Watch our very own Josh Marshall (or his head, at least) deliver the final blow in a Glenn Beck punch-fest.

The debate over health care reform is less about what is best for people's health or the economy and more to do with fundamentally differing views on what constitutes a strong, successful, and yes, a healthy nation.

On the right you have the argument that America is a strong, rich country because it has a large number of strong, rich individuals and corporations (albeit less of both lately). On the left, you have the view that a nation's overall success is best measured not by the wealth or well being of a few but rather the quality of life of the majority.

Besides the fact that the conservative position fosters inequality, I worry that such a world view--one that echos "every man for himself"--will lead to the creation of a society composed of people largely detached from those around them; individuals who, even if successful, are lonely, isolated, and pathetically, tragically selfish. Alas, such a condition would make for no real "society" at all. Moreover, we can be sure that the world would be a darker, more depressing place; where the misery of detachment is tempered only by the momentary thrills of consumption: more TV, more beer, a nicer car, a bigger house, a newer iPhone, more stuff, more things, more, more, more...

We must not fail to recognize that the underlying debate on health care reform is not just about health. It's about the health of a nation, one in which we either see ourselves as fundamentally linked by common hopes and dreams, shared histories and values, and a sense of community, or one where we do not. Which will you pick?

Thanks for commenting and recommending.  

News that the Senate Finance Committee will be putting forth a health care reform proposal that omits a public option and does not compel businesses to cover employees is disastrous. If this report is accurate and a bill such as this goes forth, the insurance industry will have won, yet again, and the American public will be much worse off for it.

Mostly, I feel a deep sense of regret. Another small part of me, however, chuckles at the pitiful plight of Americans so enamored by the ideology of free markets that they are willing to hurt themselves to uphold the ideal. I honestly and earnestly hate to say it but they get what they deserve.

But what do you think?

It seems increasingly clear that waterboarding was conducted to force a confession about ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. After all the recent accounts on how effective waterboarding can be in getting people to say whatever the interrogator wants, why didn't it work? Why didn't the Bush administration succeed in getting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to say he was involved with Al Qaeda, despite waterboarding him 183 times?

Perhaps they did get a confession yet knew it was inadmissible (or invalid) due to the circumstances under which it was elicited. But then why waterboard if the results couldn't be announced proudly to the world: "IRAQI OFFICIAL ADMITS TIES TO AL QAEDA!"?

Perhaps the only explanation is that Bush officials honestly thought there were ties and that waterboarding worked. This is a defense but not a good one because it shows, in yet another way, how they were not listening to so many military and intelligence professionals who knew both.

What do you think?

.

Getting the poor and lower-middle-class to vote against their interests has been one of the great successes of the conservative movement. I wonder, however, if the twin mantras against taxation and large government won't someday (perhaps soon) come back to bite the elite who've promoted them.

Smaller government means less oversight but fewer public services. The rich thrive with less oversight and can manage just fine without public services. The more vulnerable members of society, however, will suffer profoundly without good schools, unemployment insurance, hospitals, public libraries, paved roads, and checks on pollution and abuses of power (read discrimination and police brutality).

Less taxes and smaller government will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. At what point will the poor and lower-middle-class realize that the paying of taxes and the existence of a robust public sector is good for them? At what point will the rich and powerful alienate their base beyond repair?

I think the recent tea-baggers and many others need a lesson on how taxes benefit them directly and immediately. They also need to be taught that the government institutions and programs taxes fund are absolutely critical to their livelihood, safety, and general well being.

But what do you think?

(PS: As a side note, the US Department of Defense is terribly inefficient, consistently over budget, and replete with corruption and cronyism. Nobody suggest we "starve" or "shrink" that beast. On the contrary, most call for better and greater funding to rectify problems, improve oversight, and increase efficiency. Why doesn't the same principle apply to government in general?)

.

 

What does North Korea's launch of a long rang missile mean to the US and Japanese defense departments?

A) They both really dropped the ball
B) The countries they are meant to defend are now under grave threat of imminent destruction
C) They just received justification for massive budget increases and are currently popping champagne corks in celebration

What do you think?

.

Term limits are elemental to a functional democracy. But can they also have ill effects on the public good?

One of the top priorities of a president's first term is to be reelected. During that period, it's critical they remain broadly popular by looking out for the interests of as much of the electorate as possible.

During a second term, all bets are off. Because reelection is not possible, a president can spend that time rewarding friends and allies with little regard for the political ramifications. Being in a position to accumulate vast and sustainable private influence, favor, and wealth can be well worth the cost of grave yet temporary unpopularity.

