135 Comments

1. David Thomson:

ìThe Democrats lost in the last election much more seriously than is commonly understood.î

Yup, thatís right. The last election should have never been close. We must never forget that the MSM hurt George W. Bush by at least five percentage points. This will likely never occur again because of their diminishing importance.

ìIf there’s one thing I have learned in the last few years it’s that allegiance to any political party should be transitory.î

One should constantly ask: ìWhat have you done for me recently?î Too many people mistakenly continue to give a political party credit for past successes. It’s similar to wanting to keep the old baseball player in the line up, who is barely hitting .200, because ten years ago he won the MVP award.

The national Democratic Party is dead if you take the war on terrorism seriously. Those possessing the ultimate veto power over who will be chosen as that partyís presidential nominee are not going anywhere. Political assassination is, alas, not a viable option. A ìpro-warî Democrat will simply have to find a new home. Easier said than done? Oh well, Iím just telling it like it is.

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:11 am 2. kynna:

I agree that parties should be transitory, although I’ve never voted nationally for anyone but republicans.

Right now my biggest concern is that the democrats will never get it together to be an alternative. There is no way I could vote for any of them on the national stage.

So how can I insure that my republicans will continue to care about my concerns if the alternative is so ridiculous that no one in their right mind would vote for them?

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:28 am 3. PeterArgus:

Kevin Drum wants the Dems to have a conversation about whether there really is a need to have a WOT before discussing how to fight said war. This conversation has already taken place for the vast majority of Left, Right or Center. Even among Dems I think they know where they stand. My colleagues for example believe it is a political weapon dreamed up by the Right on the scale of the Red Scare of the 50’s, despite the fact they live and work within sight (on a clear day) of the late WTC. These are the Deaniacs. A small but significant number of Dems are more aligned with Leiberman and Hillary Clinton (I am going to give her credit even though her motives may be more a political calculation) and view the WOT as a real A#1 issue. I don’t think there are many Dems on the fence. One side is not going to persuade the other. So they either take the Kerry approach, the Dean approach, or the Clinton approach. The Kerry approach - pretend to be all things to all people - has been tried and didn’t work. The last two approaches have more integrity but will weaken the Party further. I think they are in a real bind.

This is a battle that has been brewing for a long time, as noted by Ace of Spades in a post yesterday. The 60’s antiwar generation (the “children”) has reached its zenith of power in the liberal party and it now has to reckon for itself. I hope the party can be saved in favor of the “adults” but I am pessimistic

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:43 am 4. David Thomson:

Moveon.org, for instance, is not going to disappear. Billionaires like George Soros will make sure of that. ìWe bought it. We own it. We’re going to take it back,” may sound arrogant—but this group indeed does have the power to veto a presidential nominee it doesnít favor. Moveon.org is anathema, I concede, to Democrats like Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota. The last thing he needs when running for reelection is for a bunch of liberal radicals offering him their assistance. The same holds true for any Democrat competing in a red state environment. But when it comes to the presidency—Moveon.org will have its way.

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:47 am 5. Duke:

Roger, with all due respect, never pay attention to a pissing contest between either intellectuals or reporter/writers. They argue about what intelligent people already know about and stupid people don’t care about.

We all know that Islamofascism is a threat. Unless we are so gripped by the fear of being accused of being a racist (like the Dutch) that we seek other threats—Catholics, Christians, Christma Republicans—so we can alert the world.

BTW—a man wanted ad in the local LA Weekly concluded with the statement, No Republicans. She only wants to be fucked by liberals. She won’t be disappointed.

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:23 am 6. timmah!:

From Beinart’s piece:

“Announcing the formation of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the statement declared, ‘[B]ecause the interests of the United States are the interests of free men everywhere,’ America should support ‘democratic and freedom-loving peoples the world over.’ That meant unceasing opposition to communism, an ideology ‘hostile to the principles of freedom and democracy on which the Republic has grown great.’

At the time, the ADA’s [position?] was still a minority view among American liberals.”

Earnest question: was anticommunism ever more than a minority opinion among American liberals?

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:51 am 7. Terrye:

Duke:

I guess you could add Professors to the intellectual category. I just read part of an article by a Professor Jenson [UT] over at lgf in which the author states that it is a good thing we lost the war in Iraq because the American empire needs to be defeated so that we will not control the flow of oil and Iraq should be turned over to the international community to help it create a real sovereign government.

I disagree with everything that sob said and he would not doubt be comfortable in the Democratic Party.

I used to be a Democrat, people like this stole my party.

I would say the Dems need to decide if the party is to run by intelligent people who know reality from fiction or a bunch of sheltered obnoxious Chomskyites who can not find their asses in the dark with both hands and flash light.

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:58 am 8. charlotte:

Even were the US Democrat Party to understand (waaaaay too late, and so how smart can it be?) that we are in the midst of a WoT for genuine reasons, what else does it stand for?

Warning- a few “isms” to follow: It seems the Dems are too vested in social balkanization, multiculturalism and victimization, Euro soft socialism, and transnationalism. True lefties are even flirting with fascism and speech controls and love of dark power versus democracy, capitalistic economies and liberalism. With the “best” of intentions, the Democrat Party wants to lead our country to an Old European/ EU/ UN bureaucratic utopian-hell, so that we, too, can become wards of the state, citizens of the world, passive, pacifist, and indifferent or even opposed to our own western liberal traditions and civilization.

Instead of thinking the Dems could regain their cred by recognizing the WoT and Islamism, shouldn’t we ask why we should trust people who would bring a bucket of water to a five-alarm fire after it has been half-battled and who, even then, see no harm in playing with matches in a tinderbox?

Dec 11, 2004 - 10:11 am 9. PeterUK:

The extreme left has never won an honest straightforward election in a Western Democracy,they have to have a host party in which to burrow.There was a lot of this “entryism” in the British Labour Party by the Trotskyite Militant Tendency,something similar would appear to have happened to your Democratic Party.

Unless they are purged they poison the political process for decades.

Somebody said on another site that he thought George Orwell was “Right” presumably comparatively speaking,which only goes to show how far the leftward drift has gone.

The whole Moveon.org amuses me since some of them at least would be the first to put Soros against the wall if they gained power.

Dec 11, 2004 - 10:14 am 10. chuck:

Terrye,

I think one of the true revelations of the last two years is how completely off the wall nuts some of academia is. Amazing, just amazing, no.

I am one of those who would like to see the Dems actually run a leftist candidate. It would settle all sorts of debate.

Dec 11, 2004 - 10:16 am 11. John Lynch:

I am not worried about resurrecting “liberalism” (or applauding “conservatism” for that matter).

The gist of the argument is that people are becoming increasingly informed and “isms” don’t fly as well as they used to.

Ideologies in the formal sense are having a difficult time, while new idealogies (note: little “i”) are personally formed by common thinkers, not a few left coast, right coast, media or academic centric personalities.

Interesting times ahead.

Dec 11, 2004 - 10:25 am 12. Terrye:

Chuck:

Ivy Tech is looking better and better. At least they don’t pretend they want to shape your mind or whatever.

I just think it is a shame for regular people to go in debt so that some underworked overpaid blowhard sucking on the public tit can teach kids to despise their parents.

I thought this was just a manifestation of the war in Viet Nam but it has taken up permanent residence on campus and considering the cost of higher education these yahoos are accountable. Whether they like it or not.

Dec 11, 2004 - 10:39 am 13. charlotte:

John, there is that big “I” ideology of Islamism that should force many of us to agree upon an “ism” with which to ward it off.

Dec 11, 2004 - 10:42 am 14. Morgan:

What a great post.

Seems to me that Roger has laid out a rational path towards casting a vote; learn, think, decide, do.

The MSM and both parties try to influence that path all the way through - they color what a majority of people learn (through spin and selective reporting), they attempt to shape the way we think about the expected outcomes of the policies that ought to shape our votes (spin and selective use of experts), and they try to get people to decide based partly on emotion (labeling, overwrought opinion pieces, image selection).

The only step left is to try to directly control what we do by imposing consequences. I wonder if the MSM and the Democrats looked at the exit polling data from the election and thought - “obviously many Bush supporters felt that there would be consequences if they revealed their vote. If only we could abolish the secret ballot, they might not have voted at all”, and if the Repubs thought “thank God for the secret ballot”.

Previous commenters are right - the internet is allowing us to learn things we aren’t supposed to learn, to broaden our ability to analyze policies, to counter the selective emotional content of the images and editorials to which we are exposed.

Interesting times ahead, indeed.

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:02 am 15. Lem:

Tom Wolfe talked about this briefly during his 3 hour In Depth on CSPAN (delightful).

The Author finds it interesting how disconnected the intelligentsia, journalism/academia, seem to be from the rest of America. He says the coast are like (America) parenthesis, in between them he surmises you find the reason for the election among many other things distinctly American.

Democrats have lost touch with middle America. When republicans decided to “take control” of the congress they came up with some new ideas and wrote it down. The much maligned contract with America got them the congress. I can’t pin down a new idea sponsored by the democrat party if my depended on it.

Social Security reform is an opportunity for democrats; unfortunately Pelosi doesn’t see it that way.

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:04 am 16. Michael J. Totten:

Roger: A swing of three million votes is gigantic in our society where party allegiances are formed in childhood and reinforced by an omnipresent media.

Don’t forget hardcore peer pressure. (I thought that was supposed to go by the wayside after high school. Sigh.)

Dec 11, 2004 - 12:10 pm 17. Cap'n Billy:

One reason for the missing Democratic voters mentioned in Roger’s post may be the Roe Effect.

Given voting patterns of women & families that opt for abortion vs. those who do not, if would appear that a majority of these missing voters would in all likelihood have voted for Democrats this past election. Whatever your position on that decision, it is ironic that this may have cost them the 2000 & 2004 elections.

Dec 11, 2004 - 12:31 pm 18. Todd Pearson:

If there’s one thing I have learned in the last few years it’s that allegiance to any political party should be transitory. I don’t care what the party thinks. I care what I think. The minute it is the other way round, I have lost freedom of thought. The same thing is true of “isms” for me. So unlike Peter Beinart, I am not worried about resurrecting “liberalism” (or applauding “conservatism” for that matter). What interests me is getting more citizens of this country to support our militant position in the war on terror and to support our intervention in Iraq. The spread of democracy is extraordinarily difficult, but it is by far our most serious work. Democracy should be what we are most concerned about. At the moment, it’s the only label that interests me.

This is the best paragraph I have ever read on this blog. I am going to link to it immediately.

Dec 11, 2004 - 12:46 pm 19. Old Dad:

Unfortunately, Beinart is making it much harder than it really is. The moderate middle isn’t ideological. Party affiliation is traditional. Good candidates with good issues can get substanial crossover, Reagan, for example, in both his landslides.

Bubba won twice by running to the middle. Like him or not, he’s a pretty good candidate. Lousy man, but good candidate. Bush I and Dole are good men but not so hot candidates.

All that has to happen for the Dems to win the top of the ticket in 08 is to find a good center left candidate (not Hillary) and for the GOP to get complacent.

Winning back the Senate, the House, and the State Houses will be tougher. For that to happen, the party must truly moderate from the top down. A Michael Moore or a George Soros must never again be allowed anywhere near a convention. They will alienate some of their base, but so what? The alternative is to continue to lose. The party might split for an election cyle or two, but that’s always a losing strategy. My guess, though, is that most of the left wing will come in line with the national ticket, and a good national candidate will help to put more Ds back in the seats. (Note: Evan Bayh would have given W fits in Nov.)

It’s a tough road, but it can be done, but the Dems have to change. They need much better party leadership, a top rate candidate at the top of the ticket, and much better party discipline.

A word of warning to Republicans. Do not get complacent. It will take years for the Dems to catch up in terms of organization and discipline. We can’t afford to get too caught up in ideological squabbles. The country has moved center right, but don’t get cocky. The majority is still close enought to the center that a Dem can appear conservative on many issues.

But the Dem has to be good. Hints for Ds. No national candidates from the northeast for a while. The country is not ready for a woman at the top of the ticket. Class warfare is a loser. The top of the ticket must run strong on defense, and center to center left on social issues.

Good luck. That is all.

Dec 11, 2004 - 12:47 pm 20. Kyda Sylvester:

The spread of democracy is extraordinarily difficult, but it is by far our most serious work. Democracy should be what we are most concerned about. At the moment, it’s the only label that interests me.

America is not just the “shining city on the hill” but also the beacon of freedom. I’m privileged to have been born in America and it has been one of the thrills of my life to watch democracy taking root in Eastern Europe and the Mid East. I hope I live to see a free and democratic China. And, as much as I respect their right to disagree blah blah blah, I’m all out of patience with those who would have it otherwise.

Stephen Hayes has a wonderful piece in the Weekly Standard - Present at the Creation - on the Karzi inauguration. He relates a story President Karzi told in his address about an elderly woman who come to the polls with two voter’s cards:

She went up to an election worker and declared that she wanted to vote twice, once for herself, and again for her daughter who, she said, was about to deliver her child and unable to come to the polling station to vote. “We are sorry, but no one can vote for another person, this is the rule,” the elderly lady was told. So she voted–for herself–and left the station. Later in the day, the election worker was shocked to see the elderly woman back, this time accompanying her young daughter to the polling station. Her daughter carried her newborn baby, as well as her voting card which she used to cast her vote.

How great is that!

Dec 11, 2004 - 1:01 pm 21. DennisThePeasant:

There are several serious issues that haven’t yet been touched upon.

First and foremost, the fact that Peter Beinart feels compelled to write this sort of piece in December, 2004 explains the Democratic Party’s (and Beinart’s) essential problem in a nutshell. This sort of debate should have taken place in and been resolved around December, 2001. That it is now, for all intents and purposes, just being taken up constitutes proof positive of the unserious nature of the Democratic Party as a whole.

Second, the fact that Beinart feels it necessary to debate this issue with the likes of Kevin Drum indicates to what intellectual depths the Democratic Party has sunk. Kevin Drum is, in all respects, a silly lightweight…in the past week he has described Islamic Fascism and the outrages committed by Islamic Fascism (including 9/11) as “pretty thin beer” and the Republican Party as being intent upon “destroying the Federal Government”. Kevin Drum is not who Peter Beinart needs to be debating: The appropriate response from Beinart to Drum should be nothing less than undisguised scorn and contempt.

The simple fact is that at this time you far too many Leftist Fools, many of them quite verbal, who feel quite comfortable describing themselves as Democrats or, as in the case of Drum, as “moderate Democrats”. As long as real moderate Democrats fail to publicly correct Kevin Drum of his illusions, and as long as people like Marc Cooper, Duncan Black and Markos Zuniga feel comfortable describing themselves as Democrats, the Democrats are going to continue to lose elections, and lose them badly.

John Kerry lost the State of Ohio, and the presidency, because he lost (and lost badly) roughly a half dozen counties in the state that, rather from being rural and conservative, were suburban as well as moderate. The Democrats lost the election because people spouting the kind of nonsense one hears from the Kevin Drums and Marc Coopers of the world call themselves Democrats, whereas the suburbanites in Ohio call them fools. Or worse.

Dec 11, 2004 - 1:28 pm 22. ricpic:

As long as there was a clearly defined working class, and more important a working class mentality, the Democrats were secure.

Now, the working class - though it exists - is fractured, and the working class mentality gets fainter with each succeeding generation.

On top of which, if the Democrats are anything they are the home of those who harbor a deep, barely concealed animus toward working class types. And “the people” sense it.

The Dems are in deep doo doo.

Dec 11, 2004 - 1:33 pm 23. jedrury:

As to the Cliff May note, he leans over backwards giving Moyers the benefit of the doubt, the politisse among the journalist caste. Not all that convincing especially when Moyers is so manifestly blinded by his misperception of the American political landscape that he should have marginalized years ago. Rather on his retirement, he has been elevated to Edward R. Murrow status by the PBS crowd.

