I had an interesting moment this week, after talking with Tom Torlakson and then going over my recording of his speech and interview. Mr. Torlakson is currently an Assemblymember, and is running to replace Jack O’Connell as the next Secretary of Public Instruction.
He has a calm and quiet confidence, almost optimism, about him. He was able to speak passionately, yet clearly and rationally.
The problem I fear is that his calm and reasoned voice will be drowned out by the insanity around us.
In the movie, he ran for Senate in Pennsylvania, as he went from media appearances to rallies that were more like folk-rock concerts. During his debate, the movie perfectly captured him and his opponent. Bob Roberts appeared as the almost-maniacal demagogue, spewing forth hate and anger, while the opponent and incumbent, Senator Paiste, calmly rattled off the liberal agenda from the prior twenty years. That litany rang completely hollow, and was drowned out by the tidal wave of anger and hate.
During the showdown debate, Senator Paiste declined to engage in a smear campaign, declaring that he did not believe in and never would engage in negative campaigning.
Bob Roberts spoke, "Ladies and Gentlemen, why can’t you get ahead? Why can’t you have the home of your dreams? The fast car, a nice vacation?"
Senator Paiste, "Let’s tackle the homeless problem. Let’s tackle child care, health care."
Bob Roberts: "Why has your American Dream been relegated to the trash heap of history. I’ll tell you why: because of the wasteful social programs of Brickley Paiste."
Senator Paiste: "Let’s put people back to work. Create jobs, encourage industry. I can see a brighter future. But we have to work hard and, dare I say it, sacrifice."
Bob Roberts: "And I remind the public that Brickley Paiste still has not told us how he will vote on the use of force in the Persian Gulf."
Senator Paiste: "We need a strong America, dedicated to issues that matter. We need to care about people."
Bob Roberts: "Let’s cut taxes, let’s make it possible for the working man to keep the money that he earns."
Senator Paiste: "Because that is what politics is really about. Reality, not image."
Bob Roberts: "Vote for me and I will bring the values of the common man to bear in Washington, DC. I will bring youth and experience and passion. And belief."
In that exchange, Senator Paiste looked like a man for whom time had passed by and Bob Roberts evoked energy and youth, in the midst of his scaled-down rhetoric.
On Monday Tom Torlakson told the crowd calmly, "I’m asking this question to group after group, why are we here? Why are you here? It’s because, despite the double-digit unemployment, despite the horrible foreclosures, despite the cutbacks that are gripping and destructive to education, fundamentally aren’t we all optimists? We’re here because we believe that we can be a force for change, individually linking arms with like-minded citizens, we can turn things around in the right direction."
Later he said, "We owe a lot to teachers. I’m fed up with the blame game, pointing fingers, blaming teachers, the teachers are the problem," he said. "Teachers aren’t the problem, teachers are the solution."
Compare that, however, with the venom spewed by those such as Christine O’Donnell. Ms. O’Donnell, you may recall, knocked off former Congressman and Governor Mike Castle, by riding the Tea Party movement.
This is the woman who likened masturbation to adultery. And reportedly told her opponent, "You know, these are the kind of cheap, underhanded, un-manly tactics that we’ve come to expect from Obama’s favorite Republican, Mike Castle…Mike, this is not a bake-off, get your man-pants on."
But Ms. O’Donnell seems more like the latest version of Sarah Palin – a lightweight, weighed down by her own lack of understanding of complex political issues.
The real voices in the wilderness are those of people like commentator Glenn Beck.
This morning Dana Milbank, a columnist with the Washington Post wrote, "In August, I wrote that while it’s not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by his fans, he would do well to stop encouraging extremists."
Mr. Milbank goes on to call Beck "dangerous," "because his is the one voice in the mass media that validates conspiracy theories held by the unstable."
He continues, "It’s not that Beck is directly advocating violence… but he’s giving voice and legitimacy to the violent fringe."
It was Mr. Beck’s religious rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial at the end of August, in front of an enormous and impassioned crowd, that ought to give you the sense that the more moderate elements in our society may be talking in the proverbial wind tunnel, drowned out by a wave of extremism.
Mr. Beck spent the last year calling Obama a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." Now he argues that he said this poorly, and that he has come to see Obama as an advocate of "liberation theology," which he said pitted victims against oppressors.
It might be easier to view Mr. Beck as just another voice shouting in the wilderness, were it not for the thousands, if not millions, following his voice.
