That pretty much sums it up
Joe Klein asks:
How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists? And another question: How can you maintain the illusion of journalistic impartiality when one of the political parties has jumped the shark?Indeed.
posted by A.L. at 9:52 PM
28 Comments:
I'm not holding my breath for "journalistic impartiality", although I'd be delighted to see it.
Furthermore, how can you maintain the illusion that you know what the hell you're talking about if you never skip an opportunity to set up a false equivalence?
Too bad such a great "money quote" had to be found in such a crappy column.
Had journalists been doing their job in the first place, one party would never have been ABLE to go off the deep end. It is feckless modern journalism that enabled the crazies in the Republican party to hijack it. Eisenhower would be shocked at the modern Republican party.
How can you have a functioning country when one of the two political parties does not believe in government and uses every opportunity to damage and disparage the very agencies needed to make it work?
How can you have a civil society when one of the two political parties engages in fear mongering, encourages its adherents to shout fellow citizens down at civic events, and says nothing when they start showing up with guns to intimidate fellow citizens?
How can you have intelligent debate when one of the two political parties deliberately perpetrates blatant lies, and incites fear and division on the basis of race, religion, and sexual orientation?
How can you have a country with religious freedom and toleration for all when one of the two political parties has been co-opted by fanatical fundamentalists who agitate against reason itself and work to impose their narrow constrictive beliefs on fellow citizens?
How can we have a prosperous, fair, and functioning economy when one of the two political parties believes in trickle down voodoo economics, opposes needed regulations and reforms, repeals protective legislation, and gives huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people while running record deficits and debt?
In short, how can we have a decent country when one of the two major political parties is toxic, intolerant, ignorant, anti-democratic, mean-spirited, theocratic, incompetent, and obstructive?
Welcome to 1994, Joe Klein.
"How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists?"
Don't vote for them.
Just clone Greg Palast a few times, that should do the trick.
I don't disagree with most of Klein's core argument, but his 'facts' are pretty bad and his article pretty sloppy. In a lot of his references to the history of the Republican Party, he meets Ann Coulter's standards of research and representation.
How can you have a functioning country when one of the two political parties does not believe in government and uses every opportunity to damage and disparage the very agencies needed to make it work?
Easy, in a country filled with idiots stupid enough to support such a party.
How can you have a civil society when one of the two political parties engages in fear mongering, encourages its adherents to shout fellow citizens down at civic events, and says nothing when they start showing up with guns to intimidate fellow citizens?
Easy, in a country filled with idiots that can't think for themselves.
How can you have intelligent debate when one of the two political parties deliberately perpetrates blatant lies, and incites fear and division on the basis of race, religion, and sexual orientation?
Easy, in a country filled with idiots stupid enough to believe the ridiculous assertions and lies put forth by said party.
How can you have a country with religious freedom and toleration for all when one of the two political parties has been co-opted by fanatical fundamentalists who agitate against reason itself and work to impose their narrow constrictive beliefs on fellow citizens?
Easy, in a country filled with deluded idiots that believe a magical sky fairy exists.
How can we have a prosperous, fair, and functioning economy when one of the two political parties believes in trickle down voodoo economics, opposes needed regulations and reforms, repeals protective legislation, and gives huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people while running record deficits and debt?
Easy, in a country filled with idiots that are stupid enough to vote for a potato for a president not once, but twice.
In short, how can we have a decent country when one of the two major political parties is toxic, intolerant, ignorant, anti-democratic, mean-spirited, theocratic, incompetent, and obstructive?
Easy, in a country filled with idiots who are just as toxic, intolerant, ignorant, anti-democratic, mean-spirited, theocratic, incompetent, and obstructive as said party.
Look on the bright side though, America is a rich source of entertainment for the rest of the civilized world.
Graves, I think we are kindred spirits :) Amen, brother.
Rich Lowry has an article at NRO entitled "How stupid do they think we are?" I guess he can come here to get the answer.
Seriously, though, I think that the Obama Administration has given this whole democracy thing a fair shake. Its been 8 months and it just isn't working out. I mean it would be fine if people would just accept that they are not nearly as smart as the president and that, while they may not understand how this health care reform plan can possibly work, its enough that he says it will. It would even be ok if they came to a town hall meeting and asked a polite question or two, though they are obviously too stupid to understand the answers. But really, this is just unacceptable.
Hopefully, Rahm Emmanuel will be soon be declaring that, given the emergency situation and all, we will need to suspend formalities like elections, free speech, etc. After all, now that we have a Platonic Guardian, are these things really necessary?
