Matters of Church and State

THE SOUND AND THE FURY

       Brigitte and I have been on the road off and on for the better part of three weeks so we didn’t give the news as much attention as we normally do, except to catch the headlines.  It was a rather nice break from all that noise:  “Fast and Furious,” the Administration’s ill-advised gun operation in Mexico; Bain Capital: did he or didn’t he?  Washington Mayor Gray’s crumbling administration.  And on and on.

           What we couldn’t help but follow, even on the road, was the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act.  It didn’t take the Tea Party long to turn one of its heroes, Chief Justice John Roberts, into an unpatriotic villain and a turncoat who should be impeached.
 

It’s understandable, of course, why some conservatives might disagree with the Affordable Care Act -- although to date I have not seen any reasoned alternative from that quarter, just vague promises about the need to repeal Obamacare and start all over.  What’s hard to understand is the rabid fury on the right, as if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were tantamount to high treason and Chief Justice Roberts a Benedict Arnold.

          The Obama Administration is partly to blame for allowing the Tea Party and other right wing conservatives to define the health care law and let the worst misimpressions become settled fact.  It’s no wonder people are frightened by that caricature of the ACA as a massive Government takeover that will bankrupt the country and turn this country into a socialist welfare state like France and all those other European countries across the pond.   Meantime, instead of pumping out information on what ACA really is designed to accomplish -- as well its current benefits already in effect -- the Administration remains strangely passive. I don’t get it.

          Meanwhile, the House of Representatives, responding to its base, is so busy voting to repeal the ACA it doesn’t have time for much else.  In fact, just to make sure everyone understands its opposition to ACA, the House has voted 33 times to repeal it.  No exaggeration; 33 times.  You can’t make up stories like this, leading Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein to observe:  “Holding that vote once makes sense. Republicans had promised that much during the 2010 campaign.  But 33 times?  If doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result makes you insane, what does doing the same thing 33 times and expecting a different result make you?  Well, it makes you the 112th Congress,” he quipped.

              What puzzles me that the goal of the health care law is no longer part of this acrimonious debate.   It’s all about the alleged cost – and some of the GOP cost estimates being trotted out on the campaign trail are fictitious, to put it kindly.  The fact that 50 million Americans (the health care law would cover only 30 million) are uninsured doesn’t seem to bother the opponents of health care.  Or that people with pre-existing conditions can be denied health insurance.  These beneficiaries are our fellow citizens, aren’t they?

Which brings me to my last point.  You often hear opponents of health care putting the issue into the context of welfare, a code word if I ever heard on.  And I hadn’t heard the word “moochers” for years recently until I heard it in the context of those who would allegedly most benefit from the Affordable Care Act, in the eyes of its critics.  And, now, just to make sure people don’t miss that point, Mitt Romney goes before the NAACP and gets booed when he pledges to repeal Obamacare.  As Washington Post columnist Melinda Henneberger rightly observes: Romney got just what he came for.  Now, he can let his friends in the Hamptons know he stood up to the welfare folks -- he the same guy whose Massachusetts health care law served as the model for the ACA.   Go figure.

The irony of this is that there are more whites on welfare than African Americans.  A greater percentage of African Americans, sure, but that’s not surprising considering the social and economic obstacles they have had to face and still face in many sectors.

The point is that the GOP can’t resist the racist slant when it comes to an election so they resort to the old bugaboos to get their base riled up. From Nixon’s Southern Strategy and Reagan’s “welfare queens” and the Willie Horton charge leveled against Michael Dukakis in the 1988  campaign, to Newt Gingrich’s clumsy attempts during the Southern primaries, the beat goes on. 

This too shall pass, but it’s going to be a long summer and fall. 

          Gerald E. Lavey