I am watching David Dreier sum up for the Republicans. What do you say about someone who is just a blatant liar -- Dreier states that every member of Congress wants every American to have health insurance coverage. No they don't. If they did, it is something that could be done tomorrow by simply extending the Medicare program to all Americans and making medical coverage a basic human right.
Right wingers are comfortable with people being uninsured. At some level they like the idea of some people being left out of the club, that one can't really be a success unless there are others who are failures. Otherwise they would join in and see to it that the U.S. joins every other western democracy in providing universal coverage.
All you need to see to illustrate this point at its most visceral level are the teabaggers attacking the fellow with Parkinson's disease at the recent health care protest. What kind of sick bastard heaps abuse on a person with Parkinson's and throws a couple of dollars at him as a sign of dehumanizing contempt?
I can't help but feel that people on the right are at some fundamental level damaged, immoral creatures. They happily dwell in a country where people lack access to life-saving care and are stirred to outrage only at the prospect that this situation might be rectified.
Great post, Charles. And I wholeheartedly agree about the diseased nature of the right. My own thoughts on liberals, conservatives, and this most significant day.
Posted by: Toast | March 21, 2010 at 06:17 PM
"I can't help but feel that people on the right are at some fundamental level damaged, immoral creatures."
I share your disagreement with their philosophy and your opposition to their politics, but I am happier and sleep better when I compartmentalize philosophy/politics and even most behavior as separate from their essence as creatures.
I learned I had to do that in order to care about and provide care for patients with whom I don't feel connected because they fall into one of my 'favored' categories.
In my mind, the difference between the contemptuous throwing of dollar bills and the value-laden commentary (sick bastard, damaged, immoral) is one of degree. Demonizing is the first step on a path I make an effort to avoid.
All of which is not to dey that I hade a very negative and visceral response to the behavior in that clip.
Posted by: pheski | March 21, 2010 at 06:20 PM
I had the opportunity to stroll the National Mall today and protest gawk. There were two going on, one of them Tea Parties, the other immigration reform. I took some photos. Start with this post, work your way back through my grainy poor-quality crackberry images:
here
Posted by: Mandos | March 21, 2010 at 06:40 PM
I am loving this. This is awesome. I want to lick the tears from the rightwinger's faces.
Conan! What is best in life?!
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 08:51 PM
pheski, all due respect to you for being a professional when you're carrying out your profession, but I don't think it's wrong for a writer to "demonize" people who are presenting themselves as demons: hateful, vicious, attacking, mean-spirited demons.
For an opinion writer--not a doctor or caregiver, mind you, but an opinion writer (which is what we, as bloggers, are), it is not only entirely appropriate to use "value laden" commentary to call out people whose documented behavior leaves little doubt that they are sick, damaged, immoral--and perhaps even some nastier adjectives--it is semantically necessary. How else would an opinion writer convey his disgust without using value-laden words?
Further, saying that the difference between those, er, people who were jeering at and throwing money on a Parkinsons' sufferer and Sir C calling them out using strong terms is merely "one of degree" strikes me as mildly combative, deeply illogical, and wholly unfair.
Posted by: litbrit | March 21, 2010 at 09:02 PM
I won't name any names, although I could probably come up with a couple from my experience that most of you might recognize, but I think that many people on the right (and perhaps not just on the right) are more than comfortable with people being uninsured, or in general having to put up with things they would never wish upon themselves. I would say rather that they are validated by it, gratified by it, happy about it.
But then I consider that the besetting sin of our age is not gay sex, or even greed or consumerism, it's self-congratulation. And the prayer of too many who mistakenly think of themselves as Christians is "Lord, I thank thee that I am not like other men."
Back to my cave.