MLS,
Huh??? What are you talking about? What does Klein's question have to do with Obama? Seems to be directed at the media primarily. And what has the Obama administration done that even remotely suggests that it is planning to suspend "elections, free speech, etc." Quite the contrary, they seem determined to proceed as if the GOP is actually a good faith negotiating partner, despite all evidence to the contrary. They're still talking about bipartisanship. Obama is addressing even the most egregious lies as if they are valid criticisms, bending over backwards not to talk down to protesters. Do you watch the news?
Moreover, even those of us who are really exasperated with the shameless nihilism of the GOP (like Klein and myself) aren't suggesting suspending democracy or anything like that. We're just lamenting the sad state of our political discourse. Those are very different things.
Speaking of nihilism, you've been commenting here for a long time, and I still have no idea what you actually believe about anything. You seem to have a Mickey Kaus-like "I'm better than all of you" attitude about most things, as if you and you alone stand above the partisan fray and can see how equally foolish everyone is. It would be refreshing to actually hear what you think about a policy issue once in a while. What kind of health care reform would you support?
A.L.:
We're just lamenting the sad state of our political discourse.
I can understand that. But it doesn't help it when you come up with whoppers like this:
Quite the contrary, they seem determined to proceed as if the GOP is actually a good faith negotiating partner, despite all evidence to the contrary.
There is negotiating in the Senate, but when has the House under Pelosi actually engaged in any kind of good faith negotiations with the GOP? The House version of Porkulus was written exclusively by the Democrats, the House versions of H.R. 3200 were written by Democrats, and in both cases the GOP was shut out completely. House Democrats changed the rules just so they wouldn't have to do any negotiating.
They're still talking about bipartisanship.
That's all it is, talk. Inviting Republicans for cake and coffee in order to shove Porkulus down their throats is not bipartisanship.
Obama is addressing even the most egregious lies as if they are valid criticisms, bending over backwards not to talk down to protesters. Do you watch the news?
Do you? Obama doesn't talk down to the protesters, but all his minions in Congress are doing it for him, and Obama hasn't addressed this at all. Babs Boxer said they weren't real protesters because they wear Brooks Brothers clothes. Pelosi and Hoyer call these protesters un-American in an op-ed in USA TODAY. The only violent acts that have occurred at protests were started by paid SEIU thugs. And Obama's minions at MSNBC (it wasn't Olbermann, Maddow, or Matthews, but the "news" people) seem to be trying to incite a race war.
You and Klein should lament the crappy level of political discourse in this country because you are both contributing to it.
Yes, AL, I know that no one has proposed suspending democracy. Not even Rahm Emanuel. That was my little joke, though one with a point that I think you can figure out.
With regard to my views on health care reform, I would start with the following from Todd Zywicki’s article on the Forbes site yesterday: “Common sense tells us the government cannot simultaneously expand coverage and reduce costs. The government cannot dramatically inflate demand for health care services and eliminate market mechanisms for allocating them without devising some way of rationing supply and demand through political means. To suggest otherwise, as the White House has, is not just misleading but insulting.”
If one accepts Zywicki’s point, then one can proceed to have a realistic discussion of the tradeoffs involved in different kinds of reform proposals. I am inclined to think that we should have a health care safety net that covers everyone, so long as we make no pretense that this is going to provide more than the basic minimum of medical services. We then should do everything possible to encourage people not to use this safety net. Steps should include eliminating the tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines and reforming medical malpractice. These won’t create health care nirvana but they should help to wring some of the excess costs out of the system.
The one reform that we really have to make is reducing the cost of Medicare, because the program is running out of money. This will have to be done either by reducing care, requiring seniors to pay more for their own care, or some combination.
On the other hand, we can pretend that everybody can have Lexus healthcare at Hyundai prices, which is what Obama implicitly promises, and call the Republicans “nihilists” (still a step up from fascists) for refusing to go along with the charade.
Babs Boxer said they weren't real protesters because they wear Brooks Brothers clothes. Pelosi and Hoyer call these protesters un-American in an op-ed in USA TODAY. The only violent acts that have occurred at protests were started by paid SEIU thugs. And Obama's minions at MSNBC (it wasn't Olbermann, Maddow, or Matthews, but the "news" people) seem to be trying to incite a race war.
