SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Classless

POLITICS AUGUST 6, 2009

Classless

BY AUTHOR INFO NEEDED

The Obama administration is increasingly being compared to the Carter and Clinton administrations--and the comparisons are not meant to be favorable. Both of those earlier administrations stumbled seriously during their first two years, with dire consequences for their legislative agenda and for their party.



I expect, and hope, that Barack Obama will avoid this fate. Obama has surrounded himself with people far more savvy in the ways of Washington than Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton initially did. (You get bonus points for remembering the name of Clinton’s first chief of staff.) Obama has certainly learned from their failures, and so have the Democrats in Congress, who under Nancy Pelosi have a tougher and more capable leader than the Democrats had in 1993. Still, there is a similarity between the two past administrations and the Obama administration that could signal trouble ahead.



Each of these administrations came into office, along with Democratic majorities in Congress, pledging to pass legislation that would affect the distribution of wealth and (even more important) power between the corporate/financial sector and the rest of America. The Democratic administrations championed what you could call “class legislation,” and by doing so, they set off a class struggle that they lost.



Here is a rundown of some of the class legislation that the prior administrations sponsored. Carter and the Democrats favored redistributive tax reform, public campaign financing, a consumer protection agency (that Ralph Nader had long championed), and labor law reform. Clinton and the Democrats had a shorter list of this kind of legislation. It included increased funding for regulatory agencies and limits on executive compensation--but right at the top was national health insurance reform. Clinton’s health bill would have benefited some corporations, but it would have curtailed the prerogatives and very possibly the profits of private insurance companies, and it would have forced large companies that didn’t offer health insurance to do so.



A powerful new coalition of Republican conservatives and business groups, including the newly formed Business Roundtable, opposed Carter’s measures. As I described in my book, The Paradox of American Democracy, they brought pressure not only on politicians, but also on the media, including The Washington Post, which reversed its support for the consumer protection agency. Carter got none of this legislation through Congress. And in 1978, the weakened Democrats performed poorly at the polls, setting the stage for the rout of 1980.



Clinton didn’t fare much better. He got some of his regulatory funding increases through Congress, but they were rescinded by the Republicans who took over Congress in November 1994. Most importantly, the Republican-business coalition that had destroyed Carter’s agenda made sure that Clinton’s health care bill never even made it to the floor for a vote. Clinton was re-elected in 1996, but it was a different Bill Clinton. Chastened by defeat, he moved to the “center,” which in this case meant that he did not offer any legislation that threatened people and companies at the pinnacles of power.



The Obama administration has already had its share of legislative successes. But these successes, such as the passage of the stimulus program, have not included legislation that threatens class power and wealth. Those bills that do threaten class relations--the administration’s proposals for health care reform, executive compensation limits, and financial regulation--are now bottled up in Congress. Another bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have benefited labor unions, seems to have been shelved.



The Republican-business coalition, led by the American Bankers’ Association and the Financial Services Roundtable (which includes 92 corporations with $16 trillion in assets), has taken aim at efforts to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, while the Business Roundtable is leading the fight against regulations that would limit executive compensation. The way they see it, these are provisions designed to curb their power and profits. A similar coalition, including insurance companies, hospitals, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has taken aim at those parts of the health care bill, particularly the public option, that would potentially limit business’s powers.



Of course, there is nothing intrinsically meritorious about this kind of power-shifting legislation. It wouldn’t make sense, for instance, for the government to nationalize the major computer software firms in the country rather than ensuring that private competition prevails among them. But health care and finance are two industries that have seen private competition and self-regulation fail miserably in achieving results that benefit the public interest. It’s necessary for the government, acting on the public’s behalf, to step in.



Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress seem to understand this. They have already succeeded in doing one thing Carter and Clinton failed to do: divide the ranks of their potential opponents. Obama’s health bill generally enjoys some support from the American Medical Association and the drug company lobby, while his financial consumer protection agency is backed by an investors’ coalition. And a few Republican senators seem ready to back some kind of health care legislation.



The real danger may be that Obama and the Democrats, particularly in the Senate, will get weak-kneed in the face of the Republican-business coalition and settle--either for health care legislation that increases subsidies, but doesn’t rein in the insurance companies (which is what Clinton and the Democrats did after 1994), or for financial regulation that ostensibly imposes new rules, but doesn’t strengthen the public’s ability to enforce them. A case in point: the administration’s proposal that asks the Securities and Exchange Commission to monitor the rating agencies more closely, but does not alter the fact that the SEC is funded by the very banks whose securities they are supposed to evaluate.