Posted by: Gene O'Grady | March 21, 2010 at 09:13 PM
Toast,
Thank you.
mandos,
I hope you had a good time here in our nation's capital (you don't live here right? Aren't you one of those Canadians I insulted? :-)) Man, you caught some seriously nice weather here. And that's an impressive array of porta-johns in the vanguard of our movement.
pheski,
I understand what you are saying, but at a certain point I think one has to draw a line and read some people out of decent company. Perhaps you are a better person that I.
Deborah,
Thanks.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 21, 2010 at 09:13 PM
I am a Canadian. I do not live in DC. *whistles*
Posted by: Mandos | March 21, 2010 at 09:24 PM
Well I hope you enjoyed your time here. Next time you visit, you should shoot me an email and we can hoist a Labatts or a Molson or a Moosehead. :-)
As my posting for Metric should show, I, for one, welcome our Canadian musical overlords.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 21, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Sir Charles: I only object to the word 'creatures,' and that only because I always worry about any 'dehumanization' of our opponents, or of anyone. It is that 'dehumanization' that is where their ugliness comes from -- an ugliness that reminds me of stories I've heard of lynching as a town event in the early days, or the stories of public executions. In each case somehow these people have managed to cut the victim off from the compassion and empathy they might argue -- god help us, in good faith - was their 'christian duty' overall.
We can't let ourselves do this. We can't just 'stick a label on them' and brush them away. "Understanding without sympathy" is a hard goal, but a necessary one. We have to try -- while holding tight to a 'guy rope' to the real world -- try and get inside theirs, to understand why and how they could bring themselves to think that way. We really do have to answer the cliched question, how can they bring themselves to look in a mirror the next day -- even more importantly, we have to try and figure out what they see when they do. (Which does not and should not, earn them the slightest milligram of sympathy, or any entrance into 'polite company.')
But they are there, and their madness and ugliness is spreading. We can't just ignore it, we have to try and reach whatever percentage is reachable.
And oh, yeah, if we understand their madness, we'll make sure we recognize, and stop any signs of the same we see when we look at a mirror. (Don't think it could happen? How many of you would laugh if Rush or Beck got a particularly ugly, painful disease? How many of you would simply say 'Serves him right' -- and maybe it does, but we're supposed to be 'the good guys' and if that means anything, it means we don't lose our compassion for humanity, the fools and monsters as well as the victims.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | March 21, 2010 at 10:16 PM
What's your email address SC? The next time may be quite soon.
Posted by: Mandos | March 21, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Mandos,
It's
sircharlesofdc@gmail.com.
Hope to hear from you sometime.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 21, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Toast,
Nice post by the way. Well, well said.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 21, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Yeah, that was a nice post, Toast.
208...
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 10:42 PM
209...
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 10:43 PM
210...
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 10:44 PM
211...
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 10:44 PM
216!
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Yes We Can!
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 10:45 PM
This is SO awesome. Wheeeeeee!
Oh, and if I never have to hear John Boehner speak ever again, it will be too soon.
Posted by: litbrit | March 21, 2010 at 10:46 PM
219
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 10:47 PM
FINAL - FREAKIN' - LY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: oddjob | March 21, 2010 at 10:53 PM
By the way, AFL-CIO Pres. Trumka is promising that he won't forget Lynch's "no" vote.
Posted by: oddjob | March 21, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Stupak sounds suspiciously Canadian to me.
:-)
Someone should primary Lynch's ass.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 21, 2010 at 11:00 PM
I can almost forgive Stupak for everything just for that last performance. That was nicely played by Hoyer.
Posted by: Corvus | March 21, 2010 at 11:05 PM
Hearing the House Dems shouting Yes We CAN was very cool. If you'd told me they were going to do that, I would probably have rolled my eyes, but you know, it was very appropriate, and I was surprised at my own big smile when the whole thing went down and the cheering began. YAY!
Posted by: litbrit | March 21, 2010 at 11:07 PM
YEAH!
Now this is change that we can believe in!
Posted by: ikl | March 21, 2010 at 11:21 PM
Shorter Obama: We're fuckin' badasses.
