An IT-inspired solution, but I doubt it will work:
The damn Republicans are behaving like spoiled kids in kindergarten: theΨy’d rather shut down the whole government than accept a national healthcare plan that’s already passed into law. That’s no surprise, for the Party of Greed doesn’t like poor or middle-class people getting cheap medical insurance. Because this is a family-oriented site, I’ll express my feelling like this: $()(_(*¶^^#$*^&^%§!!!!!!
And, as P.Z. has noted, this shutdown also affects science, suspending much of the grant-funded or government-run scientific activity in the U.S.
h/t:Grania
So, it’s a twofer for the religious wing (is it still a wing?) of the Republican party: no evil socialism AND no science. It’s like Christmas.
It pretty much IS the party.
And NINE DAYS before NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant proposals are due. Not only is NSF itself shut down, but so is the entire website.
Off to fume some more…
There is an adult wing of the GOP. They are thin on the ground these days; but they exist. But the Tea Baggers are wagging the dog for the moment.
There is? Where are they, off at the unicorn farm?
Too frightened of right-wing(nut) challengers to raise their heads, for the most part. (I am NOT a GOP supporter; but I do know of some sane GOP members.)
Any GOP member who is unwilling to stand up against the Tea Bagggers doesn’t qualify as “adult” in my book. Unless “adult” has become a synonym for “cowardly”.
Adults refer to their own cowardice as “foresight”. So they don’t stand up to Tea Party because they know they can easily be replaced by a Tea Partier.
In that case, what is the difference? They may as well be baggers.
Adults don’t confuse cowardice and foresight. The two concepts are quite distinct.
Jon Huntsman is a sane Republican – I do not share many of his views, but he’s not a nut (at least when he’s not worshipping at the LDS church). That, of course, is why he never had a chance of being nominated to the GOP ticket for president.
I don’t see him out speaking loudly against the insanity. I have seen his daughter in that role, though. So maybe there are one or two remaining of that near-extinct species.
Actually, I think he was just on Meet the Press and he did say some things in opposition to the insanity – though I don’t get my news from TV at all, so I didn’t hear any of the interview first hand.
This has been going on for some time. If you look around you, and everyone else in the vehicle is wearing overly large shoes and a red rubber nose, you just might be in the clown car. And if you are unwilling to get out of the clown car, people are perfectly justified in making certain assumptions about your own choice of footwear.
Exactly. This is identical to the argument about ‘moderate’ religionists and violent extremists, which comes as no surprise when you consider how many teabaggers are also xian taliban.
Can anyone explain (or link to an explanation) how something like this is even possible?
I spend most of my waking moments in a confused state (makes me a good student), most of the time it makes me spend my time reading, but I can’t make sense of this. It’s a very weird thing to do, especially for adults in expensive suits. I don’t know how this is not treasonous, it’s an absurd form of terrorism. This is what
I live in England and the only people I get to talk to are other English people, we’re all very confused and sympathetic. If you want to come over and have a chat I’ll put the kettle on and we can watch The IT Crowd so you know who the bloke in the picture is.
I imagine the next Die Hard would play like this if it was written and directed by David Lynch or Charlie Kaufman.
I know many Canadians who are permanent residents. They typically do not get US citizenship — mainly so they can go back north to use Canada’s healthcare system when needed.
Maybe that tells you what you need to know?
How we got here, I don’t really know. Back in the “good old” days, healthcare was relatively cheap and the method of socializing the costs was that everyone who paid at hospitals, etc., paid a little more for those who couldn’t. (Oh yeah, and many people simply went without — such a caring, responsible (dare I say Christian?) way to do it.)
The reason, I think, is this: The GOP is in the pocket of the insurance companies. Healthcare does not fit the insurance model. Everyone needs healthcare, it’s not like a wind storm or something. The system, as currently constituted, exists to enrich insurance compannies and their investors. Providing health care is only an ancilliary concern at best.
I’d love to see a Canada/UK style model here. I was disappointed that Obama didn’t go all the way. But then you can see how hard even this step has been in US politics.
I can see why they have taken their government hostage. The US healthcare system is like a government sponsored eugenics programme where only the rich can get it. Everyone else has to complain, take pride in giving their money to insurance companies or banks for loans so they’re not socialists like the rest o the developed world or take pride in treating themselves like a Neanderthal. That’s quite a simple thing to figure out when you have a little understanding how these politicians can become so rich. But they couldn’t have a show like Breaking Bad without their developing country healthcare system.
