A Village Fairy Tale: Coming From a Pro-Gun State Explains Health Care Opposition

I just want to make a really important point that we all need to remember about the so-called "Blue Dogs" and "conservative Democrats" who are working their asses off to prevent real health care reform. It's a point I think everyone is forgetting -- one that a few folks are, in fact, trying to make us forget.

The Villagers in the D.C. media (ie. the power-worshiping pundits and journalists who preen around the nation's capital telling the Rest of Us what to think) continue to claim that "Blue Dogs" and "conservative Democrats" come from "moderate districts," and this is supposed to clearly explain their opposition to health care reform and progressive taxation to pay for said health care reform. These Democrats are just representing their culturally conservative constituents who not only like guns and hate abortion, but allegedly love the health-insurance companies so much they are threatening an electoral backlash against legislators who refuse to act like health-industry harlots!

If you've turned on a television, radio or computer, or if you are one of the few beloved souls still reading newspapers (god bless ya!), then you've been subjected to this meme repeatedly over the last few weeks. And this meme is propaganda at its worst -- or, propagandists might say, at its best.

Polls have long shown us the country is basically unified in support of progressive economic positions. Indeed, there have been so many polls showing Americans strongly supporting universal government-sponsored health care, more progressive taxation, fairer trade deals, a Wall Street crackdown and an end to grotesque bailout-ism that I'm frankly sick of linking to all of them so much.

If, as the irritating red-versus-blue storyline goes, we are a divided nation at all, we are divided on a few select hot-button cultural issues (guns, god, gays, yadda yadda ... we've all heard it before). So sure, when Villagers in D.C. portray a senator like Max Baucus (D-MT) as representing his state's fondness for guns when he votes against gun control, that's an accurate portrayal. But when Villagers depict Baucus, who represents one of the poorest states in the country, as opposing real health care reform because he's from a "conservative state" and is merely forwarding along his constituents alleged desire for insurance-industry shilling, that's a lotta horseshit. It's just covering for a guy who makes his name as lobbyists' favorite manwhore at the Capitol brothel.

It's the same for "Blue Dog" Democrats from Appalachia and the rural South (and also, by the way, for Republicans from these same regions) -- when they differ with Obama on cultural issues, it's probably because their constituents differ with Obama on cultural issues. But when they differ with him on a core economic issue like, say, taking on the health insurance vipers and reforming the system, they are, for the most part, shitting all over those same constituents.

What's really going on is this: "Blue Dogs" and "conservative Democrats" tend to represent swing states and districts -- that is, states and districts that are among the very few that aren't gerrymandered and therefore actually play host to competitive elections. Because of this, their re-election races tend to be especially expensive, which means these politicians have to raise a shit-ton of cash for television ads. How, pray tell, do career politicians raise a shit-ton of cash? They trade their votes and legislative maneuvers for corporate campaign money, most of it coming from special interests in Washington who have little to no grassroots support/connection to the politician's state/district. The special-interest, D.C.-centric nature of these bribes is only enhanced by the fact that many of the "Blue Dog" and "conservative Democratic" districts/states are rather poor, meaning the money-sucking politicians are all but compelled to rely on out-of-state cash for their warchests.

All of this creates a closed circuit that serves the status quo. A "conservative Democratic" politician from a swing state needs to raise millions to finance a competitive campaign. There's not a lot of loose money lying around the district, considering the recession and the destitution of the very kind of district the "conservative Democrat" comes from. So the "conservative Democrat" ends up relying on money from D.C. special interests like, say, health insurers -- interests that are largely hated in the "conservative Democrat's" state and have little grassroots connection to the state. That money then buys House and Senate votes that prevent stuff like health care reform that would most benefit the constituents of economically struggling states like the "conservative Democrat's" state.

In the end, because of this kind of transaction, the state remains destitute, and the politician remains in office, keeps raising out-of-state cash, and keeps insisting with a shit-eating grin that it's crazy -- just crazy! -- for anyone to think their votes could be influenced by millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the cycle starts right over on whatever new economic issue is coming down the pike -- all while the fuckstick Villagers in D.C. use euphemisms like "conservative Democrats" and "moderate districts" to explain it all away with an absurd storyline that insists because a politician comes from a state that likes guns, loves Jesus and/or hates gay people, he has to oppose health care reform.

This is the swamp of propaganda and corruption that passes for "democracy." At least we can be aware of it, and stop pretending rank-and-file voters' cultural conservatism automatically means they want their congressman to be an economic corporatist.