Dec 11, 2004 - 1:39 pm 24. David Thomson:

ìUnfortunately, Beinart is making it much harder than it really isî

No, you are underestimating the difficulty. Bill Clinton won only because Americans naively bought into the ìend of historyî thesis. The Cold War was over, and there was the peace dividend to spend. ìItís the economy, Stupid,î was the unofficial campaign motto. Voters often prefer to emphasize domestic issues when the fighting seems behind them (ie,Clement Atlee defeated Winston Churchill immediately after W.W.II). We now realize that the war on terrorism will be with us for many years into the indefinite future. A wartime president is therefore required, and the national Democratic Party regrettably finds such a politician to be repugnant. This leaves only the Republicans—or a new party that has yet to be created.

Dec 11, 2004 - 1:39 pm 25. DennisThePeasant:

It should also be noted that as long as the Democratic Party continues to support the kind of nonsense we are now seeing in Ohio from the likes of Jesse Jackson, John Conyers, the Ohio Democratic Party and the Kerry Campaign, Democrats are going to continue to lose in Ohio.

What the MSM and fools like Zuniga are failing to tell you is that there is absolutely zero support for a recount in this state, and there is considerable resentment over the fact that those suing for the recount will have to pay less than one-tenth of the $1.5 million of the cost.

Until the Democratic Party gets enough sense to stay away from this sort of nonsense, and to tell people like Conyers and Jackson to knock it off, Democrats in Ohio simply end up taking two steps backwards for every step forward (again).

Dec 11, 2004 - 1:41 pm 26. DennisThePeasant:

ricpic-

If the Democrats were to remove their heads from in between their cheeks, even for just an hour or two, they might notice that our economy has, over the past quarter century, moved from being manufacturing based to being service based, and that ‘working class’ issues and ’service provider class’ issues are not one in the same.

Morons.

Dec 11, 2004 - 1:45 pm 27. DennisThePeasant:

jedrury-

What could be more marginal that PBS? And who, outside of the self-reverential journalistic class, gives a flying handshake about Edward R. Murrow (to the extent they even know who he was)?

If the walls in Bill Moyers’ studio could talk, they’d yawn instead…

Dec 11, 2004 - 1:51 pm 28. Rick Ballard:

Can anyone reading this articulate the general principles binding the Democrat Party? Just something simple. Something that binds union members, minorities, liberals, leftists and traditional Dems? Because if you can’t articulate binding principles, you don’t have a party.

Trying to identify the tactical maneuvers that would have won the last election in order to use them in the next is very much akin to driving a car with the rear view mirror as the only reference. You’d better be on a very straight road.

Next time out the Dems will be beaten because they are planning stiff opposition to proposals that the majority of Americans would like to see adopted. Simplification of the tax code, privatization of SS, tort reform, etc.

What’s on offer from the Dems other than opposition to the majority? It really is no longer a political party, it’s just a weak coalition of somewhat antithetical interests. The current struggle for party leadership is much akin to a clash for control of the helm of the Titanic. After the stop to take on ice.

Dec 11, 2004 - 3:27 pm 29. charlotte:

Well, maybe not domestically, Rick, but the Democrat Party can offer much in the foreign policy arena: signing us up for Kyoto and the ICC, pleasing our bona fide allies France and Old Europe, adhering to the decisions of the UNSC, following the same path of treaty-and-cheat with Iran as Clinton/Carter did with a now nuclearized NoKo, forcing lop-sided Israeli concessions on the road to a Palestinian peace and Middle Eastern utopia, and waging a more sensitive war on “violent discontent” by understanding root causes and American complicity, releasing our Guantanamo victims, repealing the Patriot Act, and appeasing and policing instead of foisting our political constructs upon failed regions.

That the Dems are not sounding the alarm over terrorism and spreading theo-fascism, or showing deep concern over the non-transparency and corruption of the UN and its support for illiberal and undemocratic regimes or celebrating the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq and their emerging democracies and healthier economies to come is a little troubling, though…

Dec 11, 2004 - 4:21 pm 30. WichitaBoy:

Excellent post, Roger. One of the best things I’ve read in a while.

Rick, both parties are pastiches of special interests of various unrelated sorts. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, this is a very big, very diverse country. Not only is there immense diversity within each category but also there is immense diversity of categories. Neither party really stands, ultimately, for anything besides getting elected; that’s one reason I’m an independent. Both have core constituencies, though, as you elucidate, core constituencies which have lasted for decades.

I agree with Dennis that Ohio is a key state which the Democrats lost because they are too immoderate. Another is Missouri. The problem is that one of the largest core constituencies of the Democratic party is the upper middle class hate-America brigade. Vaguely leftist, bourgeouis, well-off individuals living in suburban enclaves who disdain America, capitalism, and the military–though they are in fact immense beneficiaries of all three–out of a murky stew comprised of vague principles, peer pressure, momentum from childhood, and fashion. This group is growing, because of increasing unearned wealth in the society, and the Democratic party cannot win without kowtowing to it.

The fundamental problem for the Democrats is that the murky melange of ideas adhered to by this group is self-contradictory. The group as a whole is very well-off and benefits greatly from those nasty corporations they reflexively denigrate. What sense does it make for trustifarians to fly in airplanes made by Boeing and drive in cars made by Toyota to rallies held in Canada to decry the evils of “globalism”?

Republicans should not become complacent. The Democrats can easily win by demonstrating some backbone against the terrorists. Hillary is clearly tacking in this direction. I greatly enjoyed watching the bourgeouis core Democratic constituency vociferously support bombing the Serbs before vociferously opposing the bombing of Saddam Hussein and his thugs. Abstract principle isn’t the issue, obviously. It’s more basic: anything the Republicans do is evil. If a Democrat bombs the next terrorist it will meet with their wholehearted approval.

Dec 11, 2004 - 4:31 pm 31. Ron Wrght:

Roger,

Spoken as a true patriot!

I’m not a big fan of either side of the asile but I believe President Bush has the right message our enemy now needs to hear.

Unfortunately the MSM has actively campaigned for the enemy while this Country is a war. Those who control the MSM are so “bent,” they can’t see the forest for the trees, nor the great danger the free world is now facing.

Here are some selected quotes from the HSPIG Forums Site. For clarity I did not link to them directly. See selected reference below as these thoughts are woven through this piece.

Power to the humble bloggers that are now reporting the objective news of the day. A new medium is now emerging that has the ability to communicate free thought that transcends political boundaries and the control of editorial and media board rooms. A new state of human consciousness is being born.

Ron Wright, Moderator

HPSIG Forums Site

http://www.hspig.org

See Team HSPIG below supporting the Friends of Iraq Blogger Challenge!

*****

Power to WE THE PEOPLE.

WE THE PEOPLE - select who, WE THE PEOPLE choose to govern and not the other way around.

The only problem of late is the MSM has abrogated its journalistic responsibility to report the OBJECTIVE news of the day.

This fundamental right was given by a free people to the press:

. . . as a fundamental check on the abuse of power by those who WE CHOOSE to govern. With a strong and unbiased free press we will not suffer the tyranny of fanatics who rule by fear, torture, genocide, deceit, and perversion of culture and religion to remain in power, like the people of Iraq we have just liberated.

Once the “truth” is told, the power of the “great lie” to control evaporates. There no longer can be without the world’s knowledge, “The Final Solution.”

[...]

The media has failed to educate the American people on the War On Terror. The American people need to understand this is a war of ideologies and cultures. This is a war against transnational terrorists who share a common bound of Islamofascism. Their fanatical religious mission is to kill or convert everyone of us.

[...]

As President Bush said, we are again facing a new struggle of GOOD verses EVIL. Our very way of life and culture is threatened by the spread of radical Islamic extremism. The world�s equivocation on this new cancer has only emboldened our enemy in their religious zeal to kill or convert every one of us. Radical Islamic extremism is no enlightened religion, as we know it. Radical Islamic extremism as some call Islamofascism, is an ideology that favors, dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism all rolled up into a theocracy. The priest, clerics, and seers of this movement have found in their own interpretations of the Koran, justification for their actions and the slaughter of innocents. Their quest is to “open up” other unbelieving lands to the enlightenment of Islam and to right the right wrongs they suffered of centuries past. In other words to conquer and impose Islamic theocracies. This extremism is a religious-like cult, a failed culture, and a false religion that is still locked in time in the 12th and 13th Centuries.

[...]

It is time our generations, suck it up and realize what is at stake here. It’s time to put aside our cafe lattes and cafe mochas, and realize America is at war. This is not another Vietnam. We must win this war. Losing is not an option. Our Country was deliberately attacked without provocation by Islamofascisim terrorists. The great oceans no longer provide us safe haven from the “crazies” of the world. The “over there,” is now “here” in our homeland. Many innocent lives were lost, for who we are, for what we believe, and for what we stand, whether under God or not “FREEDOM!” We must be resolute and decisive. As President Bush so correctly said, we are a tolerant people but once aroused, we are a fierce adversary.

We can no longer bury our heads in the sands, as this cancer will continue to grow if we don’t swiftly excise it. We must shake ourselves from our comfortable complacency, become actively involved, and quit Monday morning quarterbacking and support our valiant troops who are defending our freedom. The media needs to report objectively. The true foreign correspondents of this war are those brave soles that report (blog) from their neighborhoods from within these repressive regimes. The media needs to quit rooting for the enemy as if they were the underdogs in some Sunday football game. This only emboldens our enemy and puts our military at further risk. Call the murdering SOBs for what they really are and not the rebels, insurgents, freedom fighters and other creative non-pejorative words. The media needs to bring the intense light of the free world on these repressive regimes that will implode under its scrutiny.

[...]

As Victor Hansen says in all wars, mistakes will be made, intelligence is not an exact art, decisive actions must be taken on partial information, battle plans will not be executed perfectly, and hindsight is always 20/20. As President Bush said, “We must stay the course,” and as Victor Hansen says leave the critiques until after the war is won. This war is not over by any stretch. There are still many battles to be won. Iran is on the verge of having nuclear capability. Pakistan that has nuclear weapons thanks to Dr. Kahn is now faced with a rising tide of Islamofascisim that could gain control of these weapons.

[...]

This war will not be won on the battlefield alone. We must unite both left and right to crush this new enemy that seeks to destroy us. The support of a united America and the free world is critical. There can be no appeasement for fanatical tyrants, who rule by fear, torture, genocide, deceit, and perversion of culture and religion to remain in power. Islamofascism must be crushed as a failed ideology lest its charismatic leaders continue to draw new recruits with the BIG LIES. The free world will no longer tolerate, ?Final Solutions.” This is a war of ideology and culture, the free will of men, and GOOD vs. EVIL.

[...]

The key is the ability to ask, Why?

Islamofascist ideology/theocraciese use ciruclar reasoning to justify the validity and attoricities commited in its name.

Those in power can’t answer the simple question of, “Why?” The standard answer is one doesn’t understand or follow the “true” meaning of the Koran/Islam. Since only a relatively few can read the Koran in its orginal language, the verses and passages are subject to the interpretation of mere mortals. Imagine that if you are in power and claim the Devine right of interpretation, you can see where that path leads.

TREK fans will immediately recognize this fatal logic flaw in the original series episode,”The Return of the Archons.”

The TREK crew finds the culture on Beta III is quiescent, with no creative tendencies. The entire culture is controlled by a group of ‘lawgivers’ known as “The Body” which is, in turn, controlled by the omniscient Landru.

Landru has interpreted his maker’s words to the point that no one is allowed independent thought.

Spoiler, at if you haven’t seen this episode:

Link Here

References to the above quotes see OP-ED piece on HPSIG Forums site:

Link Here

I know Roger is supporting the Spirit of America’s Friends of Iraq Blogger Challenge. We are too for the above reasons. If you haven’t already contributed do so pick any team you want. Our team is at:

Team HSPIG

OK I’m done.

Dec 11, 2004 - 4:33 pm 32. John Lynch:

The crucible of failed ideas resides in the losing party (hence losing.) Ideologies that frame these ideas have homes there as well.

The opposition party that continues to rail against any and all ideas of the majority party may eventually come up with programs of their own that gain majority acceptance. However, the process of doing so lies in turning their backs on mere opposition or repeating worn out and defeated memes and turning towards constructive, practical, and forward thinking.

Populism, pandering, demagogery (PP&D) each pale in comparison to ideas and programs that answer real issues. Our party had its share of PP&D, but we also had champions of real programs. Chief amoung the programs was a long-shot, hope-against-hope approach for Islamofacists. Our less-than-worthy opponents had no discernable programs.

It will not always be this way.

Interestingly, the ideologues and the MSM had less role in framing the issues and dialog than in past elections. More “common person” positions decided this past election. Common person positions are increasingly in play as there are means to inform, and means to disseminate amoung other than academics, celebs, pudits and personalities.

Dec 11, 2004 - 4:39 pm 33. Terrye:

Wichita Boy:

I agree. The heart of the Democratic party is self delusion.

Michael Moore makes a movie attacking the president and makes millions and gets to go the DNC and sit next to a former president. Theo Van Gogh makes a movie critical of Islam and is killed in the street. But guess who Michael who thinks is the problem?

I love getting lectures on the evils of capitalism from people who make more money in a year than I will in a life time.

And they need to lose the regional snobbery. People from the midwest and south are not interesting and scarey specimens deserving of a visit from an anthropologist.

Dec 11, 2004 - 4:56 pm 34. Rick Ballard:

WichitaBoy,

If Hilary runs (doubtful) then her positioning would be correct if terrorism (security) were going to be the defining issue of the ‘08 campaign. I sincerely doubt that security will be the defining issue in ‘06 let alone ‘08.

The ‘04 exit polls showed absolute parity at 37% in terms of party identification. That leaves 26% in play and the makeup of the 26% tends to lean more conservative than liberal primarily because of its racial makeup. Another way to look at this is that the ‘00 party ID was 27% R and 33% D with 40% in play. The D’s did quite well with a 12% (4/33) pickup. The R’s picked up 37% (10/27). The ‘02 split was 31% D and 30% R so ‘04 could be considered to have been a 20% gain by Dems and a 23% gain by Reps (if you use ‘02 as the base year). Toss the fact that the age group showing strongest support for the Dems is the over 70’s and I don’t find much evidence of potential for a Dem turnaround. I do agree that the Reps could do something stupid but they haven’t lately.

Dec 11, 2004 - 5:18 pm 35. WichitaBoy:

Terrye,

I had a very Terryesque moment last night which is pertinent to this discussion. We went to the local Shabbat group. After the ceremony one fellow who had just gone to Belgrade regaled us with stories about how much the hate us. The rest then chimed in with complaints about how much the world is going to continue to hate us as long as Bush and the corporations continue their nefarious ways. I had to pinch myself. Which party was it who was bombing Serbia again?? I thought to myself, if only Terrye were here now.

As you have said before, there is a serious problem in the construction of reality here.

Dec 11, 2004 - 5:24 pm 36. chuck:

WichitaBoy:

The rest then chimed in with complaints about how much the world is going to continue to hate us as long as Bush and the corporations continue their nefarious ways.

Sometimes I think these folks are counting their moral currency in Confederate dollars. There are big changes afoot but they party on.

Dec 11, 2004 - 5:34 pm 37. David Thomson:

ìThe Democrats can easily win by demonstrating some backbone against the terrorists. Hillary is clearly tacking in this direction. I greatly enjoyed watching the bourgeouis core Democratic constituency vociferously support bombing the Serbs before vociferously opposing the bombing of Saddam Hussein and his thugs.î

Some neo-liberal Democrats may occasionally advocate going to war—as long as the military action reminds one of a video game. Our military bombed the Serbs from the air and did everything it could to avoid hand-to-hand combat. Sadly, this is not always possible in our struggle to the death against the Muslim nihilists. When the fighting gets down and dirty, only the Republicans are willing to risk political capital in seeing things to the bitter end.

Dec 11, 2004 - 5:48 pm 38. John Lynch:

Recently I took a cab (black taxi) from Belgravia to the Tower area of London. The cabbie asked how things were settling down in America since the elections were over. I answered with a question of my own, before answering him. How did people in the U.K. react to the election?