The thing that confuses me is how they did it, the only way I knew was to lock up the Capitol building and aim lots of guns at the politicians inside and all that simple stuff. How it was actually done today is confusing. I wonder if there was a lot of paperwork.
You can use the Canadian healthcare system with dual citizenship. Canada recognizes US and Canadian citizenship (not sure if the US does). The pain the butt part is if you leave, you need to come back and stay for a time before you can use it again. There was a ridiculous case of a Canadian nurse who moved to the US then came back to Canada when she was diagnosed with cancer and was going to die but wanted treatment to extend her life to get her house in order. Canada wouldn’t give it to her (I should say, Ontario wouldn’t give it to her – health care is administered by the provinces) because she hadn’t been back long enough. I thought just let her have the treatment for crying out loud…she had a child to look after.
The US does not currently (well, 2007) ask you to rescind your Canadian citizenship if you take US.
Even if they did, who cares? It’s not up to the US to decide who is or isn’t a Canadian citizen.
Well, they can make you choose & they’ve done so in the past. Germany doesn’t recognize citizenships other than it’s own. My friend (German but living in Canada) was horrified when Germany basically tore up her husband’s German citizenship when he became Canadian. I like to imagine it as Klingons turning their backs in shame, but I’m sure that’s not exactly how it went down.
its not it’s. Jeez.
Germany is not the only country which normally (there are exceptions) doesn’t allow dual citizenship. As a naturalized German citizen myself, I think this is a good idea. Basically, anyone who claims to need another citizenship is probably doing something shady. 😐
This is well documented. Anyone considering taking on citizenship should consider the consequences beforehand, not like the male-to-female-sex-change patient in Iran (true story) who didn’t like the way he discovered, too late, women are treated in Iran.
In the case of Canada denying health care, I can see the logic: People who work and pay taxes elsewhere, thus not supporting the Canadian health-care system, should not be able to benefit from it. Note than some of these people work elsewhere so that they can pay lower taxes than in Canada.
Well I guess I’m shady then because I have dual citizenship with Canada and New Zealand. I wonder what shady things I will do today. Maybe I will eat Minties and a butter tart!
but I can’t make sense of this.
It’s not just you. There is no sense to be made.
It’s all idiotic posturing from the GOP. The ACA has been approved through congress, the president, the supreme court, numerous other court challenges and the 2010 and 2012 elections. But, still, they refuse to believe it, I think.
Much better we destroy the current recovery and that millions of USians have to go to emergency rooms for care (too little and too late) rather having sane medical treatment, for which every US citizen will pay a bundle, rather than accept a reality they don’t like.
Little children …
tag close fail …
Just going to check out if MAVEN won’t be launched into the martian launch window.
You know, just half the point with having Curiosity characterizing the local atmosphere! :-/
The MAVEN web site in the glory of republican greed:
There is very few things that I truly hate. I HATE the republican.
“this shutdown also affects science, suspending much of the grant-funded or government-run scientific activity in the U.S.”
Well, what’s left of it, anyway…
The CDC (center for disease control) is not funded or doing its job, as the FDA (food and drug administration), no random sampling of drugs and foods coming in from outside the USA. Disabled veterans benefits will also stop after a week or so, and most of the wingnuts who voted to stop these services have never served their nation in uniform and they also believe that “god will provide and protect”.
As we all know SARS and the avian flu has a massive fear of gods wrath….. Vote out the idiots…. Support the I.F.P. … A movement for an idiot free planet, a Dawkins brain child.
theΨy’d
What was that? Is Teh Internetz part of the shutdown?
I loved that random psi because it’s like a devil’s pitchfork!
I am a bemused Brit. I was in LA a couple of years ago talking to a Latino New Yorker. She was very insightful and knowledgeable about the world inside and outside the USA. She explained to me that the country was encouraged to get by with cheap food and circus to keep the citizens in their place and entertained. I had not clocked the fact that the circus was in DC.
Who needs enemies with friends like these?
Ps. I loved the original post.
It’s such a pity it’s so serious affecting not only US citizens but actually much of the world.
The deadline for the rest of the world is October 17th if I recall correctly.