Steve, project much? Every complaint you have, the left has been putting up with for over 8 years. Personally, i'd prefer Pelosi didn't say that. I'd prefer Boxer didn't say that (nice elevation of the discourse with the Babs comment, by the way). I'd prefer MSNBC didn't exist. But after having FOX News call me an un-American elitist for 8 years, i'll embrace it.
I think if FOX News ceased to exist, liberals would turn off MSNBC. We think it's bad when both sides do it (kind of like torture, unlike you conservatives), but hey, if that's how you wanna play the game, then i guess that's how we'll need to play the game.
On the other hand, we can pretend that everybody can have Lexus healthcare at Hyundai prices,
Uhhhhh, no. We just want to put an end to paying Lexus prices for Hyundai health care.
MLS,
I appreciate the attempt at a substantive discussion. You raise some key points, though (with all due respect) I don't think either you or Zywicki are following the plot all that closely. The health care costs problem that everyone is talking about is not a government-related problem. Yes, Medicare costs are rising at a frightening pace, but no more so than health care costs generally. In short, the private market is doing a terrible job of controlling costs. Indeed, this is one of the primary rationales for creating a public insurance option. Every policy expert agrees that this would increase competition and force insurers (who often have near monopolies within many regions) to focus on containing costs. It is primarily the insurance industry (which fears such competition) that is against such an option.
Meanwhile, there are a number of other measures in the proposed legislation that really will help to control costs, both in the private and public sector. An individual mandate will increase the risk pool, thereby cutting per person costs. Various parts of the bill help control Medicare costs by encouraging more efficient practices, allowing the government to negotiate pharmaceutical costs under Medicare Part D, etc.
Finally, you are attributing to Obama and health care reform proponents positions they don't hold. No one is promising a free lunch here. Obama set aside billions of dollars in his budget projections to reflect the increased costs of his plan (which mainly come in the form of subsidies to help people buy insurance). The proposal also includes tax increases. No one is pretending that the cost control measures will offset the increased costs to the government, especially in the near term. The argument is that--while government may be taking on a bigger share of the costs--overall costs will go down (or rise less steeply).
There are serious, well-though-out measures in this bill designed to reduce the rise in health care costs across the board. The notion that the private sector is somehow better able to do this is just laughably absurd and contradicted by decades of empirical evidence. Health care is not like other "goods." The role of third party insurers, the role of doctors as expert intermediaries, the need (as opposed to desire) for most medical services, all of these things combine to create a situation where you will never get market-based price control. The only way you ever get reasonable price control is when government plays a major role. All you have to do is look around the world to see this. The most efficient systems in terms of bang-for-buck are the ones where the government plays the biggest role (the NHS, the VA system, etc.). Now, no one is proposing that sort of system here, but it's the reason the U.S. system is the least efficient and most expensive is because the government plays the least role.
What's most annoying to me is that opponents of this proposal single out the provisions (like the public option, end of life counseling) that will be the MOST helpful in reducing long term costs.
Steve, I'd be curious as to how you have come to the conclusion that MSNBC's Olbermann and Maddow are "trying to incite a race war"?
After all, it was famed non-liberal Pat Buchanan who caused jaws to drop when he shrieked to Rachel Maddow that "the US was 100% built by white men". The fact that not a SINGLE conservative pundit condemned his racism is very telling.
Come to think of it, not a single conservative pundit issued a denunciation of Glenn Beck's assertion that Obama "hated white culture". Everyone got hung up on Beck calling Obama a racist, but the phrase "white culture" was a chilling shoutout to the David Duke wing of the conservative movement. Remind me, Steve, which network does Glenn Beck work for again?
By the way, if one actually READS what Pelosi said about the town hall protester's tactics, you would be able to see that what she was calling "Un-American" was the tactic of drowning out real political debate and denying an opposing side their Constitutional Right to free speech. Then again, you dipshit conservatives thought that the DHS report about Neo-Nazi extremists in this country was somehow about conservatism.
AL- its not like I expected to change your mind, but let me briefly respond.
You say that because Medicare costs are rising no faster than those of the private sector, the government can’t be held responsible for health care costs. But if Medicare isn’t able to control costs, why would you assume that more government involvement in the rest of the health care system will control costs?
I agree that the insurance companies haven’t done a good job in controlling costs either (although some argue that they have done better than Medicare), but it isn’t exactly correct to say that this reflects decades of experience. During the 1990s the HMOs did hold down costs, which is why everyone hates HMOs. Of course, this points up an inherent contradiction in the criticism of insurance companies—they are attacked both for failing to control costs and for doing anything that would hold them down.