Posted by: Corvus9 | March 21, 2010 at 11:49 PM
Notice no thanks for the Senate. They don't get theirs till they take their (second) vote.
Posted by: Corvus9 | March 21, 2010 at 11:49 PM
Corvus, if you really want to taste the sweet tears of your opponent's infinite sadness, go read Megan McCardle's blog ! I think I'm going to read Reason's blog for the first time in forever. I think I will be able to hear the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments through the computer.
Posted by: Joe | March 22, 2010 at 12:11 AM
I read a comment of hers at Sullivan's. Ah, it was as bitter as the bitters in an old fashioned cocktail.
Posted by: Corvus9 | March 22, 2010 at 12:18 AM
Gettysburg perhaps instead of Waterloo?
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | March 22, 2010 at 12:25 AM
If only, Krubozumo Nyankoye! However, if they haven't gone away after Gettysburg, and Reconstruction, and the overthrow of Jim Crow, why would they go away now?
Posted by: oddjob | March 22, 2010 at 12:27 AM
Assuming the Senate Dems. do their part successfully, at least with the passage of this Obama can claim the ability to achieve the most ambitious part of his agenda. That will give him credibility and therefore political capital he'll need for the next stuff.
When Clinton lost his healthcare reform attempt it destroyed the rest of his agenda.
Posted by: oddjob | March 22, 2010 at 12:34 AM
I don't know Oddjob-- climate change, fin reg, immigration reform, labor law reform. They all seem like tough climbs, on par with this fight.
Posted by: Joe | March 22, 2010 at 12:43 AM
They are tough. I wasn't suggesting they weren't.
I was suggesting that if this had been lost all of that you could kiss goodbye immediately upon the loss. Now that it appears this has been won (the Senate remains, of course), those other agenda items are still alive, difficult though they are.
Posted by: oddjob | March 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM
The Senate is icing. Which is why it it foregone. Once you make the cake, it doesn't really matter to much how the icing looks. Healthcare has passed. I'll say it again. Healthcare has passed. All that exists now is for people to vote for or against the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana purchases (plus some other stuff). I would not be surprised if even Nelson votes for it (He took a hit in Nebraska for that special deal). If it gets modified, the modifications will pass the House. Everything else is just sweeping up.
Did anyone else watch the House press conference? I thought Dingell had the best remarks. I loved how collegial everyone was, like they were just basking in the success.
Posted by: Corvus9 | March 22, 2010 at 01:01 AM
...The process may have been frustrating, and long, and ugly, as Obama told the crowd at George Mason on Friday. But it was also glorious. Obama has been telling crowds since 2007 that change wasn't going to be easy, but that it was possible with focus and persistence and courage. He just proved it.
Posted by: oddjob | March 22, 2010 at 01:04 AM
Well I only mention Gettysburg because it was the turning point. It could have been a more complete victory if pursued with vigor just as this turning point now is. We
will see.
The real fight is still in the offing. Now we must get to the "Siege of Petersburg". And April is nigh.
SC - There is nothing "wrong" with the right wing, they do not have any congenital flaw that renders them inhumane. They choose privilege over cooperation. The vast majority of them are simply deluded, they are so indoctrinated that they cannot see the bonds in which they slave. They gamble against odds they have no inkling of.I pity them, but not much.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | March 22, 2010 at 01:05 AM
One of my favorite sayings: a Republican can never truly enjoy a good meal unless he knows that somewhere someone is starving.
Quality health care to Republicans is an acknowledgment of their moral superiority. It is not a right, it is a perk like a corner office with a good view. If everyone has it they are diminished. It is akin to gay marriage. If gays can marry that necessarily takes something away from a Republican marriage. It is somehow cheapened.
I really don't think the Republicans are complete insurance industry tools. I just think they are really going to miss having 45 million people grovel for health care.
