Perhaps my biggest frustration with the U.S. news media (and yes, I am a card-carrying member) is that we permit the two parties to decide what is “left” and what is “right.” The way it works, roughly, is that anything Democrats support becomes “left,” and everything Republicans support becomes “right.” But that makes “left” and “right” descriptions of where the two parties stand at any given moment rather than descriptions of the philosophies, ideologies or ideas that animate, or should animate, political debates.
There is a good reason why we do it this way. It isn’t the media’s job to police political ideologies, and it wouldn’t be a good idea for us to try. But that leaves ordinary voters in a bit of a tough spot.
The reality is that most Americans aren’t policy wonks. They don’t sit down with think-tank papers or economic studies and puzzle over whether it’s better to address the free-rider problem in health care through automatic enrollment or the individual mandate. Instead, they outsource those questions to the political actors — both elected and unelected — they trust.
Unfortunately, those political actors aren’t worthy of their trust. They’re trying to win elections, not points for intellectual consistency. So the voters who trust them get taken for a ride.
Consider the partywide flips and flops of just the past few years:
— Supporting a temporary, deficit-financed payroll-tax cut as a stimulus measure in 2009, as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and every one of his colleagues did, put you on the right. Supporting a temporary, deficit-financed payroll tax-cut in late 2011 put you on the left. Supporting it in early 2012 could have put you on either side.
— Supporting an individual mandate as a way to solve the health-care system’s free-rider problem between 1991 and 2007 put you on the right. Doing so after 2010 put you on the left.
— Supporting a system in which total carbon emissions would be capped and permits traded as a way of moving toward clean energy using the power of market pricing could have put you on either the left or right between 2000 and 2008. After 2009, it put you squarely on the left.
— Caring about short-term deficits between 2001 and 2008 put you on the left. Caring about them between 2008 and 2012 put you on the right.
— Favoring an expansive view of executive authority between 2001 and 2008 put you on the right. Doing so since 2009 has, in most cases, put you on the left.
— Supporting large cuts to Medicare in the context of universal health-care reform puts you on the left, as every Democrat who voted for the Affordable Care Act found out during the 2010 election. Supporting large cuts to Medicare in the context of deficit reduction puts you on the right, as Republicans found out in the 1990s, and then again after voting for Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed budget in 2011.
— Decrying the filibuster and considering drastic changes to the Senate rulebook to curb it between 2001 and 2008 put you on the right, particularly if you were exercised over judicial nominations. Since 2009, decrying the filibuster and considering reforms to curb it has put you on the left.
— Favoring a negative tax rate for the poorest Americans between 2001 and 2008 could have put you on the right or the left. In recent years, it has put you on the left.
I don’t particularly mind flip-flops. Consistency is an overrated virtue. But honesty isn’t. In many of these cases, the parties changed policy when it was politically convenient to do so, not when conditions changed and new information came to light.
There are exceptions, of course. It’s reasonable to worry about short-term deficits during an economic expansion and consider them necessary during a recession. That’s Economics 101.
But nothing happened to explain the change from 2006, when the individual mandate was a Republican policy in good standing, to 2010, when every Senate Republican, including those who still had their names on bills that included individual mandates, agreed it was an unconstitutional assault on liberty. Nothing, that is, but the Democrats’ adopting the policy in their health-care reform bill.
Flips and flops like these make the labels “left” and “right” meaningless as a descriptor of anything save partisanship over any extended period of time. I could tell you about a politician who supported deficit-financed stimulus policies and cap-and-trade, and I could be describing McCain. Or Newt Gingrich. And I could tell you about another politician who opposed an individual mandate, and who fought deficits, expansive views of executive authority and efforts to reform the filibuster, and be describing Sen. Barack Obama.
Parties — particularly when they’re in the minority — care more about power than policy. Perhaps there’s nothing much to be done about this. And it isn’t clear that the media, or anyone else, should try. But it puts the lie to the narrative that America is really riven by grand ideological disagreements. America is deeply divided on the question of which party should be in power at any given moment. Much of the polarization over policy is driven by that question, not the other way around.