He swiveled almost all the way around in the drivers seat (causing the better Lynch to react) and said that he was gald we were fighting, since it seemed nobody else was willing to. I answered his question: “Those that won this election are glad the British are with us.” He told us to “ignore the protest signs by 10 Downing: the signs are there, but there are hardly ever any people protesting, and most of us ignore them.”

Dec 11, 2004 - 5:54 pm 39. Old Dad:

David Thomson:

I don’t buy into the “naive American” scenario. The “it’s the economy stupid” issue won because that was the perceived scratch that needed itching. The WoT was not even on the radar screen. It should have been, but that’s not due to the naivete of the electorate.

Don’t get me wrong. The middle of America is not easy to move. Ronald Reagans don’t just fall from the sky. Sure, Amereica is trending right, and conservative ideas are ascendant, but an effective Demo salesman could slow the drift.

Dec 11, 2004 - 6:36 pm 40. DennisThePeasant:

The heart of the Democratic party is self delusion.

Terrye-

You are being entirely too kind in this matter.

When you have people like Marc Cooper writing, in all seriousness, to mock the Bush Administration for nominating Bernard Kerik instead of Gary Hart (that’s right…Gary Hart) to head the Dept. of Homeland Security, you are not dealing with the delusional…you are dealing with a moron. Gary Hart got laughed out of Washington for a reason…and that reason wasn’t that he was highly qualified to run one of the largest and most important agencies in the government. What, other than strip search pretty women is Hart qualified to do in the area of Homeland Security? Hell, Marc, why not just cut to the chase and nominate Jerry Springer?

When you have Brad DeLong suggesting that for the sake of “equity” all employer provided health insurance should lose deductibility (i.e.-be taxed) and that individuals without employer provided health insurance (which would be just about everyone in the private sector once deductability was lost) could then ’shop’ for health insurance and receive some measure of tax relief via a system of tax credits…you are dealing with a moron. Want to talk about a winner of an issue? Can you see the Democratic candidate in 2008 trying to rally voters to the prospect of adding the task of finding affordable health insurance to every family’s “to do” list for each and every year?

When you have Paul Krugman suggesting that partial privatization of Social Security in 2005 would bring an end to the World As We Know It when in 1998 he thought (in print) such a scheme to be a pretty good idea…you’re dealing with a moron. When Bill Clinton suggested partial privatization, it was a courageous attempt to head off looming disaster. When George Bush suggests it, it is a Republican attempt to destroy the federal government. And we’re supposed to be too stupid to be unable to check Krugman’s opinions in the Times from less than a decade ago for consistency.

When you have The Nation (which is were people like Marc Cooper are taken seriously enough to get paid for thinking about politics) empanelling convinced Communists like Eric Foner and anti-semitic quasi-fascists like Noam Chomsky to ponder on why the Democratic Party can’t win elections…you are dealing with a whole swath of morons.

Sure, there are heaps of self-delusion in the Democratic Party, but let’s not underestimate to what extent their problems stem being blinded by the pure white light of stupidity. The fact is that those who are now giving voice to the Democratic Party just do not have either the intelligence or the intellect to do anything other than cause injury to the party they profess to support. They are too stupid to understand the majority of Americans and too damn stupid to keep that particular secret under cover.

At some point somebody with more than five firing synaptic nerve endings has to be brought to the fore to formulate and articulate policies and positions. And for a hint, I’ll tell you right now that Josh Marshall and Eric Alterman don’t qualify. Nor does Frank Rich or Maureen Dowd. Or Molly Ivins. Or Howard Dean. Or…

Dec 11, 2004 - 7:17 pm 41. David Thomson:

ìIt should have been, but that’s not due to the naivete of the electorate.î

I am including myself as one of those naive folks. Subconsciously, if not even consciously, I wrongly thought that the United States would only have to worry about ìnuisanceî conflicts. The idea that non-state actors could truly threaten us seemed bizarre to me until 9/11.

ìSure, Amereica is trending right, and conservative ideas are ascendant, but an effective Demo salesman could slow the drift.î

I doubt very much that Joseph Lieberman is ineffective. The U.S. Senator from Connecticutís problem was instead due to the fact that those who make the final decisions within the national Democratic Party reject his warning concerning the war on terror. Other than Lieberman, is there anyone else who is willing to speak in such an unambiguous manner? Can you even name one Democratic political leader? And if you can, please explain how they might survive the veto of the ensconced national Democratic power brokers.

Dec 11, 2004 - 7:22 pm 42. charlotte:

Other than Lieberman, is there anyone else who is willing to speak in such an unambiguous manner?Can you even name one Democratic political leader? And if you can, please explain how they might survive the veto of the ensconced national Democratic power brokers.

David, Zell. But he has decided to bow out, for obvious reasons. He is no longer considered a Democrat by his fellow Dems, of course.

Dec 11, 2004 - 7:32 pm 43. John Lynch:

Terrye, DtP, Wichita

I have to admit, I don’t see anyone on the Dem side, or a liberal, that could have a unifying effect for the Dems. Without one, the consolidation of ideas and positions necessary to agree on the problems of today, much less the solutions for those problems, is impossible.

Kennedy did it in the 60s; Reagan in the 80s; Newt as well was a force for consolidation; Karl seems to be the architect this time.

Framing the issues, unifying around them, these are essential and I don’t see anyone in the opposition party who has the capacity to do it.

Should we try and find or build a better opposition party?

DtP, great post!

Dec 11, 2004 - 7:35 pm 44. richard mcenroe:

Dennis the Peasant ó This goes back to my previous argument: that while a two-party system may be in the best interest of the country, there is no inherent reason the Democrats have to be one of those two parties.

The Democrats lost this election decisively. Yet there is no serious discussion within the party of what it stands for, only how to sell it to the voters… when they can rise that high above sputtering indignation that the proles rounded on them. Their official policy, based on the utterances of party officials, senior politicians and their cheerleaders in the press, seems to be that there is nothing wrong with their message, they simply didn’t shout it loud enough.

As a practical matter, I hope they don’t wise up before 2006. But in the longer term, this will doom the Democratic Party… and if they don’t change, it should. Let MoveOn abscond with the party name like Hillary with the good White House china. If the Republicans don’t maintain a centrist position, a new party will rise to fill the vacuum, because that is the nature of political parties.

Dec 11, 2004 - 7:53 pm 45. JBR:

As much as I have enjoyed all the comments on this thread, they make me a bit nervous. There is a good argument to be made that the Republicans won the election last month because they did a far better job at GOTV than the Democrats did. The Republicans had professionals who knew what they were doing on GOTV; the Democrats spent their money on TV ads and used crackheads and Moveon.org idiots on GOTV. We all need to remember that they might learn from their mistakes, and the Republicans might not have Karl Rove directing traffic. As a result, a John Kerry type who couldn’t care less about the War on Terror could then get elected in 2008. No complacency. No triumphalism.

Dec 11, 2004 - 7:55 pm 46. John Lynch:

JBR

I think everyone here knows how much intensity is needed when election time comes.

The time to think about the issues and the competion should never cease.

I don’t read the comment stream as triumphalism, but as attempts to assess.

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:02 pm 47. JBR:

John Lynch: I appreciate your point, and I hope that you are right. I suspect that in November and December 1988 there were many conversations about whether the Democrats were too far to left to win again.

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:08 pm 48. richard mcenroe:

JBR ó In a recent interview, Rove pointed out that the Republicans relied heavily on volunteer canvassers and GOTV phoneworkers, while the Democrats relied largely on paid, outsourced workers. Rove admitted that was a major plus for the GOP, because committed volunteers outperform pieceworkers.

Question ó Where were the Democratic volunteers? Why did the National Committee have to rush fire brigades of organizers and workers from state to state?

Also ó Many commenters have noted how ill-trained and unprepared the Democratic GOTV workers were. James Lileks (lileks.com) in particular wrote of some memorable encounters. The volunteers seemed to be at a loss once pressed to talk beyond their prepared slogans. Indeed, they seemed flustered that anyone would question their slogans.

Question ó Why didn’t they have any content behind their message? Were they not properly trained? Or did they not have any content to offer? If the latter, then improving the function of the Democratic GOTV operation is waxing the bumpers on a broke-down car.

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:19 pm 49. John Lynch:

JBR

I think that goes back to the point about having a clear idea of the issues, and having a plan or program addressing the issues, and consolidating around them.

I can’t think that G Bush did that; and I think that B Clinton did.

Back then: “It’s the economy stupid.” was the story, and the Repubs were flat-footed on the issue and had no issues of their own.

As our host said in the intro, I don’t much care about about Dems or Repubs (although I’ve voted far more often Repub than Dem,) but I do pay attention to what I believe are the issues and the candidates positions on them.

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:22 pm 50. JBR:

John Lynch: Maybe 1992 was a real outlier year. It was my only Democratic Presidential vote out of six cast so far. I voted for Clinton because I thought that Bush 41 was too hostile to Israel. Well, live and learn.

Dec 11, 2004 - 8:30 pm 51. BeckyJ:

WichitaBoy-

If your friend from Shabbat services had *really* spoken to your average Serb in Belgrade, he would have realized that they actually hate Bill Clinton. He was POTUS when NATO bombed Serbia, therefore it is all his fault. They do like Bush since he goes out and fights which is what a real Serb does.

I have spent the last 2 summers in southern Serbia (the city of Nis) and have learned that they like the idea of Americans, most want to head to America to work, and they don’t really care for the EU (find them arrogant) or NATO (for obvious reasons). Serbian academics on the other hand (those that I worked with) tend to take Americans on a one-by-one basis, are suspicious of American government policies (but then they are suspicious of all governments) and at the same time, distrust the leftist tendencies of American academics and have no use for any ideologies.

While there are very vocal anti-American folks in Europe, we’re not hated as much - either as a people or as an idea - as many would like to believe.

Regarding earlier comments about the, shall we say overabundance, of lefist ideologies in academia, my anecdotal evidence is that things have been very, very quiet since the election. Most, not all, but most of my colleagues do recognize that the Democratic Party screwed up and that they missed the boat issue-wise somewhere along the line. Following WichitaBoy’s advice from a while ago, I don’t say anything, but I do smile a lot. My one visible comment is that I put up a picture of one of my former students in full battle dress, gun and all, in Iraq.

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:01 pm 52. thibaud:

Rick Ballard,

Can anyone reading this articulate the general principles binding the Democrat Party? Just something simple. Something that binds union members, minorities, liberals, leftists and traditional Dems? Because if you can’t articulate binding principles, you don’t have a party

Deeply important question. Here’s a lengthy and considered reply:

That’s easy for anyone who remembers the party of Truman and Jack and Bobby Kennedy and Tip O’Neill: a society in which nobody is a nobody.

To be more precise, a measure of security and a decent life for those who are vulnerable in our society. You may not be aware of it, but most of today’s “neoconservatives” grew up as Democrats and were personally involved in and committed to the civil rights movement: David Horowitz, Bill Bennett, Peggy Noonan, Paul Wolfowitz, Daniel Moynihan, plenty of others. There was a time when Democrats were overwhelmingly the party of two religiously-defined ethnic groups that cared greatly about social justice for the poor and for minorities: northern Catholics and jews everywhere. The Kennedys were patron saints for the former, being both an example of a tight-knit, successful Catholic family and an example of the liberal Catholic ideal of making sure that no one be left behind.

We forget that prior to the Great Society, close to half of the non-white population and almost a quarter of the white population in this country were living in poverty. Welfare was a flawed solution, but there is absolutely no question that, overall, the income transfers from the liberal social programs of the 1960s, including those transfers sponsored by Nixon, in whose anti-poverty programs Rumsfeld and George Shultz cut their teeth, made a huge difference in reducing poverty in this country. That remains a huge achievement, and we all benefit from it.

Ancient history? To some degree, sure. Welfare became a self-defeating sinkhole before Clinton reformed it. Affirmative action today is little more than a subsidy program for privileged children of the african-american professional class elevated by the reforms of the 1960s; it does nothing, zip, nada, to help impoverished african-americans get a decent education or a fighting chance at a decent job. It helps the Michael Powells of our world get plum jobs that are beyond their abilities.

And I will also be the first to admit that one of the most powerful anti-poverty programs is simply low interest rates that enable ordinary people to build wealth in the best way, through home ownership. But we should not, in the midst of our brave new economy, forget the fact that there are still many tens of millions of Americans who remain deeply vulnerable. If you have no health insurance, no higher education or advanced skills, and don’t belong to a union, then you have no security whatsoever in this globalized, information-driven, continously creating-and-destroying new economy.

That so many millions are so vulnerable is not good for democracy. I would argue also that it isn’t fair, or right, that 40 million Americans lack health insurance. And more than that: it’s a symptom of a larger national failure that will soon enough bankrupt either Ford or GM or both (”HMOs on wheels, per Wall St) and the rest of us in due course, and that is causing a host of social ills. Case in point: my family is at great risk of getting an infection because of the tremendous rise in the number of people in my state who have not been immunized. Blame those people if you like, but I don’t want to hear it: I want the problem fixed, now, because my kid might die before your grand moral transformation takes place, if it ever does. This is a public health problem and government absolutely must be part of, not the entire, but definitely part of the solution.

Obviously, the # 1 domestic issue for the nation, and thus for the Dems, is to provide a level of economic security including health insurance, and a stake in the system, for the ~30% or so of US households that are living within a foot or two of economic ruin. The harsh fact of this new economy is that if you don’t go on to college, you will be vulnerable.

And a harsher, and unnoticed fact, is that enrollment trends are regressing back toward the economically elitist model that prevailed before the GI bill and the vast expansion of opportunity during the 1960s, not least because college costs are increasing at a far higher pace than inflation. While there’s certainly plenty of dynamism and mobility within the top quartile of incomes today, there’s also less mobility from the bottom quartile to the middle two. Today, if you’re born into the bottom third of incomes in the US, you are much more likely to remain in the bottom third than was the case thirty or forty years ago.

A rock-bottom wage, rock bottom cost life doesn’t and shouldn’t cut it for Americans. American yeomen want to be independent, sure, and of course we want people to be self-reliant, flexible, etc. But not helots earning $5 an hour, with next to no shot at affording a college education for their kids. And again, the problems of the poor and uninsured are also bankrupting Ford and GM, and will come to haunt the rest of us as well.

Frankly, a Democrat who put forth a coherent, well-articulated program that merged the themes of national security and economic security could easily win the next election. There’s great vulnerability in this nation. Has nothing to do with Dems or Repubs or class warfare and everything to do with a relentless and extraordinarily volatile global economy.

Finally, another issue that really should unite all of us: the fact that innocent people continue to be wrongly convicted and executed in this country is a scandal that should shame and outrage every American into putting an end to the obscene freak show that is our fascination witht he death penalty.

I couldn’t care less about public opinion or politicians of both parties’ absurd pretense that they’re “tough on crime” for executing teenage retards etc; the fact is that the system will always be flawed and therefore we should eliminate the death penalty. I would like to see a politician of sense and courage stand up and show real leadership here. I have next to no confidence that this will happen, but this is absolutely part and parcel of the vision that I believe is, or was, central to the party of Bobby Kennedy and those who marched for civil rights. That’s the kind of party I want to be a member of.

best,

thibaud

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:09 pm 53. Morgan:

Richard,

Why didn’t they have any content behind their message? Were they not properly trained? Or did they not have any content to offer? If the latter, then improving the function of the Democratic GOTV operation is waxing the bumpers on a broke-down car.

Who knows whether there was any “there” there. The Democrats seemed to be the party of indoctrination this cycle, there was no discussion, only sloganeering.

The slogans ranged in sophistication - for the kids, there was “no blood for oil” and “Bush=Hitler”. For the older folks, there was “Bush wants to destroy Social Security”. For the conspiracy-minded, “Bush was planning the invasion even before he was in office” and for minorities “Republicans are trying to intimidate minority voters”. A slogan for everyone, all gross distortions of the truth (but hey, they’re only slogans!), so of course there was no defending them.

