30 July 2009

Losing The Health Care Argument

One suspects that President Obama's handling of the Health Care issue is not indicative of his lovemaking ability. If it were, he would be facing a divorce hectored by Rush Limbaugh on top of the daunting issues already sitting on his desk.

President Obama built his brand with an outreach to the political center. He has done a poor job of that lately. We have detailed the President's passed ball on green energy. That one went all the way to the backstop in a different stadium. Mr. Obama's agenda is getting savaged by a milquetoast presentation and what appears to be a fundamental lack of desire to reconnect with the people most responsible for his election.

For all of this criticism, one recognizes that the administration has done an admirable job of expressing itself responsibly and treating the debate (a bit too) thoughtfully. Regrettably, the Republican opposition has been very successful demagoguing the Rove-Atwater ankle-biting, testicle-punching, sand-throwing propaganda tactics. The President is not going to realize a reversal of current trends until he becomes angry, yanks his opposition up by the hair, and slams them into a turnbuckle at full force.

As stated in the discussion about Cap and Trade, empowering the liberal wing of the Democratic party with the details of presentation has proved to be a poor use of Obama's political capital. Obama's jury is in the center, and the entire presentation has been committed to people who drive Swedish cars and listen to NPR on their way to Whole Foods. That can be defined as converting the converted. Less fortunate for the administration are the Camrys and Accords catching right-wing screeds on the way to Kroger.

The President's first objective must be to narrow the term "socialist." For nearly anyone with a dictionary in the house, it would not be hard. The Clear Channel-Fox News axis is particularly fond of the term. In an instant, Roger Ailes' propaganda machine is able to hitch an idea coming from the Obama White House to unattractive little cars tooling between grimy concrete apartment blocks.

The pitfall for the right is that of any panacea which becomes abused. The effectiveness dwindles to nothing. A speech that puts some pavement between Health Care Reform which includes PRIVATE providers and Socialism is necessary. Should Mr. Obama defang the opposition's number-one favorite go-to word, there exists no equivalent, effective backup. Conservatives are only left with asinine portmanteaux.

President Obama is more than capable of delivering an optimistic message which takes the mischaracterization of socialism off the table for good. What can be achieved simultaneously is the contextualization of the current federal participation in health care. At the moment the United States and Canada spend the same amount per capita on the governmental level for health care. The Canadians have a functional, relatively transparent system of universal medicine, which approximately 90% of Canadians describe as good or excellent. (See enclosed link from CTV News in Toronto.)

We in the United States, on the other hand, are paying a sirloin price for stale chicken hot dogs.

The public-private duality of the Obama plan must be clarified on the President's terms. A private option, and the ability to move between public and private plans serves as a check on the growth of government. It also serves as a release for pressures to undo a public system by political means. A key motivator of many who preferred President Obama to Secretary of State Clinton in the primaries was his endorsement of a Universal solution which included Private insurers.

A single-payer public health care system in a diverse population of 300 million is unworkable due to its political vulnerabilities. The quasi-private system that exists is unworkable because it fails to cover one in six people, and thusly leaves the nation in a system of de facto rationing. This disproportionately affects less affluent and minority Americans by denying access to medicine, particularly those with chronic conditions which are factors of poverty.

The administration's preferred health care system requires a comparison of total cost to society as compared to the status quo. The best idea would be to have the estimates drawn by several partisan think tanks so as to provide a range of values which would not be impeachable by partisanship. Every group would be instructed to use the same criteria and methodology.

Similarly, the status quo offers the opportunity for some well-justified populism. While incessant populism quickly becomes tiresome, a short burst against a worthy opponent gives Obama's credibility a shot of painfully absent vitality. He could have given the What? Now they can't compete? discussion a bit more time, and saved himself the drama he finds himself in now. A seasoning of mild populism leverages appeals to small businesses and working class families.

Once equipped with independent, empirical data, the case in the president's favor hews closely to his usual style of cool reason. When armed with the tools of logic, President Obama is nonpareil in his ability to offer a clear, informed engagement as to how the average person will benefit from Health Care Reform. Taking the mantle from congressional master debaters and vitiriolic radio polemecists plays to Obama's greatest strength, analytical rhetoric that focuses upon the justification for a plan without the caprice of gratuitous emotion.