But the voters who trust the parties don’t know that, and they tend to take on faith the idea that their representatives are fighting for some relatively consistent agenda. They’re wrong.
Ezra Klein wrote this for The Washington Post.
One thing I will say about the writers from the Washington Post: they’re consistently wrong. What I really don’t understand is why BDN prints so much of their drivel. Hmmm. Could there be a correlation?
Please see my earlier reply to Cheesecake.
There are stark differences between the Republican healthcare plans and the one that Obama pushed through in the middle of the night. The Dems all know that, but they refuse to admit that, because admitting the truth could be disastrous to their agenda.
None of the Republican plans included a complete takeover of the system, mandated purchases, the elimination of the private sector healthcare insurance system, and federal trumping of already working state insurance systems. And none of the Republican plans took nearly 3 thousand pages to write.
The Romney plan, which Obama likes to tout was the blueprint for his plan, was only 70 pages. Of course, the President’s plan had over 2,700 additional pages, but was still basically the same. Riiiiigghhtt.
The Massachusetts plan DOES contain a mandate.
Well, of course the Affordable Health Care plan –ObamaCares — also doesn’t include “a complete takeover of the system” but leaves insurance in the hands of private insurance companies (not a government system like Medicare); nor does ObamaCares eliminate the private sector — again, it leaves insurance in the hands of the private sector and doesn’t even offer a government-run “public option” to compete with the private companies.
I agree that 3 thousand pages sounds long and complicated — they were dealing with the whole federal system, which is more complicated than dealing with just one state. But the basic plan is the one the Republicans came up with, the individual mandate was pushed by the Republicans as an essential element of their plan, and ObamaCares follows the basic blueprint laid down in Romneycare.
The Romney plan includes the individual mandate — which is essential to all of the Repulican plans that were put forward as the alternatives to the Clinton plan. The individual mandate — an idea that came from the right wing Heritage Foundation — makes it possible for the insurance companies to get a big enough pool of healthy customers so that they can afford to cover the less healthy customers they were dropping. They didn’t want to insure anyone who was costing them too much, or who had a pre-existing condition. So, in order to have the kind of capitalist plan that ObamaCares is, giving all of the business to private insurance companies, you have to give those insurance companies enough healthy customers so they can afford to cover the sick ones. Hence the requirement that everyone have health insurance.
Of course sometimes left wing writers for the Washington Post are able to control the narrative and define left wing and right.
At least as far as national healthcare conservatives opposed it when Clinton proposed it in the nineties and they oppose it now. Fairly consistent position really.
No, a completely inconsistent position. When Clinton proposed his government-run health care plan, the Republicans put forward an alternative. The Republican (“right wing”) alternative was developed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The Republicans said that we should have a capitalist plan that sent everyone to private insurance companies, not to a government run plan (like Medicare). In order to get the private insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions, we would require that everyone have insurance — the “individual mandate.” That was the Republican alternative to the Clinton plan. All the Republicans were for this “Republican alternative.”
Because it was the “right wing” plan, it is what Mitt Romney pushed and got passed in Massachusetts.
And, because it was the “right wing” plan, President Obama thought he could get Republican support for it when he proposed it to the Congress. The problem was that as soon as Obama endorsed the “right wing” capitalist Republican plan, all the Republicans ran away from their own plan! If Obama was for their plan, they had to come out against it! They couldn’t stand the idea that President Obama might succeed in getting their plan passed and thus get credit for it, so they opposed their own plan! Now they say this right-wing capitalist plan, which they put forward for many years, is socialism!
And of course Richard Nixon also put forward a Republican health plan that was the alternative to the Democratic plan (the Democrats were essentially proposing Medicare-for-All). Nixon’s Republican plan in the early 1970s was to the “left” of Bill Clinton’s Democratic plan of the ’90s. Ted Kennedy said his biggest mistake was to not support Nixon’s Republican health care plan.