Think back to the trolls that posted here prior to the election. They didn’t defend their beliefs, they just stated them over and over, as though they were self-evidently true, as though restating them would make inconvenient facts and analysis go away. On the only occasion I can recall that a troll decided to defend his views, the result was a hopelessly naive string of absurd should haves and implausible would haves - as in Bush should have held a meeting with Iraq’s neighbors, and they would have talked Saddam Hussein into stepping down without a fight, and they would have provided security for the country, or something like that.

They bought into the slogans. That was all they needed, and they never really thought about it at all.

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:12 pm 54. J_Crater:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

I’d like a show of hands as to how many Democrats still believe these words of JFK. I suspect many rank-and-file Democrats do, but the intelligentsia, journalism, and academia set would describe it as belonging to another era.

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:15 pm 55. thibaud:

More government isn’t the sole answer to the problem of individuals’ vulnerability and economic vulnerability, but in many areas government must be part of the solution.

If we accept the logic that, in the national security sphere our national vulnerability requires vastly increased federal spending and a far more active governmental role here and abroad (cf the Patriot Act), then we should also recognize that our health insurance mess renders us hugely vulnerable at home and likewise requires urgent national attention. No one has all the answers, and of course HillaryCare was a flop. But free-market zealots have also failed. Enough talk. Fix it. Rick Waggoner, CEO of GM, and Bill Ford will tell you the same thing.

This is a national issue and the sweet spot for the Democratic Party. If they cannot unite behind a credible program for fixing the health insurance mess, then Dems should throw in the towel as a national party and devolve into a loose band of locally influential Greenie-queenie-ACORN-Emily-MoveOn factions.

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:22 pm 56. Rick Ballard:

Thibaud,

Thanks for the reply. I’ve read it a couple of times and on the non-security side it seems to follow the current Dem platform. I would agree that the promise of a chicken in every pot has proven to be very effective. There is a perception problem that is going to overhang that premise for as long as the boomers have a strong voice (about another 25 years) and that is that most of them can recall the promises of the “War on Poverty” and lived through the outcome (a worse loss than Vietnam). Secondarily an appeal to the young and the dumb while, again, traditionally successful, will not provide the necessary margin for victory. The Dems already have that demographic well in hand.

I would also note that (aside from Lieberman) there is no Dem national figure who can provide a believable front for a ’strong on defense’ posture. Graham was probably even stronger than Lieberman in that respect and he got shoved out so early that there aren’t many who recall that he was running.

J_Crater,

It was very prescient of JFK to steal W’s ideas 40 years ahead of time.

Dec 11, 2004 - 9:53 pm 57. richard mcenroe:

Thibaud ó The Democrats are hamstrung on meaningful health care as long as they keep cozy with the trial lawyers. If we ever did enact some form of national health (which I oppose, personally, because it keeps killing people I know in the UK), who would John Edwards and friends sue?

Dec 11, 2004 - 10:10 pm 58. Yehudit:

“the fact that Beinart feels it necessary to debate this issue with the likes of Kevin Drum indicates to what intellectual depths the Democratic Party has sunk. Kevin Drum is, in all respects, a silly lightweight”

Amen. Every few months I read something by Kevin just to see why he’s so popular, but there’s no there there. As Gertrude Stein said. He’s a male Maureen Dowd without the snark.

This guy thinks that Beinart is looking with rose-colored glasses at the anti-Communism of the ADA, and quotes from the ADA website disavowing Beinart’s version of events:

“The ADA website today does not celebrate the group’s anti-Communist origins as Beinart does. Quite the contrary: Its account of the founding of the organization says, “In January 1947, when…200…activists gathered together to form Americans for Democratic Action, they faced challenging times. The gains of the New Deal were threatened and a rampant anti-Communist vitriol was emerging that would climax under Wisconsin’s Senator Joe McCarthy leadership in the coming years.” The ADA reaction to the praise given to it by Beinart has been an explicit disavowal: “While we acknowledge his accurate depiction of ADA’s history, we also must point out his inaccurate contextual use of that history in this piece.”

So Beinart’s “fighting faith” might be even harder to find than he thinks.

Dec 11, 2004 - 10:43 pm 59. thibaud:

I’m not sure it’s all that difficult to re-focus. The barriers are several prominent groups that, prior to the advent of 527s and blogs, monoplized the party’s platform and nominating and funding processes: trial lawyers, unions, and groups focused on abortion and civil rights.

In fact, ~80% of those the Democrats speak for are not passionate about tort law or abortion or affirmative action. The only group that really does advocate on behalf of the core Dem issue of economic security + health insurance is the unions, and their ranks and influence shrink every year. The goal for the Dems is therefore to create social networks of working people who, while outside the unions, nevertheless are committed to the core of the union message, which is the Dems’ message: a measure of security and a decent life for those who are vulnerable in our society.

If the battle is to be fought within working-class and lower-middle-class suburban churches, then take the battle to the churches. I would like to hear the baptist and Church of Christ pastors in the low and moderate-income precincts address a very vigorous Dem-led outreach program focused on Christ’s ministry to the poor and vulnerable. I doubt seriously that Rove’s forces would win a debate held on these grounds. Bring it on.

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:00 pm 60. richard mcenroe:

Thibaud ó If I recall, Kerry went from “bring it on” to “make it stop” in the course of about one Swiftie commercial. You might wanna pick a better battle cry.

It’s open to question how well the Democrats would do taking the debate to the churches. Even before ” Jesusland,” Bush and the Republicans had made solid gains with Jews, Catholics and, unless I’m mistaken, non-evangelical Protestants. Post “Jesusland” the Democrats would have to open every discussion with that “listen, sorry about the neanderthal thing…”

As far as unions go, with the exception of the civil service unions, one of the things Arnie’s election out here in CA showed, and the 2004 election reaffirmed, is that the unions can give the Dems their dues money and their endorsements, but they can’t guarantee their members’ votes anymore. Another problem for the party.

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:08 pm 61. thibaud:

Rick,

Your response was oddly off the mark. You wrote:

I would agree that the promise of a chicken in every pot has proven to be very effective.

Poverty was nearly cut in half. Not a promise, a fact.

There is a perception problem that is going to overhang that premise for as long as the boomers have a strong voice (about another 25 years) and that is that most of them can recall the promises of the “War on Poverty” and lived through the outcome (a worse loss than Vietnam).

Again, the War on Poverty succeeded. Which is why Nixon continued it and neither Reagan nor W rolled back its main premises and programs. It was welfare that was overhauled, and it was a Democratic president who deserves credit for that.

Secondarily an appeal to the young and the dumb while, again, traditionally successful, will not provide the necessary margin for victory

Your sarcasm is strange, and misplaced. I mentioned the catastrophe facing corporate America, and specifically mentioned the alarms raised again and again by the CEOs of Ford and GM. Do you think Rick Waggoner is “young and dumb”? I would suggest you get out a bit more and talk to people who have a good grasp of the financial disaster that our health care mess is preparing for us. I believe the latest calculation is that Ford and GM have a cost disadvantage relative to the Japanese and the Europeans due solelyto our absurdly inefficient, overpriced, under-delivering, ridiculously convoluted and unfair health insurance system of ca $1,800 per vehicle.

You should read a research report or two from Salomon or Goldman or another bulge-bracket firm on Ford and GM. They are both expected to be verging on bankruptcy within 10 years, primarily because of their health insurance albatross. Note that this doesn’t even address the enormous catastrophe-in-the-making that is our underfunded pension plan mess, or other cost burdens on our major industrial behemoths that employ millions and support suppliers and related firms that employ millions more.

Again, Rick, these represent the considered judgment of Wall Street and the boardrooms of the Fortune 100. Guys who went to HBS with W. “Young and dumb”, my ass.

Many of these corporate leaders were Republicans but are now independents or even Democrats because they face the reality that you and the Republican hierarchy can’t seem to grasp: our health insurance mess is a national crisis. It needs a comprehensive fix that goes far beyond the piecemeal, lame proposals that the Republicans have put forward.

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:17 pm 62. thibaud:

Richard M,

I agree with your point re automatic loyalty. The Dems have been hijacked by elite groups that are out of touch with their base’s core concerns, not least because they’re heavily influenced by bicoastal culture snobs and internet idiotarians who have no grasp of the daily realities and priorities of low- and moderate-income heartland America: the kinds of folks who serve in the military or are public sector employees such as cops, firemen, nurses and teachers. These folks are by and large religious, married and with kids, and they are extremely vulnerable in this economy. There’s utterly no reason that, say, the NYFD heroes of 9/11 should be voting Republican. These are bread-and-butter Dem supporters.

The goal here is to focus on the sources of that vulnerability and then to come up with an agenda that draws flexibly and pragmatically. upon what we know works. And not to get distracted by side issues. (Sorry, Andrew Sullivan and Co. Maybe in the next generation.)

Note also that Arnie’s party is not Rove’s party. Arnie, like Specter and McCain, is a RINO who really belongs in the Democratic Party.

That base is

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:30 pm 63. chuck:

thibaud:

I would like to hear the baptist and Church of Christ pastors in the low and moderate-income precincts address a very vigorous Dem-led outreach program focused on Christ’s ministry to the poor and vulnerable.

But then they would have to deal with those superstitious souls populating the churches. I suspect their hypocrisy would show. One of the Democratic themes that emerged in the last election is that they are actively anti-religious and hostile to Christianity, or appear so. It is one of their greatest weaknesses.

No on here has mentioned the loss of the Southern Democrats. They certainly played a role as great as that of the unions. With the loss of these two large blocks, the question arises: how are the Democrats even slightly competitive? They had to pick up members elsewhere. My guess is that they are now the party of the priviledged. I don’t think they will recover from that anytime soon.

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:31 pm 64. chuck:

thibaud,

I think the core problem of health care is not insurance, but cost. Every proposed plan will have to deal with that. Even if we spread the burden out over everyone, if the costs continue to rise at the current rate, it will soon become a debilitating burden. The national systems also have to deal with cost, but in the time honored socialist way produce shortages instead of price increases. I don’t know how to solve this problem, but that is how it looks to me.

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:44 pm 65. thibaud:

The party of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King was not hostile to religion; quite the reverse. Bobby used to keep a picture of the Pope in his office. Neither is Obama.

I think it’s more than a little absurd to hear the gospels preached by economic elitists to people who are living within a foot or two of economic ruin. I seriously doubt that Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney would be more persuasive to this audience than Barack Obama, or even Breck Boy John Edwards. If the debate is on the economics that affect ordinary Americans, the Dems win.

Two other themes that the Dems should graft onto an overall national security/economic security message are security of our borders, fiscal security (ie low interest rates and a stronger dollar, enabling home ownership for working class Americans) and finally, energy security via a massive increase in construction of nuclear power plants. Pro-American, progressive, pro-workign man.

And on all of these issues, the Dems would be far out front of the reactionary Republicans, who are terrified of cracking down on illegal immigration–for fear of angering the business elites who want cheap labor. Terrified of reducing the deficit– for fear of angering the economic elitists who want pork and tax breaks for the Repubs’ pet industries. Terrified of angering the oil and gas lobby– who would rather see the nation continue its addiction to the crack that is imported oil.

Again, this is no contest: Economic elitists/the special interests party vs. the party of national security, national independence, national border integrity, national economic security.

Dec 11, 2004 - 11:48 pm 66. thibaud:

Here’s a proposal for a new party: call it the NATIONAL party and emphasize security defined broadly to include defense, boders, energy, and crucially, economic security for families.

Split the Arnie-Giuliani-McCain wing of the Repub party off and combine it with any Dem who’s hawkish, sensitive to religion, and above all focused squarely on the needs and perspectives of active-duty military families, NYFD-type northern blue-collar families, low- and moderate-income southern and western and hispanic famiiles.

There’s not a state in the union where such a party would not be competitive. Which is fitting for the only party that can truly represent the national interest.

Dec 12, 2004 - 12:00 am 67. Rick Ballard:

Thibaud,

Take a little harder look at where the Dem support came from according to the exit polls. You’ll find the under 29 and high school or less is the strongest (aside from the blacks) demographic.

The promise of the War on Poverty was to end it, not to cut it in half. Cutting it in half by transfer payments to create a purchased constituency will work only as long as the majority will allow it.

You are neglecting any mention of development of personal responsibility for an individuals situation. Every group that you mention as being at risk is in that state because of inability to make correct decisions, not through lack of opportunity. Wrt to education costs - California is not the cheapest state by far but books and tuition for 4 years at Cal Poly runs about $21,000. A kid can work 20 hours a week and cover living expenses. It’s really not that big a deal. Wrt health care the major problem is poor decision making. There is this little concept called ‘waiting to start a family until you can afford one’. You can’t have my money to pay for someone elses ignorance or stupidity. I reserve it for the 3-5% of the population who are truly in need because of circumstances over which they have no control.

Dec 12, 2004 - 12:37 am 68. thibaud:

Rick,

Take a little harder look at where the Dem support came from according to the exit polls. You’ll find the under 29 and high school or less is the strongest (aside from the blacks) demographic

Not so. There’s zero correlation with education, given that most folks with advanced and professional degrees voted for Kerry. Neither is there a strong correlation between age and voting preference. There is however a very strong correlation, almost 1.0, between income and voting preference. A perfect distribution of increasing Republicanism as one ascends the income scale.

But my point, again, is that most CEOs in this country are begging the two parties to please, finally, tackle the health insurance mess. I grew up near Waggoner and his family and have been hearing this from him and every auto exec for over a decade now. We’re in crisis mode, and W is failing to take it seriously.

Every group that you mention as being at risk is in that state because of inability to make correct decisions, not through lack of opportunity

Not so. You’re living in dreamland. Lose your job in this society, and you lose your health insurance. Devastating.

I know from family experience: my sister’s husband died of cancer. Then a year later, her employer went downhill, she was laid off and lost her health insurance. She’s now a widow going back to school to get a teaching degree, teaching part-time, and raising two teens. She’s getting by on the skin of her teeth, and is lucky that her husband before his death inherited his father’s house in a good neighborhood with excellent schools. Otherwise, she’d be SOL.

The outrageous aspect of her story is how common, how utterly routine, such a sequence of events is in this country. This vulnerability afflicts educated middle-class suburban white folks in every state in this country. It’s of course even worse for that majority of our workforce that does not have any college education.

Dec 12, 2004 - 12:56 am 69. Rick Ballard:

Thibaud,

What principle dictates that money be taken from me by force to pay for your brother-in-laws lack of judgement in not having sufficient life insurance? Sixty bucks a month will purchase a half million for a forty year old. The fact that your brother-in-law chose to spend the sixty on something else should not be my problem. I might choose to offer support to your sister as an act of charity but forcing me to do so has nothing at all to do with charity and everything to do with redistributing income from producers to non-producers. As well as encouraging others to make the same errors in judgement that your brother-in-law made.

Dec 12, 2004 - 8:19 am 70. Matt Evans:

I thought the moveon statement from a week ago was telling. What significant part of the democratic party is going to have as much clout as moveon. They’ll blame Schrum and McCallum for 2004 and take over for 2008. They’ll be responsible for nominating Hillary because they want a quick win, without considering their own positions.

The republicans better figure out their nominee soonest - and make sure they get the party behind him as much as possible. Unity will win the 2006/2008 elections- if the far right squares off against the moderate right for control, repubs are going to have problems.

Either way, I found the moveon statement amusing- it seems ironic that a socialist-type movement would be espousing a very capitalistic position - ie, we paid the most money for it so we own it.

Dec 12, 2004 - 8:25 am 71. Catalonia:

Rick Ballard,

What principle dictates that money be taken from me by force to pay for your brother-in-laws lack of judgement in not having sufficient life insurance? Sixty bucks a month will purchase a half million for a forty year old.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. What kind of an idiot has a family to support, and a wife who apparently does not have the experience/skills to recover if the husband dies, but does NOT have life insurance? I’d like to see an examination of expenses before I extend any sympathy. If I see cable TV with HBO, broadband instead of dial-up, a cell phone plan beyond the minimum, and unnecessary subscriptions to Red Book and Sports Illustrated, then I cannot support taking money away from people who handle themselves intelligently and responsibly and giving it to those who do not, thereby reinforcing and enabling said irresponsible behavior. With all due delicacy, it sounds like a better solution in such cases is not socialism but a free calculator and a slap upside the head (metaphorically speaking of course).

