorities conflict. Making the health consideration of patients for these companies should be a high priority, but it must take a backseat to making a profit or the companies don't stay in business.
Regarding health care one might look at Europe (Scandinavia, The Netherlands) where government is in control and not any "free market." You know that old fashioned and overestimated idea of actually using facts in a debate. Strangely enough the quality (as in availability to the general public) is equal if not better than that of health care in the US.
I find it odd that with all the communists around in these countries they still appear ordinary and reasonable democracies with millions of apparently happy citizens. But, of course, we know how radical these Europeans are with the Duth administrations spending billions of euros trying to prevent the country from "drowning," (Katrina anyone?) and no EU member advocating torturing bearded men with funny names.
Tsutsugamushi:
Regarding health care one might look at Europe (Scandinavia, The Netherlands) where government is in control and not any "free market." You know that old fashioned and overestimated idea of actually using facts in a debate. Strangely enough the quality (as in availability to the general public) is equal if not better than that of health care in the US.
I think it would be a great idea to use facts in a debate. The fact is that the health care in the countries mentioned don't come close to the highest quality health care provided in the U.S., despite the government's attempt to make it like those other countries; that is, worse.
Conservatives have placed faith in free market capitalism along side of and the equal to faith in God. Adam Smith's invisible hand is conflated with the hand of God. They think Free market laws are like laws of physics where, if just left alone, things will work out for the natural good order just as planets orbit the sun as God intended.
That's the core of why they can oppose everything Obama does and have it resonate with the two largest remaining groups in their party -- big business and the religious right.
Business is God's work, the hand of God (Smith) will guide them to the natural order untrammeled by man's crude manipulation.
Regulation and profit are hardly incompatible:
"The Scandinavian healthcare system and pharmaceutical market is well regulated, with the state bearing responsibility for a large proportion of an individual's pharmaceutical expenses. Solidarity and equality are the ideological basis of these welfare states, and a significant public commitment exists towards ensuring access to high quality health care for all citizens....
"These countries possess developed infrastructures, advanced technologies, R&D support and business friendly cultures....
"Well-developed biotech and life sciences clusters across the Scandinavian region enable world-class research and provide pools of well-educated personnel and versatile facilities to support start-up companies...."
Source:The Scandinavian Pharmaceutical Market Outlook to 2013: Policy environment, market structure, pipeline analysis, growth opportunities
Released April 2009.
http://www.reportlinker.com/p0115249/The-Scandinavian-Pharmaceutical-Market-Outlook-to-2013-Policy-environment-market-structure-pipeline-analysis-growth-opportunities.html
SteveAR:
By what metric do you measure the effectiveness of a health care system? Republicans seem to be generally in favor of measuring things so how do you measure the efficacy of our health care system. When compared with most other industrialized countries we don't live as long, have a higher infant mortality rate, don't stay health as long, and spend 2 times, yes 2 times, more per capita. What is your standard?
Steve K:
I think you're making what might come to be known as the Obama Mistake: to wit, acting as though the other guy is participating in good faith, despite evidence to the contrary.
SteveAR said:
You are trying to have the best of both worlds (Mr. Gillette's premise that the various health care industry companies should put a greater priority over patients than profits, and have the companies remain in the market), yet there is no logical way that can happen. You agree with Mr. Gillette's argument but then disagree with me when I say that the left wants health care out of the private (free) market.I don’t think health care companies should put patients over profits; I know they won’t do that. That’s why I want profit-making companies out of the business of making decisions about what medical treatment I get.
These are businesses, and the first rule of business, and every economist and business person, whether from the left or the right, will agree, is to make a profit. Profit allows for expansion, profit allows for more hiring, profit allows for more and better research, profit allows for further investment. If a business doesn't make a profit, it doesn't stay in business.That’s the way it is supposed to work, but it doesn’t in the health care field. Rather than finding efficiencies to save money, for-profit hospitals and insurers found it a lot easier simply to deny patient claims. You can’t really blame them for that, any more than you can blame a scorpion for stinging you. But you should be smarter than to pick up a scorpion with your bare hand.
In another post you say:
The fact is that the health care in the countries mentioned don't come close to the highest quality health care provided in the U.S.That is one of the most dishonest statements I’ve ever seen. It’s technically true, but completely misleading. It would be like saying “The fact is that housing in the United States doesn’t come close to the highest quality housing in Iraq.” But very few people have access to the highest quality health care in the U.S., any more than the vast majority of Iraqis were able to live in one of Saddam’s palaces.
To be fair to most of the Republicans left in Congress, they're probably mostly just playing to their constituencies. No amount of telling them they need to be more reasonable is going to work as long as they know that demagogueing is what's going to get them elected.
It's the Republicans running in more moderate districts who have to work on coming across as sane and reasonable.
We just have to accept the fact that we can't please everybody!..
Wow, lots of useless thorax-thumping in this thread. There is only one, clear, fact in the mix. The Republicans under GeorgeWCheney fouled up big time.
The Republicans fouled up, and they fouled up badly. They may have been aided and abetted in part by certain spineless weasels in the Democratic party, to a degree, but the facts are:
1) Mission Accomplished! Wrong!