As I wrote a few weeks ago, I see the Tea Party phenomena largely as another angry white anti-intellectual stream, making use of modern communications technology to move beyond what people like Father Caughlin or Huey Long were able to do in the 1930s.
Richard Hofstadter’s "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" could easily have been written to include the Tea Party movement, as it is simply another anti-immigrant, anti-government, anti-intellectual movement.
Unfortunately, the real problem is how the rest of the country responds. Brickley Paiste was a distinguished and dignified gentlemen, who failed to see the threat that Bob Roberts represented, before it was too late.
For me, this is not a partisan issue, and the responsible leaders on both sides of the aisle have been slow to act and move against this dangerous and unstable force.
Should we be angry? Of course we should be angry. We are suffering through one of the worst economic stretches since the Great Depression. To some extent it is self-inflicted.
We can argue about the ability of President Obama to deal with the current problems that face this nation. We can debate about the effectiveness of his policies. But we also have to understand that most of the problems facing this nation now are problems that faced this nation in September of 2008, at the time of the economic collapse that almost brought down this nation’s entire financial system.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama has become a Brickley Paiste. Failing to recognize the danger that Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers represent to this nation, until it is too late. He has not responded to the lunacy – and it is simply that – that he was not born in Hawaii, that somehow his parents had the foresight to forge documents of birth because they knew that a young man of mixed ethnic heritage would become President of the United State. He has not responded to the lunatics who claim he is a Muslim (as though that mattered anyway).
I find it amazing that people are so bent out of shape about a very modest health care initiative, but at least that can be a rational political issue. The rest of this nonsense is simply nonsense. But, like the good people during the McCarthy Era of conspiracy theories, few decent people have stepped up to say, "sir, have you no decency?" and "enough is enough."
Democrats are hoping against hope just to hang on. But they are fooling themselves. Just as they fooled themselves in 1994. They have no idea the depth of the anger and suspicion that exists in this nation and that has been unfurled due to two things: bad economic times, and the failure of good people to say "enough."
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “I find it amazing that people are so bent out of shape about a very modest health care initiative, but at least that can be a rational political issue.”
Modest it is not. Medicare coverage for the elderly has been cut, health insurance premiums are going up. So in essence, Obamacare is going to result in less coverage for more money. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that things like covering those age 25 and under does not come at the cost of cutting other forms of health coverage.
Let’s see: in 2005 there was a massive Medicare benefit enacted that will cost us all a trillion dollars over a decade. That new prescription drug benefit was unfunded. So as part of the health care reform bill, there was a reduction in the rate of increase that Medicare providers will be paid, which will probably total $400 – 500 billion dollars over a decade. As an offset, the prescription drug “hole” was plugged that had left some Medicare recipients uncovered for a portion of their drug benefit.
The reduction in Medicare is necessary in order to expand health coverage to millions of Americans who don’t currently have ANY coverage. Otherwise, the whole thing simply doesn’t pencil out. Are you suggesting that there should be no cuts in Medicare whatsoever, that the prescription drug benefit should remain but still be unfunded, and that the uninsured should remain uninsured?
A thoughtful commentary. I don’t understand all the details of Obama health care, but I do know that we are the only industrialized country in the world that doesn’t have public health care. Certainly it will need tweaking and adjusting, but I agree with the sentiment of the author– all in all, it is “a modest health care initiative.”
Modest it is not. Medicare coverage for the elderly has been cut, health insurance premiums are going up. So in essence, Obamacare is going to result in less coverage for more money.
In time it becomes a savings to Medicare. A number of Medicare recipients go without medical coverage for years prior to becoming eligible for Medicare. That situation only postpones medical situations that really need to be treated, to the point where it becomes more expensive to treat the condition through Medicare.
yes well david, with reporters like you adding to the republican media, that democrats are screwed, it’s going to become a self fullfilling prophecy..
DEMS ARE MAD BECAUSE OF THE REPUBLICANS THAT DECIDED TO RUN AS DEMOCRATS..THERE ARE QUITE A FEW REPUBLICANS IN DEMOCRATS CLOTHING…
SO IT’S NOT THE FAILURE OF THE DEMOCRATS, BUT THE LIES, MANIPULATION, DECEIPT AND VOTER FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE CORPORATE ELITE.
IF YOU PPL THINK THAT THE TEABAGGERS ARE SOMEHOW A “GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT” OR THAT CORPORATE AMERICA GIVES A DAMN ABOUT YOU, THEN YOU’RE A FUXKING IDIOT.