Dec 12, 2004 - 8:55 am 72. chuck:

What kind of an idiot has a family to support, and a wife who apparently does not have the experience/skills to recover if the husband dies, but does NOT have life insurance?

Mafia? The father of an acquaintance ran slot machines in NY. When he died, they had no money.

Dec 12, 2004 - 9:00 am 73. Caroline:

“What principle dictates that money be taken from me by force to pay for your brother-in-laws lack of judgement in not having sufficient life insurance?”

I guess its utterly naive to bring up the principle of simple Christian values? Or are we willing to retreat to pure social Darwinism? Therein lies the Dem’s frustration with the party that talks the talk about religious “values” while making statements like that.

I see nothing to disagree with Thibaud about. He is certainly talking to me as a lifelong Dem who happened to switch to Bush for this election. My vote is certainly not guaranteed to continue Republican.

However, I could in the next election, become a single-issue voter. And that issue would be immigration reform (for national security reasons). However, immigration also appears to be directly linked to the domestic issues Thibaud is talking about. As Thibaud is so well-informed, I would be interested to hear from him about what percentage of Americans living on the edge are actually recent immigrants? Because I do recall reading awhile back that many of the statistics cited about poverty rates, lack of health insurance etc (in short the widening gap between rich and poor) were directly connected to immigrant status, while e.g. blacks had shown great gains in moving into the middle class, home-ownership etc.

Its the difference, in other words, between long-term structural inequities that prevent upward mobility even among those adhering to the “rules” of hard-work etc. vs a bunch of statistics that happen to include the circumstances of people having recently moved here, with poor English skills etc. Obviously these distinctions wouldn’t matter at all to real leftists. But I think they do matter to more centralist Dems like myself.

Dec 12, 2004 - 9:33 am 74. Caroline:

“Can you even name one Democratic political leader?” (David Thompson)

“I would also note that (aside from Lieberman) there is no Dem national figure who can provide a believable front for a ’strong on defense’ posture.” (Rick Ballard)

I must be the only Dem in the country who thinks that Joe Biden would have made a great Democratic candidate in the last election. He is articulate, a strong supporter of the Iraq war - in fact he was to the right of Bush on many issues - arguing for more troops early on e.g. - and he is also the one who authored the amendment to rollback the tax cuts on the top 1% (fiscal responsibility, sacrifice for the war effort among the wealthiest) when the 87 billion supplemental came up for vote. However, when the amendment was defeated he voted for the supplemental and strongly encouraged Kerry to do so too. Kerry didn’t take his advice, resulting in the “I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it”. On the minus side he puts too much faith in the UN and there was that little matter of some plagiarized speech. IMHO - Biden is America’s Tony Blair. In fact I think Kerry was essentially a stand-in for Joe Biden as the Dem nominee. But Biden didn’t have Kerry’s Vietnam history to deal with. So imagine a well-spoken, dynamic Kerry and then take the swift-boat vets out of the picture and tell me - couldn’t Biden have won?

Dec 12, 2004 - 10:23 am 75. richard mcenroe:

Thibaud ó If you believe insurance reform is so inredibly vital to this country, then you have to be the first to admit that a Democratic Party led by Kerry/Edwards would never have addressed it, anymore than the Clinton administrations did.

In fact, that is the big problem for the Democrats ó and right now, an insuperable problem, because they refuse to face it. Everything you called for in your “Democratic” Party platform (which I find much of attractive) is something the Democratic Party would have to come back to from a positition of ardent and rancorous opposition. The Republicans, on the other hand, can already point to increased home ownership, for example, would love to build nuclear reactors, and as for border security, well, Prop 187 wasn’t opposed by Republicans and I don’t know of any illegal-immigration advocacy organizations under the GOP umbrella.

So what you’re saying is that all the Democratic Party has to do to win is become everything it isn’t. How likely is that with the current leadership and investors?

Dec 12, 2004 - 10:25 am 76. richard mcenroe:

Caroline ó Joe Biden is another suit-on-a-stick like Kerry. Looks great, sounds great, not a lot of brain there. Aside from his plagiarism issues, I remember him on the Sunday talk shows going into meticulous detail on the best way to slip a knife past the body armor our troops in Bagdhad were wearing. Do I think he was advocating stabbing GI’s? No. Do I think he was too stupid to realize that giving that kind of information ANY unnecessary publicity is a bad idea? Yup. Plus, he was not shy on the flip-flop front either, from what I remember of his various public statements.

I will concede that he did not seem to be a compulsive fabulist like Kerry, but praising a politician by saying he doesn’t seem as psychologically unbalanced as your last candidate is not a healthy sign for a party.

Dec 12, 2004 - 10:31 am 77. ahem:

Actually, Roger, in response to a post you made on November 26th, I suggest something else is afoot.

You wrote: “As a disaffected Democrat, I’m looking for someplace to go with an optimistic view of the future.”

Dec 12, 2004 - 11:28 am 78. Rick Ballard:

I guess its utterly naive to bring up the principle of simple Christian values?

I am unaware of any Christian principle or value that suggests the coercion of one to reward another. Charity is an act of Christian liberty, it is an act of giving not an act of passively having something taken from you by force to enrich another.

Of course, I may have missed something in Bible study so if you can give me a reference to forced giving (also known as taking) within Christian doctrine I’ll be happy to look at it.

Dec 12, 2004 - 11:46 am 79. Caroline:

“I don’t care what the party thinks. I care what I think. The minute it is the other way round, I have lost freedom of thought. The same thing is true of “isms” for me. So unlike Peter Beinart, I am not worried about resurrecting “liberalism” (or applauding “conservatism” for that matter). ?..Democracy should be what we are most concerned about. At the moment, it’s the only label that interests me.”

Roger, I would guess that you would enjoy reading Jiddu Krishnamurti - the world renowned Indian sage who has written scores of books (died in the late 80’s, although his voluminous writings are available at the Krishnamurti Foundation, based in Ojai, CA). His best book by far (and I have read dozens) - was “The First and Last Freedom”. (In fact I would have to say that until I recently read Eckhart Tolle’s book “The Power of Now” - it was my favorite book hands down). However, Krishnamurti wasn’t talking about freedom OF thought. He was basically talking about freedom FROM thought. He belonged to no religion and any ISM was completely anathema to him. In fact, it would be fair to summarize his entire body of work as being about the danger of ISMS - ultimately linked to the EGO as they are.

But may I point out that even though democracy ends in a “Y” - it is still essentially an “ISM”, is it not? And the danger inherent in any ISM is when people are so wedded to the ideology it represents that they are willing to slaughter large numbers of people to enforce that ISM. That is the story of human history and what we must be most careful about. Look up the definition of democracy in the dictionary. I know you don’t mean by it - “majority rule”. I will venture that you mean something like, “the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment, or the practice of this principle” (from my “new World Dictionary”). It seems to me that this could actually describe socialism and in fact, might not accurately describe capitalism, which is the economic system linked to American-style “democracy” that we are intent on spreading.

Believe me, I do get the point you are making. I am not trying to be contrarian. Just giving you something to mull over. I guess my point is to go even further and watch out for becoming too ideologically wedded to any ISM, including even “democracy” (Democracism?) ??..

Dec 12, 2004 - 11:56 am 80. Caroline:

“I am unaware of any Christian principle or value that suggests the coercion of one to reward another. Charity is an act of Christian liberty, it is an act of giving not an act of passively having something taken from you by force to enrich another.”

Well obviously I’m not talking about “enriching” another. I’m talking about seeing to another’s basic needs for survival. Personally, I don’t have a problem with my taxes being taken for the larger good. The problem seems to be the corruption involved in distributing the money so that it doesn’t in fact GET to the people who need it for basic survivial. But frankly it’s hard for me to see a Christian objecting to the thing on principle. Its just the sorry way it works in reality.

I will turn this around on you, however. How do you feel about Christians who object to violence, observing the basic commandment - Thou shalt not kill - having a major objection to paying their taxes to fund the military? Where in the Bible does it say that one’s money can be taken to fund murder? Because roughly 50% of taxes go for the military, don’t they? So I assume you would be OK with them witholding their taxes on that principle?

Dec 12, 2004 - 12:11 pm 81. thibaud:

Rick, Catalonia –

You’re completely missing the point. Of course my brother-in-law had life insurance. The issue was my unemployed sister’s family’s access to affordable and decent health insurance, without which her life insurance payout would be in danger of being consumed rapidly in case of catastrophic illness.

Again, health insurance distribution and cost structures in this country are f*cked up and badly in need of repair. It’s a national problem that demands fixing. Like millions of Americans I’m sick of the obfuscations and distortions of the reactionaries on both sides of the aisle who are blocking sensible and long-overdue reforms.

I have no confidence that the Republicans will make such reform a priority. I have little confidence that the Democrats will rein in their trial law vultures and put forth a sensible reform plan.

Dec 12, 2004 - 1:08 pm 82. thibaud:

W has not pushed reform of illegal immigration. His position on this vital matter is essentially Vicente Fox’s and is manifestly not in the national interest of the US. Huge opportunity for the Dems to score on this issue. BTW, from what I’ve heard and read, most legal latino immigrants in Texas are opposed to illegal immigration. It depresses wages for honest immigrant workmen and exposes their countrymen and women to horrendous mistreatment by unscrupulous employers.

As to W’s “compassionate conservatism,” that died a quiet death a long time ago. In th domestic sphere, today’s Republican party is dedicatedabove all to corporate pork: an absurd and disgusting energy bill that did nothing, zip, to promote energy independence while shoveling goodies to the Repubs’ pet corporate interests; a communications policy and an FCC that’s stifling competition and broadband growth and that’s practically in the pocket of the Baby Bells; Sen Hatch and Co’s sucking up to the music industry and attempts to stifle innovation and growth in the digital music business; pork for the steel industry; etc etc.

As I say, the Republicans in the domestic sphere today don’t stand for anything coherent. They’re neither fiscally conservative nor “compassionately conservative”. It’s opportunism that drives their domestic policies. Smart Dems have a huge opportunity before them.

Dec 12, 2004 - 1:21 pm 83. Cecil Turner:

“Where in the Bible does it say that one’s money can be taken . . .”

That’s the usual interpretation of the “render unto Caesar” bit.

“. . . to fund murder?”

Murder? Not the precise term, surely. And it’s hard to justify an interpretation of that commandment as forbidding military service. Examples abound, but this passage seems particularly on point:

So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. 11 As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. 12 When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up-one on one side, one on the other-so that his hands remained steady till sunset. 13 So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.

“Because roughly 50% of taxes go for the military, don’t they? “

It’s preliminary, but the 2005 military request was $420.7 billion out of a $2.4 trillion budget. So it looks a lot closer to 17.5 percent.

Dec 12, 2004 - 1:38 pm 84. Cecil Turner:

“I have no confidence that the Republicans will make such reform a priority. I have little confidence that the Democrats will rein in their trial law vultures and put forth a sensible reform plan.”

Without tort reform, there is no possibility of a sensible plan. And so far the trial lawyers are winning on tort reform. What do you suggest?

“an absurd and disgusting energy bill that did nothing, zip, to promote energy independence”

The original National Energy Policy hit it about right (IMHO): encourage new nuclear reactors, hydrogen, clean coal, study fusion, drill in ANWR. I agree the current watered-down and pork-filled bill is less than impressive, but I’d apportion blame a bit differently.

Dec 12, 2004 - 1:58 pm 85. Rick Ballard:

Caroline,

The basic commandment from the decalogue is ‘Don’t murder’(killing in war has an entirely differnt verb). That aside, why would you think I would object to dissent? If someone chooses not to pay their taxes as a gesture of opposition to war, more power to them. Of course, I don’t have any objection wharsoever to the government putting them in jail, either.

Dec 12, 2004 - 2:13 pm 86. Catherine:

Haven’t read the thread yet, but the WASHINGTON MONTHLY forum linked to by realclearpolitics is interesting. It’s a ‘Wither the Democrats’ exchange, and the observations in many ways mirror and confirm some of the worst things Republicans have to say about the Democratic Party.

For instance:

The problem is not that there aren’t any serious Democratic thinkers on national security. It’s that they are hived off in back offices, hauled out in times of national security emergency to give advice, and then put back in their cubicles again.

Democratic elected officials, for the most part, are more comfortable with national security than the senior staff around them. Today’s Democratic political operatives, most of whom came up in the late 1960s to early 1970s and were essentially anti-war, have never been comfortable with national security. They don’t think that’s an issue that can win for them. There’s not a lot of intense thinking on it. Now, on the Republican side, there are plenty of arm-chair pudgy Republican operatives who’ve never shot a gun in their life, but they know it’s an important issue for them. They are comfortable talking about it. And I think until there is a change of guard, of the political operative community that runs the Democratic Party, you are going to continue to run into this problem of a lack of seriousness.

For me, that is deadly. If the highest-level Democratic Party operatives aren’t even ‘comfortable’ talking about national security, how could I possibly be comfortable voting for them?

I can’t.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.roundtable.html

Dec 12, 2004 - 2:59 pm 87. Catherine:

I thought this observation was interesting, too:

KILGORE: The security gap is one thing we’ve got to deal with. . . .

I watched John Kerry very closely each time he spoke on national security during the campaign. He always said the same thing. He always said we need to rebuild our alliances, rebuild multilateral organizations, rebuild trust in America around the world, and we need to keep you safe. More often than not, the pronouncements about multilateralism, alliances, and the softer side of foreign policy came first. Imagine if every time he spoke on national security, he had first said, ÔøΩI will do whatever is necessary to protect youÔøΩ before explaining how we must bring in the world to save us from the mess that George Bush has created in Iraq. I think it might have made a crucial difference.

I think this goes quite a ways towards explaining how it was that ‘ordinary Americans,’ who weren’t paying obsessive attention to the campaign, could nevertheless get the impression that Kerry wasn’t serious about defense, or about winning in Iraq.

I was always a little puzzled by my own certainty that the guy wasn’t serious—-after all, he was saying he was serious! (’I have a plan.’)

I could never fully get why he seemed so not serious every time he spoke.

I think these kinds of subtelties (or not-so-subtleties, in many cases) are a bit like ‘tells’ in poker.

I gather poker players always have tells (yes?), and I think the same thing probably holds true for politicians campaigning for office.

Dec 12, 2004 - 3:07 pm 88. Catherine:

Rick B

Can anyone reading this articulate the general principles binding the Democrat Party? Just something simple

I’ve finally figured out the answer to that one: it is a belief in “affirmative government.”

I’m not the person to flesh that out–what affirmaive government means to serious Dems in terms of economics, poverty, ’social justic,’ etc., etc.–but that’s what the core principle is.

I also have no idea where I stand on it. George Bush is routinely called a ‘big-government conservative,’ and so far I’ve liked his version of affirmative government.

thibaud

Actually, the income correlation is a little more interesting than a direct one-to-one more-money-more-Republican relationship.

This is from THE ECONOMIST (probably subscription only):

The no-need-to-change-things party

First, the party is increasingly dominated by people who have no yearning for growth: public-sector workers; academics and trustafarians who both live off inherited endowments; environmentalists who want to regulate SUVs and urban sprawl; and billionaires who are too rich to aspire to anything. (One of the best statistics of the campaign is that people worth $1m-10m supported Mr Bush by a 63-37% margin, whereas those worth more than $10m favoured Mr Kerry 59-41%.)

Dec 12, 2004 - 3:34 pm 89. richard mcenroe:

Catherine ó “Wither the Democrats?” Was that a typo or “tell” of your own? *g*

Dec 12, 2004 - 3:34 pm 90. jack risko:

Roger’s comments on the 3 million are incredibly important from the standpoint of practical political, among many other perspectives. Does the Democratic party try to win these people back, or find others to replace them? I explore the issue at some length in case you are interested. Thanks, Jack Risko

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2004/12/12/3-4-million-democrats-voted-for-bush-a-statistic-of-staggering-importance/

Dec 12, 2004 - 5:53 pm 91. pst314:

Although I considered myself an independent, I never voted for a Republican presidential candidate until 2000. The Democratic Party candidates and activists that I meet convince that I should not vote for any Democrats in the forseeable future.