President Obama is well aware of Stephen Colbert's lesson: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

14 July 2009

Cap and Death or Cake and Trade.

Cap And Trade needs to go away soon. Compared with some of the huge failures that the Republicans have had lately, this one would not even be a blip on the radar. To be succinct, the President is losing support by playing to the Democrat base on this one.

While there are a few positive elements of the bill, it is a stinkeroo of biblical proportion. President Obama cannot afford to lose this much of the middle on an issue and hope to maintain the principal of his political capital. He very well knows it.

This was a test of how far to the left that the administration could move on an issue. The answer is that he couldn't go very far on it at all. A very large component of the American electorate is disinclined to invest much faith in the idea of Global Warming. Pitching the bill in terms of the bicoastal left hasn't helped matters much.

Obama didn't invest a lot of his personal popularity in this issue. He knows it would be foolish. There is a better way to achieve the same result and improve his popularity.

Let "Cap and Trade" die. The only people who would miss the term were going to vote for Obama anyway. Give Cap and Trade the Goldfish Funeral it deserves, let it sink to the bottom of the Potomac Tidal Basin, and never allow it to resurface like Jason Voorhees in a Friday the 13th movie.

This strategy is Bill Clinton Classic. Obama should lead with his left and lay the Republicans out with his right. A sympathetic Blue Dog Democrat could be enlisted to introduce a more center-friendly bill which includes a few concepts from the Conservative lexicon.

A terriffic acronym is always a good start. Let's call this one "Defense Energy Autonomy Legislation (DEAL). Cap and Trade evokes images of Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" routine, without that whole annoying "cake" meme. (A tip of the Wandering Gentile Toupee to absent friend Ms. Banana from "American Fool" for the introduction to Mr. Izzard. Ms. Banana is sorely missed.) The idea is that even if one questions the validity of DEAL, the person most likely to be questioning is going to have a very difficult time opposing "Defense" or "Energy Autonomy."

Defense and Energy Autonomy serve as cupcakes to Blue Dogs and Republicans. The Interstate system began with the ostensible purpose of serving military interests, not polyester-clad RV drivers. Not even Ike could spend that kind of money without resolving a significant defensive issue.

Energy independence and the technologies to achieve it would be a huge jumpstart for American leadership. As far as our defensive needs go, we would be well served by taking away the leverage that energy has given a legion of despots in multiple world hotspots. War is difficult to wage when unable to buy the tools.

We begin with the massive "Hannah Montana" birthday cake, offering tax credits based upon the deployment of American-sourced green energy technologies. It culminates with maximum credit to individuals and businesses which become net producers of green energy. This becomes revenue-positive by starting a brand new industry. Someone has to design, manufacture, install, transport, and maintain green energy solutions. These people will buy homes, automobiles, durable goods and so on.

With large scale production, the accessibility of individualy-based solutions would be increased dramatically. Does anyone remember US$350 pocket calculators? As Americans take the lead, our industry begins to export to other markets. While some countries may not be enthusiastic about American leadership, the United States is still seen as an honest broker. No petrodespot can touch our integrity.

Don't even think that the Russians or the Chinese want to be vulnerable to the caprices of regimes sympathetic to the Uyghurs or the Chechens. They are not Tibet and Georgia.

At some point, likely within ten years or so, the United States could have a surplus of energy. It could be used to refine sewage and seawater to provide irrigation for non-edible grain or sugarcane on land which is not currently arable. This could serve as an abundant substitute for petroleum motor fuel.

The defense component could also be leveraged to provide eligibility for health care through the existing VA mechanism to any participant in the program. It might not be fancy, but it certainly beats no health care. The sum total of a bill like this would not only demonstrate American leadership and exceptionalism, a lot of very unpleasant people would be abased.

Anything that takes Ahmadinedjad and Rush Limbaugh out in one shot is definitely worthy of consideration.

Powerful Periodical Purloins Pauper's Post?