Are you telling me that Republicans “hoodwinked” President Obama into the individual mandate? Come on Penzance. Besides as we well know Democrats did not need a single Republican vote to pass their plan. Which of course was why many of us felt we had no voice in its construction and therefore resent it.
No, they didn’t “hoodwink” Obama into the individual mandate — the Republicans proposed this plan and Obama, when taking office, said something like “Yes, this Republican plan is a good idea, and it should get bi-partisan support if I put it forward. The Republicans proposed it (so surely they will support their own plan), it’s the only way insurance companies will be willing to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and it’s the best chance of getting meaningful health care reform passed.”
The individual mandate was necessary for a capitalist plan — a plan that sends everyone to private insurance companies, rather than to a government-run plan. Why? Because without the additional customers brought in by the requirement that healthy people have health insurance, the insurance companies won’t take the risk to insure the unhealthy customers. That’s why they wouldn’t insure people with pre-existing illnesses — it was too costly. To make a profit they need healthy customers. So in order to get the insurance companies to agree to insure the people they would lose money on, Obama had to promise them lots of new healthy customers. That’s why the Republicans originally came up with the individual mandate — to send the business to the insurance companies, rather than having a government-run plan like Medicare.
Yes, it’s true that the Democrats managed to get the plan passed with only Democratic votes — just barely. But Obama tried to get Republican support, and since it was a Republican plan, he thought he had a good chance of getting some Republicans to support it. If you need every single Senate Democrat, some will see the importance of their one vote, and will ask for something in return. If you have some support from the other party, and have a good margin of victory (they know ahead of time, pretty much, who they can count on to vote for the bill), then you don’t have to make concessions to your supporters.
As it was, not a single Republican had the backbone to do what was right for the country and vote for the plan that their own party had originally put forward.
He did not try to get Republican support…that is a complete fallacy….he didn’t need to and so he didn’t. What he needed to do was pacify the so called blue dog (conservative) Democrats by being a little more conservative in certain aspects but that was all. He never needed the Republicans. Not until Scott Brown took the Democrat Senate seat… remember 60-40 votes in the Senate?? I do.
The ACA is still a threat to the Presidents reelection chances which is why Ezra Klein is acting as a stalking horse for Obama in this article today. In many crucial swing states the ACA is polling very poorly, with over 50% agreeing that the the ACA should be repealed. Pennsylvania & Ohio in particular.
Today Klein is just trying to “muddy the waters” despite his protestations.
Yes of course I remember Scott Brown’s election. All along President Obama was hoping for, and trying to cultivate, Republican support. Olympia Snow did vote for the bill in committee, then voted against it on the floor of the Senate. No president wants to just squeak by, although a win is better than a loss.
Yes, it’s true that many people believe false things about the Affordable Care Act. Many believe falsely that it is a “government takeover,” that it is “socialist,” or that it elimanates the insurance companies — but quite the opposite, it is a capitalist plan that gives all the insurance business to private companies and offers no “public option.”
Many believe the nonsense about “death panels.”
Most people don’t understand why the Republicans proposed the individual mandate in the first place — that was to make it palatable to private insurance companies, to give them a larger pool of healthy customers, allowing the insurance companies to insure sicker customers. The Republicans have demonized this former Republican plan very effectively. It’s too bad that so few people actually understand the basics of the plan, and why it is such an improvement over the chaos that has been reigning in our health care system in the past.
He did not squeak by. It was a total walkover and that was part of the problem. Over 50% of the people were left out of the equation then and over 50% of the people want it repealed today.
Well, you certainly have a bizarre spin. You never answer the points I make, but you do put a strange spin on everything. I don’t know whether you are simply uninformed or deliberately obtuse.
The far left represented by The Weather Underground. Katherine Ann Power, and Cathy Wilkerson.
The far right represented by The American Nazi party, Timothy McViegh, and Terry Nicholes.