One comment I read suggested the Tea Partyers will be quite happy with the shutdown as it only affects stuff they hate anyway!
Gotta love the USA – preferably from afar downunder
This sort of thing is part of that American Exceptionalism I keep hearing about. In Australia and other Westminster based countries this would be known as “blocking supply”, the consequence of doing so is both houses of parliament are dissolved and a general election is held*.
Maybe when the US gets some adults running things the can fix the rules?
* Yes I know about 1975, but at least it gets resolved.
Even 1975 wasn’t as disastrous as the situation in the USA. In England the upper house (House of Lords) isn’t actually allowed to block supply, so it can’t really happen because if the House of Commons blocks supply the gov’t has lost the confidence of the House and there will be either a change of government or an election or both.
But, somehow or other, there’s never any shortage of money for wars, or suspensions of payments to troops and armaments, is there?
There are always laws insuring that the greedy get wealthier in the United States.
Does the Government shutdown the also suspend these GOP politician’s paycheques & health benefits?
No.
Paychecks are but a minor part of the income of American politicians. There are 10 times as many lobbyists in Washington DC (practicing their right of “free speech”, doncha know?) as there are members of Congress. Suspend their paychecks and they’ll get by.
Congresspeople’s salaries are written into permanent law, rather than funded by annual appropriations. This means that members of the House and Senate will still be paid. BUT Congressional staffers will not. The current Congress can’t even stop itself from getting paid, since a Constitutional amendment prohibits salaries of the House and Senate from being altered before a new term starts.
So in other words, it was easy as pie for the GOP House to hold the government hostage, since their own pay will not be directly affected. They care not for the hard working everyday folk receiving a federal paycheck.
More likely to be effective: pull all their security personnel.
And I also doubt that Constitution guarantees them Internet and electricity in their office.
Or heating. Or glass in the windows.
“…pull all their security personnel.” Now there’s a plan. I like it!
And I bet a lot of unpaid congressional staffers are really enjoying their “jobs” right now.
I loved the IT Crowd reference…that was a great show and if you’ve worked in IT where there is a Service Desk, you get extra laughs!
I feel for you Americans – I hope you get those annoying people out of your government…the West needs America not to fall apart and Canada needs its biggest trading partner (Canada is also the US’s biggest trading partner) to keep doing good stuff.
Jerry – with your politics, you’d make a good Canuckistanian. 🙂
Yes, and the next question is, “Well, are you sure that it’s plugged in?” And I think Congress’ plug has fallen out.
The American constitution is fundamentally flawed. The British system is much better. When a bill is defeated, general elections must immediately follow. The politicians then have to expose themselves to the wrath of the electorate. Therefore, most think twice before jumping into gridlock.
“When a bill is defeated, general elections must immediately follow”
When a bill is defeated?
Uhm .. no!
Whoa, that would be a lot of elections!
That should say when a Finance Bill is defeated an election must follow. A government must be able to command a majority in the house of commons. If it can’t get its budget approved then the government falls. (In theory someone could try and form a new government by putting together a coalition but if no-one can get a majority then there must be an election.)
A Finance bill, or another vote on a matter of confidence.
The United States Constitution is the first and finest national constitution in the world.
It has, after all, created the world’s oldest continuous government.
Those flaws that it has are not fundamental, and most of the problems in the current US political system which have any relationship to the Constitution are caused by not heeding it correctly (e.g. the filibuster, which is not allowed under the Constitution, yet lingers like a zombie at a brain buffet).
That’s a pretty broad statement that is certainly arguable, but it is true that the current situation is not rooted in the Constitution.
This is quite arguable, as the US constitution is not the model for most of the world’s democracies. Even Japan, whose constitution was dictated by the American occupation, has a parliamentary model like the UK.
Discussions of that much fetishized tract always remind me of the blessed Mr Podsnap, talking it is true of the almost mythical English Constitution, but still:
‘It merely refferred,’ Mr. Podsnap explained, with a sense of meritorious proprietorship, ‘to Our Constitution, Sir. We Englishmen are Very Proud of our Constitution, Sir. It Was Bestowed Upon Us By Providence. No Other Country is so Favoured as This Country.’
‘And ozer countries?-‘ the foreign gentleman was beggining, when Mr. Podsnap put him right again.
