Seriously. 

As I keep a close eye on the process of legislating health care reform, I have had time and reason to ponder our political system, and now I'm depressed.  I'm starting to think that it is inevitable that the HCR bill will not be a meaningful improvement, that insurance companies will continue to profit at our expense, and as a result the Democratic majority will go away rather swiftly.  But, I guess that's not a big deal, since they have proven unwilling to make the changes they promised in the first place.  That's right: unwilling.

You see, the thing that struck me with the greatest force was the realization that every action, every word from a congressional legislator is calculated with an eye toward re-election.  They don't actually care (how naive I must sound!) about anything but themselves.  Of course, campaigns cost money, so it is in their best interest to generate capital...and insurance companies sure have a lot of it.  So, in the final analysis, Congress has several reasons to pass a piece of crap bill, and only one reason not to: it would be wrong.  I don't see that stopping them, honestly.

For my entire life (and based on what I've learned about history, quite a while before I was born) politicians have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into any morally necessary reform.  From woman's suffrage to civil rights, there has been no imperative to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do.  They always ask "What's in it for me?".  Realizing this, I had to look closely at the founding of this country to see if we have betrayed the ideals our republic was based on...and I'm sad to say we have not.

The phrase "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  was the second choice of the continental congress, replacing "...life, liberty, and property."  This seems innocent enough, until you remember that in those days only white men could own property, so this statement is an explicit desire to protect the rights of only that group of people.  Of course, this is exacerbated by the knowledge that "...all men are created equal..." also only refers to white men.  Men, because that's the word they used, and white because in those days non-whites were not considered people.  If you doubt it, just remember that most of the members of the continental congress were slave owners.  Jefferson, himself a slave owner, was the most outspoken critic of slavery, but admitted that it was a matter of self-preservation.  From the beginning, precedent was created that encouraged lawmakers to be selfish and unwilling to make meaningful sacrifices in the name of morality.

But how is it possible that so many of our representatives are such despicable, heartless monsters?  Surely some fiery-eyed idealists have gotten involved in politics and tried to make a difference, right?  You bet they have, and they get shut down at every opportunity.  The presidential debates, considered to be the most significant chance for candidates to generate support, are actually conducted by a private corporation which approves or denies specific candidates the right to participate, based on reasons which are entirely their own.  In non-presidential races, morally upstanding idealists are outspent by their rivals (who have no compunctions against taking bribes) and are made the target of irrelevant personal attacks, which they generally decline to reciprocate.  They are beaten before they even begin.

If you want to see proof that this is happening, look no further than Ralph Nader.  I know a lot of people have some sort of mysterious, unexplained grudge against this man, but if you do a little bit of research you will find that he has been a tireless advocate for the American people for his entire political career.  His record of public service far exceeds that of any man who has been elected president in the last 100 years, if not longer.  He has never been implicated in a scandal, never taken a bribe, and always stands by his principles.  Of course, that makes him completely unacceptable as a serious politician, and as a result he has been endlessly slandered for literally no reason, as few if any real charges or accusations have actually been leveled at him.  Instead, he is impugned for being "unreasonable", which is pretty laughable.  And despite all of this, he was denied permission to participate in the 2000 presidential debate for no reason at all.  And, to add insult to injury, local police escorted him off the premises, despite the fact that he had a legitimate ticket to the event and only wanted to watch...from a satellite location!

So you see, our system is designed from the bottom up to protect the wealthy and powerful and allow them to victimize everybody else while claiming to represent them.  It's despicable, it's immoral, and it's not going to change, because money talks.

So what would it take to get meaningful health care reform, and at the same time demonstrate that we the people have had enough of this crap?  Well, it would take a constitutional amendment and an initiative.  You see, there is no provision in the constitution for a referendum (or initiative, as we like to call it) at the federal level.  If an amendment were passed to change that, the question of a robust public option could be decided by the people in a simple majority vote.  What could possibly be more democratic than that?  Of course, it won't happen.  There's a reason it's not in the constitution already: America was never meant to be a democracy.  The reason we elect people to represent us and vote on our behalf is that we need to be protected from ourselves.  Obviously, the average American doesn't know  enough about the complexities of the issues that face us to make responsible decisions.  And we certainly can't be trusted to elect our own leader (imagine what the country would be like if Al Gore had become president after the people elected him-a cleaner environment, more fiscal responsibility...what a nightmare!) so we have representatives to do that for us.  That's why our government is actually a republic, not a democracy.  I'm not kidding.  Look it up.

Seriously. 

It's the eternal question, really.  Throughout the ages, people have always found themselves, in moments of confusion bordering on genuine panic, throwing their hands in the air and screaming:

"What the $^*! is going on around here?!?"

But it seems to me that this feeling has grown more...passionate(?) in recent times.  It's almost as if we feel more entitled to information than ever before.  Sure, it's expected in an age where information is literally at our fingertips, but does that necessarily mean it's valid?  I don't really think so.

Most of the time, people get inquisitive about world events for two basic reasons: they are bored, or they think they have enough intelligence/wisdom/money to understand what's going on, pass judgment, and suggest improvements/start a revolution.

Anyway, the concept that some random guy with no particular experience or education to qualify them can feel justified doing this is...silly.  We can sit here and criticize a sitting president, but none of us has any idea of what that's like.  We don't know how hard it is to accomplish anything in that position, what pressures exist, and all the other things that aren't public knowledge but still play a role.  By the same token, we don't know what it's really like to be in congress, to be a Supreme Court judge, to be a lobbyist, to be an astronaut, or whatever else we are complaining about.  I submit that as much as 90% of the general population would do no better in these positions than the people who have actually held them, and would most likely do a lot worse.

That's true.  It is.  If you are a rational person, and you are honest about it, there's really no denying this. 

And the same thing applies to just knowing what is going on.  We get our news from whatever sources we decide to trust, we check multiple sources and do as much independent research as we can, but ultimately we all know (or should) that the decisions that shape this country are made behind closed doors as the result of conversations we will never know about, and whenever a politician or pundit describes what's going on, they are only giving the information they want us to have.  How often is that a complete, honest picture of reality?  Never.

So is the public option dead?  Will Obama come in at the last possible moment to save it?  Will it be passed by dedicated democrats who know what the people really want and need?  We don't know, and we can't know.  It was a surprise to everyone when the senate finance bill passed with a PO, and even after the fact no one seems to have the slightest idea of what it really means, and what will happen next.  We're all just guessing here, and we have very little to go on.

What's the point?  No point.  Come on, this is a blog.  I'm just typing to get my thoughts and frustrations out without criminal charges being filed against me.  I love the internet! 

This topic has been covered quite exhaustively, but since I haven't written about it yet, I figured I should, just for my own sanity.

Hey, it's hard to tell when people are being sarcastic.  It's hard to read very deeply into what people are saying without non-verbal cues.

And, hey, it's way too easy to get mad when you don't have to look them in the face.

Could we, as the online community in general, please agree to try not to get so pissed off all the time?  Seriously, is there anything some schmuck from Nowhere could say that is worth getting all bent out of shape about?  No, there isn't.  When you find yourself getting all hot under the collar, step away from the computer, take a breath, and realize that the troll insulting your mother is not actually affecting the quality of your life in any significant way.

Unless you let them.