The liberal in me says it's our moral imperative to take care of our own people. We have the ability and the resources - it's something we should do for ourselves and our posterity - promoting the general welfare.
The realist will quickly discard almost any of that fanciful crap that comes out of that part of my brain, though. Human nature is going to muck that one up - sometimes taking care of people is actually doing them more harm than good. Part of me really hears the Republican argument that says letting people struggle a bit can be the best thing for them - like the butterfly trying to escape the cocoon. That's open to debate - even internally for me.
But as a fiscally conservative Democrat - Universal Health Care just makes sense. If you look at the absurd amounts of money that are being paid by our corporations just for health care - there's no way we can compete globally. Regardless of where you stand on Free Trade (I'm pro-free trade - as long as it's managed to be fair, which it hasn't been under W.), we are competing in a global economy. Other countries are paying for the health care, still others just don't care and do nothing (but neither does the company). If we want to compete globally and still maintain our way of life, UHC is the only practical way to go. We can create a system that still maintains our high quality of care and still maintains free-market competitiveness. The current system as it is "designed" avoids free-market competitiveness.
Barack's approach makes it optional. He argues that if it's affordable every one will get it anyways. He avoids the reality that the uninsured are sticking the rest of us with their bills - even if it is not what they intend to do.
In Michigan, like many states, we have a mandate for auto insurance. If you want to have a car drivable on public roads, you must have insurance. It can be basic - limited to "PL/PD" (IIRC, personal liability/personal damage) or you can go full comprehensive, but you at least need to take care of the basics. If you don't pay for it and drive, you will get ticketed and possibly arrested (if you do it repeatedly). The insured drivers actually end up paying for the uninsured idiots who damage their vehicles, property, or persons.
The same would be true in an Universal Health Care system. If there is no mandate, the uninsured will still end up in the emergency room and the "system" will get stuck with the bill.
The difference here is that it's not the "privilege" of driving on the roads (in Michigan it's not a privilege - it's a God-Given Right) - it's the privilege of living. The enforceable mandate basically amounts to "if you want to live in this country, you have to pay the health care tax". Part of me is repulsed by that, but in the end - it's for the greater good. Including yours.
In the end, the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes...
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Necessity of the "Dream Team"
There's a reason this idea refuses to die. At this point, it might have more to do with necessity than hope.
First, let me start off by stating that I am a Hillary supporter. Yes, I am a white man, but that is not the reason why. I simply value experience and I know she has it. I also know that it's a 2-for-1 deal with the Clintons, and I know that despite having 6 out of 8 years with a combative Congress almost literally out to lynch him, Bill Clinton provided me the best political and economic situation I could have hoped for. I want that back, and I know they will bring it back. With Barack it's a wildcard.
Hillary also just makes sense - she's been pushing the health care issues since the early 90's. She's tried and failed before - but usually failure is the best teacher. This time she'll get it done. I have more confidence in the Clintons bringing in a new technology into the economic fold than I have with Barack (Bill and Al brought/guided the Internet from research tool to profit-making machine during their presidency. As an Internet Engineer, even I didn't think the average person was going to get the Internet into their homes until 2010 when they took office.) I know Hillary can guide environmental technologies into a profitable economy as well.
I really like Barack Obama though. He brings with him a hint of heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr. Not just the personal charisma - which he excudes to an almost unnatural degree, but in the stances he's taking.
He brings a racial neutrality that neither Dr. King nor Jesse Jackson could ever have had - their policies were entirely rooted in civil rights issues - Barack's policies are convincingly widespread in economics, foreign policy, the environment, Iraq, and many other domestic issues. He has intelligently - shrewdly - left out race until now.
This one's going to be close. It looks very likely to my count that Hillary will win the popular vote (by taking fewer but bigger states) and Barack will take the normal delegate count (by taking more but smaller states). This one's definitely going down to the wire with 2 seconds left on the clock. Even if I'm wrong about Hillary taking the popular vote, it will have to be super delegates at this point who decide who takes the crown. And that will piss everyone off.