2) No one could have anticipated a breach in the levees! Wrong!
3) Saddam has WMDs! Wrong!
4) Gays are evil! Wrong!
5) We must save Terry Schaivo! Wrong!
6) Rush Limbaugh speaks for us! Wrong!
7) Iraqis will great us as liberators! Wrong!
8) There is no global warming! Wrong!
9) CO2 is natural and therefore can't hurt you! Wrong!
10) Sarah Palin will lead us to victory! Wrong!
11) Barack Obama is unelectable. LOLz.
There are other examples.
"In other words, the problem is not the ideas, but the attitude." - A.L.
Unfortunately my friend, the problem is with the ideas.
The current crop of Republicans, having made Ronald Reagan a messiah, are busy taking whatever He said and did and pulling a Constantine on Him. In other words, take what Reagan said and use him and his Presidency to mean whatever you want it to mean.
And so, you end up with a bunch of relentless Brother John Bircher lackwits whose main (and repeated daily) talking points are (Communism/Socialism), immigration, guns, gays, god and the ends justify the means. Also of course their ideas on the sanctity of life, to wit, "We have to save every embryo but killing adults is ok by bombs and lethal injections and electric chairs." Also also their idea that global warming is some kind of conspiracy...
Their ideas are completely WRONG. It's a total cluster f__k.
Dana,
I think you miss my point. I only meant that their ideas are not the problem from a political perspective. I too think most of their ideas are wrong; I just think that under the right conditions, they could win with them. Most voters aren't policy wonks. They vote on based on rhetoric. From a political perspective, the Republicans primary problem right now is their attitude.
AL quoting a republican : "First, we must focus on the broad principles that made our party strong: limited government, free trade, free markets and a strong defense."
here's my problem..how does any of this relate/resonate to/with the "pocketbook voter?"
until they can quickly connect, say, "limited government" to a bigger paycheck they're cooked...
"Unfettered market capitalism has failed"
I see this has been addressed in the other comments, but this deserves more ridicule.
Do you actually believe that what we've seen over the past 8, 10, or 15 years is unfetterd market capitalism? And to that end, do you seriously think that President Bush was the steward of that?
Do yourself a favor and check the stats for the Federal Register. George Bush added reams of regulations to it in his 8 years of an ever growing government. This is one of the myths perpetuated by Bush-haters, and left-leaning Democrats---that the last 8 years was an orgy of free market capitalism run amok on its own power. This is absolutely wrong. Our economy is stifled by regulations.
Best Regards...
Dana,
It's looney liberal nuts jobs like you that make the democrat party look stupid. You put words into the mouth's of conservatives by saying "gays are bad, limbaugh speaks for us" and so on. But your hatred for Bush 43 and conservatives has clouded your perception of reality.
1. Saddam was a cruel dictator who would have (given the chance) used a WMD to hurt Americans. Not to mention he did murder an entire village of his own people. But i guess in your clouded reality that's not a weapon of mass destruction. Whether you believe it or not, the Iraq war would have happened. Maybe not for 5-10 years, but it would have came.
2. There are no facts proving that global warming exists. Sorry. Go ahead and trot out all kinds of studies saying it exists. While I can find just as many proving it doesn't.
3. Your fear of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh is laughable. If they are such non-factors why are liberals so obsessed with trying to bring them down? It's because liberals are afraid. They see a small town mom with good values and know that regular Americans can relate. Then look at their own politicians and see unrelatable elitists. The reason you fear Rush Limbaugh and Fox news is because they win the ratings battles everytime. Which makes libs jealous and envious their far left media is losing to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly. Libs claim Fox is so biased when Chris Matthews openly admits he will do whatever it takes to get Obama elected. Seriously, on the debate of the most biased news organization how can you libs call out Fox and then look yourself in the mirror?
4. Where are all the liberals who actually believed Obama when he said nobody making under $250k a year will see one penny of a tax increase? He raised the tobacco tax over 100%, and I'm pretty sure poor people smoke as well. In fact I read a survey that read 71% of people defined as "poor" smoke. But you ignorant liberals pick and choose what you want reported and what you want to believe. I can't wait to get on the blogs and call out more of you looney libs when Obama raises more taxes on everyday Americans making under $250k.
Dana really epitomizes the angry liberal of the 2000's. You hate Bush so much you don't know what to do with yourself. So you get on these blogs, make up some "facts" and play them off as the god forsaken truth. I feel really sorry for you Dana, hopefully your life will pick up soon.
The reason the GOP has been declining is that it drove out its thinkers. Pure and simple. All the other things since have been dominoes proceeding from that one. I left when they tried something as ravingly obviously unconstitutional as redefining "high crimes and misdemeanors" to suit their preference.
I don't like a lot of liberalism. I believe in all the amendments and that there are many things government could do that it should not have the power to, even things which are short-term goods. But given the deep loathsomeness of the extreme right, for me there just isn't any serious alternative to the Democratic party, at present, and it truly is the fault of conservatives that they played and play to their extremes instead of the center. If only there were a centrist party...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home