Dec 12, 2004 - 6:17 pm 92. Rick Ballard:

Jack,

Excellent piece - well worth the read. The pop out map tells a very interesting story. Self-created liberal ghettos with Section 8 housing overlooked by 30th floor penthouses.

Dec 12, 2004 - 6:24 pm 93. thibaud:

Cecil Turner,

Without tort reform, there is no possibility of a sensible plan. And so far the trial lawyers are winning on tort reform. What do you suggest?

Not an expert but it seems obvious that at a minimum we need a cap on punitive damages AND need to exclude those sums from the trial lawyers compensation. I believe Arnold had a plan to put the punitive damages into a publicly-administered fund that would be run by the state and dedicated to propagating improvements and best practices so as to minimize medical mistakes. On that last point, the doctors need to start scrutinizing the processes by which they and nurses communicate with each other and transmit patient information. I believe that the majority of medical errors have to do with inexcusably, unbelievably sloppy handling of such information.

We could greatly reduce the number of lawsuits by simply demanding that doctors pay attention to these processes, document and communicate to each other best practices, and adhere to simple checklists in the way that the military or airline employees or any other process-driven, zero-fault tolerance specialty does.

Obviously, as with Nixon going to China or Clinton reforming welfare, it’s the trial lawyers’ party that needs to lead the charge here. Perhaps the next wave of young Dem leaders will grasp this and take on the trial lawyers. Obama, maybe?

Dec 12, 2004 - 6:47 pm 94. chuck:

thibaud,

It is essential in reducing costs to accept a certain level of risk. Perfection costs money, and is unattainable in any case. It is the lack of perfection that gives the lawsuits something to exploit. The performance of doctors and nurses can be improved but that won’t solve the problem.

And why does a box of kleenix cost $10 in the breakdown of the bill?

Dec 12, 2004 - 7:06 pm 95. thibaud:

Chuck, in 2000 the Institute of Medicine estimated between 44,000 and 98,000 deaths annually due to medical errors. A Harvard Public Health School doctor who co-authored the study agreed with many critics that their estimate, while shocking, was far too low.

Since then, a three-year study conducted by the private group HealthGrades of 37 million medicare beneficiaries in all 50 states has yielded an estimate of annual deaths due to medical error of 195,000. Their study includes post-operative complications such as pneumonia. The results were adjusted for the age of the patients.

Whether the true number is 100,000 or closer to 200,000, every medical expert agrees that the number of deaths every year due to medical error is ridiculously, inexcusably too high. By an order of magnitude. The problem goes way beyond tort law. Doctors and nurses need to be part of the solution as well.

Dec 12, 2004 - 8:22 pm 96. mudmarine:

thibaud

I am really not qualified to enter into this discussion. But just to address one small issue…as my wife is/has been an emergency room nurse for the past 31 years, is also a most conscientious nurse, and is someone whom you would be most fortunate to have as your nurse should the occasion arise, I must take exception to your premise. If you can find me a more arrogant, elitist and sometimes just plain nasty group of individuals than doctors, it would only be politicians, high ranking military or lawyers.

It would take an immense sea change for the type of communications you suggest to occur. Eight years of Med School equivocates to Godliness. I truly cannot remember how many initiatives my wife has seen, that were proposed for the purpose of efficiency and effectiveness, that have been shot down and plainly ignored by the other half of the equation, because they will not accept anything that they did not propose and that they do not totally control.

Yes, I realize I am painting with a broad brush, there are of course, exceptions to every rule. But, in the main, I think my assessment is not far off the mark. Apologies to any Doc’s reading, but I stand by my thoughts until corrected.

Dec 12, 2004 - 9:04 pm 97. thibaud:

Mudmarine, yes, doctors are a large part of the problem. It’s not just the fault of the trial lawyers.

Catherine, I could not agree more regarding the bizarre influence of gazillionaires upon the party of the working man.

There’s something truly sinister about George Soros, the man who singlehandedly trashed the currencies and public treasuries of Britain and Sweden and a dozen or so other nations around the world, calling for Bush’s ouster because Bush isn’t sufficiently “multilateralist.” Or calling for campaign finance reform and then suddenly announcing he’ll spend “as many of [his] millions as necessary” to get the outcome he wishes. This is decadence, pure and simple.

As I say, the problem is not one of ideology so much as dysfunctional, incompetent, clueless leadership. Get the party back to its roots: working-class, god-fearing middle American families, those who “work hard and play by the rules.” Build a program based on what moderate income Americans want and need. I’m pretty sure that affordable health insurance, good schools and some measure of economic security along with national security will top the list. There are good ideas from both sides of the aisle. Smart leaders will draw upon them whatever their source, so long as they address the needs of moderate income people in this society.

Dec 12, 2004 - 9:45 pm 98. Knucklehead:

Thibaud,

At the risk of being an echo-chamber, ranting, last worder…

…we should also recognize that our health insurance mess renders us hugely vulnerable at home and likewise requires urgent national attention.

For starters, there is no such thing as “health insurance”. No amount of money paid to any insurance mechanism would insure anyone’s health. There is insurance to cover all or some portion of the expenses incurred from medical attention.

Next, what is it that the nation is so “hugely vulnerable” to? Please tell me. Are we vulnerable to some mass die off? How did nations grow and prosper and become affluent enough to reach the point where 240 millions do have health insurance considering that it wasn’t all that long ago (a half-century, 70 years, barely a human lifetime?) when the nation had half as many people and probably twice as many, or more, without “health insurance”?

The only thing we, as a nation, are “hugely vulnerable” to is that some portion of us do not have access to the same quantity and quality of medical attention as others do. It has always been thus and it will always be so. The fact that there is room for improvement and something, perhaps, slightly closer to egalitarian “fairness” seems, to me at least, a darned long way from a huge, national vulnerability.

You splatted out the completely meaningless number of “40 million Americans without health insurance”. What the hell does that mean? How many Americans do not have access to medical care? How many of those are perfectly healthy people between the ages of 18 and 40 who are highly unlikely to draw against any insurance? Of that subset how many are fully capable of paying for whatever medical attention they require? How many of the number you quote are fully capable of paying for “health insurance” but choose not to do so because they’d rather roll the dice and use the funds for other things? Those without “health insurance” are, by and large, people too young to qualify for Medicare and too affluent to qualify for Medicaid (I may have those bassackwards - I can never keep them straight). How many of the 40 million have access to the medical attention via clinics and emergency rooms? How many of the 40 million are illegal immigrants? What portion of the “health care” issues we face could, with open eyes, be described as social issues that not amount of “free health care” would ever solve?

How ’bout a number that tells us how many people’s actual health is impacted by the harsh reality that the US doesn’t have a system guaranteeing universal, subsidized or fully-paid, access to all forms of medical attention.

No one has all the answers, and of course HillaryCare was a flop. But free-market zealots have also failed.

What free-market zealots and what have they “failed” at? Assuming a population of 280 millions and that the 40 million number is reasonably accurate, that’s 14% of the population. Of that 14% some portion chooses not to have “medical attention insurance”. Which means that 86% of the population does have medical attention insurance and the number could be higher given different personal priorities. Eighty-six percent doesn’t qualify as an “A”, but its a pretty solid “B” - hardly a monumental “failure”.

How did we get to an 86% success rate with a system that is such a dismal failure and represents a huge, national vulnerability?

Enough talk. Fix it.

BS - there hasn’t been anywhere near enough talk. Nobody is willing to even discuss the issues - everybody points fingers and assumes that some “fix” is possible without radically altering anything. Do any of the studies that come up with the magic “40 million” number have a look at the economic impact of guranteed medical insurance for everyone?

Has anybody looked at what the impact upon employment would be? How many people in marginal jobs now would pack it in and take the welfare check if they didn’t have to worry about medical insurance?

How many full-time workers would gladly shift to part-time status if it had no impact upon health insurance? I suggest asking that question of the workers in our nation’s hospitals and other medical care facilities. We might be surprised to find that universal medical insurance might have a dramatic and rapid effect on the availablility of health-care professionals that might require a generation or more, or some other national program to correct for. If, for example, a universal medical insurance program resulted a loss of, say, 5% of all man-hours available from medical care professionals, might that represent a larger national vulnerability than 40 million without medical insurance?

Rick Waggoner, CEO of GM, and Bill Ford will tell you the same thing.

No doubt CEOs far and wide, large employers and small, would love to get out from under the costs of providing medical insurance benefits to their employees. That may even be a good idea that would render more benefit than harm to the nation as a whole. But without seriously looking at the issues and implications I, for one, don’t give a rat’s ass what Rick Waggoner or Bill Ford think about it. Until such time as a real national catfight gives us some idea how much of the cost has to come out of the hides of the trial lawyers, insurance companies and their employers, doctors and other health care professionals, employers, and every taxpayers pockets, CEOs and everyone else can huff and puff till the cows come home as far as this citizen is concerned.

Dec 13, 2004 - 8:24 am 99. thibaud:

Calm down, knuck. You’re making a fool of yourself. The uninsured are a huge drag on the rest of us: we pay for their care, and the cost overall to the system is significantly higher because these people usually do not take advantage of routine visits and treatments that would prevent in many cases much more costly illnesses down the road. A perfect example of this is the increase in infectious disease due to the huge increase in the number of residents who do not get routine immunizations. Bottom line: you pay, I pay, everyone pays for the ridiculous situation of having 45 million people without insurance.

Now let’s move on to the hard numbers. From the Congressional Budget Office:

Health costs as % of federal spending in 1970: 7%.

Health costs as % of federal spending in 2003: 23%.

Steady-state projection by the CBO of health costs as % of federal spending in 2014: 29%.

You understand the implications of that, don’t you? I mean, for interest rates, for our ability to expand the military, for your taxes, etc?

Now let’s turn to the rate of increase in overall health care costs. Per capita annual increase in health care spending from 1994-1998: 3% . Per capita annual increase in 2000-2003: 9%. In the 1990s, managed care restrictions helped contain cost increases. Those restrictions have been relaxed, and we’re back to the usual trajectory in which costs rise at more than 4x the inflation rate. You do understand the economic implications of that, don’t you?

Now let’s look at private health care premiums. According to the Kaiser Foundation, private health care premiums have increased 59% since 2000. Obviously, this is not sustainable. Companies that are growing revenues at 5-10% per year– and these are the best companies; most mature US corporations, the ones that employ about half of our people, are growing at 3-5% per year– cannot continue to absorb a major cost item that increases at three or four times the rate of revenue growth. Won’t happen. Not sustainable.

Let’s put all the dots together. There is no sign that longevity will not continue to increase, or that we will slow the geometric rate of increase in spending on illnesses and conditions that cannot be cured, or the rate of spending on new medical technologies. We are inexorably heading toward a fiscal situation, a private financial situation, and an overall health situation in which either the quality of care will suffer significantly, or the cost of health care will crowd out other vital spending (cf military spending), or we will be forced to borrow still more from foreign central banks to fund spiraling deficits, or a combination of the above. Can you say, “Train wreck”?

Which is why intelligent Americans from across the spectrum, from Rick Waggoner to small business owners to assembly line workers, deserve and demand that our leaders show, um, leadership and propose a sensible mix of curbs on choice and coverage plans so as to turn around this obviously unsustainable train.

Dec 13, 2004 - 9:39 am 100. bdog57:

The thread is dead. Nevertheless….

Aren’t rising health care costs largely attributable to malpractice suits and the need for malpractice insurance? I seem to recall reading several articles over the past couple of years describing this very thing - doctors needing to invest way too many resources into malpractice insurance.

This (pertinent, I believe) topic hasn’t been discussed (as far as I saw) in this tangential discussion so I thought I’d bring it up. This is one area where the GOP has been taking measures to combat rising health care costs.

Dec 13, 2004 - 9:52 am 101. Knucklehead:

This thread has probably run its course, but…

The following is quoted in an article found at the World Socialist Web Site:

More than 18,000 Americans die every year solely because they cannot afford private health care insurance. This is the finding of a new study entitled “Care without coverage: Too little, too late,” which compares the health of insured and uninsured adults in the US, where 30 million (or one out of every seven) working-age people lack health care coverage.

The study, conducted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a private organization affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, paints a chilling picture of the consequences of America’s for-profit health care system. More than 40 million people, including nearly 10 million children, have no health insurance, and the number continues to grow at a pace of about 1 million each year.

The article quoting the IOM study later pegs the number at 18,314. Not sure how they arrive at such a precise number for such a nebulous thing to try to count, but they do. They also quickly tell us that it may be much higher.

The study does not - or I didn’t find it in my scan - tell us whether this is a growing or shrinking number. Nor does it discuss social vs. health issues that might possibly correlate lack of health insurance to risk for disease (i.e, whatever commonality there is between those who cannot get health insurance and those who develop certain potentially fatal diseases).

But it does, to its credit, make an attempt to quantify the cost in human life for lack of medical insurance.

According to data at this link somewhere around 42,000 people die in the US each year from traffic accidents. The number of deaths from influenza is estimated at 20,000/year in the US. Murders in the US in 2000 were estimated at approx. 15,500. That number is apparently dropping (although I seem to recall seeing some study somewhere that suggested it has bottomed out over the last year or two and is likely to inch up again).

Do traffic fatalities qualify as a national emergency? Do influenza deaths? Murder deaths? Which of these should we prioritize when it comes to consuming national resources?

The IOM study pointed to five chronic diseases that highlight how a lack of medical insurance impacts health and life expectancy: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, HIV, and mental illness. They also describe the reduced prognoses for those with cancer as well as pointing out that even trauma victims (such as auto accident victims) recieve less followup care and, therefore, sometimes fail to recover as well, or at all, as those with medical insurance.

I didn’t see anything in the study that apportions “blame” or discusses how personal choice affects anything. HIV is, for example, largely a preventable disease. Some types of whatever mental illness was studied may correlate with lack of employablility.

If what we are after is saving lives and improving some generalized condition of “national health”, is it possible that there is greater ROI potential in focusing on things other than making sure medical insurance is available to 100% of Americans? How many of those murdered each year would be saved, for example, by reducing or eliminating prohibition of certain “recreational” drugs? How many traffic fatalities would be avoided by radically altering requirements for drivers licenses or making all truck traffic move at night, or whatever? Would mandatory flu vaccines save more lives than universal medical insurance? What if we quaranteened all those diagnosed with HIV or legalized prostitution?

Does the number quoted really paint a “a chilling picture of the consequences of America’s for-profit health care system”? Can anyone estimate how many people would die of what sorts of diseases each year if we had a non-profit health care system? What life extending and/or enhancing drugs and medical procedures might we lack in a not-for-profit system?

Just askin’.

Dec 13, 2004 - 10:04 am 102. Catherine:

Richard M

Good grief.

Freudian typos.

OTOH, I’m not sure I know how to spell ‘wither’ in the sense of ‘whither’——-Innocent! I’m innocent, I tell you!

Dec 13, 2004 - 10:10 am 103. Knucklehead:

bdog,

I don’t recall seeing any studies that quantify how much of our medical costs are insurance related. There is no doubt that malpractice insurance is driving up medical costs. The cost of malpractice insurance is also effecting the availability of medical care in some geographic areas as well as in some specialties. I recall seeing something that said this was particularly true of OB-GYN, especially in some counties of the southwest where 100% of OB-GYNs have been sued for malpractice.

An informal survey of the doctors one has access to might suggest that the percentage of those sued for malpractice is climbing relentlessly toward 100. This doesn’t mean, of course, that nearly all doctors are guilty of malpractice, just that they’ve been named as a defendent in a suit at least once. Last year or the year before there were some “strikes” and other threats of strikes by doctors over malpractice insurance costs. And many health workers other than doctors carry malpractice insurance (although this is frequently paid by the employer).

I suggest that if 100% of the practitioners of any profession are, at some point, accused and sued for malpractice that there there may be a problem with how we define malpractice rather than with the quality of the practioners. They can’t all be idiots and we can’t legitimately expect perfection from even the best 100% of the time.

