MARCH 24 / Updated: Wrong side of history?

THAT'S the Chronicle's triumphalist appraisal of where Republicans find themselves after first having opposed Obamacare and now . . .

. . . having given signs they will (the horror!) use Obamacare as a campaign issue in the fall.

What is most disturbing about the House action this weekend is the lack of a single Republican vote in favor of the health care bill . . .

A wee bit more disturbing is that one party rammed this sorry piece of legislation through Congress over the opposition of a majority of Americans and a bipartisan -- bipartisan -- coalition of legislators.

. . . a measure that contains many features previously backed by moderate lawmakers from that party.

So what? Why should anyone vote yes just because the House leaders tossed a trinket or two into the poke that contains the pig that is Obamacare? That some House Republicans might have supported bits and pieces of the bill, taken alone, tells me -- and should tell the Chronicle -- that in the view of these lawmakers, the bill also contained enough horribles to outbalance the good stuff.

In their zeal to pin a defeat on the donkey . . .

A mixture of motives fed opposition to Obamacare. As shocking as it may be to the Chronicle, most naysayers were principled. They truly believed (and still believe) the bill will do more harm than good. The Chronicle trafficks in reductionism. Instead of answering principled objections to the bill, the editors characterize all opposition as nothing more noble than mere politics, a "zeal to pin a defeat on the donkey."

Speaking of which, mere politics is a noble thing. It's how consent of the governed works, or is supposed to.  

And even as political analysis, "defeat on the donkey" is weak. First, it is the Democrats who elected to pin November's defeat on their own tails. That's how important it is to party leaders to fundamentally transform America, a nation they, like the Chronicle, don't much like as it is.

Second, opposition to Obamacare was not top-down political strategy by GOP leaders. Republicans merely gave voice to a chorus of public opposition, the likes of which has rarely been heard, and to which the Chronicle is utterly indifferent.

. . . the House GOP delegation dealt itself out of a role in reforming the nation's health care system.

This is nonsense that is rare even by the Chronicle's liberal standards. When a bill proposes to do a very bad thing, the only principled response by opponents of that very bad thing is to oppose it, not to tinker around the edges. There is no such thing as a very bad thing, lite. Federalizing our American health-care system is, on balance, a very bad thing. 

It will be interesting to see how receptive voters will be to a pitch to reinstate higher drug prices for the elderly, permit insurance companies to resume denying coverage for pre-existing [read preexisting] conditions and cancel tax breaks for individuals and small businesses to pay for policies.

Talk about a hard sell.

What truly will be interesting is something besides the Chronicle's little grab bag of goodies. These buyoffs will, as intended, attract some votes. But they won't be enough to offset the disappointment and rage of a populace that opposed passage of Obamacare, whose opposition was ignored by the political class and other Clever People, and who understand that the cure for looming fiscal bankruptcy is not to spend more of our childrens' and grandchildrens' money to satisfy our our generation's needs for moral preening and hip replacements financed, in both cases, with other people's money.

This editorial should be filed under "Graveyard, Whistling Past the Political," with a carbon copy to "Thinking, Wishful." 

* * *

As for "wrong side of history," consider this by Jay Nordlinger:

As my guard goes up when I hear “social justice,” it goes up when I hear “history” — and “History” is even worse. I don’t even like “the right side of history” and “the wrong side of history,” two phrases used by both Left and Right. Something may be right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, but there’s not necessarily a reason to drag history into it.

I have a certain view of health care, far different from Obama’s and the Democratic Congress’s. But I don’t call it “history,” and I hope I never will.

Comments

[madmilker]

but "Marilynn"...he can drive that car...

http://www.wikio.com/video/national-debt-road-trip-1135411

[Marilynn]

... and many independent polls were not. How else do you think entities such as CBS News and the Washington Post and many others got the message that the majority of Americans do not want this particular omnibus monstrosity?

And then there's the deficit, about which Unca Darrell is absolutely correct. This was published about a year ago:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

And here is its 2010-11 update:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/

This deficit is obscene.

UNCA D: Amen.

[madmilker]

He was sleeping off a whole weekend of partying in Antigua and you don't post my reply...

thanks for nothing!

[Rorschach]

Uh, Trudy, those polls you reference were far from "independent". Virtually all of them had a dog in the fight.

[madmilker]

Trudy, you type like you read the New York Times and watch MSNBC.

[Trudy]

Well, I am not happy with the health care bill as it passed, but here I have to disagree with you about it being against the desires of a majority of Americans. Several independent polls were showing otherwise.