Obama has a difficult task ahead of him. The last time Congress passed and a president signed legislation that significantly limited the power of businesses and banks occurred during Richard Nixon’s first term, when a host of regulatory agencies were formed. Nixon, of course, was no liberal. But the country was in an uproar, and a coalition of labor, consumers, and the New Left was able to defeat the business opposition. Soon afterwards, business and Republicans joined hands to block any future efforts along these lines. And this coalition has carried the day for over three decades. Can Obama succeed where Carter and Clinton failed? Or will he listen to the sirens of the op-ed pages who urge him to move to the center and avoid the class struggle?


John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

By John B. Judis

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 52 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

52 comments

The answer is Mack McLarty, a crony of Bill Clinton's, who I vividly recall. He was a terrible Chief of Staff, replaced by Leon Panetta, who was far better. And better to say, John, that the Democrats joined the class struggle. It has been waged forever by the overclass.

- liberal reformer

August 6, 2009 at 4:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whatever happened to helping those who "work hard and play by the rules"? As opposed to the admin's Wall St and union cronies...

- Mack McClarty

August 6, 2009 at 6:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama hasn't stumbled. He, like almost all new presidents, has to learn a bit as he goes. He has "failed" to enact national health care legislation in record time. Doing something like that requires a little more time, even with 60 senators. And his policies may fail - only time will tell - but with 60 senators he's gonna get a lot done.

- JohnB

August 6, 2009 at 7:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is a Marxist and damn classless as a President. When was the last time a President called on his Brown Shirts "Acorn et all" to try and shut down the American people’s right to protest? That along with the insults being thrown at people like myself from Democratic politicians and the MSM are just fanning the flames. No he is no Carter or Clinton he is far worse and a threat to this nation.

- Harley2002

August 6, 2009 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apart from all the drama, most of which was right wing generated noise, Obama overall would do well to mimic Bill Clinton's successes, and his resulting approval ratings at the end of his presidency, among the highest in history. The measure of a president shouldn't be how successful he was for his party, but how successful he was for the nation, and I say that as a loyal Democrat.

- Staggslaw

August 6, 2009 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thank you mr. judis for articulating what the USA reallyneeds. no fan of big gov't myself, it is increasingly clear that big business is no friend of mine either. the free pass the money industry is getting while the DEMs bamboozle us with healthcare and environment is a crime and a sin. why create a new financial consumer protection agency (in addition to SEC and FINRA), while the FED is put in charge of the big players, and permits the GS's to return to the scene of the crime and take some more? why cap wall st exec pay when you (gov't) will not regulate how they make money? here i really mean the overleveraging to create huge, unsustainable sales, to generate higher profits. how is it hedge funds continue to be immune from regulation? why are they taxed at such a favorable rate? bring on the class war! who do we elect to lead it who cannot be compromised? or are the powers that be willing to risk the chaos of rebellion for a short term gain?

- MIKE FLYNN

August 6, 2009 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama needs to abandon the liberals and focus on one thing, the economy. He will be loved if he fixes it, but you cannot fix everything at once. The Congress's approval rating is effectively zero, the democrats in the two houses will bring down the presidency unless he seperates himself from their vines. There's going to be a huge backlash to Obama and Democrats in 2012 if they huddle together and try to take over the USA.

- George

August 6, 2009 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As much as the Republicans like DeMint seem to think Healthcare will be Obama's waterloo, I think that is only true if it passes. The passage of this kind of bill will guarantee his status as a one-term president. Should he re-frame the debate or take a long look at what the American people want, he stands to be a very popular president, but creating another level of debt on top of what his more intelligent (albeit costly) reforms have been will only serve to damage the economy and raise more debt. On top of that, it's just simply a bad bill. The American people, especially conservatives and independents, are against this. While I support a lot of Obama's policies, this is one that I must vehemently oppose. I think Republicans are quick to stand against anything Obama supports, that's typical red-jersey blue-jersey political football, and is always the case, but this is more important, and I don't know of a single person, Rep or Dem, who has READ any portion of it, who supports it. Having read a couple hundred pages of the bill, it is truly not a good thing and doing what is right for the country means opposing the bill, in my estimation. Just because a party is in power doesn't mean it should try to enact policies that are against the American people. We need to be very careful here. At the end of the day, right is right and wrong is wrong, and there WILL be a reckoning.