It seems to me that the major cost drivers in health care are (1) new treatments and technology (which we probably don’t want to stop); (2) the third party payment system (in which patients have no incentive to seek the most cost effective care) and (3) defensive medicine driven by fear of tort liability. As far as I can tell, Obamacare does not address either (2) or (3).
With all due respect, your statement that adding more people to the ranks of the insured will reduce costs doesn’t make any sense. It certainly won’t reduce either the cost to society or the cost to the government. At most, it might tend to reduce insurance premiums, but only if you assume that we are going to force young, healthy people to pay premiums that significantly exceed the average expected cost of their medical needs. On the flip side, we will also be forcing insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, which will cause premiums to rise.
Finally, I note your suggestion that end of life counseling is designed as a cost reduction measure. My impression is that the administration has been adamantly denying that it is intended to have anything to do with reducing costs, while Palin and other critics have been claiming that it does. I am somewhat surprised to find you on Palin’s side of that argument.
But if Medicare isn’t able to control costs, why would you assume that more government involvement in the rest of the health care system will control costs?
First, it's not as if Medicare is the only possible model for government involvement in health care. Medicare's fee-for-service model leaves a lot to be desired and could be improved in innumerable ways. My point was only that government is doing no worse at this than the private sector. Second, the mechanism by which a public option would drive down costs is entirely different than how Medicare works. Medicare doesn't really compete with the private market for the simple reason that private insurers want nothing to do with old people (who are not profitable to insure). But public/private competition absolutely will occur if a public option is passed and it will drive down costs.
It seems to me that the major cost drivers in health care are (1) new treatments and technology (which we probably don’t want to stop); (2) the third party payment system (in which patients have no incentive to seek the most cost effective care) and (3) defensive medicine driven by fear of tort liability.
You're right with respect to (1) and (2). But while I support tort reform, (3) is really not a major factor. There are tons of studies on this. It's probably also worth noting that (2) is inherent in the nature of medicine and despite libertarian delusions to the contrary, it will never go away. There will always need to be a third party payer (whether public or private). Moreover, there is another layer: the doctor. Most patients are not doctors themselves. They lack the expertise to be able to evaluate quality of care or need for care. They just get the treatment they are told to get. Twill always be thus. Health care (with the exception of elective procedures) will never be like other goods. The normal market forces will never be an effective constraint on rising costs. Indeed, market forces have been shown to drive prices up.
With all due respect, your statement that adding more people to the ranks of the insured will reduce costs doesn’t make any sense. It certainly won’t reduce either the cost to society or the cost to the government.
You're just completely wrong here. There is all sorts of policy literature on this. Mandating insurance (as we do with auto and home insurance) WILL reduce premiums by adding people to the risk pool and curbing the free-rider problem. And there's also literature suggesting that preventing insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions will motivate them to focus on more constructive profit-seeking behavior (as opposed to wasting billions of dollars trying to cherry pick customers and deny coverage). The overhead that will be saved by making this sort of behavior pointless will be significant. Moreover, this is the single most unjust feature of our system; one that keeps people at jobs they don't like, disincentivizes entrepeneurism, and causes people to go bankrupt. It needs to be changed.
Finally, I note your suggestion that end of life counseling is designed as a cost reduction measure. My impression is that the administration has been adamantly denying that it is intended to have anything to do with reducing costs, while Palin and other critics have been claiming that it does. I am somewhat surprised to find you on Palin’s side of that argument.
Palin doesn't have a side of this argument. She's having a conversation with herself in a parallel universe. In this universe, billions of dollars are wasted every year on exorbitantly expensive end-of-life care that most people don't want. If you allow people to talk to their doctors about such things and (if they want) execute living wills and advance directives, most people make clear that they don't want this kind of futile care. Money is saved and people's wishes are better complied with. It's a no brainer.
"those of us who are really exasperated with the shameless nihilism of the GOP (like Klein and myself)..."
AL - While it's always heartening to see Joe Klein flirt with rationality, I'd be wary of using the phrase "like Klein and myself", particularly after his latest hilarious meltdown ("Glenn Greenwald is CRAZY! He's a civil liberties absolutist!"). Klein had his perennial false-equivalence meme utterly dismantled by Aimai (of No More Mr Nice Blog), in person, at a recent seaside barbecue. In a heated discussion of journalistic integrity with Aimai (grand-daughter of I.F. Stone) Klein's rapid descent into ad hominem incoherence and denial of his own record, is both jaw-dropping and all-too-familiar. Link to the full story at Hullabaloo - "Glenn Greenwald is Crazy!"