Did The New York Times do something inappropriate to your Wandering Gentile? (Please see enclosed link)

There is a word, it starts with the letter "p"...gosh darn it! It's on the tip of my tongue. I mean, the post "Clowns Are No Laughing Matter" had been out on the Internet for three days labelled with the words "Clowns" and "Al Franken," when a similar article appeared in the Times under Victor S. Navasky's byline.

Nahhh, it's only a coincidence. I mean, it's not like a writer who needed an idea could go to Google, plug in "Al Franken" and "Clown" and get a whole bunch of links. Hell, I even found a couple of posts with the same title as Navasky's Op-Ed piece.

But there is the issue of that "p" word...it just isn't coming out...but I can remember the name of the Times reporter associated with the term.

Oh yeah, they would probably recall Jayson Blair, too.

07 July 2009

Clowns Are No Laughing Matter


The Jester takes his seat in the United States Senate. A slim plurality of voters chose Al Franken over Norm Coleman to represent them. They did not choose a Businessman. They did not choose a Professional like a Doctor or a Lawyer.

Minnesotans elected a Clown. Mazel Tov, it is a decision which may prove very wise.

A clown does not have the luxury of pretense or hypocrisy. To be successful in the science of humor, the clown is obligated to have integrity, His or her nature is to phrase truth in terms which deflate the disingenuous. Pompous pretexts become ephemeral in the light of motives served. Hidden agendas are laid bare as weak policy.

The skill set of a clown does not normally translate well to politics. Barry Levinson and Robin Williams argued this point in Man of the Year. The honesty required of the clown, the jester would impede the process of compromise needed to govern in the name of the people.

This is not entirely accurate. The atmosphere of fear and ambivalence has engendered an environment of legal, but not ethical leadership. There is nothing acceptable about the family values lawmaker who cheats on a spouse. There is nothing honorable about the legislator denying basic civil liberties to the same people with whom he would tryst, anonymously and gleefully. The defender of decency oftentimes grants special favors to patrons who would destroy the livelihood and security of constituents who do not question the defender's motivations.

The clown is unacceptable to the hypocrite. This is because the clown gains his strength from authenticity. It gives him the latitude to be wrong and the flexibility to make himself right. The clown can disclose and find forgiveness while no such tolerance will be countenanced for the hypocrite.

Laughter is harder to earn than a vote. It resides in the province of surrender more total than that which authoritarians demand, yet laughter can only exist in an environment of liberty and trust. There were/are no great jesters surrounding Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Osama. Ideologues are serious people with many important, grown-up things to accomplish early in the morning. There is not time nor acceptance of levity.

As a nation, Americans are charmed by leaders with wit. John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were effective communicators through humor. Obama has shown glimpses of a dry, acerbic and lively sense of humor. As of yet, he approaches this with trepidation. Obama could afford to be more daring. His opponents will find fault regardless, but the candor necessary to face serious issues armed with a smile will reaffirm the wavering and convert quite a few disbelievers.

That is a challenge when carrying the weight of several levels of history. The native intellect which might be prone to a barbed comment is tempered by the knowledge of the potential repercussions on sympathetic people. Taking into account of history's import, Mr. Obama will need time to find a comfort zone which will allow him to leverage his wit. Eventually, a lively intellect will be enhanced by the flexibility and integrity of humor.

Senator Franken does not carry the same set of Samsonites from 1964. He is going where no one has ever been, satirist to senator, mocking the news to making the news. In a Washington of frauds and phonies, hypocrites and liars, the Junior Senator from Minnesota is in a position to clear the mine fields where the President cannot tread.

Obama: The American people need a public option for health care.

Franken: The American people cannot afford to leave their health care in the hands of private insurers. These are people who learned their business pracitices from the same great minds that taught AIG that derivatives were perfectly acceptable because they were legal. Private insurers function under the model that what is legal and what is right are the same thing.

Obama: Cap and Trade will incentivize the development of green energy technologies which will benefit the average citizen.

Franken: Oh, my goodness! Do you really think moving the means of energy production closer to the consumption end might actually lower costs and stimulate the economy? Why, that model has only worked in the passenger transportation and information industries! Energy would be much different!!!

