Journalists Cheerfully Urinating On Senate Bill’s “Ideological” Critics
It would really be nice if certain Beltway journalists could get it into their heads that the Senate bill’s critics on the left have actual substantive differences with the bill’s proponents, and are not motivated solely by “ideology,” whatever the hell that means.
Ronald Brownstein, for one, is actually trying to claim that Howard Dean opposes the bill because he’s a “wine track” Democrat who doesn’t lack insurance and hence has the luxury to indulge in ideological struggles.
Brownstein writes that Dean and the “digital left” are able to “casually dismiss” the bill because “they operate in an environment where so few people need to worry about access to insurance.” He adds that for these critics, the debate is “largely an abstraction” and merely a crusade to “crush Republicans and ideologically cleanse the Democrats.”
Brownstein doesn’t meaningfully respond to any of Dean’s substantive policy objections to the bill. If he did, he could no longer claim Dean’s critique is purely “ideological.”
He’s not the only one making this claim. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The Times today wrote that “ideology” is “smacking the pragmatic president in the face,” presumably meaning that the word “ideology” is a good catch-all for all criticism of the bill. And Joe Klein has dismissed critics for being in the grip of “ideological fetishes.”
People using this word need to explain what they mean by it. Anyone who actually reads criticism of the bill on sites like Firedoglake and DailyKos can immediately see that much of it is substantive and detailed. Agree or not, most critics are making a case against the bill as flawed policy that will have adverse real-world consequences. Why is it “ideological” to claim a mandate with inadequate subsidies risks forcing people to buy insurance they can’t afford?
Indeed, some serious proponents of the bill — Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, Steve Benen, etc. — are largely refraining from such blithe dismissals of the bill’s critics. That’s because they understand that there’s a real and complex policy debate underway, and realize the best way to serve the bill is to actually rebut the critics.
I think proponents are making a strong case. And no question, it’s excessive when the kill-the-bill camp denounces them as insurance industry toadies or weak-willed enablers of Joe Lieberman. But surely the debate isn’t well served by reckless shouts of “ideology,” which reveal nothing but an unwillingness to engage the substance of foes’ criticism.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
oddjob- I’m not asking for purity. I’m saying 51 Senators would produce something better than 60. Honestly hyperbole isn’t productive and when this bill fails, and it will because the very same corporate shills won’t vote for what comes out of the Conference Committee, don’t blame those of us who want a bill that’s better than this piece of ****.
Don’t kill the messenger. We haven’t caused the problems the bill now has. The House won’t vote for what those 6 Democratic Senators demand. I haven’t seen any of you who want this bill to be passed address that yet.
Kindness, if the votes for a reconciliation approach were there they’d be doing it by now. Reps. in the House lack the clout of senators. If the House Leadership concludes it’s not in their best interests to lose the bill they have far more tools at their disposal to coerce compliance than does the Senate Leadership. That’s no secret.
Why wouldn’t the Villagers rally round Obama? He’s their president not ours. He was elected to make them feel good after they sold us Bush and the Iraq war. We wasn’t supposed to actually do anything. And he’s doing a good job of that.
By the way, it’s a myth that reconciliation can’t be used on this bill. Bernie Sanders himself said as much.
“Why is the far left taking more hits than the right from those trying to pass Health Care Reform? Because one expects to fight the enemy; last minute traitors are another story completely.”
Are you kidding me? We’ve given up single payer, then PO, the buy in. Then, if we say we can’t give up anymore, we’re “traitors”? That is truly warped thinking. There is not enough in this bill to keep the mandate from being a windfall for the insurance companies. It does not create a small social insurance program that can be iproved. It creates a large private boondoogle that will be defended fiercely by industry.
Thank you for bringing these -sockpuppets- writers to my attention. I have never heard of them, and I will probably ignore them if I see their names. That’s an ideological decision. They – as well as 90% of the broadcast media – are irrelevant to me.
I am guided by my biases and prejudices and matters of taste and preference which one doesn’t discuss if one is to be polite. But, then, I’m also informed by facts, not by boorish amateurs who are paid well to publish meaningless drivel. I think, you see.
Thank you again for your expose. Keep up the good work.
Tena | December 18th, 2009 at 02:20 pm
“The reason that insurance stocks are going crazy right now is because they are convinced we are not passing anything at all. It is not because the bill right now is some insurance industry giveaway.”
Tena, you’re dead wrong on this. Ask Wendell Potter (retired Cigna exec.) or go to virtually ANY investment news outlet (Seeking Alpha, etc…).
“stocks are going crazy right”??
Corporate-medical-insurance stock prices are ecstatic that they are getting handed billions in profits by this corporate-welfare legislation:
Wellpoint UP 12.6%
UnitedHealth Group UP 9.84%
Aetna UP 11.96%
Humana UP 5.77%
This corporate-welfare is inexcusable for Dems to be associated with. Corporate-medical-insurance stocks are going up, Up, and UP in anticipation of all the customers that will be forced to buy their products.
Saying otherwise is so completely dishonest that even the often admirable Debbie Wassermann genuinely damaged her credibility trying to change the subject instead of giving an honest answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8R8baHPr2E
TAKE OUT THE FORCED-BUY OF CORPORATE INSURANCE and then pass the bill.
Tena,
Of course I’d rather have insurance, even if it came from a lousy bill. The point is, that’s not the choice — no such bill is on the table. There is only the choice between staying uninsured for free, with no bill, or paying a fine for being uninsured, with the Senate bill, because a mandate to buy insurance that doesn’t exist is just that.
For those who are convinced that insurance companies will uncharacteristically fail to raise premiums once this bill gives them a larger captive market, can you please explain to me the mechanism of action by which they will be prevented from doing so?