When health care reform was proposed, my -- albeit limited-- memory of the opposition was that the proposals were labeled "socialist." And I don't think much happened.

I suspect that not many people around right now, thanks to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the decline of Communism worldwide, have a real concern about socialism. Certainly this group does not include people who understand the difference between -- and benefit from -- unfettered Capitalism and socialism. But most people, no longer worried that socialism will lead inevitably to the first, second and third steps down the slippery slope to Communism, just didn't care.* 

When the dire threat of "socialism" did not move people to oppose health care reform, another term or category had to be put forward in order to scare people and rally opposition. Rummaging around in the murky grab bag of historical precedent, they came up with Hitler and fascism.

Does it fit? No. Does anyone realize this? Apparently not too many.

Is it working? I guess we'll see.

*Full Disclosure: I teach history and I blame weak historical understanding for this sorry state of affairs. What must Europeans think when they hear that universal health care, which many of them provide, is fascist?   

What if, as part of any plan to bailout American automakers, the United States government takes on all of their medical benefit obligations? Here are some good reasons for trying this out:

This would include medical benefits for a few million people, current and retired employees. It cuts $2,000 to $3,000 from the cost of every American made car and gives American made products a boost against foreign companies. (I may have those stats wrong, working from memory here.)

American cars are not all gas guzzling mistakes, there are some good options, including hybrids, out there. This move gives automakers a reprieve from the obligations that emerged in the booming American postwar economy, which are no longer sustainable in a global economy where other countries administer government medical plans that do not directly affect auto costs.

In the 90s, Ross Perot suggested that the US government not develop a single government plan for universal health care, as the Clintons proposed. He wanted to let all 50 states, or just a few, maybe with smaller populations than California, try some pilot programs and let the government pick from the most successful. Taking on automaker health care kind of follows that idea. If this program, maybe with some government adjustments to it, doesn't work, the affected population will eventually diminish.    

If it does, it could pave the way for imitation by the federal government, imitation of an already working plan.

My husband came up with this idea over breakfast. I think it's great. And it doesn't just pay or punish the auto industry. It focuses on workers and car costs.

Thoughts, anyone?

(Cross posted at "McCain Flails, WAMU Falls")

I am far from expert in this area, but over the last century there have been 3 (am I missing one?) major financial failures, the Depression in '29, the Savings and Loan scandal in the '80s, and now this. I am not sure of the causes, but the striking thing about all of them is that Republicans were in office each time. Only Ike's 8 years seem to be free from this type of collapse (perhaps because of residual effects from the war? or just a very big economy in relation to the rest of the world? I don't know).

What I do know is while Democrats are hardly blameless in these events, they do seem to aim to correct them in ways -- good and bad -- that rebuild the American economy. And whenever Republicans find they have enough administrative time in office to mess with financial structures/protections, they manage in one way or the other to grab/swindle/steal/loot/fleece -- pick your verb -- the system. It is never the same method, but the taxpayer winds up propping up the system to keep everyone, including, alas, the culprits themselves, afloat.

How do we avoid this? How do we protect the homeowner who bought into the system? We bought houses in 80, 86 and 2004. The first two required 20% down and would only go 2 and 1/2 times our income, the last we could have gone with less down and much more than 2 and 1/2 times. We stuck with the old model because we didn't like anything higher, but other homeowners, new to the system maybe or happy with their new higher house price bracket, obviously bought in. Are they really the ones to blame? How do you protect them from a flawed model for determining their loan size?

Anybody got an answer? Anybody else believe it?   

I have a problem with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy that has nothing to do with her character, past performance, or policies. It has to do with her husband and the political powers of the president and the persistent failure of American historical memory.

I teach history. The limits of historical memory among the young are stunning. Let’s say we have a tremendously popular president at the end of his or her eight years in office, years of unprecedented peace and prosperity.  With control over the national political party machinery, it would not be difficult for the president to engage the party in the active support of the candidacy of his or her spouse.

Past spouses have all been women, some more accomplished than others but none with a serious shot at the White House.  This is new age. Wives of presidents are more and more likely to be professionals, some may even be serious political activists. Senator Clinton has trumpeted her activities in this area as a fundamental element of her credentials.

If she is elected, people will remember that she earned it with her years in the Senate – for a time. That time, based on my study of the students who study history, may be extremely short. In twenty years, they may know she worked for a while at . . . something before running for president.  But subtle distinctions do not stand well in the adrenaline rush that fuels political partisans in the heat of the hunt. In thirty or forty years, it will fade, and all that will be left is the knowledge that she ran and won after her husband had the job.  

Americans have a justifiable aversion to the ascent of sons. Two have followed their fathers into office, but only after some years had passed. (John Quincy Adams served for four years in a bitter political climate remembered by the term, “Corrupt Bargain.” George W. Bush, using the power of his office and the machinery at his disposal, lasted for eight.)

            But wives or husbands would be trickier. What politician, especially from the same party, wants to appear to diminish the claim and capability of the spouse of a president? Who wants to take on women or men voters on that issue? Roselyn Carter was a very capable spouse. Had Jimmy Carter been a success at his job, she could have been a first. He was not. But Ronald Reagan was. Bill Clinton was. Is there any reason to believe that an administration by Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton would not be a continuation of their husband's policies and their political teams?
             Those policies are not the problem, however. What is the problem is the power that would evolve as result of such length of time in office. When President Washington set the two-term limit, the assumption was that he felt anything longer lent itself to dynastic abuse (I’m pretty sure Washington had no worries about presidential wives).

I have no problem with a woman president. I believe that women would bring a welcome balance to an office that has been exclusively male through forty-three administrations. However, a democracy needs the nourishment that comes from new blood, something George Washington understood intuitively.  A presidency in the hands of one couple – or one family – over whatever period of years is a threat to the nation’s political vitality.

One presidency per couple is enough. Which one of them actually runs we should leave up to them.