If the super-delegates pick Barack, a very good chunk of democrats won't vote. If they pick Hillary, a very good chunk of democrats won't vote. The numbers are probably more in favor of Barack than Hillary in this case - but that points as much to the continuing racial and youth divide. Policy-wise there's very little daylight between them, so we should all be able to unite behind whoever gets the nomination. The problem will be way too many hurt prides running around to do it. This is one area where the Republicans have us consistently beat - as Bill Clinton has said, "Republicans want to fall in line. Democrats want to fall in love." Will we have enough unity to overcome the Republicans? It will be very questionable at that point. In a year we should win by a landslide, it might come as close as the 2000 election.
Another Sword of Damacles hanging over the head of the party is the completely botched handling of Michigan and Florida. James Carville (who I really don't like all that much personally but often find myself agreeing with) has said if the party doesn't find a way to include Michigan and Florida, we will pay for it in the polls. He's right. Both states went for Hillary. Yes - I know Barack wasn't on the ticket in Michigan, but the numbers would have been the same if he had. Michigan is in the same mess - maybe worse - than Ohio. Almost all of our leadership - including the current and former Democratic governor, senators, and party leaders are behind Hillary. Run the election again - she'll still take 55% or more. Florida was a bit more fair in that everyone was at least on the ballot. Here again she took 50% to his 33%. I believe those numbers will hold true in a re-run. If neither state is seated in the convention, you can count us out in the General Election.
The numbers at the polls are overwhelming. More Democrats voted in the Texas primary than voted in the General Election in 2004 or 2000. For a PRIMARY! That tells you about the INCREDIBLE amount of PASSION behind these two candidates. And for all intents and purposes, Texas was split (Hillary taking the popular vote through primaries, Barack taking the delegate count through caucuses).
It's a tough call for most Democrats - which is very exciting. As exciting as Bill Clinton was - this is like "doubling your pleasure" with Hillary and Barack. The problem is (and will continue to be until the convention) choosing. I like chocolate and vanilla - why can't I have both?
[No, I will not apologize for that statement. Grow up if you're offended by it.]
The combined "Dream Team" ticket would not only eliminate the issues, but would direct all of the passion that we're seeing in the primaries into the General Election and well into the presidency. It would be a guaranteed landslide. We would get both Clintons and Barack and would truly unite the Democratic Party and ultimately, the American people. If Barack is truly committed to politics of inclusion, politics of unity, and politics of hope - he will accept a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.
A party divided against itself cannot stand. If we remain divided, which I believe will happen without a "Dream Team" ticket, we will yet again snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
(NB - Mario Cuomo has since come out with a similar position.)
First, let me start off by stating that I am a Hillary supporter. Yes, I am a white man, but that is not the reason why. I simply value experience and I know she has it. I also know that it's a 2-for-1 deal with the Clintons, and I know that despite having 6 out of 8 years with a combative Congress almost literally out to lynch him, Bill Clinton provided me the best political and economic situation I could have hoped for. I want that back, and I know they will bring it back. With Barack it's a wildcard.
Hillary also just makes sense - she's been pushing the health care issues since the early 90's. She's tried and failed before - but usually failure is the best teacher. This time she'll get it done. I have more confidence in the Clintons bringing in a new technology into the economic fold than I have with Barack (Bill and Al brought/guided the Internet from research tool to profit-making machine during their presidency. As an Internet Engineer, even I didn't think the average person was going to get the Internet into their homes until 2010 when they took office.) I know Hillary can guide environmental technologies into a profitable economy as well.
I really like Barack Obama though. He brings with him a hint of heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr. Not just the personal charisma - which he excudes to an almost unnatural degree, but in the stances he's taking.
He brings a racial neutrality that neither Dr. King nor Jesse Jackson could ever have had - their policies were entirely rooted in civil rights issues - Barack's policies are convincingly widespread in economics, foreign policy, the environment, Iraq, and many other domestic issues. He has intelligently - shrewdly - left out race until now.
This one's going to be close. It looks very likely to my count that Hillary will win the popular vote (by taking fewer but bigger states) and Barack will take the normal delegate count (by taking more but smaller states). This one's definitely going down to the wire with 2 seconds left on the clock. Even if I'm wrong about Hillary taking the popular vote, it will have to be super delegates at this point who decide who takes the crown. And that will piss everyone off.