Parodists, satirists, jesters, clowns: why would anyone prefer them to frauds, phonies, hypocrites and liars?

06 July 2009

And Then There Were None

Effective 23 July, bloggers won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore. The people of several states are resplendently verdant with envy, owing to the fact that their governors will not be leaving as well. Mrs. Palin's resignation came as a benign surprise on Friday afternoon. She has been on campaign for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination since four seconds after John McCain named her as the Vice-presidential nominee last summer.


This is very good news for Democrats. The Barracuda has been a perpetual gift to liberals. Instead of the holiday weekend news cycle being dominated by health care and cap-and-trade debates, the Democrats had the public implosion of another GOP figure, and the commensurate rumors, speculation and innuendo. No, innuendo is not a term to be inappropriately bandied with a South American mistress.


Democrats have played this smart. When one's opposition has arrayed itself into a circular firing squad, the most appropriate move is to sit back and hold the video camera.


In Mrs Palin's case, no one who watched the July 3 speech could be blamed for asking if this were actually a great bit of satire committed by Tina Fey. Palin was ranting and only marginally coherent, indicating either a need for meds or that they had not been taken.


Her statements were either factually misleading, crediting Lincoln for the Alaska purchase which happened two years after he died, or out of left field. Then she was surprised when someone way, wayyy out of the progressive mainstream got a wild hair and included Trig in a particularly offensive bit of internet tomfoolery.

The progressive mainstream tends to be a little bit sensitive to those who have been marginalized by those who would be bullies. The bullies would be much more concentrated on the right than the left, and defined as authoritarian. Right wing bullies can dish it out but they can't take it.

Governor Palin and Governor Palin only is accountable for her words and actions. Her opponents in the press and the Internet did not select her party affiliation, her positions on the issues, or her camera presence. There is a big difference between plain-spoken and inarticulate, and Governor Palin crossed that line about ten months ago.

Thousands of bloggers, columnists and commentators would be pressed to invent a character who provides a better well of material in their own imaginations. The right has provided a figure who combines paranoia and the least palatable bits of partisan rhetoric into one spunky, gaffe-prone but telegenic figure. One could call her the offspring of Dan Quayle and Michelle Malkin, although it would be physiologically impossible.

The least bad result (for Republicans) of Palin's resignation is also the least likely. In other words, Palin's resignation is as it appears on face value. Mrs. Palin is unable to fulfill her obligations as defined under the Alaska state constitution. She resigned to allow her state government to move forward on issues without gratuitous scrutiny of appropriate decisions made within her duties as Governor. Mrs. Palin will abjure from politics to spend more time with her family.

And that time will be spent on a palm-fringed island on the Aleutian archipelago. One asks: Does smoke up the behind affect the human body in the same way as smoke through the lungs?

Almost as unlikely is the chance of a major office-killing scandal. By office-killing, one refers to federal indictments or video evidence including any or all of the following: a live girl, a dead boy, or a marital aid and a moose. If any of this existed, it would have been on Youtube by now, so progressives can wipe that hope off the board, although we are better off with Palin still in the picture.

Governor Palin is ducking out of the mundane details of operating a state with a population which could be lost in any of a dozen metropolitan areas. She will likely choose a career of face time as a professional public speaker. Palin will spend her nights facing groups with names like "The Christian Nationalist Patriot's Liberty Heritage Front," for three years. She will portray herself as the embodiment of true conservatism; defender of the average guy; slasher of taxes; destroyer of big government; hounded away from her sworn duties by elitists who wish to silence the voices of her audience.

This is a fantasy-for Democrats. Mrs. Palin's oratory will improve, because it can't get any worse. She can't use a teleprompter, because it would require her knowing how to read. She has 18 months to become fully immersed in believing her own hyperbole.

Palin is an attention junkie. She isn't competent enough to know the difference between the score offered to "Not Obama," and that which is hers.

If Republicans are fortunate, Palin overdoses on attention before the nomination. Democrats already know about attention-junkie candidates (Gore, Hillary Clinton) who can't handle their fix.