More Thoughts on Health Care Reform

-It's more than a little understatement to say that it's great to see legislation that is actually designed to help people. In many ways, the fact that, even after all the amendments and tinkering, this was a progressive bill, just reinforces one of the broader divisions in politics, between those who are always seeking to improve the United States and are labeled progressive, in no small part because they are in favor of "progress"; and those who see the United States as already perfect and who believe tinkering or trying to improve will only lead to a fall from American perfection (which much better describes their view of the United States than "American exceptionalism" does). It's a sad-but-true fact that conservatives wish to preserve a status quo that leaves a lot of room for improvement.

-In all of this, the importance and greatness of Nancy Pelosi should not be overlooked or ever forgotten.

-To echo what Erik said, there has been no small amount of absurd hyperbole, and it hasn't even been limited to politicians. Acquaintances on facebook have made comments such as "we might as well take the Constitution out back and burn it right now," somebody being grateful John Boehner was their representative, and somebody even saying "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do," which was also apparently uttered by some guy named Jesus on a cross. Because, after all, the Jesus being crucified and wingnuts angry that a bill designed to help rein in insurance costs and aid families are totally the same thing.

In dealing with all this, I think Barney Frank hit it dead on, pointing out that the battle over health care became "the proxy for a lot of other sentiments. A lot of which are perfectly reasonable but some of which are kind of ugly. ... People out here today on the whole were, many of them, were hateful and abusive."

I couldn't agree more, and Republican efforts to disavow the hate-speech this past Sunday are as hollow as their objections to reform. When their supporters get ugly, Republicans are quick to try to disavow those supporters, but they've been encouraging this kind of language and these attitudes since the 2008 electoral campaign (remember all those crowds at McCain rallies calling Obama a Muslim and other names?). Republican representatives can't just hide from this language when it makes them look bad - it's as much a part of their movement as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, appeals to the Reagan years, and hawkish rhetoric. It's all part of the package, whether they like it or not.

-On that note, for those both inside and outside of Congress who claim to oppose the bill on Christian principles, I might recommend they go back and read that part about some guy named Christ. I believe he who recommended helping those in need, rather than continuing to deny them care and side with wealthy interests. If you aren't in favor of helping people, you can't really make any pretense to standing for a religion whose main figure preached helping people.

In Anticipation of the Fifth Summit of the Americas

The Fifth Summit of the Americas is coming up, and in anticipation of this, Latin American scholar Greg Grandin has an absolutely outstanding article up on how FDR could be a model for Obama in his Latin American foriegn policy, as well as the obstacles Obama is facing and the interest groups that may undermine real change. There are some absolutely fascinating bits in there in terms of little-known policy decisions (like how the anti-imperialist stance of Ernest Gruening, who would eventually be one of only two senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, came to play a major role in American diplomacy under Roosevelt and beyond), as well as depressing current news, including the role of American private interest groups (like the NRA) in Latin America and the efforts to use failed models like Plan Colombia (whose "success," as the article points out, is dependent upon the use of death squads) in Afghanistan, and even the impact immigration may have on the Summit of the America's.

Obama's behavior, statements, and agreements at the Summit will be of major importance to understanding America's direction - it's his first major (planned) diplomatic mission in terms of policy-making (this weekend's pirate-incident notwithstanding), and will really give us a sense of how much of a change Obama will bring in terms of international relations and foreign policy. What's more, it's his first and only chance to make a "first impression" with many leaders from Latin America, and he has a lot to overcome from the Bush administration, so the Summit is of tantamount importance not just to Latin America, but to Obama's administration and American foreign policy over at least the next four years and beyond.

I hope to have more up on the Summit of the Americas as time allows, but for now, go read Grandin's article - it's just wonderful stuff, and highly informative.

Questions about those first 18 months...

From conservative blogger Rick Moran's recent post:

The math is frightening. With 28 seats up for grabs in 2008 on top of the 18 seat majority currently held by Democrats, there is a very good chance that Democrats, for all practical purposes, could win enough seats this year that the GOP would be a minority party for the next decade — and perhaps beyond. When 98% of incumbents in the House are victorious and redistricting looms in 2012, the chances of Republicans overcoming a 40 or 50-seat Democratic majority in the next couple of election cycles are slim.

Before I raise my glass of champagne (thus completing the stereotypical elite liberal image), I must say that I really like Rick Moran's writing. He is a thoughtful conservative, and though I ardently disagree with him on, well, most everything, I respect his reason. I don't necessarily agree with the above passage; I have significant fears about the impatience of the electorate come the midterm elections in 2010 (assuming Obama wins the election, which he should handily). Those first 18 months are so important to a sustainable Democratic majority.
Not only does the far-reaching, long term agenda have to be set in motion, but several immediate and palpable changes (the kind that people see and feel in their lives and pocketbooks) have to came to the fore immediately. Unfortunately, we Americans aren't a patient lot, and the Democrats would be wise to remember that.

My question is, then, this-- what kind of action can the Obama Administration take that will have the most immediate effect for people? Problems like Iraq, energy policy, healthcare, etc., will likely take a few years to deal with properly (in the case of energy/environment, that is an even longer term commitment). And the economy? How can he immediately help poor and working class people in the first 18 months? This is so important to the Democrats, both in the Congress and the White House. The left seems to be gaining ground on social issues and the environment, but without some kind of change in the economy, I worry. Any ideas?