If the super-delegates pick Barack, a very good chunk of democrats won't vote. If they pick Hillary, a very good chunk of democrats won't vote. The numbers are probably more in favor of Barack than Hillary in this case - but that points as much to the continuing racial and youth divide. Policy-wise there's very little daylight between them, so we should all be able to unite behind whoever gets the nomination. The problem will be way too many hurt prides running around to do it. This is one area where the Republicans have us consistently beat - as Bill Clinton has said, "Republicans want to fall in line. Democrats want to fall in love." Will we have enough unity to overcome the Republicans? It will be very questionable at that point. In a year we should win by a landslide, it might come as close as the 2000 election.
Another Sword of Damacles hanging over the head of the party is the completely botched handling of Michigan and Florida. James Carville (who I really don't like all that much personally but often find myself agreeing with) has said if the party doesn't find a way to include Michigan and Florida, we will pay for it in the polls. He's right. Both states went for Hillary. Yes - I know Barack wasn't on the ticket in Michigan, but the numbers would have been the same if he had. Michigan is in the same mess - maybe worse - than Ohio. Almost all of our leadership - including the current and former Democratic governor, senators, and party leaders are behind Hillary. Run the election again - she'll still take 55% or more. Florida was a bit more fair in that everyone was at least on the ballot. Here again she took 50% to his 33%. I believe those numbers will hold true in a re-run. If neither state is seated in the convention, you can count us out in the General Election.
The numbers at the polls are overwhelming. More Democrats voted in the Texas primary than voted in the General Election in 2004 or 2000. For a PRIMARY! That tells you about the INCREDIBLE amount of PASSION behind these two candidates. And for all intents and purposes, Texas was split (Hillary taking the popular vote through primaries, Barack taking the delegate count through caucuses).
It's a tough call for most Democrats - which is very exciting. As exciting as Bill Clinton was - this is like "doubling your pleasure" with Hillary and Barack. The problem is (and will continue to be until the convention) choosing. I like chocolate and vanilla - why can't I have both?
[No, I will not apologize for that statement. Grow up if you're offended by it.]
The combined "Dream Team" ticket would not only eliminate the issues, but would direct all of the passion that we're seeing in the primaries into the General Election and well into the presidency. It would be a guaranteed landslide. We would get both Clintons and Barack and would truly unite the Democratic Party and ultimately, the American people. If Barack is truly committed to politics of inclusion, politics of unity, and politics of hope - he will accept a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.
A party divided against itself cannot stand. If we remain divided, which I believe will happen without a "Dream Team" ticket, we will yet again snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
(NB - Mario Cuomo has since come out with a similar position.)
Obama and the Racial Pink Elephant
Maybe he was more or less forced to deal with it, but I refuse to believe he didn't know it would be coming.
He handled the issue well - delicately but emphatically. Diplomatically but still acknowledging the continuing gap of misunderstanding and inequities. Realistically but hopefully. One might even say presidentially. He didn't convert me by any means, but he definitely got a hell of a lot more respect in my book (and he had quite a bit to start with).
One of the most important things he did in this speech was to acknowledge both sides of the issue. It's clear that things aren't on a level playing field from an African American perspective, but he also acknowledged the white American perspective - Affirmative Action at this point has become a mechanism of reverse discrimination (go ahead - ask me why I was only "conditionally" accepted at the University of Michigan with good grades and a near perfect SAT score... then duck and cover).
Discrimination is alive and well. Segregation is alive and well. The difference is that now the pendulum has largely swung to the other side. No segregation, no discrimination is ever acceptable. If I'm a better candidate than you, I should get the job. If you're a better candidate than me, you should get the job. WhatTF does the color of either of our skin have to do with it? Should I play the "American Indian" heritage card to get the job? Should I get the job because some of my Ancestors were more disadvantaged than some of yours?
In reality, I grew up in a relatively poor white neighborhood with bad schools. I wish I could say they were better - certainly the teachers tried hard and some were very good and committed to their profession, but a school system has as much to do with the parents of the community as the teachers. My community was mostly blue-collar workers and education was not a high priority to most. My parents cared and did a great job raising me, warts and all. They certainly didn't put a silver spoon in my mouth - there were some really tough times and some really good times. My parents gave me something much more important - the ability to develop enough character to survive and even thrive regardless of the circumstances around me. I grew up relatively successful in spite of my circumstances, not because of them.