Posted by: Nat | March 22, 2010 at 01:09 AM
Nat, be careful about traveling too far down that road. I don't know what happens to such surveys (& I can't cite a reference right at the moment) when you subtract the Mormons from the survey results, but I know I've read before (apparently with no one successfully demonstrating that the assertion's wrong) that political conservatives are more likely to donate to charity.
Posted by: oddjob | March 22, 2010 at 01:16 AM
oddjob, I read that study; if I remember correctly, it was saying that they (conservatives) were more likely to write end-of-year checks (large ones, in many cases) to non-profits that are tax-deductible. Included in the terms "charity" or "non-profits" were universities, both public and private, to which people gave money, whether it was a donation or paying for a building or sports facility. Whereas liberals were more likely to donate their time than conservatives, and were also bigger givers to the humanitarian causes (for lack of a better term) like children's charities and orphanages, disaster relief, support for the homeless, etc.
Posted by: litbrit | March 22, 2010 at 06:53 AM
oddjob,
The thing to remember about charity is, however admirable it may be, it is in the end, the most hierarchical of relationships. I am the bestower of my largesse and I determine if someone or something is worthy of my gifts -- see in a particularly ugly manifestation the afore-mentioned wingnut hurling dollars at the Parkinson's sufferer while screaming how he will decide how his money gets speent.
The push for universal health care is the very opposite of this spirit. It the recognized entitlement of every member of the society to certain basic rights, including health care -- something that the society has been willing to bestow on senior citizens but not the rest of the populace.
To get a sense of this spirit, discuss health care with Canadians or Europeans. In my experience, they universally viscerally recoil at our system and the notion that tens of millions of our brethren are left outside of the system.
By the way, can I simply note what truly stunted mind Megan McArdle possesses. How the fuck did any major publication decide that this woman's thoughts are worth amplifying?
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 22, 2010 at 09:41 AM
@litbrit and CHarles ~>
We should all call out behavior that is reprehensible. It matters not whether we are physicians, bloggers, or split firewood for a living. Acquiescence feeds the opposition. However, if we become like our enemies, we become like our enemies.
I'm a veteran of the anti-war and civil rights protests of the 60s. The radical left fringe then demonized Viet Nam vets and the police and killed innocent bystanders (think the WARF building) and espoused 'bringing the war back home' in an attempt to radicalize 'the people'. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
I have no quarrel with value laden words and phrases, as long as the attack is on the behavior and the effects of the behavior, and not on the intrinsic worth of the individual.
Health care is, in my opinion, a right - but it is a right because every individual has value and is entitled to being treated as human, regardless of their race, gender, religion, age, political beliefs, and even behavior.
Posted by: pheski | March 22, 2010 at 10:24 AM
pheski,
I don't know if you're a long time reader of the blog, but one of my recurring themes is the damage that was done by the hard left during the "bringing the war back home" phase of the anti-war movement to the cause of liberalism. It was pretty unforgivable and did untold damage to the country and its politics.
It's also prompted me to be a bit harsh on those on the left who have been most pedaatic in their opposition to this bill -- what I like to describe as the "heighten the contradictions crowd." (In so doing, I am not, by the way, comparing Jane Hamsher to Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dohrn.)
I think even Megan McArdle is entitled to health care as a matter of right.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 22, 2010 at 10:32 AM
@Sir Charles ~>
Less than a year here, I think. And it sounds as if we agree solidly on this.
Posted by: pheski | March 22, 2010 at 03:34 PM
pheski,
Glad to see you join the ranks of the commenters. I forget sometimes that there a lot more people who read than comment. We genuinely enjoy people jumping into the fray -- even when they tell me I'm being mean.
Posted by: Sir Charles | March 22, 2010 at 03:57 PM
It could also be pointed out that there are a vast number of tax exempt entities that in fact support very partisan agendas. Discovery Institute, Apostalic Reform Church, Scientology....
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | March 22, 2010 at 08:32 PM