On cost control: the industrialized nations who have national health care have universal coverage, comparable or better quality health care and spend 6% of their GDP to get it..We are approaching 20% of GDP to pay for lower quality and less coverage. How 'bout we do what they do?
Newton:
Steve, I'd be curious as to how you have come to the conclusion that MSNBC's Olbermann and Maddow are "trying to incite a race war"?
I didn't come to that conclusion. It was the MSNBC "news" people who seem to be trying to incite a race war, not these two (or Matthews).
After all, it was famed non-liberal Pat Buchanan who caused jaws to drop when he shrieked to Rachel Maddow that "the US was 100% built by white men". The fact that not a SINGLE conservative pundit condemned his racism is very telling.
Probably because conservative pundits don't watch Maddow's show.
One other thing: Buchanan is still in the dog house of most conservatives (including me) for his recent book that was unfairly critical of Churchill. Add that there are many conservatives who see in Buchanan a latent anti-Semitism, and he is often criticized for that.
Come to think of it, not a single conservative pundit issued a denunciation of Glenn Beck's assertion that Obama "hated white culture".
I agree with Beck. When has Obama, who spent 20 years being preached to by a pathetic racist the President called his spiritual mentor, ever shown anything but contempt for the cultures that Europeans brought to this country?
By the way, if one actually READS what Pelosi said about the town hall protester's tactics, you would be able to see that what she was calling "Un-American" was the tactic of drowning out real political debate and denying an opposing side their Constitutional Right to free speech.
She didn't have a problem with such tactics by those who support her positions, even at her own town hall meeting, to shut out debate on funding the war Iraq. It seems apparent that Pelosi's "concern" for the Constitutional right to free speech is somewhat selective and entirely hypocritical.
mls said:
With regard to my views on health care reform, I would start with the following from Todd Zywicki’s article on the Forbes site yesterday: “Common sense tells us the government cannot simultaneously expand coverage and reduce costs.”
In that case, Zywicki’s common sense ignores the fact that for-profit health insurers take 15%-25% of the money paid in as overhead and profit. Over a five year period, the CEO of United Health Group, received $342,000,000 in compensation. That would cover a lot of people.
We are the only industrialized country in the world who lets the majority of its citizens be covered by health care insurers who make money by denying care to the insured. To my mind, there is something obscene about this.
Steve, I asked you
"I'd be curious as to how you have come to the conclusion that MSNBC's Olbermann and Maddow are "trying to incite a race war"?"
Instead of actually ANSWERING the question, you simply said "MSNBC is trying to incite a race war". You see, you little halfwit, when you make such an assertion, you have to back it up with actual facts. Simply repeating the smear over and over doesn't make your argument true. The same thing goes for the Rev. Wright shit too. That didn't work when Hannity frothed at teh mouth about it every hour of every day for 10 months last year.
My guess is that you're the type of conservative that probably feels that all black people hate all white people, and thus expect black people to somehow prove to your bigoted ass that they don't.
The point about Beck using the phrase "white culture" in his inflammatory and ill-advised rant (which got him suspended and cost his show two dozen advertisers) is that the phrase "white culture" is commonly used by Klansmen and white supremicists. I certainly don't think Beck is a Klansmen, but he should have known better than to speak in their language.
Newton:
Instead of actually ANSWERING the question, you simply said "MSNBC is trying to incite a race war". You see, you little halfwit, when you make such an assertion, you have to back it up with actual facts.
It helps if you actually quote what I said, which you didn't do initially, nor in your last comment. By the way, I do back up what I say with facts.
Newton:
The point about Beck using the phrase "white culture" in his inflammatory and ill-advised rant (which got him suspended and cost his show two dozen advertisers)...
First, I understand a lot of those advertisers weren't running ads on Beck's show. Second, he wasn't suspended, I understand he went on vacation. Third, his ratings are through the roof.
Talk about making an assertion and not backing it up with facts. And before you quote Media Matters, fuhgeddaboudit; they aren't believable.
Ideas for cost controls without denying care etc..
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1#
My mom is a nurse and has spent +20 years fighting with insurance companies. She has worked for several doctors who paid her a full time RN salary JUST to negotiate with insurance companies.. That's just utterly wrong but attempting to cover all the "wrongs" in our current system would take hours of my time.
Oh and SteveAR Beavis and Butthead had ratings "through the roof" for some time...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home