THE MEDIA MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MANIPULATE YOU, BUT SORRY, I’M NOT BUYING IT.
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS WILL NEVER BE GOOD FOR AMERICA. TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH WILL NEVER HELP AMERICA.
THE BEST THING THAT YOU PPL CAN EXPECT TO GET FROM TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AND THEIR TRICKLE DOWN, IS A COUPLE OF DROPS OF UNCOMPOSTABLE ELITE FECAL MATTER, TRICKLING DOWN THE LEGS OF A BUNCH OF RICH BABIES WHO’S DIAPERS ARE OVERFLOWING WITH GENETICALLY MODIFIED HUMAN STUPIDITY.
YOU’RE ALL FOOLS IF YOU THINK THE RICH WILL DO ANYTHING FOR THE ECONOMY.
AND WHEN THE ELITES CHIME IN WITH THEIR ARGUMENT THAT DROPPING THE TAX CUTS WILL HURT THE ECONOMY, MY QUESTION TO YOU MR. RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN IS:
WHAT HAVE THE TAX CUTS DONE FOR US LATELY? NOTHING…NOT A THING. THEY HAVEN’T DONE ANYTHING FOR US, THEY AREN’T DOING ANYTHING FOR US, AND THEY WON’T DO ANYTHING FOR US..
YOU’RE LYING TO YOURSELF IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE.
ALL THEY WILL DO IS INVEST THE MONEY AND BUY ANOTHER GUCCI BAG OFF OF THE DIVIDEND PAYMENT.
YOU’RE ALL IDIOTS
To indigorocks: try again, but this time without all caps and with less vulgarity.
Don Shor: “The reduction in Medicare is necessary in order to expand health coverage to millions of Americans who don’t currently have ANY coverage. Otherwise, the whole thing simply doesn’t pencil out.”
Exactly. In order to pay to have health insurance for those 25 and younger, Medicare coverage has to be cut. But who needs the coverage more, those 25 and younger, or those 65 and older? The insurance companies love this deal. Very few 25 year olds and younger get sick. But lots of 65 year olds and older get sick. Who got the better end of this deal? Certainly not America as a whole…
Obama’s world view, offered by him in an early interview, has been greatly influenced by the writings of a German intellectual(19th century?,name?)who had a decidedly pessimistic view of the populist potential to bring about significant positive change. Obama’s rhetoric does not appear to stem from what he believes in his gut and this has been the fatal flaw that has made him the wrong leader of the US at this critical time; he really does not BELIEVE in the possibility of the change that his rhetoric describes.
ERM: But who needs the coverage more, those 25 and younger, or those 65 and older?
No age group needs health coverage “more” than another one. Unfortunately, this mindset was a huge obstacle to achieving health insurance reform. And you didn’t address my other point: seniors receive a huge unfunded benefit in 2005.
How would you have achieved getting health coverage to the 30 – 40 million Americans who don’t have it?
Don Shor: “No age group needs health coverage “more” than another one.”
From an actuarial point of view, those 25 and younger are far likely to fall ill than those 65 and older. That is a FACT. Insurance companies use actuarial tables to determine insurance rates. Those 25 and younger can get coverage at fairly cheap rates, bc insurance companies know they are not as likely to fall ill. But each five years, the insurance companies place you in a new tier, and your insurance rates go up accordingly. Robbing those 65 years and older of medical coverage, to pay to cover those 25 years and younger is at the expense of those who are more in need of medical coverage bc they fall ill far more often.
Would I like to cover those 25 years and younger? Yes. Would I like to cover those with pre-existing conditions? Yes. But it will have to come at the cost of reducing coverage to the very people who need it most (bc they fall ill way more often) – those 65 and older. Under Obamacare, you are going to see more older people not being able to get the care they need. This has already begun to happen in the cancer arena. Gleevec, that keeps cancer at bay for those in remission is now not being covered by insurance as too expensive. As a result, cancer is beginning to return in these patients.
Obamacare is not what is promised to be, a cure for all the ills in the health care system. Instead it will rob Peter to pay Paul. How is that better?
Correction: From an actuarial point of view, those 25 and younger are far LESS likely to fall ill than those 65 and older.
davisite2: “Obama’s rhetoric does not appear to stem from what he believes in his gut and this has been the fatal flaw that has made him the wrong leader of the US at this critical time; he really does not BELIEVE in the possibility of the change that his rhetoric describes.”
As evidenced by the fact that both he and Congress have made themselves exempt form Obamacare.
