Freedom's Just Another Word for Nothing Left to Lose: The Health Care Reform Proposals Are Putting Us At Freedom's Door!

Does good, "Progressive," legislation result when Democrats control both Congress and the White House? It’s becoming increasingly clear that the important social/political decisions favor the wing-nuts in the Republican party who in sheer numbers control neither the House nor the Senate but who, in fact, seem to have all the political clout.

President Obama didn’t as much as utter a syllable in support of the Gay Rights laws challenged by the wing-nuts in the recent election in Maine, not to mention his silence on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This was not the Obama who made great promises of fairness and equality for all on the campaign trail as he curried the support of the gay community; not the Obama who promised change we could all believe in.

The nation's immigration problems similarly languish in the sea of political neglect even though it can be fairly argued that it was the Latino vote that put Obama in the White House.

And on the matter of health care, the Obama Administration has largely left it to a leaderless Congress to come forth with a reform plan; thereby, opening the door to the wing-nut influence, or should I more accurately say control by the wing-nuts. How much more bazaar can it get than the situation we've all witnessed: Sen. Grassley, one of the Republican players who was included in the small group of six senators on the Senate Finance Committee charged with the responsibility of hammering out the health care proposal, was out on the campaign trail telling his Iowa constituents that Obama and the Democrats are coming forward with a plan designed to kill Grandma! At the time he knew that was not true; yet, he was allowed to continue his game on the committee back in Washington in the vain hope that he would ultimately support the reform bill. This form of bipartisanship goes beyond stupid to outright idiocy.


The following story from today's New York Times underlines yet another victory wrought by the Right!

A GRIM reality sits behind the joyful press statements from Washington Democrats. To secure passage of health care legislation in the House, the party chose a course that risks the well-being of millions of women for generations to come.

House Democrats voted to expand the current ban on public financing for abortion and to effectively prohibit women who participate in the proposed health system from obtaining private insurance that covers the full range of reproductive health options. Political calculation aside, the House Democrats reinforced the principle that a minority view on the morality of abortion can determine reproductive health policy for American women.
Many House members who support abortion rights decided reluctantly to accept this ban, which is embodied in the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
--New York Times, 12 November 2009

None of the Progressive politicians in Congress were invited to sit at the table in the recent national health care debates; none of them were a regular feature on the nightly news. But there was Olympia Snow, Charles Grassley and Ben Nelson pretending to be in favor of health care reform, but really using their position at the table to torpedo any genuine reform efforts. (There were a few others too) telling us on a regular basis what they could or could not support. With the exception of Sen. Nelson, who sold his vote, Snow and Grassley voted No with the rest of the Republican opposition.

The Progressive role is reduced to that of "watching" government action controlled by a monopoly or a political oligopoly of one or two Senators--Senators from the opposition at that; the Obama Administration seems oblivious to what those of us on the left side would like? In the current political calculations progressives don't count. No wonder young people, Hispanics, Blacks and many gays ignored the ballot box during the recent off year elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

And, it's important to keep in mind that the Democratic party success in New York's 23 District came not as a result of any new Democrat initiative. No, the Republican Party had easily controlled that seat for well over 100 years. Indeed, not since the Whig party had held that office in the mid-19th Century had another party held that seat. No one should entertain anything approaching pride in that Democratic Party win. The record in New York clearly indicates that the wing-nuts, led by Prick Armey, successfully committed political suicide by sponsoring a right-wing challenge to the Republican Party standard bearer.

Such political nonsense on the Right is not new. . .similar tactics have all but eliminated the modern day Republican Party in the North East, and former Florida Governor Christ seems to be in the wing-nut cross hairs at the moment. (See Kate Zernike's, "A Florida Republican Becomes a Right-wing Target;" New York Times, 16 November 2009. Ms. Zernike wrote,"A raft of conservative groups, commentators and politicians are supporting a primary challenge to Mr. Crist by Marco Rubio, a telegenic former speaker of the Florida House christened a Reaganite’s answer to Mr. Obama by The National Review."

The important point here in a political sense is this: the voters in poll after poll indicate that they want political reform--reform of the broken health care system, reform of the disasters financial system that has nearly destroyed our economy and certainly undermined the retirement investments of literally millions of people, and reform of a political system that makes power brokers of states that are essentially empty--that is without people: North Dakota, Kent Conrad; Maine, Olympia Snow; Nebraska, Ben Nelson; Montana, Max Backus ;Iowa, Charles Grassley. The list goes on!

The fact is many of the small states have suffered huge population losses over the last fifty or more years, yet, because of the way our government is structured, continue to have political influence far beyond what their census figures would justify. North Dakota's population , for example, peaked in the 1920's and has been on the decline every since. The same can be said for most of those "empty" Western states.

Ironically, many of the folks in those large empty western states are rabidly conservative and mouth a political philosophy roughly equivalent to up from the bootstraps, a form of rugged individualism at the drop of a cheap straw hat. These are the same folks who receive largess from the Federal Government in the form of agricultural subsides like you wouldn't believe.

Most people aren't aware that they, as citizens of this great country, own, in addition to the National Parks and the like, huge Federal pastures in the west. Many ranchers get grazing rights from the federal government to run their cattle on our public lands; the grazing rights are legally attached to neighboring ranches and are even deeded with the ranches from one owner to another. The fact is, if you wanted to buy and run cattle on your land you'd be out of luck. No, you don’t have the special “grazing rights privilege” needed to graze cattle on public land.

The point is, these folks talk a good line with that rugged individualism crap; but, make no mistake about it, they've got their big paws out grabbin' every god damned federal dollar they can get their greedy hands on. . .don't be fooled by that poor talk that routinely drops from their lips. . .they perfected their own unique style of handout cupidity long ago–actually it's not at all unlike that used by many large corporations. . .the pharmaceutical industry comes immediately to mind, but that’s a story for another day.

I'm tired of the conservative shell games being played out in Washington. . .it's time for the progressives to become more assertive. We need to stand on principle, and if that means losing a few, so be it! At the moment the victory column for progressive causes suggests that there ain’t nothin’ left to lose. . .and I guess that equals freedom! Kris K. was right!

Ever on the watch for ya,
Davy Crockett