That opportunity is available to anyone - in a poor white district or a poor black district or a poor hispanic district or any other district. Poverty is not peculiar to any particular race, nor is opportunity. What defines each and every one of us is what we do with the opportunities we're given. A spoiled rich white kid who exerts his privilege is far more disgusting - a poor kid who made something of himself is something to be honored.
Inequities still exist though. That spoiled rich white kid is still much more likely to end up in college, much more likely to have a higher paying job available for him when he leaves college, much more likely to waltz through college in 4 years because he doesn't have to worry about paying for it himself or the economic situation at home, compared to those of us who had to struggle through what we could because we did.
To the poor white kid or the poor black kid, though, the battle is uphill for both. The battle is in spite of the environment, not because of it. The battle is to earn your place, not have it given to you on a platter. Race is not a factor in that battle - and that is why Affirmative Action as it stands today does not work. That is why it is a mechanism to continue discrimination and racial segregation - because it judges people by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character.
Barack acknowledged that side as much as the African American stance that focuses on the continuing inequities, and challenged us all to stop avoiding the huge pink elephant in the room and deal with it.
He also villified the words (but not the person) of Reverend Wright as divisive - again implicitly invoking King:
"Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."
For that, he earned my respect.
I still continue to hope for a "Dream Team" ticket. He has the words, the eloquence, the heart. She has the brain, the experience, and the action. And neither is lacking in what the other's strengths are.
He handled the issue well - delicately but emphatically. Diplomatically but still acknowledging the continuing gap of misunderstanding and inequities. Realistically but hopefully. One might even say presidentially. He didn't convert me by any means, but he definitely got a hell of a lot more respect in my book (and he had quite a bit to start with).
One of the most important things he did in this speech was to acknowledge both sides of the issue. It's clear that things aren't on a level playing field from an African American perspective, but he also acknowledged the white American perspective - Affirmative Action at this point has become a mechanism of reverse discrimination (go ahead - ask me why I was only "conditionally" accepted at the University of Michigan with good grades and a near perfect SAT score... then duck and cover).
Discrimination is alive and well. Segregation is alive and well. The difference is that now the pendulum has largely swung to the other side. No segregation, no discrimination is ever acceptable. If I'm a better candidate than you, I should get the job. If you're a better candidate than me, you should get the job. WhatTF does the color of either of our skin have to do with it? Should I play the "American Indian" heritage card to get the job? Should I get the job because some of my Ancestors were more disadvantaged than some of yours?
In reality, I grew up in a relatively poor white neighborhood with bad schools. I wish I could say they were better - certainly the teachers tried hard and some were very good and committed to their profession, but a school system has as much to do with the parents of the community as the teachers. My community was mostly blue-collar workers and education was not a high priority to most. My parents cared and did a great job raising me, warts and all. They certainly didn't put a silver spoon in my mouth - there were some really tough times and some really good times. My parents gave me something much more important - the ability to develop enough character to survive and even thrive regardless of the circumstances around me. I grew up relatively successful in spite of my circumstances, not because of them.
That opportunity is available to anyone - in a poor white district or a poor black district or a poor hispanic district or any other district. Poverty is not peculiar to any particular race, nor is opportunity. What defines each and every one of us is what we do with the opportunities we're given. A spoiled rich white kid who exerts his privilege is far more disgusting - a poor kid who made something of himself is something to be honored.
Inequities still exist though. That spoiled rich white kid is still much more likely to end up in college, much more likely to have a higher paying job available for him when he leaves college, much more likely to waltz through college in 4 years because he doesn't have to worry about paying for it himself or the economic situation at home, compared to those of us who had to struggle through what we could because we did.
To the poor white kid or the poor black kid, though, the battle is uphill for both. The battle is in spite of the environment, not because of it. The battle is to earn your place, not have it given to you on a platter. Race is not a factor in that battle - and that is why Affirmative Action as it stands today does not work. That is why it is a mechanism to continue discrimination and racial segregation - because it judges people by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character.
Barack acknowledged that side as much as the African American stance that focuses on the continuing inequities, and challenged us all to stop avoiding the huge pink elephant in the room and deal with it.
He also villified the words (but not the person) of Reverend Wright as divisive - again implicitly invoking King:
"Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."
For that, he earned my respect.
I still continue to hope for a "Dream Team" ticket. He has the words, the eloquence, the heart. She has the brain, the experience, and the action. And neither is lacking in what the other's strengths are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)