‘We do not say Ozer; we say Other: the letters are “T” and “H;” You say Tay and Aish, You Know; (still with clemency.) The sound is “th” – “th!” ‘
‘And other countries,’ said the foreign gentleman. ‘They do how?’
‘They do, Sir,’ returned Mr. Podsnap, shaking his head; ‘they do – I am sorry to be obliged to say it – as they do.’
‘It was a little particular of Providence,’ said the foreign gentleman, laughing; ‘for the frontier is not large.’
‘Undoubtedly,’ assented Mr. Podsnap; ‘But So it is. It was the Charter of the Land. This Island was Blest, Sir, to the Direct Exclusion of such Other Countries as – as there may happen to be. And if we were all Englishmen present, I would say,’ added Mr. Podsnap, looking round upon his compatriots, and sounding solemnly with his theme, ‘that there is in the Englishman a combination of qualities, a modesty, and independence, a responsability, a repose, combined with an absence of everything, calculated to call a blush, into the cheek of a young person, which one would seek in vain among the Nations of the Earth.’
… apart from those which predate it (an unarguable question of history, e.g. the English/ British constitution, with it’s amendments) and are better (by whatever metric you and your interlocutors agree upon).
The UK has never had a constitution. Some refer to it’s scattershot legal tradition as a “constitution”, but that’s playing fast and loose with terms.
I did not say, you’ll note, that the US Constitution is perfect, or that the exact structure of the US government is ideal. But every constitution that has followed (it’s aa simple historical fact that it’s the first national constitution) has been inferior in some important way, usually by lacking something guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Of course the Bill of Rights was not part of the original US Constitution, but several clauses about the role of slavery in US law were in there from the beginning. And the Bill of Rights really only became what we appreciate it for today when the 14th ammendment made it applicable to the States as well as the federal government.
There are some serious flaws in the US constitution that persist today, including the electoral college and (IMHO) the vice presidency.
Just in the 20th century, other original flaws have been addressed by some significant ammendments (the 16th, 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th are examples). In addition, expansive but necessary readings of the commerce clause and the right to privacy made the US a significantly saner and freer place to live, but those decisions could easily have gone differently (and a significant number of Republicans would like to see them undone).
The US Constitution was admirable in 18th century, and has become better over time, but it’s not magical or sacred.
If anyone thought I was claiming it was in any way magical or sacred, that’s something they brought to the reading. I certainly did not bring it to the writing.
Everything we humans do is imperfect, but in every category there is a front runner. As far as national constitutions go, that of the US is way in front, even with its remaining flaws.
Notice how the repulicans want the “American pride” to remain intact. The system won’t work if the slaves lose confidence that the United States is the best there is.
eheffa #14: Congressional pay & healthcare benefits are not impacted, although both will be suspended for some of their staff.
It is a long story how US society went from the progressive era — identified by me as beginning with the TR administration and ending with Carter’s — to the slide back to the 19th century we have been embarked on since.
Long story short: abandonment of progressive ideals by too many in national/state/local Dem party leadership; adoption of appeasement by the same group toward butt-hurt conservatives who have kept the whine button constantly depressed from 1932 until today, and won’t be letting off it any time soon; lack of focus/resolve by the progressive sector of the US electorate; concomitant successes notched by motivated Righty sector poll turnout, starting at the local school board level and moving far and wide from there (this is where the anti-science movement may be traced to); demolition of Glass-Steagall, the Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine, and other rules that once kept playing fields of many sorts somewhat level and fair; & maybe not last/certainly not least, the deep pockets of reactionary financial elites fanatically determined to regain all the privileges they believe were unjustly and immorally stolen from them in the first 7 decades of the 20th century, plus some plenty generous interest to boot.
Excellent summary!
Where’s the ‘Like’ button?
As I have said elsewhere, look on the bright side, the Australian dollar is going up!
The USA seems to be rapidly joining other American countries (Argentina, Peru etc) as an economic and governmental basket case. The right to own an AK-47 and ensuring that only the rich can afford health care is more important than running the country.
The problem in the USA is the same one that brought down the French Monarchy and many other regimes, the aristocracy refuses to pay taxes. They don’t think they owe anyone anything, and they have no intention of contributing to the support of the government, or less fortunate members of society. Now that the rich own nearly everything, if they won’t pay taxes there isn’t enough money to pay for the government, which is why the US has the worst education and health systems in the developed world.