- jon

August 6, 2009 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Socialize medicine will be a failure just as it is in any other country. Innovation and modernization will come to an end but the uninsured will be rewarded and the working class will once again get punished. I want my doctor to live in a big house, drive a $100,000 car, and have the best of the best so that when I am lying on his or her operating table he or she will save my life. I don't want him or her working a 10-12 hr day and then delivering pizzas to help make ends meet. Why are you socialists so jealous of success? If you want change make it happen. Don't expect the government to be the nanny and oversee and control every aspect of life. Socialism is a failure and produces a society with little or no ambition.

- Curt

August 6, 2009 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The question is are you willing to continue to allow people to die so that your doctor and insurance company executives can have all of these toys? We are the last advanced country on the planet to address the problem of lack of coverage. The only entity that can address these issues from the national perspective is the federal government. Based on the Democratic plan, and a view of national helath care plans in other countries, a rational person can't argue that all doctor's will be poor and people will lose choice etc. These are myths fostered by insurance companies and right wing talk radio. You will forgive me if I don't rely on a former used car salesman for the facts that help me formulate my educated decision on this subject. To think that ensuring medical insurance coverage to every American will lead to a Socialistic nation where our guns are confiscated and the freedom to dangle monkeys from nooses at Republican political rallies will be taken away is absurd. The same ignorance that Republicans apply to the healthcare debate will still be allowable in a world where everyone has coverage. Don't fret.

- Truman Knows

August 6, 2009 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to agree with George, though I don't think he should totally cast off the liberals, but I do think it's of the absolute most important thing to fix the economy. Their are a LARGE number of programs with potentially more destructive economic potential (Social Security anyone?) that actually need overhaul. This is just not a good path to go down, not when the actual BILL is read. This is not a battle worth fighting, and spending political capital on really bad legislation is just not a wise idea, especially when the support of everyone except the extreme left of the party are against it. The bottom line is, to do what's right for the country, not for extremists from either side. If he WINS and gets the healthcare reform through, he will be a bigger loser in 2010 and 2012. This is the elephant in the room no one seems to be willing to talk about, because the clear majority of the people seem to be against it. It's the one issue a lot of people from all three groups (I, D, R) seem to agree on, and it's not often for that to happen.

- jon

August 6, 2009 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The mob that is pelosi, reid, rangel, schumer, frank, dodd, barac want's to take over health care. it's not good enough for them that you have your own health care and that you want you parents to get the best treatment in there older years. the mobs plan call for no medical procedures after 60 years or so of age. the mobs plan does call for a negro social worker to come to your families bedside as your parent is dying and for the negro social worker to console you about death. all the while your parents would be alive and dancing had they been able to keep their private insurance. you can't save money by adding government social workers for every privately insured/doctor relationship. the government take over of healthcare will make us all sheep to the mob democrats who can care less about your choice. they just want you to be subserviant to them. after all look what these mob democrats did: 1. they caused 911 by not allowing the fbi and cia to share information that would have stopped the hijackers in there tracks. the mob caused the death of 3,000 american. 2. the mob caused america to have to go to war to pay back the taliban hijackers. had the mob democrats not not obstructed justice and upheld their oath to protect americans we wouldn't have had the twin towers murder and the war in afganistan and irag but thinks to the mob bush had to spend the money to go over these murderers. 3. these mob democrats told the bankers in 2005 to lend money to their irresponsible mob voters and in return any one with a 401K lost most if not all of their retirement. so they can't retire now. Thank You mob democrats but we the american people know how your illegal mob operates and were throwing you out of office in 2010.

- democratmobrule

August 6, 2009 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John, Nice attempt at revisionist history on two of the most ineffectual Democratic presidencies in recent history. How did you end up at TNR? Get lost on your way to the job interview at the Workers Daily?

- dtohmatsu

August 6, 2009 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ignorance is bliss, is it not? "Socialism is a failure and produces a society with little or no ambition." Tell that to the Germans, Scandinavians, and Dutch. Heck, say that to a Frenchman. We have an entire generation of privileged, coddled, uneducated college grads who have ZERO ambition ... and you have the temerity to criticize countries who lead the world in everything from public transportation to alternative energies to health care. "Socialize medicine will be a failure just as it is in any other country" Really? The U.S. health care system is ranked 37th in the world ... behind every single one of the "socialized" systems you deride. 37th. 37th. Repeat that as many times as is necessary to comprehend that 37th is a pathetic rank for the "best" country on the planet. 37th is an embarrassment. France has the number one system in the world - efficient, cost-effective, and NOT CONTROLLED BY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Would you like to live in a country where health care can't bankrupt you? I bet you would ... you complete jackass. What really ticks me off about people in this country is their complete inability to understand that improvement means learning from other people, countries, and cultures. We are not special. We are spoiled and, often, downright stupid. Convictions don't mean shit if they prevent changing a system that is broken. And, our health care system is in a damned shambles.