I believe it is consistent among those countries with socialized medicine that they have nothing approaching US liability costs. Since they are still struggling to remain solvent it suggests that the systems are strained by factors other than liability costs. That doesn’t strike me as a suprise since people live longer and medically treat more diseases for which there was once no treatment. It is expensive business to keep The Reaper away.

Dec 13, 2004 - 10:19 am 104. Knucklehead:

You’re making a fool of yourself.

Sure thing, Thibaud. Sorry I can’t match the sophistication of your “Enough talk. Fix it.” commentary.

Dec 13, 2004 - 10:23 am 105. Knucklehead:

Since I’m an recalcitrant ranting last-worder…

The uninsured are a huge drag on the rest of us: we pay for their care, and the cost overall to the system is significantly higher because these people usually do not take advantage of routine visits and treatments that would prevent in many cases much more costly illnesses down the road. A perfect example of this is the increase in infectious disease due to the huge increase in the number of residents who do not get routine immunizations. Bottom line: you pay, I pay, everyone pays for the ridiculous situation of having 45 million people without insurance.

Now it is you who is demontrating foolishness, Thibaud. If 40 million of us are unisured and 240 million are, I guarantee you that the number of insured people who don’t take advantage of routine visits and treatments is higher than the number of uninsured who do not get treatement. Not everyone with insurance takes advantage of it. There are millions upon millions of us who will never see a doctor for preventative reasons. We don’t all run out for our annual physicals.

And as for your huge increase in infectious diseases due to people not getting routine immunizations… please name the diseases. There are precious few children who do not recieve immunizations for lack of insurance. One doesn’t need medical insurance to get one’s children immunized. And childhood diseases are rarely fatal. If you’re gonna blather nonsense about how infectious diseases are killing the uninsured, please tell us which ones.

See the study I linked to above. Of the list of diseases from which the unisured are dying, four of five are chronic. The only infectious one they mention is HIV. And each for each of the five there are lifestyle “best practices” that can reduce the likelihood of suffering from them even in the face of genetic predisposition. So the uninsured could be reducing their own rate of death from disease if they were so disposed or educated.

And, BTW, if we aren’t insuring them and they sometimes aren’t getting medical care, how are they a drain on anything? There is some total cost for the medical care delivered in the nation. 100% of that cost is covered by insurance, taxes, or philanthropy. The total cost of medical care delivered will not go down a single penny even if we have universal medical insurance. It might go up (very likely), but it can’t go down. The only way the total cost of medical care can be reduced is by altering the bits and pieces and that isn’t possible without understanding the major bits and pieces and their proportion of the costs.

If you’re gonna call me foolish at least don’t hand out idiotic nonsense like infectious diseases are killing the uninsured at any significantly greater rate than they are killing the insured. And please don’t try to tell us the uninsured carry higher fully-burdened costs than the insured - that just isn’t economically possible. There is no costs for medical services not rendered and burial is cheap compared to medical treatement.

Dec 13, 2004 - 10:41 am 106. thibaud:

bdog,

Aren’t rising health care costs largely attributable to malpractice suits and the need for malpractice insurance?

No. Studies I’ve seen estimate this cost at about one-half of one percent of the overall cost of health care. Trial lawyers’ annual cut from malpractice suits is in the single billions. Health care is a multi-trillion dollar industry. Tort law desperately needs reform– above all a cap on punitive damages– but it won’t have any real impact on restraining skyrocketing costs.

Dec 13, 2004 - 11:58 am 107. Knucklehead:

Now let’s move on to the hard numbers. From the Congressional Budget Office:

Health costs as % of federal spending in 1970: 7%.

Health costs as % of federal spending in 2003: 23%.

Steady-state projection by the CBO of health costs as % of federal spending in 2014: 29%.

You understand the implications of that, don’t you? I mean, for interest rates, for our ability to expand the military, for your taxes, etc?

Sorry, Thibaud, but I don’t understand the implications - at least not any implications pointed to by a lame data set like the one you put up.

What the heck were federally financed medical benefits in 1970? If 7% of federal budget covered it then they were probably not very comprehensive. Thirty-three years later we spent 23% of federal budget for “health care”. What did we define as health care spending in 2003 that we didn’t define as health care spending in 1970? What are we paying for now, out of federal budget, that we didn’t pay for then?

Are you making some claim that we get the same identical services but pay more than three times the percentage of budget? I seriously doubt that. What portion of the population was covered by federal medical spending in 1970 and what portion was covered in 2003? What did the federally funded benefits cover? If the same proportion of the population and the same benefits were covered in 1970 as in 2003 then the percentage of federal budget would likely be much closer. I do not believe for a moment that we are giving the same level of benefit to the same proportion of the citizenry but yet paying more than 3 times the proportion of budget.

If the people want universal, government funded medical insurance the people are going to have to pay for it. We’ve been creeping in that direction with an aging population demanding ever more medical services. It costs more. Its funny how that works.

If we want to slow down the rate of increase in what medical services cost we’re not going to accomplish that through a universal insurance or single-payer system. Shifting the cost of medical care entirely to the federal budget isn’t going to reduce costs.

Is the federal government going to assume malpractice liability insurance costs for all medical workers? I can’t wait to see the percentage of federal budget that goes to “health care” when that happens?

Are we going to put price controls on all medical services and wage controls on all medical care workers? It’ll be a real joy to watch the effects on costs and federal budget when the radical changes to supply of medical services from that sort of thing.

I suppose we coult remove much of the tort costs out of the health care system. Of course for a decade or so we’ll just shift those into the judicial system while we adjudicate the legal challenges. It’ll be interesting to watch the behavior of all those lawyers unhooked from their income.

All the people want is leadership - make the problems go away. They don’t want to think about the problems or why they exist or which solutions are fake-outs that just shift the problems and costs elsewhere. Well, we ought to be careful what we wish for ’cause there isn’t any simple, painless leadership solution for this. Its gonna take a viscous catfight and somebody’s golden oxe is gonna get gored. And it doesn’t matter one little hoot what the people wish would happen or what hole we want to stick our heads in. If we want to live forever it’s gonna cost us a fortune and if we want big compensation for every glitch everyone suffers its gonna cost even more. “Just fix it!” is childish bullshit.

Dec 13, 2004 - 12:07 pm 108. Rick Ballard:

Knucklehead,

Thanks for taking the time to run the logorrheaic disquistion abetted only by appeal to authority through the logic shredder. Btw, here in CA the sky is not falling - how is it doing in OH?

Dec 13, 2004 - 12:48 pm 109. Knucklehead:

For anyone interested, this SFGate article does a reasonable job of splatting out some of the things driving health care costs (after getting past the sky is falling first half).

I don’t know who the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is but this brief paper talks about the the drivers of health care costs is somewhat interesting. Two claims this article makes are very interesting:

- 70% of all health care costs in the US are for medical care of chronic disease. Not only are their lifestyle choices that are proven to reduce the risks and severity of many chronic diseases but there are “self-management” programs that are shown to significantly reduce the need and demand for medical services for many chronic diseases. My wife has had direct experience with this sort of self-management program (educating and training people with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases) and there seems little doubt that these work - nearly wonders. But they are not normally covered by either private of federally funded insurance programs. We can train people with many chronic diseases to live better lives while requiring less care but we refuse to pay for it - penny wise and pound foolish.

- High-cost illnesses - 1% (yup, that’s 1/100) of the population accounts for 27% of health care costs. They claim that this has been stable for a decade or more and that it seems immune to the cost-containment effects typical of managed care programs. They don’t suggest any way to deal with this (umm… never mind!)

If 70% of health care costs are for chronic care that means 30% are for care of acute conditions and routine checkups and the like.

We aren’t going broke due to influenzas and chickenpox. If we want to make an impact in health care costs we’ve got to make in the area of chronic care and high-cost illnesses (there must be significan overlap in these groups). Reduce the need for health service by, for example, 20% in the chronic space and we get 14% overall reduction in costs. We’d have to cut acute care more than half to see a similar gain. (Unload that 1% of the population costing 27% of the total and we’re really cooking with gas! Just kidding folks!)

The American people can’t simply demand somebody make the problems go away. We’re going to have to adjust what we pay for and what we’re willing to deny ourselves and others in the form of care. And we’re going to have to reach some level of concensus on what we can and can’t require of people re: chronic illnesses. Do we have a right to insist that chronically ill engage in “self-management” of their treatment to reduce costs? If so, what punitive or coercive steps are we prepared to take if they will not self-manage?

Some of the questions AHRQ (whoever they are) believe need asking and answering are:

- how do we drive down costs without compromising quality (not an issue to those who don’t have access to care, but to the other 86%+ this matters)

- what factors are driving the recent cost increases? What services and factors are involved?

- what are the costs associated with things like alternative and complementary care?

- what portion of costs are associated with end-of-life care?

Dec 13, 2004 - 1:27 pm 110. klrfz1:

No thread is completely dead until all the blogging dead-enders have spoken!

Thibaud

Thanks for posting. I have learned a lot about arguing with Democrats by reading this thread. None of them convinced you in the slightest, did they?

I noticed the aging of the baby boom generation has not been mentioned. If the Democrats would promise to fix that “problem” then their victory would be assured. If the Democrats could actually succeed then they could stay in power forever and ever and evermore.

And by the way, giving Clinton credit for welfare reform is just wrong. Clinton only signed welfare reform to help his reelection after the Republicans passed it three times.

Dec 13, 2004 - 2:02 pm 111. Knucklehead:

I’m probably singing in the shower at this point, but since I’m prone to ranting to the last word…

From Aetna (yeah, I know its an insurer):

It has been estimated that medical liability reform could save the health care system between $60 billion and $108 billion each year (HHS, July 24, 2002). Malpractice losses (jury awards) appear to be the primary driver behind the rising cost of malpractice insurance (U.S. General Accounting Office, June 2003). Research also shows that the cost of malpractice insurance is 17.1 percent lower in states with caps on malpractice awards (Health Affairs, Jan. 2004).

Health and Human Services does not seem to think medical malpractice insurance is a small, fraction of a percent, kind of problem wrt medical care costs.

The US GDP (assuming I’m reading correctly - you’ll have to dig at that site for yourself) is $11 trillion.

The number quoted for health care expenditures as a percentage of “the economy” is typically 7%, this puts it at roughly 15% of GDP for “National Healthcare Expenditures” ($1.55 trillion in 2002 vs. $10.45 trillion GDP).

If I’m punching the calculator correctly that means that the $60B - $108B potential savings that the HHS claims could be realized with liability reform represents between roughly 3.5% and 6.5%. Those aren’t save the ranch kinda savings but combined with the possibility of cutting 10% or whatever out of real health care expenditures they matter.

I’m having no luck so far discovering what portion of “national health care expenditures” are for prescription drugs. One stat I did see was that 12% of the population (the elderly) use 37% of the prescription drugs (doesn’t seem unlikely to anyone who has seen the daily & weekly pill boxes).

So we have 12% of the population consuming 37% of the prescription drugs. We have 70% of costs dealing with chronic illness. We have 1% of the population (high-cost illnesses) responsible for 27% of costs. HHS claims reform could save roughly 3.5% to 6.5% through liabilty reform.

Maybe solving this problem is simple and just needs a little leadership. Lash together one 50lb weight, one chronically ill person, one ambulance chaser, and one pharmacuetical marketer to each old person and pitch the pile into the North Atlantic (this may also help to restore the fishery).

Dec 13, 2004 - 2:31 pm 112. thibaud:

Sorry, Thibaud, but I don’t understand the implications - at least not any implications pointed to by a lame data set like the one you put up. What the heck were federally financed medical benefits in 1970? If 7% of federal budget covered it then they were probably not very comprehensive. Thirty-three years later we spent 23% of federal budget for “health care”. What did we define as health care spending in 2003 that we didn’t define as health care spending in 1970?

Nice try, knuck, but as the numbers make clear, health costs are rising sharply and unsustainably across the board. And not merely since 1970, but since 2000. And are projected to continue to rise at a rate many times faster than inflation for the next decade.

Again, the implications are obvious: unless spending on military and other non-entitlement programs is cut back dramatically, we will have swelling budget deficits which will cause much higher interest rates and reduced economic growth.

Interesting that neither you nor Rick bothers to address the fact that many major Fortune 100 corporations in this country risk being driven into bankruptcy because of the explosion in health costs. Increasingly, IBM and others are now dropping their retirees’ insurance, so that people who served them for forty years or more and who now are looking at paying for their own insurance during the time of life when they are most at risk of poor health, without benefit of being part of a pool comprising younger plan participants. In many cases this is being done to existing retirees. Nice.

I’m not really sure what bee it is that has lodged itself in your and Rick B’s bonnet on this issue. It’s pretty obvious to everyone, from top economists to CEOs to Bill Frist, who has even reached out to the junior Senator from New York on this because of the gravity of the situation (they recently jointly submitted a signed editorial on health care informatics in WaPo), that our current path is simply not sustainable.

Dec 13, 2004 - 3:41 pm 113. BobT:

Thibaud

Ever stopped to consider that government involvement in health care is a reason (perhaps a leading reason) why costs are escalating as they are?

And I’m confused as to why you keep referring to various corporate leaders. If government does what you suggest, wouldn’t the Democrats see this as a huge bailout of the corporate interests?

Knucklehead

Maybe solving this problem is simple and just needs a little leadership. Lash together one 50lb weight, one chronically ill person, one ambulance chaser, and one pharmacuetical marketer to each old person and pitch the pile into the North Atlantic (this may also help to restore the fishery).

If this thread wasn’t dead, that delivered the coup de grace. Full marks.

Dec 13, 2004 - 3:50 pm 114. Knucklehead:

Health care costs have been rising unsustainably since the first shaman ground up a potion of root, bark, and lizard tail.

Dec 13, 2004 - 4:14 pm 115. thibaud:

BobT,

Ever stopped to consider that government involvement in health care is a reason (perhaps a leading reason) why costs are escalating as they are?

By far the biggest drivers of increased health care costs are 1) the huge advances in very expensive medical technology in the last thirty years and 2) related to #1, sharply increased longevity. When we have the capability to keep sick people alive longer, we do so, even though it’s horrendously expensive. All the major western democracies are facing this dilemma. France’s health care system is approaching bankruptcy, so is Canada’s.

Despite the hysterics of those who want to demonize Democrats on this, the issue is not at bottom about the extent of government involvement. Obviously we need to arrive at a consensus as to which procedures and which types of coverage we as a society are willing to pay for.

And I’m confused as to why you keep referring to various corporate leaders. If government does what you suggest, wouldn’t the Democrats see this as a huge bailout of the corporate interests?

I refer to large corporate employers, those who employ many millions of Americans, partly because of the impact of declining competitiveness (cost disadvantage of $1500-1,800 per vehicle for GM and Ford vs their foreign competitors) and bankruptcy on the lives of millions of workers.

And partly because it’s next to impossible to get the hysterically anti-Dem Denial Brigade to recognize the depth of the problem. I’m presuming that Republicans still have an interest in the perspectives of corporate leaders who are living and breathing this problem every day (hence Wall Street’s appelation for Ford and GM as “HMOs on wheels”).

Dec 13, 2004 - 4:28 pm 116. thibaud:

Amusing to hear Republicans criticizing someone who cites CEOs’ policy pronouncements. Forget the individual CEOs. Think of these companies that are being crushed by health care costs: IBM. Hewlett-Packard. Alcoa. Ford. General Electric. IBM. And it’s not a problem facing one company, or a particular industry subsector or even sector. It’s a systemic problem that is crippling any large employer that has a very large retiree population to support. It’s a national problem of staggering dimensions.

Dec 13, 2004 - 4:35 pm 117. richard mcenroe:

Thibaud — “France’s health care system is approaching bankruptcy. So is Canada’s.” So we should emulate their model? The one thing all government health-care programs have in common is an absolutely appalling teeth-to-tail ratio in terms of actual caregivers as opposed to administrators. The recent study of Britain’s NHS is an excellent, to use a word ironically, example of this.