I am so glad to be Australian. I wish the best for you all over there and hope very much you can sort things out. Maybe this will force the GOP supporters to realise that the Republicans are not fit to govern, and maybe you can fix the structural problems which allow this sort of thing to happen. It isn’t 1800 anymore and some changes are needed.
Unfortunately, your third paragraph is pretty much dead on. Among the things that the wealthy own are most sources of information, “the press”, broadly defined. That being the case, it is difficult for “GOP supporters to realise that the Republicans are not fit to govern” since the aristocracy is not at all interested in helping them know the truth about who is running their country. Australians could do us one favor: please take back your SOB media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. He’s one immigrant I wish the Tea Partiers would send back to where he came from.
You needn’t think he’s left us to go and persecute you, he just organised our recent election to put his conservative choice for Prime Minister in power. A man who is known to his peers as “The Mad Monk” and who wishes to take the country back to the 1950s. I’m afraid Rupert is quite capable of ruining more than one country at a time.
“… the aristocracy refuses to pay taxes.”
Not the aristocracy as we might traditionally think of it, but corporate aristocracy now.
Microsoft’s main reason for buying up Nokia a while back is because they have so much money outside the U.S. which they do not want to pay taxes on, so they keep it out of the country (as per Robert Reich, a fairly impressive fellow).
According to the latest data (2009) I can find in a quick Google search, the richest 1% of US taxpayers paid 36.73% of income taxes. The top 5% paid 58.66%, and the top 10% paid 70.47%. The bottom 50% paid 2.25%. There is certainly gross income inequality in the US by historical standards, but the idea that “the aristocracy refuses to pay taxes” is factually untrue.
Just came across this gem the accuracy of which I cannot vouch for but it has to be true doesn’t it: “Congress’s approval rating was barely 10 per cent, making it marginally less popular than colonoscopies or communists.”
And on the aristocracy not wanting to pay tax-indeed want ing a refund .forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/09/17/give-back-yes-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/
What a ghastly perspective. (I mean Binswanger’s, not yours, Gordon)
Binswanger’s “philosophy” is ghastly indeed. Every time I see this objectivist BS put out there in its naked form, I’m reminded of this quote:
How this emotionally stunted and intellectually limited individual draws a bright distinction between Bernie Madoff and Lloyd Blankfein is beyond me.
A commenter called Kevin Dedes there seems to have a great response to it:
Unfortunately, people are upset at the amorphous entity “Congress,” rather than at the Republican Party or their own individual Representative or Senator. For ages, people have successfully run for Congress by running against “Congress.”
No, turning it off and on again won’t help. You need an anti-virus to clean up the malware that has filled (just over) half the disk. Sadly the next release is likely to be just as buggy as the last few releases.
This closes a lot of agencies and venues. Forget about your National Park camping reservations. No vacation for you.
Not the end of the world, I know, just an example of how deep this goes.
What? How does that work? Are your National Parks surrounded by razor wire fences to prevent people (who own them, after all) from entering them, and going and camping anywhere they want?
Government or no government, payment of state employees or non-payment, I have (and use) an absolute right to go (almost) anywhere in the country, walk where I want (and cycle in most places), and camp where I want. (What I don’t have a right to do is damage other people’s property ; that’s called “criminal damage”. But charges need to be raised and presented in court in every case.)
The big exceptions are motorways reserved for people in motor vehicles, and foreign military bases. Bombing and ranges are advised against entry, but not prohibited.
In U.S. Natl. Parks and State Parks, camping is generally limited to specific areas set aside for that purpose. Usually at these sites there are toilet facilities, garbage facilities, and even playground facilities. Some camping areas have distinctions between sites designated for tent camping vs. motor vehicle camping. Some sites have electric and sewage hookups, some are labeled as “primitive” in that they have none of that, and maybe even pit toilets as opposed to plumbed toilets. Some have shower facilities. Camping sites are limited in number, hence the need for reservations at the more heavily used parks especially during peak vacation season.
In U.S. Natl. Parks, and most state parks, setting up tents or camping anywhere is not allowed. Staying on trails is encouraged. In some areas where backcountry camping is allowed, the rules are that you have to carry everything out, including your human waste.