- paul b

August 6, 2009 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think he has it in him to be a centrist. I believe he believes in his personal popularity to carry his policies,and he perversely condemns those who disagree. Inconveniently, the polls show that most do disagree, confirming that more Americans are truly "center right" and want less as opposed to more government. His handling of that truth is making him even less popular.

- cindy

August 6, 2009 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is going down the road of both men due to his timid approach to the DEMOCRATS in Congress. Yes, I said Democrats. The pork-a-thon "stimulus" bill reminds me ever so much of Bill Clinton's rolling over as Richard Gephardt admonished him to "stay off our backs." The result was of course the midterm elections that broke a 40 reign of the Dems in the House of Representatives. Obama is not leading. He is following. The result will be another midterm loss.

- Puller58

August 6, 2009 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Class legislation", is doomed to failure. As this article points out, that has been the history, and I believe it will continue to be true in the future. The reason being that the U.S. in not a "class" society, it is a "fairness" society. I don't see the two as the same. Most Americans have a built-in sense of fairness which means that eventually they will withdraw support for class legislation that goes too far, especially when they come to realize that targeting the other guy today will come back to bite them in the future. The current discussion on health care reform is a perfect example. This is no longer about "Republicans" and "Insurance Companies" making baseless political attacks. It is about average people knowing in their hearts that this is heading in the wrong direction.

- Jerry

August 6, 2009 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Socialize medicine will be a failure just as it is in any other country." Please let me have access to one of those failures. Failures such as infant mortality rates that are half what they are in the US. Failures such as life expectancies several years longer than ours. Once we push aside the jingoistic nonsense, at some point honest people have to acknowledge exactly what Obama said in his last news conference: We spend more on health care than just about anybody, and we do NOT get better results. Above and beyond this, the fact is, this is the only industrialized country in the world where otherwise prosperous people can be bankrupted by medical bills. I'm a lifelong Republican, largely because of my extreme distaste for the likes of Nancy Pelosi. But I sincerely hope that Obama sticks to his guns on this and prevails. If some accountant is going to determine whether I get medical treatment or not (and this is already the case) then I want that accountant to report to voters, not shareholders.

- March Hare

August 6, 2009 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pass Obama's disastrous plan and you get the health-care equivalent of the U.S. Postal Service: higher rates, less service, billions of dollars in the red. NO THANK YOU!

- Jack Davis

August 6, 2009 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, let's see. President Training Pants saved the economy and it still sucks. He promised to get us out of Iraq and we're still there. He hasn't shut Gitmo and he looks like a boob begging other countries to take the terrorists. No matter what poll you look at, people hate his health care quagmire. Yeah...I don't know how the Obamessiah could be doing any better. He's inept. Pretty words, no actually abilities.

- 1200FPS

August 6, 2009 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's unfair to Carter and especially Clinton to compare Obama to them. Neither men had the destructive capacity that Obama has. Obama's healtcare proposal is only one example. Here in northern California there is a land mark along the Russian River that goes by the name of Squaw Rock, not maiden rock. In appearance Squaw Rock looks like a small version of Yosemite’s Half Dome. The stronger of two legends has it that Squaw Rock got its name because the native Indians use to throw old squaws off the rock to their deaths 300 feet below. These old squaws were no longer useful and were excess burden to the tribes. The health care bill now proceeding through Congress will treat old Americans in a more acceptable way. They will be given compassionate counseling for death as a substitute for medical treatment. There executions at the hands of the state will be less violent, less public, more respectful, and hopefully less painful. As President Obama said of the 102 year old woman who got a pacemaker under the old system that provided care to the aged, “give her a pill to loop her out”. Obituaries will continue to be written extolling the heroism of the aged. Old people will have made the ultimate sacrifice for the good of society. They will have “made room for the next generation” as Rahm Emanuel’s brother, one of the architects of the Senate bill, once said was necessary. The bill just passed by a House committee contains a “public option”. The bill is designed to pave the path for a single payer system. The public option will be underwritten so that private insurance will be unable to compete. Obama does intent to save money. It will be done by denying treatment to the aged and rationing treatment to the young. The state of Oregon, which may be the experiment that Congressional Democrats are closely looking at, is already denying treatment to the aged. Oregon often denies payment for chemotherapy and instead offers payment for euthanasia. Euthanasia used to be reserved for unwanted animals. The Obama Administration would extent euthanasia to unwanted people. It is productive to view the Obama and Modern Liberal (ML) outlook that cheapens life in context. The ML must devalue life (as he devalues individualism) for the “greater good” of society. It has become necessary to abort babies and now discard the aged and infirmed. Obama also thought that infanticide was acceptable. Who will be next? The ML does not see human life in the same way that Conservatives do. Conservatives believe that all people have an unalienable right to life. The ML thinks the Bill of Rights and the Constitution must be considered living documents so they can be changed and not taken literally. In the ML view there is no “unalienable” right to life that derives from Devine Providence. Consistent with the view that all morality is relative, whatever value is placed on human life must given by the state for the alleged good of the masses.