“Very expensive medical technology” is very expensive because of the crippling liability exposures attached to it in our litigious society and because the money is artificially there to pay for it through state and federal medical subsidy programs.

Medical treatment is a high-demand product, and as the society ages, that demand is going to increase. Increased demand should lead to increased production and availability of the desired good. That is not happening on the scale it should because companies don’t want to take the tort risk of servicing that market (if flu shots were in such demand, why weren’t more companies pursuing the market), artificially high development costs pursuant to arbitrary and erratic government regulation (when in doubt, demand another study), and the availability of government money (OUR money) through Medicare to keep the current high prices sustainable and ensure a tolerable level of financial return on the current amount of product.

When you make more money available to buy the same amount of product, the price of the product will ALWAYS go up.

Dec 13, 2004 - 4:51 pm 118. Rick Ballard:

Thibaud,

Your caricature of Republicans is as truthful as a Michael Moore move. I’ve been voting Rep for over thirty years and I don’t give a damn what corporate leachs think about anything, period. If they were dumb enough to get in bed with the unions and agree to plans that could only result in bankruptcy then my only hope is that the new owners have a bit more sense. No sympathy for the stockholders too dumb to sell, either. Perhaps a modest amount of sympathy for the employees that were dumb enough to believe the union bosses who negotiated the company breaking benefit packages but it would be very modest.

You want to extend the “benefit” of bankruptcy to the general population because of the stupidity of the people who made the initial bad decisions? No, thanks.

I still haven’t read of any principle that establishes the moral foundation or ethical boundaries for what you propose. Programs aren’t principles and any program established without ethical limits clearly established and in accordance with clearly understood principles is generally apt to be following the rule of “from each according to his ability, to each according to their need”. That premise has already had a 75 year trial without any success.

Dec 13, 2004 - 5:02 pm 119. charlotte:

Terrific, amazing thought pieces all.

Isn’t it ironic that a post on whether the Democrats can get behind the program to spread democracy for safeguarding our country and helping failed regions quickly morphed into a discussion of what Dems are really interested in: US domestic “failings” and our health care “disaster”?

What Dems are really excited about Democracy? There are no Democrat murmurings of how great it is that Afghanistan and Iraq are about to embark on representative self-rule, and we don’t hear any Dem concern over UN support for illiberality or the increasingly undemocratic nature of the EU. Regarding Democracy, one mostly hears Dem hysteria that our very own elections are either stolen by Bush Repubs or are essentially invalid because of moronic Middle America Jesus voters.

Dems and Democracy? Bad US. Good or tolerable whatever other kind of governance

Dec 14, 2004 - 6:59 am 120. thibaud:

“Corporate leachs (sic)” - LOL

If they were dumb enough to get in bed with the unions

Keep trying. Neither IBM nor HP nor any of dozens of other major companies confronting this *national* and *systemic* crisis has a unionized workforce.

I still haven’t read of any principle that establishes the moral foundation or ethical boundaries for what you propose.

Keep on trying to change the subject, Rick. Perhaps one day you’ll admit that this is first and foremost a national financial disaster in the making, and that neither your party nor the other party has shown the courage, intelligence and creativity– not to mention leadership– needed to avoid this disaster. But if it makes you feel better, keep talking about your “moral foundation” and “ethical boundaries.”

This is like a town elder harrumphing and banging away about how there’s no ethical reason for the town to support a fire department. Damn fools! Let ‘em burn!

The rest of us can take hope that perhaps Frist will ignore his side’s reactionary partisans and continue to reach across the aisle in support of intelligent proposals regardless of their political (or dare one say ethical) pedigree.

Dec 14, 2004 - 7:08 am 121. richard mcenroe:

Charlotte… that’s because Democrats never try to change the subject…oh, wait a minute…

Dec 14, 2004 - 7:26 am 122. charlotte:

Too funny, Richard! Sadly.

Dec 14, 2004 - 7:28 am 123. thibaud:

Charlotte,

a post on whether the Democrats can get behind the program to spread democracy for safeguarding our country and helping failed regions quickly morphed into a discussion of what Dems are really interested in: US domestic “failings” and our health care “disaster”?

Not so. Roger’s larger point, the one he devoted most of his space to, was about his aversion to partisanship and sterile ideologies. Here’s what Roger wrote, above:

If there’s one thing I have learned in the last few years it’s that allegiance to any political party should be transitory. I don’t care what the party thinks. I care what I think. The minute it is the other way round, I have lost freedom of thought.

Would that our blind partisans here would adopt Roger’s approach. Roger continues (bold type is mine):

The same thing is true of “isms” for me. So unlike Peter Beinart, I am not worried about resurrecting “liberalism” (or applauding “conservatism” for that matter).

I’ve made clear again and again my strong support for Bush’s war and for Beinart’s views on same. What the blind partisans and moralists here fail to see is thats, unless we also pay attention to the very real and very significant needs of millions of moderate-income Americans on the home front we will very soon begin to see a withering of support for democracy promotion and staying the course in Iraq from the president’s own red-state moderate-income base. If you don’t address the very real pain and sacrifice borne by these people– and the economic elitists and pork-shovelers who dominate the Republican party show no inclination to address it– then you can bet your bottom dollar that we will see the red states revert to their habitual isolationism and doom the democracy promotion and interventionism that you and I and Roger support.

In fact, the conservative talk shows are already starting to show signs of discontent with the war. Callers and guests are beginning to note the enormous financial hits, in most cases equivalent to more 50% of 14-15 months’ worth of income, suffered by reservists and their families who’ve been required to re-up. These people are too patriotic to whine about it, but today I heard an Army JAG based in Tikrit talk about soldiers that he personally has helped with legal advice concerning their efforts not to lose their houses and go bankrupt.

Mark my word: isolationism is the perpetual tendency of the American people, and now that the election’s over, you will see growing grass-roots discontent with the war from the president’s own supporters unless he and his team start to show some real sensitivity to these people’s plight.

So Charlotte, if you truly care about carrying this war to the enemy, then you should also care about the enormous sacrifices that low- and moderate-income people are making as part of this war. It would help greatly if both our major parties’ economic policies were less concerned doling dole out favors to their pet corporate and other interest groups and more concerned with the economic and health insurance situation of the types of folks who are serving us in Tikrit and Mosul and Baghdad now. Tone-deaf partisans be damned.

Dec 14, 2004 - 7:36 am 124. charlotte:

Bah, Thibaud. Whither is the Democrat Party’s support for the spreading of Democracy?

Again, instead of on the importance of fighting terrorism and spreading Democracy, it’s about our national domestic “disasters” and how the Dems will save us. Democracy? Yawn. Terrorism? What terrorism?

But an almost fetishist interest in Brussels-like policy wonk centralized cure-alls for domestic malaise and disaster that are identified by caring and genius Dems who know what REALLY imperils our nation- now that is exciting. Our system’s “failings”? Socialism? The heart races.

Roger wrote: The spread of democracy is extraordinarily difficult, but it is by far our most serious work. Democracy should be what we are most concerned about. At the moment, it’s the only label that interests me.

Middle America does not see looming domestic disaster over healthcare issues and voted for Bush’s foreign policy program. But they just are not smart, right? And I am a tone-deaf partisan, I guess.

Dec 14, 2004 - 7:52 am 125. thibaud:

If you want to win the war on terror, then you need to maintain strong support for it from the broad mass of people who earn less than $70k per year and who are bearing more than their share of the sacrifices in this war. Whether or not you see it, the two issues are linked.

As Beinart’s piece notes, it’s Republicans who are most susceptible to isolationism and most skeptical of democracy promotion. George Will and other traditional midwestern Republican conservatives have repeatedly questioned democracy promotion in the middle east, in particular, impugning Cheney’s commitment to same.

Here’s a bet that Republican tone-deafness on the plight of ordinary red-state American families will cause red-state discontent to grow, and that within 18-24 months we will see the Republicans throw overboard their commitment to democracy promotion and revert to traditional Taftite isolationism. Any takers?

Dec 14, 2004 - 7:56 am 126. thibaud:

Now that the election’s over, the gloves are coming off at home. Pro-Bush writers are starting to question the need for a commitment to Iraqi democracy. Expectations are being lowered. Krauthammer has already written that civil war in Iraq is certain. I’ll bet that George Will soon will write that we can’t fix Iraq and that democracy promotion there is a pipe dream. Other Republican writers will scapegoat Rumsfeld.

And next summer the knives will come out: an OpEd offensive led by the anti-democracy realpolitikers of the Bush 41 admin– Scowcroft, Baker, Eagleburger, et al; strident calls to bring the boys home from Sen Hagel and other midwestern Republicans; and finally a shift in the goalposts by the Bush admin from supporting Iraqi democracy to promoting Iraqi “stability.”

Dec 14, 2004 - 8:04 am 127. charlotte:

thibaud,

OK, have it your way. Not only does the Democrat Party not articulate any interest in promoting democracy abroad and, hence, security at home, all of yesteryear’s Repubs and hapless Middle America will abandon the program if we don’t:

fix everything we imagine is broken with healthcare and address social and economic injustices to forestall otherwise inevitable financial disasters.

The sky is falling more in America than it is overseas. I hope the Dems, the UN and EU can save us.

Dec 14, 2004 - 8:41 am 128. thibaud:

Bah, Thibaud.

You forgot the humbug part, Charlotte. Then again, your post supplied enough of that quantity. No need to repeat, eh?

I’ll repeat my support for a party devoted to Truman-JFK principles of promoting democracy abroad and concern for low- and moderate-income Americans at home. That party doesn’t exist today. A pox on both the elitist pork shovelers and the new reactionaries.

Dec 14, 2004 - 9:20 am 129. charlotte:

My post was “humbug”? Thank you, thibaud.

Dec 14, 2004 - 9:28 am 130. thibaud:

Mark my words: the Republican commitment to promoting democracy and waging this war to the finish is skin-deep. Before you know it we’ll be back to the realpolitik cynicism of Bush’s father’s administration, with a heavy flavor of fortress-America style old-fashioned Taftite isolationism.

Dec 14, 2004 - 9:59 am 131. Knucklehead:

Wow, this thread survived the night and was still alive this morning. As one of Our Gang used to say, Remarkable!

Just thought I’d blat out some additional thoughts.

Are those (Thibaud in this case) who believe we are facing some impending catastrophe due to “health care costs” claiming we are facing a looming national health crisis, a national financial crisis, or both?

Given the rise in longevity and the general improvements in physical wellbeing that have occurred in the span of a single human lifetime it is very difficult to see much of a case for any looming national health crisis. We regularly consume health services that weren’t even conceivably a human lifetime ago. We cannot accurately compare the the value of health services delivered today to those delivered 30, 40, or 70 years ago. Aches, pains, discomforts and even diseases and the effects of aging that were once a standard and accepted part of life are intolerable today. We’ve doubled (actually a little more than that IIRC) the number of years people live in “retirement”. Something is going to kill everyone someday and living longer, comfortably, means we’re going to demand more of everything the health care industry can figure out how to sell us.

I’ve seen no argument, convincing or otherwise, that we are not getting something close to the “value” for which we are paying when it comes to medical care. The fact that the costs of “health care” are a rising portion of GDP and Federal budget mean absolutely diddley unless there is some evidence that our current state of national “health” is not reasonably equal, in value, to what we are spending.

No doubt if we compared, for example, the portion of the federal budget spent on information technology in 1970 vs. that spent in 2004 we’d see an “alarming, across the board, unsustainable growth”. And that for technology that constantly delivers greater value for less money. Nobody in 1970 could have accurately predicted either the demand or value that information technology would be delivering to the government or the society.

The same is true for modern levels of “health care”. Nobody in 1970 could have accurately predicted the amounts, types, or costs of medical and other health services We the People would demand. The health care industry has not reached to point of maturity to be able to constantly deliver more for less - it may never reach that point and even if it is possible it may require fully unleashing the loathesome ravages or rampant, competitive capitalism to get there.

And nobody has any idea what is the “proper proportion” of GDP or federal budget that should be spent on satisfying the national craving for someill-defined thing called “health care”. We all want to live without pain or even discomfort to a ripe old age of 120 and die peacefully in our sleep. We demand an ever closer approximation of that from our “health care industry”. Moving that ball forward is going to cost an increasing proportion of the resources we have to spend if and until something radical alters one or more of the demand for, development of, and delivery of medical services. Unless and until one or more of those factors is radically altered looking for any major cost reductions will be as effective as barking at the moon.

Can someone please explain to me how changing who pays for medical services can possibly reduce the total cost of medical services? And if there are savings to be had by altering who pays, how are those savings likely to be achieved without significantly altering demand (rationing) or the value received (quality)?

Dec 14, 2004 - 10:58 am 132. Rick Ballard:

Charlotte,

Engaging the trained but uneducated is generally a fool’s errand. The inability to articulate an underlying principle or respond (to Knucklehead in particular) in a manner that addresses the issues raised tells us that further discussion will only result in the needless death of pixels to no good end.

Dec 14, 2004 - 12:52 pm 133. thibaud:

Are those (Thibaud in this case) who believe we are facing some impending catastrophe due to “health care costs” claiming we are facing a looming national health crisis, a national financial crisis, or both?

A national financial crisis. As I’ve made clear again and again.

I don’t disagree with many of your other points. Again, obviously there are good ideas from both sides of the aisle, and of course it’s a hugely difficult problem that will require us as a society to make some difficult trade-offs.

But the main point is that we’re not making any progress on the financial front. Managed care slowed the increase in health care spending during the late 1990s, but now we’re back to triple-digit annual growth.

Which is obviously, simply, indisputably unsustainable. If we as a nation saved much more than we do, the financial impact would be mitigated somewhat. However, we have soaring public deficits AND a pathetically low savings rate AND an enormous dependence on foreign capital AND a weakening currency. All of which makes us hugely vulnerable to the vicious cycle of foreign capital withdrawals, interest rate spikes, still higher deficits, and on and on we go.

Why don’t we try to fix the problem instead of denying it exists? How’s that for an “underlying principle,” Rick?

Dec 14, 2004 - 1:19 pm 134. Rick Ballard:

Thibaud,

You are enunciating a clear opinion concerning what you perceive to be a problem. I understand your declaration of the problem. You still have not promulgated a principle by which the party that you propose would undertake resolution of the identified problem. If you wish to assert that as a personal principle you believe that the cost of medical treatment for an individual should be a general societal burden, that’s fine by me. If you want to assert the same and claim the Declaration of the Rights of Man as a foundation, that’s fine too. You could even try to stretch the principle of promoting the general welfare within the US constitution to fit (although that would be a very long stretch). Barring that, all you’ve done is establish that you believe there is a problem and that you want my money to fix it.

Btw - having lived through economic situations that were proclaimed to be “the end of civilization as we know it” I don’t place the current situation regarding health care to be any more serious than the savings and loan ‘crisis’ and certainly no where close to the inflation ‘crisis’ of the seventies in severity.

Dec 14, 2004 - 2:42 pm 135. Knucklehead:

A national financial crisis. As I’ve made clear again and again.

You have not made this clear again and again. You’ve bounced back and forth between the plight of the uninsured, claims that people are dying at the rate of 100,000 - 200,000 per year due to incompetency among medical professionals to American corporations are going bankrupt paying medical benefits they are deciding not to pay.

Extrapolating current trends out to some apocalyptic future and assuming they will continue indefinitely until the system collapses is about as sure a way to be proven wrong as exists. In my adult lifetime I’ve watched this happen with the stagflation of the early 70’s - inflation rates and low growth would continue to inflate and fail to grow until the whole economic system collapsed and we returned to hunting and gathering. Population growth would swamp the ability of man to provide food and we’d all starve. We all should have been speaking Japanese by now since the last American TV factory closed ages ago. We should have used up the earth’s {oil, iron, manganese, aluminum, trees, fish, water, air) 10 or 20 years ago. Y2K would stop half the world’s modern equipment.

Forgive me if I don’t buy into the current sky-is-falling scenario(s) - you put up four or five of them in your last post. I’d be stocking the survival hut in deepest Wymoning if I bought into half of it.

Dec 14, 2004 - 3:56 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: