Free Markets, Free People
Robert Reich writes what I can only characterize as a whining rant which is so, oh I don’t know, odd, that I have to comment. It has to do with a supposed deal the White House has struck with “big Pharma” which Reich claims keeps the government from negotiating lower drug prices in return for 80 billion in cost savings (if the government has wrung 80 bil in cost savings, isn’t that a negotiation for lower cost that has already been accomplished?):
I want universal health insurance. And having had a front-row seat in 1994 when Big Pharma and the rest of the health-industry complex went to battle against it, I can tell you firsthand how big and effective the onslaught can be. So I appreciate Big Pharma’s support this time around, and I like it that the industry is doing the reverse of what it did last time, and airing ads to persuade the public of the rightness of the White House’s effort.
But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. It’s bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industry’s support to a key piece of legislation, we’re in big trouble. That’s called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And it’s doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the president.
Notice first that the word “market” never appears in his diatribe. In fact, “market” doesn’t appear in his piece at all. That’s because Reich doesn’t care about markets. And, of course, any market that exists in health care has been so distorted by government that it hardly qualifies for the term.
Reich cares about control. And he wants full control by government. Notice that when politicians use threats to prevent legislation’s passage if what they want isn’t included in (or taken out of) a bill, that’s called “compromise”, but when an interested constituent (and pharma as a business that is government regulated certainly qualifies as that) promises to work against pending legislation that wouldn’t be in their best interest unless they get concessions, that’s “extortion”.
Reich only wants the government to have the power to extort what it wants and it makes him mad when constituents use their power to push their interests. He claims that thwarts “democracy”. Really?
As I see it, it is exactly the brand of democracy the Democrats have practiced for eons – special interest democracy. The only reason Reich is a little irritated in this case is because the special interest in question isn’t one which the left favors. Democracy, in Reich’s world, is when favored special interests
“extort” petition the government, make deals and get legislation passed which serves their interests.
All that said, I agree with one point – what in the world is the White House doing striking such deals? Since it can’t write the legislation, how does it guarantee whatever concessions it’s agreed to will show up in the final legislation? And what happens if it doesn’t make it into the final legislation after big Pharma spends more money than John McCain did during the presidential election for TV adds supporting Obamacare?
That’s one of the trends now. If you can’t argue the merits of the legislation, make gross and unsubstantiated assumptions and claims and take off from there. For instance, this from Keith Boykin at “The Daily Voice”, which claims to be “black America’s daily news source”:
In the past few months, we’ve witnessed the unleashing of the radical elements of the Republican Party base. The anti-tax economic conservatives, racist Obama-haters, gun-toting Second Amendment fanatics and birth certificate conspiracy theorists have two things in common: they’re mostly white and they despise President Obama.
With the groundwork laid (one has to wonder – if blacks despised George Bush, was that because they were racists or because they were ideologically and substantially opposed to his agenda?), however loosely with everyone lumped into the same category and characterized by race, Boykin finally gets to his point:
And it doesn’t matter that the president’s domestic policies of providing universal health care, middle class tax cuts, and economic stability will benefit the very people who cry the loudest. This is not about policy. It’s about politics. The politics of rage and race.
Of course Boykin again assumes things not in evidence to make his claim that it is all about race. First, he dismisses the legitimate arguments which have been brought forward about health care, secondly he seems to believe that the spending spree the administration has been on won’t have to paid off and third, he’s apparently blind to the fact that the “economic stability” he touts has been purchased with a future debt which will cripple us economically. Notice I made those points easily and without once even hinting about the race of the president.
They all are legitimate reasons to speak out, all legitimate reasons to be a bit enraged about the direction of the country. But, with his grand generalities and false assumptions in place, Boykin continues to build his case for this all being about race:
The town hall meetings have been branded “town brawls” by the media, but they are really “town mauls” where angry mobsters silence dissent and discourse. And despite the denials from the right, race is a deciding factor here.
So now, Americans acting like Americans are not only un-American for doing so, they’re racist.