- Rod

August 6, 2009 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judis, Eastern Establishment Monopoly Money has dictated things in this Country since the beginning. You act as if your Eastern Establishment is not in its death throes now. Evidence for this is your obliviousness as to why Obama is finished already, unless he hits the reset button and boots out all the Clintonistas and Cheneyacs out of the White House immediately, and scrubs his existing Bilderburg agenda completely. All Eastern Establishment Liberals like TNR are Nazi stooges of Rothschild scrip.

- Stan Lippmann

August 6, 2009 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not the doctors that are making big bucks in the current system, it's the insurance execs. Plus, a whole bunch of money is going to middle men (generally not health professionals) in our so-called system. There are too many pigs at the trough. That being said, Mr. Judis' comment that competition has failed miserably in health care is correct, but the problem is that an insurance model is lousy for financing health services. The consumer is not really involved in the economic equation. Rather than a government takeover, better to go with a voucher system along the lines of Ron Wyden or Zeke Emanuel's ideas.

- Mike

August 6, 2009 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But health care and finance are two industries that have seen private competition and self-regulation fail miserably in achieving results that benefit the public interest." You're either kidding or exceedingly ignorant. American health care, in terms of quality, technology, drug innovation, and many other areas is the envy of the world. We pay reasonable prices for outstanding care. Our costs are only increased by the fact that we treat millions of illegal immigrants through emergency rooms, health insurance is paid for by someone else in most cases (so people naturally use more of it), those who pay for it directly do not get the tax break companies do, and we all can't shop for health insurance across state lines. Oh, and most of us have to pay for high-cost transgender operations and the like through higher insurance premiums. Finance is one of the most highly regulated industries. "Finance" didn't cause this crisis, Judis, government intervention in the housing market did. Read the U.S. House of Representatives' new report (July 7, 2009) titled, “The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.” You might learn something.

- Jeff

August 6, 2009 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Um........... Obama has SEVERAL of the same folks from Clinton's administration, not to mention the lobbyists that he excoriated during his campaign, and let's not forget the criminals, the communist, and the MULTIPLE tax cheats! He'll fail, because he's lied to the American people about what his "change" involved. We're not as dumb now as we were in November.

- Melissa

August 6, 2009 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've got to ask: In what western or advanced industrialized nation do Doctors not have the opportunity to drive the equivalent of a $100k car and live in a big house (well, maybe not Japan, but there's an obvious reason for that) and have to deliver pizzas to make ends meet? As for working 10-12hr days, that would be a big drop for a lot of younger doctors in the US, so sounds like an improvement to me.

- Nari224

August 6, 2009 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said Curt. You are right that socialists are jealous of success. Socialism is envy and spite made into a religion. Only 20% of the American people consider self identify as liberals. Among that 20% are there are no doubt many who sympathize with John Judis' Marxist view of the world, but most Americans are Lockeans rather than Marxists. Most Americans don't want to live in a regimented society where politicians and government bureaucrats make most of their decisions for them. Most Americans are empirically minded enough to be able to see that government is not good at providing goods and services. Most of all Americans understand that government cannot provide a substitute for strong families and a developed sense of individual responsibility.

- bulbman1066

August 6, 2009 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. I'm amazed anyone could compare this administration to carter or Clinton. This administration compares more closely to Hitler than either of the two leaders the author chose.

- John

August 6, 2009 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But health care and finance are two industries that have seen private competition and self-regulation fail miserably in achieving results that benefit the public interest. It's necessary for the government, acting on the public's behalf, to step in." It is actually government acting on behalf of it's (always-striving-to-be re)elected officials along the their "career" counterparts in Washington that has undermined the healthcare and financial markets in this country. It is not a failure of markets, but the well-intentioned (and catastrophically irresponsible) meddling of Washington in healthcare and finance that have pushed those markets into crisis. When Fannie & Freddie start promoting home-ownership for high-risk borrowers and guarantee the outcome with taxpayer dollars, rather than facilitate responible lending and risk-transparency, you have the effect we are seeing now. Likewise, however laudable the goal of extending the "right" to healthcare to everyone regardless of citizenship, lifestyle choice or need, it is naive to expect that a market will not respond to the effect of the attempts to execute that strategy. Both those who are benefitting from the services and those who are subsidizing the benefits of others. Obama, et al will have much greater success if they can grasp that Government in and of itself produces no real wealth. It must always rely upon the efforts of others to fund their initiatives. In Government, like any working market, people take a much greater interest in the details when they are being asked to pick up the check. Americans, in general, are a generous and tolerant people, but as 1980 and 1994 illustrate, they are quickly mobilized to political action when they see their government chasing policies of liberal good intentions when they know they will be the ones left holding the check when the party is over.

- Resolute

August 6, 2009 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jon, Curt -- Who is paying for your health care coverage? Mom & Dad? The taxpayer? I'm a small business owner who pays through the roof for individual coverage, picks up the tab for my employee's coverage and at the moment am picking up the cost of monthly medication for a friend who recently became ill and unable to work. She is 58, has no health coverage and doesn't qualify for any assistance with her perscription cost. Which, frankly, outrages me because I pay hefty taxes to this state and think it should be buying some kind of assistance for someone in this woman's position. I live in a state where people like you are adamantly opposed to an "income tax." That means that the Business & Occupation tax -- which is levied on gross, not net, income, and for small businesses and the self employed IS A FRICKING INCOME TAX -- are picking up the tab for more than 50% of running the state (the rest is earned through sales tax). That means a hell of a lot of people in this state are getting an almost free ride tax-wise, while the small business owners -- who create jobs and try to do the decent thing and provide health care benefits despite the fact that the cost of coverage is now 10x more than it was a decade ago -- are getting the shaft. The two of you sound like the free-rider type to me. You don't understand the issue. You don't understand the need for reform. You just expect someone to make it all work for you forever.

- esmense

August 6, 2009 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait, One hopes that this will not come to pass. They key are congressional democrats, in particular the senate, they need to be whipped. Again I am astounded by how many damned crazy people there are in America. The TNR comment sections are filled with cranks and their crackpot reasoning. Or maybe it is just that the guys at CATO, NRO and AEI like to have a bit of fun by posting here. Same difference really.

- Northern Observer

August 6, 2009 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Will Obama be brought low by the same forces that irreparably damaged Clinton and Carter?" Well, I certainly hope so. "Damaged" is the wrong word. "Defeated" is the right word. The policies of most Democrats are - when exposed publicly for what they are - defeated in a political arena. America is not a place where collectivism can yet find much traction, and this is demonstrably a good thing for our national psyche. Defeat the policies of Obama and let individualism, republican (small "r") democracy, and the free market continue to make us who we are as a people. The alternatives (everywhere else they have been tried) are failures.

- EmpFab

August 6, 2009 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez Curt, your impressive list of examples of places where "socialized medicine" is a failure and cases where "innovation and modernization" have "come to an end" really punches the point home. You clearly know what you're talking about.

- curtlives

August 6, 2009 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Paul B and March Hare have it exactly right. The conservatives screaming about the evils of "socialized" medicine are either lying through their teeth to protect the profits of their insurance cronies, or are wilfully ignorant.

- MSL

August 6, 2009 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

EmpFab -- Like Jon and Curt it seems unlikely that you are responsible for the full cost of your coverage and certainly not for the cost of providing coverage for others, such as employees. Unless you are, you don't have the experience to judge whether the system has "failed." But, believe me, it has. Our current system is a drag on new business development, limits labor mobility, leaves millions without coverage and millions more with inadequate coverage, all the while costing more and providing lesser outcomes in terms of the general health of our citizens than that of other industrialized countries. Like 1/3rd of all Americans you may be enjoying taxpayer supported health coverage -- either as a government employee or a retiree. Or, you may be fortunate enough to work for one of the ever dwindling number of employers who still provide (tax payer subsidized) group heath insurance coverage. Or you are intentionally going without insurance in the expectation that the taxpayer will pick up the bill if you do become ill. There's no such thing as "individualism" when it comes to health care. Somewhere along the line, someone else is going to help pay for the cost of your care. Wouldn't it be a good idea to acknowledge that reality and start making sure that the system works a whole lot more efficiently and fairly -- and with better outcomes -- than it does at the moment?