NOTE: Make sure to check out this piece by Kaiser Health News about Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross's (D-AR) town begging him to stop trying to thwart health care reform. This is exactly what I'm talking about in this post.

Comments

[CanisLatrans]

It is, indeed, frustrating BS and I also don't like it. I cannot truly find a party that fully represents my views, because the Dems or Reps that sit up on high have pigeonholed themselves into little easily-comprehended lists of pre-packaged stances.

I'm very Democrat these days (used to be staunch Republican) but it is irritating to me how the Democrat "package" comes with gun control. I'm a firm believer in national health care, I have no problem with taxing the wealthy to help support things like schools in poor areas, gays should be allowed to get married if they want to and I like unions and distrust corporations. But I'm also a gun owner. I don't entirely "fit" either according to the "checklists".

Fortunately, the Democratic Party doesn't have a doctrine of being in lock-step with each other. In the Republican Party, if you disagree with Rush Limbaugh, you're run out. In the Democratic Party, if I don't agre with, say, Michael Moore, other Dems just shrug and say "whatever".

[TJCole]

Until we end Corporate "Personhood" our system will remain a joke...!

It's become totally corrupted due to Corporate "Personhood" which is nothing more than Legalized Bribery...!

Many like this disgrace Baccus are really Insurance Representatives only masquerading as Senators...Baccus is paid by the Insurance companies more than he is by We the People for being a Senator so who do you think he is really working for and of course he is not the only one...!

Corporate "Personhood" is a complete perversion of our Founders intent, and the very opposite of what they intended...and why they wrote the Constitution...!

Here Tom Hartman is on this issue and what's coming in September...to make things worse...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/06-0

[Lynne Parker]

You've hit the nail square on the head. The day corporations were given the same rights as an individual, what little democracy we had died.

[goodneighbor420]

Part II
still me:
I see this as the govt becoming our insurance carrier, not our medical provider--we'd still have the same doctors, hospitals etc, just wouldn't have to fight with our insurance companies--who's major job, it seems to me is to DENY CLAIMS---do you realize that health insurance companies spend more money on executive compensation, lobbying and advertising than they do on actually providing coverage?

her: I just have to say I disagree. We are talking about the US government not England and Canada. I don't want the US government to be my insurance carrier***** I DO want them to be in charge of National defense. *****I don't want them taking money away from National Defense to pay for my health care.

me again:
in other words, you trust them with nuclear bombs, biological weapons, and soldiers, but not with sick people, nurses and doctors? or are you afraid they'll spend too much money on healthcare, and the military won't have enough? not being snarky, I just want to understand­..........

why do you want to give them more money for the military if they screw things up so bad?

My friend is usually a thinking person, but I've figured out, that when it comes to politics, she's just a cheerleader.....sad isn't it?

[goodneighbor420]

Part I
been having an email discussion with a one of my republican friends...about healthcare....I forwarded dennis kuchinich's email to her about univeral healthcare­.......her­e's some of my reasoning and the rant that I got back:
me:
I believe that the way our healthcare industry is ran right now is just wrong---too many 'middle-men' (insurance, pharmaceutical, hmo's, etc) Lots of other countries have public health care and it seems to work just fine for them...nobody is going bankrupt over medical issues. I have several Canadian friends who swear by it. My mother is from England and grew up with it and says its great and can't believe that we don't have it here......several times over the years, my mother flew to England to stay with relatives and get her healthcare done there so that she wouldn't bankrupt the family. (why the hell does it cost so much here?)

[Ameriki]

My Congressional district Representative and both Senators are the plutocracy's lapdogs. Representative Ross and Senators Lincoln and Pryor do not represent the average Arkansan. They are against any legislation that would diminish their owners'' profits, whether the profits are from insurance, big agriculture, Wall Street or the military-industrial complex. Their current positions confirm this. My state still has a plantation economy and their jobs are to maintain low wages and desperate workers for the benefit of the plantation owners in far away New York City and other points east.
If we were able to vote on health care reform instead of answering polls, we would probably get universal health care, not universal health insurance.

[thepoyote]

In many states, counties and cities there are laws allowing citizens to force a citizen vote on an issue--typically called referendums. Is there a federal equivalent where we could force a national vote on a signle payer healthcare system? I think amending the Constitution may be a bit much, but on the other hand, life, liberty . . .

[raker]

If the Bluedogs have to toe the corporate line on matters like health care to keep the corporate money flowing in to ensure re-election, that tells us that red-state constituents agree with the pro-corporate policies. Their votes endorse the venal politicking of people like Mary Landrieu. As usual, red-staters would rather endure the worst torments than see one good thing go to their neighbor. How our devout Southern neighbors despise their fellow humans.

[mjc]

My Congressional representative is a supposed "blue dog" Democrat, but that has never prevented him from voting for progressive legislation such as health care. He isn't a Neanderthal in re guns and he doesn't always vote for restricting funds to projects he believes in. It is wrong to label leaders one way or the other because it suits some argument.

[LesleyAnne]

Bravo! I'd like to see this type of opinion broadcast on television so more people could be aware of the other side of the coin. It's dead on and about time somebody said it.

[Principles]

Oh yeah - one other idea:

So you like a progressive tax system. You think it is fair for someone to bear a heavier burden simply because they "have" more, in this case money. I think we should not stop there. I think we should expand that idea to include our most precious resource - time. Since productive people who make the most money are also the busiest - no time for cofee bars and on-line gaming - the unproductive should have to give their extra time to the government who can then redistribute it to the productive. Hey and homeless people have more time than anyone. Since they have so much more than me, they should have to report to the IRS office who will then bring them to my house for some yard work, car washing, etc. Come on, let's be intellectually honest here. If you like a progressive tax rate, you can't have a problem with that.

[lightnessandjoy]

I won't waste my time rebutting your nonsensical assertion that those who make more money work longer hours and are more productive. However, you completely ignore the FACT that those who have more money have greater access to and make far more use of publicly provided services - roads, airports, education and on and on, notwithstanding those who are some form of public assistance. And if they own a business they make even greater use of those PUBLICLY provided goods and services. You and the Ayn Randers make me laugh when you contend the rich "do it on their own." Love to see you ship your goods to market on your "own" roads. On that basis alone they should pay a far greater share of the cost of providing those services.

I won't bother discussing all of the other very good reasons for progressive taxation. It's a dog eat dog world, right?

[Chernynkaya]

Very well said. These boot-strappers defy logic- and gravity. I wish THEY would be "intellectually honest" and come right out and state that they think they are entitled and superior.

[Thorstein]

Would it were only the "moderates" from poor rural states. Beneath Mr. Sirota's column is a link to the WashPo story on Baucus and health care fundraising. Who has received even *more* money than Baucus?? Rep. Rangel, (D-NY, y'all) Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, the gang of bandits that last week produced a health care "reform" bill that would only take effect in 2013--after some 70,000 more Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of Wall Street insurers. (The U.S. Institute of Medicine estimated that 18,000 Americans die every year for want of health insurance--even before the current "decession" and its layoffs!)

[WinterParkMom]

We need campaign reform. We need the fec to set up a treasury of sorts, all donations by individuals and corps deposited to a specific rep at this treasury (like a bank) the rep doesn't know who has donated. When bills come in for that rep, his campign approves for pmt and the "treasury" cuts the chk.

If any lobbyist requests a meeting with a rep and that meeting is scheduled, it can't be schedule for 2 days out so that it can be announced in the every state paper and be announced on every state newscast as well as on the reps website. All such meetings must be recorded and posted online. No closed door meetings allowed.

[goodneighbor420]

very good idea wpmom, I agree, those should be considered public meetings and treated as such

[Pansey]

I am a transplanted California Democrat, living in Tennessee for the past 11 years. David, your article is "dead on"........we need to shine the light on these guys; even then, the citizens just don't want to admit they've got manwhores representing them. Sheesh, it's tough being a Democrat living in the south. I write, call and email "my" Democrat representatives every chance I get....some day one of them will actually listen to me.

[eciaccio]

David: How do we get corporate/lobby money out of politics so this crap doesn't continue when those who will vote on any such legislation profit from the current corrupt system of legal bribery and so would not ever want to change it?

Short of a General Strike and weeks of millions in the streets (both of which will never happen), what can we do? The Corporate Tools in Congress make the rules of the game and even fix the elections so they stay in power.

[orbro]

The only time the media pays attention to polls is when it's a horse race. They're avoiding like the plague all the polling that shows a large majority of Americans support single-payer healthcare. God forbid we start thinking about how poorly our democracy is working.

[bgfsh]

The people who are not aware of this practice will unfortunately not be reading the article. Many would not understand it if they did read it. That's why our (corrupt) system works.

[Chernynkaya]

Hear, hear! I was going to write that by Sirota's logic, those voters who wanted health care reform in the Blue Dog districts would vote them out if they prevented reform. But they wont. They won't even know where they stood on the issue.