Would I like to cover those 25 years and younger? Yes. Would I like to cover those with pre-existing conditions? Yes.
Great. How would you propose to see it funded, then?
Preventive medicine for everyone is cheaper & overall more efficient health coverage in the long run than curative/palliative medicine.
“As evidenced by the fact that both he and Congress have made themselves exempt form Obamacare”
What is your source for this assertion?
[url]http://mediamatters.org/research/201003250022[/url]
To Don Shor: Read your link w great interest. Then did research and found article below. Which to believe is the million dollar question? Does anyone know if “staff” loophole has been closed?
“THE WASHINGTON TIMES 7:38 p.m., Tuesday, March 23, 2010 –
President Obama declared that the new health care law “is going to be affecting every American family.” Except his own, of course.
The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of “staff” includes only the members’ personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect “ordinary Americans,” according to Vice President Joe Biden (who – being a heartbeat away from the presidency – also is not covered), not Washington insiders.
Mr. Obama frequently tossed around the talking point that the new law gave people the same type of coverage as Congress enjoyed. In his March 20 health care pep talk to wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill, the president said one of the advantages of the health care legislation was that “people will have choice and competition just like members of Congress have choice and competition.” At yesterday’s signing ceremony, Mr. Obama said Americans will be “part of a big pool, just like federal employees are part of a big pool. They’ll have the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves.” But the American people will have a public pool; the executive branch and congressional staffers kept their country-club pool private.
Last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in the plan, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers – the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts. In September, the Senate approved a scaled-down amendment that covered members of Congress and their staff. When this provision later emerged from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, the leadership and committee staff loophole had appeared. A move in December by Mr. Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to close this loophole and to extend the law to senior members of the executive branch – including the president, vice president and Cabinet members – was blocked by Senate Democratic leaders.
Mr. Grassley has introduced an amendment to the Senate health care reconciliation bill that also will apply the law to the upper tier of the executive branch and all Capitol Hill staffers, but it remains to be seen whether Democrats will let this measure move forward.
The special exemptions slipped into the health care law are another example of how those statists who rule consider themselves a privileged class, imposing burdens on the country that they will not accept themselves. Candidates for office in 2010 should pledge to close these and other loopholes in the law that impose unequal burdens and create exclusive privileged classes in America. Meanwhile, we await Mr. Obama’s explanation why if his “historic” health care law is so great for America, it’s not good enough for him and his family.”
ERM: “Would I like to cover those 25 years and younger? Yes. Would I like to cover those with pre-existing conditions? Yes.
wdf1: “Great. How would you propose to see it funded, then?”
I think a better approach would have been to make health insurance more about catastrophic coverage. That would mean higher deductibles. For instance, in a private pay plan now a person can go to their doctors for every sneeze, so long as they pay the $250 deductible. Make the deductibles $1000; or $2000. Perhaps higher deductibles depending on the amount of your income. It would mean a family has to set aside $100 a month and let it accumulate for a year, but then it is there to cover the higher deductible of $1200 per month. Or try some form of health savings accounts or perhaps a hybrid model. I don’t think we should have had such a major overhaul without thinking it through more carefully, weighing the options and the possible consequences of those options. What we’ve got now is less coverage for more money for those the most in need of medical care.
I think a better approach would have been to make health insurance more about catastrophic coverage. That would mean higher deductibles.
Sure, Elaine, but how about restrictions on the way that pre-existing conditions are set in those healthcare policies?
You have vaccines whose costs may be out of reach for families (statistics often mention that ~50% of kids live in poverty, or something close to that). If cost is an issue, then you have issues of measles, whooping cough, and flu killing people that shouldn’t have to die.
What about accessible neo-natal, pediatric, and reproductive care? So much money could be saved with timely, accessible healthcare.
To me that’s the tip of the iceberg.
Accessible healthcare would make larger numbers of the population productive in our society for longer periods of time. You will need those young workers paying taxes for a while (probably past age 65), just to keep the current medicare system sustainable for the current lucky recipients.
To wdf1: So what is your point exactly? Sorry if I am being obtuse…
To wdf1: So what is your point exactly? Sorry if I am being obtuse…
That the healthcare issue is about more than just catastrophic coverage. I think when the specifics are discussed, people tend to respond positively to most parts of the program.
Also, negative opinion of the healthcare bill also includes a significant number of respondants who think that the healthcare bill doesn’t go far enough in its coverage. So if you really asked the question, should we get rid of the health care bill and go back to the way we were, I think you’d get notably less than 50% agreeing with that position.