Many of the Nat. Parks are vast wild places. Others are more historical and/or urban (Gettysburg or Williamsburg for example are historical parks)
I think, if I am not mistaken, in your country a Natl. Park’s real estate is actually still owned by individuals. Not so in the U.S. — the land is owned by the government (yes, the people are govt.) so there are rules set up for each park which help to keep it in as natural or clean a condition as possible.
I may be overstating it here but generally Americans can be real pigs, leaving cans, bottles, plastic bags, even dirty diapers all over the place. I live in the countryside and some people regularly just fling their cans and bottles out the windows of their cars on a regular basis. Wreaks havoc with some farming equipment.
Back to Nat. Parks –they have staff, which means police (“rangers”), people cleaning things, garbage collectors, fee collectors, etc. (Nat. Parks are generally not free entry).
This is a general overview. Each park has different rules.
Jesse, thanks for handling that response so excellently!
In general, that is the case ; specific buildings, and sometimes estates are owned by a body which “holds them in trust for the nation” (Separate bodies for each of the constituent countries of then nation.), but most of the land of a national park is still owned by the individuals property holders who owned them before the park was established. A National Park is more a system for management of planning consent and co-ordination of tourism development than it is a system of day-to-day micromanagement.
We have the same shitheads here too. From personal observation I can add that such people exist in (at least) France, Greece, Israel, Russia, Abu Dhabi, Azerbaijan, Korea, Tanzania. Have I forgotten on ? Probably. It is safe to posit that it is a routine occurrence in humans, as the historical record of trash heaps in the middle of long-term settlements has been a fruitful source of archaeological finds. I can bring to mind mention of at least two archaeological studies on human coprolites ; one from Viking Yorvik (York) and one from some cave up in Oregon, I think some millennia pre-Columbian.
Normally those services are provided by employees of the local parish/ town/ county councils in which the service is provided. Often they’re subsidised to some degree from central government, but the employees themselves are from a more local level of government, or possibly even employees of private companies sub-contracted by the local council. In short, they’d not be laid off by a “shutdown” of central government, at least not for a good long time. Months.
For which you’d need (1) fences, and (2) a law of trespass. Which, at least in Scotland, (1) is impractically expensive and (2) not present.
The wife and I were actually cycling past an active airfield this afternoon, with gliders taking off and landing every few minutes. (It’s Aboyne ; famous in soaring circles (helices?), apparently.) They felt the need to invest in a large sign pointing out that the 2003 “Right to Roam” legislation explicitly does not grant the right to walk onto an active airfield. Practically the whole of the rest of the landscape, one has the right to roam on. (Though not to cause damage too.)
This is a step in the right direction:
http://www.wolf-pac.com
How many repubs are being effectively paid to think the way they do.
House of Turds
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=7446#more-7446
spotted on another site this morning.
‘America was not shut down properly. Would you like to start America in safe mode, with free healthcare & without the guns? (Recommended)’.
🙂
Reblogged this on ♥ I-divahhh ♥.
hahahha loved it!
Big deal. The US Government has shut down 18 TIMES since 1976, for various reasons.
It is a big deal if you are someone who’s paycheck is affected. It is a big deal if you are lost in a national park and are in need of rescue. It is a big deal if you are unable to have your research grant processed or if you are a business that needs information from NASA personnel in order to do your job.
But I guess if it doesn’t immediately affect Matt D, then it really isn’t a problem.
As opposed to each previous shutdown, this is the first where a minority of a minority (1. D Executive; 2. D Senate; 3. R House; 4. Teaparty, which is a subset minority of the triune minority R House) holds the US government & Constitution hostage in an attempt to compel a minority reversal of existing law enacted by governmental majority.
The ACA is law because 2 of 3 branches of government followed constitutional procedures to enact it. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the constitution forbids this HoR action, which is why there is so much commentary worldwide about the difference between the USA system of government and parliamentary democracy.
Barak “Neville Chamberlain” Obama and his appeasement presidency is, the way I see it, as much responsible for this dangerous situation as are the Tea Party know-nothing nihilists. Had he dealt with their intransigent nature as resolutely from Day 1 in office as he belatedly (finally!) is with this issue, we well may never have arrived at this OK Corral standoff.
This right-of-center presidency will receive little historical respect as it is, less if he caves in any way that accedes to Tea Party blackmail, including — maybe particularly — concessions to SS or Medicare/Medicaid, which his poisoned neoliberal personal beliefs compel him toward in any case.