Do most Us citizens line up behind the principles espoused by either of these extremes? No one I know is purely “left” or “right” Most (like myself) are some left, some right, and some without a label.
I support the right to own and use guns. I also support a woman’s right to chose abortion. I despise the welfare system, and believe “child labor laws” prevent children from learning how to work. BUT I’m 100% Union, and would die before crossing a picket line.
Left and right make convenient boogeymen. In reality there are too few real left/right ideologues to matter….. Thank goodness!
Yes; thank you!
“Parties — particularly when they’re in the minority — care more about power than policy. Perhaps there’s nothing much to be done about this. And it isn’t clear that the media, or anyone else, should try”
This is rich, coming from Ezra Klein, founder of the now defunct Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. It was disbanded when its existence came to light. It’s purpose was to control the political narrative in favor of the left.
In truth, Klein and fellow liberal “journalists” believe they should control the direction of the country and they continue to run interference for Obama and other left-wing politicians.
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
I don’t believe that Kliens listserv is really defunct. Just exisits in other incarnations. I know for instance that there is a media site that journalists visit that corrects their language to make it uniform and politically correct. Sounds a bit “group-think” to me.
Despite my description, I don’t really believe it’s defunct either.
Just as Acorn’s re-emerged with a new name, I’m sure Journolist has done the same. They’re relentless, these hive members.
Is that the same “leftist” Obama who killed a foreign national in another country without that Nation’s approval? (in violation of international law)
Who continues to allow rendition of suspected (but not convicted) terrorists?
Who has allowed military to take custody of US citizens and hold them without trial? Who is about to use drones to target “suspected” terrorists on US soil?
Politics in the US is a sporting event. it maters not what policies and direction politicians have. The team matters. If you are “rooting” for Republicans you might disallow some of their minor missteps. ditto if you are backing the D team.
Keep your eye on the game. watch Mitch McConnell throw the long bomb. Watch Obama dodge and weave. but while you are watching, keep thinking of the people down under the bleachers, out of sight… The people who are dismantling the USA and the principles of the founding fathers.
The left has historically been violence prone, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in your first paragraph.
Political parties have emerged as a way of defining and implementing governing principles, they provide a means for like-minded people to coalesce around a set of ideas. Only the terminally naive would expect a political party to meet every expectation. The argument in the U. S. has always been whether we have more or less government control over our lives. There really is a dime’s worth of difference between the two philosophies.
Human nature being what it is, there will always be some level of disappointment for the adherents of either party, but the basic tension exists – more or less government. Think of it as a sporting event if you like, but it’s a dead serious one.
The left has historically been violence prone? meaning the right has not?
The Pinkertons, railroad barons, coal mine operators, and the KKK are all considered by historians to be from the right. My guess is you will be hard pressed to find more of one or the other in the violence column. People are violent by nature, and out in the extreme wings of civility, more so.
Politics is a strange game. Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy,and Medgar Evers were originally registered Republicans. George Wallace, Strom Thrumond and Lester Maddox were Democrats.
The Democrats were the party of segregation,(until 1964) The Republicans were the anti-Vietnam War party. (until 1968)
Ed Brooke was the first Black man elected to the US Senate. He was a Republican. Bull Conor was the right wing Sheriff of Birmingham Alabama who used firehoses and dogs to keep blacks from voting. He was a Democrat.
Funny world.
It was you who suggested that violent action by Obama was proof of his not being a leftist.
Union thugs and Bill Ayers immediately spring to mind as examples of leftist violence.
Each side of the political spectrum has seen its share, but the left rarely admits to it owns history in this regard.
Actually the people you call “Union thugs” (in the mines, factories, and woods) were fighting for their lives. (See Harlan County Wars) more like self defense.
Obama is a violent man, but so was George W. Bush. again, the columns will be equal after all the extremists are counted.
I cannot recall the lunatic idea of “carbon credits/taxes” EVER being considered a conservative position.
Actually the “trade” part was a George H.W. Bush (41) idea. The “cap” was a Clinton invention.