-

August 6, 2009 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The underbelly of the Republican party has spoken and the rest of us should just lie down and allow them to jackboot us to death???? Where the hell is the passion that we used to get Obama elected in the first place? The Europeans think we are idiots because we insist on "paying our own way" in the ridiculous maze of the American health care system when in fact we are high in infant mortality and low in life expectancy compared to Europeans. Sure we have a great health care system but only those who have major big bucks can afford it! The poor are left to their own devices. And there's another thing Europeans notice about us. Americans don't really seem to give a darn about the poor. We are so self-involved, so hell-bent on chasing the all-mighty dollar, that we really don't even notice the children starving to death just out of range of our doorsteps. WAKE UP!! Do you really want to be known as the most callous people on earth?? Can't we PLEASE recapture what once was? I certainly hope so...for the sake of our collective souls.

- barbara johnson

August 6, 2009 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PaulB - your're joking right? You can't really be serious to throw out some hack, politically motivated WHO report from the year 2000 showing the US as number 37, behind such medical powerhouse countries as Costa Rica, Malta, Cyprus, Morocco, Oman and Saudi Arabia. Thank God we barely beat out Slovenia and Cuba. Did you actually read the WHO report, or are you just repeating something you heard from a Michael Moore movie?

- Lewis

August 6, 2009 at 6:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No. Obamas presidency will be entirely different form those of Clinton and Carter. just give the guy a bit of time, say 12 months. Mr. Orr should know, he knows a good movie when he sees one. Obama first 6 months is only a clue of things to come. There will be health care for ALL Americans, gays in military will be treated as humans just like in every other Western country and US will within O's first term enter the 21st century. You'll see, mr Orr!

- veikko

August 6, 2009 at 7:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Having spent considerable time overseas and even more in Canada, anyone who says that national socialized health care is a disaster is looking at the world through very dark glasses. And to say that the Brits and the Swedes and Irish and the Canadians have lost any of their freedoms by having a nationalized medical base or safety net is simply absurd. My friends in foreign lands with socialized medicine include doctors, businesspeople, fishermen, and crab plant workers. The doctors are the best paid people in the region, without exception. The business people don't have to worry about providing insurance by mandate or to attract and keep employees. The fisherman knows that if he has an emergency, he will be cared for. And the crab plant worker, a seasonal not-well-paid worker, knows that, though she is poor and has an existing heart condition, she will get whatever services are necessary, including being flown to a hospital in a bigger city with more specialists. For most people, there is not the fear and desperation that we find here, now. I hope Obama has the courage to do the right things, the opposition be damned. That is the only way anything will get done. Sorry, people can work themselves into a lather(following a "leadership" which is being paid by those with a financial stake in the outcome), but that doesn't make them right regarding the needs and desires of a majority of Americans.

- sabatia

August 6, 2009 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

..."it's necessary for the gov't to step in"... you certainly don't expect to be taken seriously. Maybe you should read the stats; majority of Americans are happy without Big Benevolent Brother coming in between them and their Dr. A Barry-appointed IMAC board to make our health care decisions... brilliant!Why don't the Dems fly solo and all jump on board Uncle Sam's Fannie Med train... YES WE CAN bloat up old Uncle Sam! Suffocate private sector and allow the efficiency, effectiveness and competitiveness of gov't to lead us to a more healthy, more prosperous USA.. YES WE CAN, Trust Us! Same old dems.. tax, mandate and use the Robin Hood road to prosperity.. see what the future holds.. NJ and VA are prime examples.. no matter how you try, you still can't get Americans to be collectivists...

- patsyd

August 6, 2009 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who's going to pick which industries get nationalized?Not the editorial board of TNR I hope?

- Con man

August 7, 2009 at 7:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wouldnt be suprised if people didnt start showing up at town halls with screwdrivers to remove the hinge pins from locked doors to get in and set off fire alarms to clear out the reserved seating union thugs since the dems are claiming fire code to keep out legitimate voters.