You sound like my brother. 😉
I almost agree with you. We are in this situation partly because of the previous refusal to bargain with political nihilists.
While Obama is nowhere near as progressive as I would like, I do think some of that rhetorical venom is misdirected.
gbjames — I think Obama is centrist-right at best. There are some progressive actions his administration can take credit for, true. Perhaps omitting to list those is why you describe my comments as ‘venom’?
I certainly hope you do not mean to say this mess is at least partly attributable to ‘previous refusal to bargain’, but if you do I must note that I state exactly the opposite. This dog currently wagging the GOP tail sees everything in Manichaean terms; one is either strong or not strong, and there will be a policy winner — and a policy loser. Nothing in-between. Given Tea Party economic and social policy demands as I read them, I see little room for compromise with them that is good for anyone but elites, so to hell with that.
From day one the President pursues accommodation with an ideologically fanatical take-no-prisoners opposition convinced of their own moral sanctity, who will only recognize compromise as appeasement weakness, and a vulnerable gate into the structure they are determined to conquer and rule. Obama gains nothing in the attempt, while risking losing either incrementally or in large chuncks.
I must apologize for a very confusing brain-fart in my previous post. The words “refusal to” should NOT have been there. I agree that part of the situation we are in is due to previously bargaining with political terrorists. I should have re-read before hitting the Post button.
Still, I using the “Neville Chamberlain” slur was over-the-top. Whether one calls Obama “center left” or “center right” depends on what perspective one takes. It is certainly true that the entire political spectrum in the US has shifted rightward over the past 40 years. I’d call Bernie Sanders a pretty moderate fellow, myself. But given the lay of the political landscape these days, when the neo-Confederates who control the House define the rightward end of the spectrum, I don’t think Obama should be called “right of center”.
Right or Left of center all depends upon where Center lies, of course, and that was never defined for this context. And where each of us sees it is subjective.
There are charts developed within the last few years that show where the population lies when poll questions asked about perrenial issues in 1970 (abortion, bith control, sex ed in grammer/high school, church/state relationship, capital punishment, civil rights, maybe a couple of others) were polled again in ’05 or thereabouts.
There was a definite center line area in 1970, and lines from it demarking farthest left & right. In 20005, the poll numbers of people on the left showed the closest to center moved right about two increments, and the rest of the bunch drifted somewhat in that direction, as well.
The group on the right, otoh, was thirty or so points farther in that direction. I explained this while riding in a car with a friend by saying that all in the left continues to be on the hood, but the a large majority of the right is either in the ditch over there, or in worst case clear out in that field.
For this reason, I still place the center almost exactly where it was 43 years ago, almost dead center in that car hood.
Back then, neoliberals were still a dream of Hayek and but a gleam in Friedman’s eye. Since we’ve had Clinton and Gore, and now Obama. The neoliberal position is anything but left, or even centrist. At least by my definition.
Like I said, I mostly agree. My brother would completely agree. 😉
Exactly gbjames
Interesting how many can think critically on many subjects, yet are so blind to human suffering or personal differences unless it directly effects their lives. Guess having a brain doesn’t directly link to having a heart.
I would like to propose two one sentance laws that I’m sure our elected representatives will never pass but that would clear up the nonsense rather quickly.
1. No elected official may have health insurance that is better than the worst available to any of his/her constituents.
2. When congress shuts the government down, legislators don’t get paid.
Obama absolutely should not cave in – simply because extortion will get entrenched in our political culture just the way routine filibuster has.
The interesting point is why did the Republicans feel their gambit would yield concessions from the Democrats? This is plainly not a case of “Give us something we like and we’ll give you something YOU like”. What is at stake is the U.S. economy, it’s standing in the world community as a credit worthy player, and the very well being of its citizens. We’re in it together. The very premise of the Republican gambit is utterly incriminating as to who they really are: for the Republicans themselves know in their hearts Democrats care more about their country then they do. Hence the basis for hoping the other side will concede. Is it not time the rest of America acknowledges what the Republicans themselves implicitly know to be? true?
Thom Hartmann offers this intriguing conjecture about Teapub strategy dictated by oligarch overlords:
http://act.alternet.org/go/38310?t=11&akid=10994.156328.DgmqSW