In principle, presidential terms are good for "capital-D Democracy." But are they good for our democracy? 

For a variety of reasons, I've been thinking quite a bit lately about one of the guiding principles of good parenthood: the hope that our kids have a better life than we do. We all share this hope, don't we? It's only natural. But do we all feel it equally? More precisely, do we all make the same effort?

I don't think so.

Lately, I've had occasion to be around a few working-class foreigners here in Japan. Immigrating from the Philippines, China and elsewhere, they, like immigrants around the world, endure profound hardships. They don't speak the language; they following a strange religion; they look different; they have no family or close friends nearby, and they are often quite poor. Society looks down on them: they are the suspects of crime, depredation, and immorality. They suffer discrimination and ridicule at every turn.

But they endure these profound hardships because they know their kids will benefit by growing up in a country infinitely safer and more prosperous then their own.

Lately, I've begun looking at working-class immigrant families with a sense of awe. I wonder honestly if I have the same mettle. They endure so much and sacrifice so greatly to ensure their kids have a better future. What do I do? I read to my kids before they go to bed. I try to tell them creative stories and listen when they have something to say. I stash away a few dollars for their education. That's about it and it's nothing compared to the Herculean efforts of so many immigrants here in Japan, the US and around the world.

I wonder how different the world would be if we all made the same sacrifices; if we all put the same effort into our kids' futures as do so many working-class immigrants.

What do you think?

(As a side note, there's a new movie coming out about the plight of upper class parents in New York unable to get their kids into elite nursery schools due to crowding and high costs. There's a scene in the trailer where a woman who is all choked up says something like "they're my kids and I'd do anything for them..." Really? Would you do anything? How about quitting your job and taking care of your kids yourself?)

Why is everyone so outraged about AIG giving out bonuses to its execs? That's what companies do. That's their reason for existence! It doesn't matter where that money came from, whether it's given to them from tax payers or extorted from insurance customers.

I'm not saying it's not wrong. I'm just surprised people are outraged that AIG did what it's built to do.

But what do you think?

The explosive legal memos of the Bush administration released yesterday justify presidential privileged that supersedes many laws and constitutional protections. They assert that president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

The justification for such strident executive privilege is based on the notion that the president, as Commander in Chief, has the right to take any and all action necessary in a time of war to defeat an enemy. The word "war" appears in the memos several times such as in the following example:

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

I don't mind if my dentist wants to call the campaign against Al Qaeda a war. I don't even mind if the talking heads on cable news continue to go on about the "War on Terror." Everyone knows what they mean.

It should not be forgotten, however, that "war" has a specfic legal meaning in the United States. War can only be declaired by the Congress and, indeed, in a legal state of war, the Commander in Chief is endowed with certain special privleges. But, in a state of warfare or "virtual war," such as we've been in since 9/11, the Commander in Chief has no special legal authority.

I would not expect Joe the dentist or Sean Hannity to be sticklers for the legal definition of war. Fighting is fighting. It's all some form of war. I would, however, expect that the president's legal council makes that distinction. If he or she does not, who will?

The very reason the Founders gave Congress the sole prerogative to declare war was to prevent the president from abusing his authority as Commander in Chief. If the president had the right to declare war at will and in so doing be granted special legal privileges that enabled him to circumvent the constitution, we would have a serious problem on our hands: a dictatorship in all but name.

The secret legal memos just released suggest the administration was operating as if in a legal state of war despite there being no congressional declaration. This to me is one of the most disturbing breaches of the constitution committed by the Bush administration and the key reason why the legal arguments are inherently and absolutely indefensible.

But what do you think?  


...

Huffpost is reporting that:

Vowing to fight Barack Obama's budget in Congress, Republicans have resorted to a three-pronged attack: accusing the president of proposing unprecedented spending, irresponsible taxation, and using dishonest projections about how to pay for it all.

The GOP apparently got some help from Admiral Mullen, the head of US forces, with a suggestion on Fox New Sunday that he did not know where the Obama administration was getting its long-term projections for the money it will save by drawing down the war in Iraq.

Gotcha!!

Not really. Budget projections don't (and shouldn't) go in that directions. Top brass can make suggestions about what equipment to buy and how to move people around but the bottom line on spending comes from a civilian government. The government sets policy and the military follows orders. This separation of powers and duties is one of the hallmarks of a successful progressive democracy.

Going further, am I the only one who feels it inappropriate for military leaders to appear on TV commenting on the budget or policy in general? Is it their place? 

For more on Mullen and this topic see my earlier blog post.     


... 

The GOP launched a new front in its battle to appear multicultural with the decision to have Bobby Jindal do the Republican response to the president's address to congress.

I bring this up because the only thing novel about this Republican sound bite was the race of the person giving it. Other than that, it was the same old set of false axioms about governments being inherently dysfunctional, lower taxes being manifestly good, and that national health care is, well, bad for our health.

Government institutions can and often do fail to function effectively. But precisely the same thing can be said about capitalist institutions (companies). No one proposes shrinking or disposing of those, let alone "drowning them in the bathtub." Moreover and most important, some governments DO function effectively. Born, raised, and educated in the US, I now divide my time equally between Australia and Japan. While these systems are not perfect, I can say without equivocation that state and local institutions in my two adoptive homes work exceptionally well. Very, very few people in Australia and Japan would suggest that governments are inherently dysfunctional. Because they are not.

On taxes, I'm consistently struck by how unhappy people are about paying taxes. I understand this on a very superficial level. Who wants to give money to someone without getting something handed right back? But the fact of the matter is that if we did not pay taxes, our lives would be less safe, less comfortable, and even more unhealthy. More bridges would collapse, fewer levies would be built, fewer towns would have libraries, the streets would have more potholes, and there would be fewer after-school programs (meaning more kids hanging out at the corner). There'd be less control over pollution and even less financial oversight. I know this again from living in societies where we pay far more taxes than in the US but where far fewer people complain. Why? Because we feel we get what we pay for. We have better and cheaper health care, finer schools, better roads and bridges, etc. We also realize tax money that goes to programs we don't use personally improves society as a whole, thus benefiting us profoundly, albeit indirectly.

Finally, a word on the tired GOP claim that "health care decisions should be made by doctors, not government bureaucrats." This notion is purely disingenuous. Under the currently dominant HMO system, doctors are not deciding who gets health care and how. Company bureaucrats are, and they're single priority is profit, not people's welfare. In fact, I think the GOP is most resistant to precisely the idea of doctors, not companies, making decisions about health care. Under a single payer nationalized system, government bureaucrats don't, in fact, make decisions about who gets what health care. They just pay. It's not rocket science. It's not abstract. It's a simple fact. Try living in Australia, Japan, or someplace even more exotic: Canada. The GOP is lying to us about this.

It's time to push back against these false GOP axioms about government, taxes, and health care.

But what do you think?

I'm currently summering in Tokyo where Hillary Clinton was today met with the kind of enthusiasm reserved for rock stars and soccer heroes (no, that's not a typo; my other home's in Sydney where it's definitely summer).

As I watched the swooning of politicians, journalists, and the public alike, I was struck by a sense of nostalgia for the days when the last American politician was greeted in Japan with such unreserved zeal. And it brought a wry smile to my face to recall that it was a Clinton then as well.

Seeing how well Hillary handled herself and how energetically she was embraced by the Japanese fills me with hope that America can reclaim a positive image abroad and once more be the country others WANT to follow and emulate rather than the petulant bully it's symbolized for the last 7 years.

But what do you think? 

Who wants bipartisanship?

I may be stating the obvious but it's worth repeating that division is the lifeblood of party politics. Some seem shocked that the GOP doesn't want to cooperate with the president but why should they? One thing more important than doing what's best for the country is doing what's best for the party. And the only way the GOP stands any chance of getting back into the majority is by distinguishing themselves from the majority. They need to resist at all cost. 

But what do you think?

In his first interview as president, Barack Obama reiterated a line from his inauguration speech directed at the Muslim world:

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West -- know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

When I first heard this, I was struck by how the second half of the sentence is a threat of imminent demise, not by the power of US bombs and bullets, but rather by a people who realize their leaders' policies and methods are bankrupt.

Again, Obama was addressing the Muslim world but I suspect he is aware that his statement is just as equally applicable to the former US administration as well as himself. To be sure, Bush tried to achieve presidential greatness through destruction. Whether it be terrorists, Social Security, FEMA, welfare, or banking regulations, Bush was always on the side of tearing things down. (To be fair, I suspect he honestly thought doing so was in the best interest of the country but alas, we know now that it was not, good intentions aside.) And sure enough, the people judged him accordingly and he was ran out of office with his tail between his legs: perhaps the closest we can get in a democratic system to a coupe.

Obama, I think, knows that people will judge him too by what he builds rather than what he tears down and I believe that his choice of words at the inauguration exhibit a degree of intellectual subtlety, nuance, and self reflection we have not seen in a while.    

Thanks for commenting and recommending.