- retired military

August 7, 2009 at 7:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There's no such thing as "individualism" when it comes to health care. Somewhere along the line, someone else is going to help pay for the cost of your care. Wouldn't it be a good idea to acknowledge that reality and start making sure that the system works a whole lot more efficiently and fairly -- and with better outcomes -- than it does at the moment?" Frankly, yes, there is such a thing as individualism when it comes to health care: 1) The more that individuals are forced to pay for the full cost of their care, the more they will price shop, forgo care that is not required, and drive demand down. Demand down, price down. 2) NO health care of any quality is a social or economic right, either collectively or individually, so to suggest that "someone else is going to help pay the cost" of my care is true only if you can make me pay yours. And that is what this debate is about. I don't want to pay for yours. I don't want anybody to pay for mine (including any insurance company) but with our current insurance system (which is broken precisely because government intervention in the marketplace broke it with: regulations requiring coverage, subsidizing premiums paid by employers, preventing competition across state lines), the price of health care is artificially inflated to obscene levels due to the "third party payer problem" (look it up in your economics book). All Americans, especially the poor ones, would be better off if government simply removed any and all regulation of the insurance industry, and then let the markets fluctuate freely. Then, I would drop my insurance coverage because it wouldn't make financial sense for me to have it at all. That is a proven economic reality. Health care driven by government intervention is – by definition, even yours – economically inefficient.

- EmpFab

August 7, 2009 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are absolutely right. These people are fundamentally dangerous to the liberty we were once able to take for granted.

- John

August 7, 2009 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carter's big mistake was not setting priorities and attempting to reform everything at once. As a result he was a failure in domestic policy. But in foreign policy he carefully set priorities and worked on only a few issues at a time with intense focus. As a result he achieved a Panama Canal treaty, then a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and finally a Salt II arms control treaty with the Soviet Union that was never ratified, but was adhered to by both sides during its lifetime. Clinton turned over health care reform to his wife, which turned out to be a disaster. And in economic affairs he deferred to the Fed. In foreign policy he flitted from crisis to crisis. He was successful in Bosnia and Kosovo, but failed in Haiti, in the Middle East, and played a successful support role in Northern Ireland. Obama should initially concentrate on the economy and health care, and set Iran as his priority in foreign affairs. Everything else in foreign affairs he should leave to Clinton who can leave the important issues to Holbrooke and Mitchell. In his second term he can tackle more issues in foreign affairs such as Mideast peace and Pakistan.

- Tom Mitchell

August 7, 2009 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What really defeated both Carter and Clinton were Democrats, especially in Carter's case in which he had huge majorities in Congress. I really don't understand, do Democratic Reps and Senators actually enjoy hobbling their President and then watching as his agenda (and their Congressinal majorities) go down in flames?

- Eric Pendergraft

August 7, 2009 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Nixon was no liberal."? Of course he was. Wage & Price Controls, Guaranteed Minimum Income. He was, pure and simple, a power-hungry statist. Perhaps not quite as arrogant as Obama (then, who is?) but close.

- commissioner

August 9, 2009 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Class struggle" is anathema to the concepts on which America was founded and will continue to fail as long as individuals have dreams.

- PanamaIce

August 11, 2009 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Modern American Liberals tend to demonize something that may be flawed....then replace it with something far worse."

- DannyBoy

August 13, 2009 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IT wasnot the Republicans who derailed Carter, it was Carter himself. I remember the inflation, the chortages, and the interest rates. Carter did not need the Republicans to hurt him, he did it all himself. How long will it take you all to see that socialism does not work. We could help far more people int his country if 1) Congress stopped wasting big money and spend only what they had, 2) people would give up this "we have to have it all our way" and 3) learn from history tht socialism takes away the incentive to achieve. We could have the government provide insurance for those who culd not afford it and leave the rest of us alone, but the Democrats can't leave well enough alone. Instead of helping those who need it, they want to hurt those who have it. Damn, I can't figure out this insanity

- Nick Richards

August 17, 2009 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I woul dlike Obama to learn some humility. when he says "You are right, I can't insure another 50 million people without raising money," it makesme want to puke. HE is not insuring 50 million people WE are. WE - the American people. And WE want to help those who can't do for themselves, but WE don't want the government making our decisions. IF Obama would use the word "WE" instead of "I" it would go a long way in getting me interested in what he was trying to say.

- NIck Richards.

August 17, 2009 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What I admire about Clinton, as a loyal Independent, ws that he listened to the people and moved on what they wanted. Yes, he governed according to the polls, which is why he had those approcal ratings; however, we are now reaping what he sowed with his financial decisions to allow people into homes who could not afford them. IT is not always about ratings. Just because a person left office with high ratings does not mean he did what was best for the country, it just means the short-sighted Americans were happy for the moment.

- NIck Richards

August 17, 2009 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close