And Boykin isn’t the only one pushing this line. David Boaz at CATO has a couple more examples. Paul Krugman, whose arguments for the health care legislation have been weak at best, also pulls the race card to lump “town hall mobs” in with “birthers”:
But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.
That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship.
Philip Kennicott throws race around in a Washington Post piece entitled “Obama as the Joker: Racial Fear’s Ugly Face”::
[T]he poster is ultimately a racially charged image. By using the “urban” makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the Jack Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his detractors fear but can’t openly discuss. He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and ’70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling crime rates…
Superimpose that idea, through the Joker’s makeup, onto Obama’s face, and you have subtly coded, highly effective racial and political argument. Forget socialism, this poster is another attempt to accomplish an association between Obama and the unpredictable, seeming danger of urban life.
This is a building theme which is a classic diversion by the left. Using it allows them to play the powerful “politically correct” card they’ve so lovingly cultivated for decades. And it is something which needs to be nipped in the bud right now.
The assumption that this is all about race attempts to plaster that claim over the obviously horrendous problems evident with government taking control of health care and the history of Americans of all races protesting such attempts at government expansion. It is, in reality, a classic move by the left to use political correctness as it was intended to be used – to stifle debate. And what we see coming out of the likes of Boykin, Krugman and Kennicott are the racialists laying the ground work to make the charge.
Their arguments are weak, but their intent is clear – broad-brush tarring of those who oppose this administration as nothing more than racist whites opposing the administration’s plans for no other reason than the president is a black man. That, of course, makes dismissing their arguments much easier to do and that is precisely the intent of playing the race card.
Katherine Jean Lopez had this to say the other day at The Corner:
Yesterday, at a rally for R. Creigh Deeds in Virginia, President Obama said: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”
For Barack Obama, democracy appears to be a distraction. He really does seem to view himself as a Caesar.
Shortly after taking office, Obama held a meeting with governors. At the time, one person in the room relayed Obama’s request that critics and skeptics of the stimulus plan keep their concerns to themselves. Just let me do it, was his attitude. He got pushback and he wasn’t happy. He wanted democratically elected state governors to shut up so he could do as he pleased. He knows better and we should respect that, seems to be the attitude.
There seems to be quite a bit more of an authoritarian streak in Barack Obama than one might think. I was willing to dismiss the first statement at the Deeds event as a little red meat for the locals. But I wasn’t aware of the second incident, which makes dismissing the first a little less likely.
Then this story coincidentally showed up which adds fuel to the fire:
President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.
Apparently Obama feels much the same as his predecessor did about the laws passed by Congress – he doesn’t have to obey provisions he doesn’t care for:
They were reacting to a statement Mr. Obama issued after signing a bill that expanded assistance to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Mr. Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations.
Other laws Mr. Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission, and a restriction on putting troops under United Nations command.
While there is some argument to be made about Congress getting into the foreign relations area, there’s certainly none which should arise from budget questions or other domestic legal considerations. However, there is a very easy way for Obama to confront Congress over areas he thinks they overstep their bounds – veto the bill. Instead, displaying that authoritarian streak, he chooses to disregard the law and do what he wants to do through a signing statement.
All of this after calling Bush’s use of signing statements “abuse” and promising much greater restraint than practiced in the previous administration. Thus far, at least according to a Democratic Congress, no such restraint has been practiced and it appears Congress deems his use to date just as “abusive” as they did George Bush’s use of signing statements.
Two things are obvious, at least to me – one, he has an agenda and he doesn’t like anyone standing in his way as he tries to accomplish it, to include the law. And two, he’s a glib pretender when it comes to bi-partisan ship or opposition in general. He wants none. The two statements highlighted by Lopez above are simply extended examples of his “I won” quote (and the not so subtle but implied “so shut up”) Obama gave not long after taking office.
Lopez entitled her NRO posting, “American Caesar”. The more I watch this guy operate, the more I’m coming to believe she may have a point.