It Was Never About Children's Health Care

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

Beginning last November and ever since, I have repeated a standard conversation with many Congress Members and staffers. It starts out with me urging them to impeach Bush and Cheney. They then stress all their other priorities that this would supposedly distract from, including often children's health insurance (SCHIP). I then tell them that any decent bill on any issue will be vetoed. They then get a very clever strategerizing look in their eyes and say something like "I know, but then we're not a do-nothing Congress. Bush is a do-nothing president."

Hmmm. Maybe. But wait a minute. If you know from the start that what you're doing will not get a single child better health care, then your effort to pass a bill and have it vetoed may not amount to doing nothing, but does it really amount to doing something? Of course we all want children to have health care. Of course there was real emotion in a lot of your pro-children's health care rhetoric. But if we all knew from the start, as I for one have been screaming at the top of my lungs for almost a year, that the thing was going to be vetoed, then what exactly was the point?

The point appears to have been theater. But was the theater aimed at improving the chances of actually giving kids health care in some future year, or was the theater a way to turn the workings of Congress into nothing other than a two-year-long advertising campaign for Democrats in the next elections? It's hard to tell without looking at some other examples

The big one is the occupation of Iraq. In this case, the stated goal of ending the occupation could be accomplished by blocking bills. Pelosi and Reid could refuse to bring bills to fund the occupation up for votes. Senators could put holds on bills, as Dodd did yesterday to a bill attacking our Fourth Amendment. (If his effort succeeds, I think we should consider him effectively a founding father of this nation.) And 41 senators could filibuster any war funding bill. Instead, both houses have pushed for anti-war bills and seen them fail to pass in one or both houses or be vetoed. They have then passed bills that met Bush's approval. In this case, the goal is clearly not to end the war, but to appear to be trying to end it. Here the theater is pure electoral campaign.

The other key example is impeachment. This is the one thing Congress could do that cannot be vetoed. This is the step that empowered Congress to end the Vietnam War and put Nixon on the defensive. As with SCHIP, impeachment is not guaranteed to succeed. But at least it's not guaranteed to fail. Even a failed effort to impeach Bush and Cheney for what the Democrats in Congress openly admit are quintessentially impeachable offenses would establish some level of accountability and increase the chances that these criminals will be indicted and convicted, and that the next president will neither pardon them nor repeat their crimes. Even a failed impeachment would be useful theater. But, according to the calculations of the Pelosi gang, it would be bad politics. Therefore impeachment is off the table. In this case, as in that of the war, the decision appears to be based in electoral strategy.

That electoral strategy is probably misguided. Letting Reagan go led to defeats, not victories, for Democrats. Targeting Nixon provided the biggest victories in many years. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they won big. Even the unpopular Clinton impeachment left the Republicans with the White House and both houses of Congress. Whether the Pelosi-Hoyer-Emanuel strategy of keeping the war and Bush and Cheney around works for them or not, one thing is clear. Everything else they are doing is aimed at distracting from those two issues and advertising Democrats' virtues for the next elections.

Don't get me wrong. It is indeed a virtue to want to provide children with health care. It is indeed repulsive to oppose such a thing. But to pretend to try to make it happen is less clearly virtuous. To really try to make it happen would involve trying to impeach Bush and Cheney and remove them from office. If they were removed, many admirable bills might be passed and signed into law. Or the pressure of impeachment might lead Bush to back off on some veto threats, just as Nixon did. And, in the end, there are no guarantees that really trying would succeed better than pretending to try. But really trying, standing up straight and making an effort, the way Senator Dodd has made an effort to end unconstitutional spying, would also be a winning electoral plan. Watch support for Dodd climb over the coming weeks if you don't believe me. Two years may not seem like much time to wait and hope that the leading recipient of cash from weapons makers, Hillary Clinton, will ride in and save you, but two years is a very long time in the life and death of an ill child.

[againes654]

1. Here Here!!!! K&R

Excellent post!!! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[LiberalEsto]

2. Swanson nails it!

'They then get a very clever strategerizing look in their eyes and say something like "I know, but then we're not a do-nothing Congress. Bush is a do-nothing president."'

Strategerizing, temporizing, fence-sitting, making up lame excuses, playing political theater -- seems to me that's what the majority of Congressional Democrats have been doing since they won the majority last year. A lot of people are getting fed up with this crap.

Allowing an illegal war to continue so they can position themselves for big electoral gains in 2008 is immoral.

I wonder how many brave young Americans and innocent Iraqis will die there between now and January, 2009 -- because the wimps in Congress decided to use the war to make B*sh and the GOP look bad as an election strategy.

[Mass]

3. delete. No need to lose sleep on that. More important work to do.

[emlev]

4. Yes! Thank you for saying it!

[MGKrebs]

5. Cynics rebuttal:

"But was the theater aimed at improving the chances of actually giving kids health care in some future year, or was the theater a way to turn the workings of Congress into nothing other than a two-year-long advertising campaign for Democrats in the next elections?"

Those are both the same thing. If the landscape is such that nothing like this will pass until some future year, then trying to make sure you are around in that future to get it passed would be a logical strategy.

"Even a failed effort to impeach... would ... increase the chances that these criminals will be indicted and convicted, and that the next president will neither pardon them nor repeat their crimes."

I think this is perceived as being the opposite of what is likely. A failed impeachment would more likely immunize Bush and/or Cheney from further prosecutions. After all, they would have already been tried and found not guilty.

"Watch support for Dodd climb over the coming weeks"

Dodd's support was already increasing (in some polls) before this, so it's going to be hard to separate out support because of his actions on this. And even so, he's polling at about 1-2%, so he's going to get a free pass on this because nobody needs to waste energy challenging him on it. If one of the frontrunners had done this, they would likely get attacked from some quarters for not being strong enough on security. That might cost 10,000 votes. It's the right thing to do, and I'm glad he did it, but strategically, it's sometimes better for one person to stick their neck out rather than another. The whole team benefits.

[davidswanson]

7. hi cynic :-)

"Those are both the same thing. If the landscape is such that nothing like this will pass until some future year, then trying to make sure you are around in that future to get it passed would be a logical strategy."

A better strategy is impeaching Bush and Cheney and ending the occupation. You can always pass bills once you have a president to sign and execute them.

"I think this is perceived as being the opposite of what is likely. A failed impeachment would more likely immunize Bush and/or Cheney from further prosecutions. After all, they would have already been tried and found not guilty."

You're talking about a successful impeachment and a failed trial. When Clinton had that, Al Gore ran for president pretending he'd never met the guy, and picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Clinton was not prosecuted , because all those investigations failed to turn up evidence of crimes.

"Dodd's support was already increasing (in some polls) before this, so it's going to be hard to separate out support because of his actions on this."

Not if he climbs dramatically.

"And even so, he's polling at about 1-2%, so he's going to get a free pass on this because nobody needs to waste energy challenging him on it. If one of the frontrunners had done this, they would likely get attacked from some quarters for not being strong enough on security. That might cost 10,000 votes. It's the right thing to do, and I'm glad he did it, but strategically, it's sometimes better for one person to stick their neck out rather than another. The whole team benefits."

You actually believe Obama or Clinton would suffer for standing up for the 4th amendment? They would almost certainly gain, and Dodd may force them to see that.

[LWolf]

6. I was just wondering this morning

why Democrats were grandly planning to "keep fighting" for this, when they "don't have the votes."

If it is a vital enough issue to keep fighting, and keep bringing it back, whether you have the votes or not,

where the FUCK have they been on impeachment and Iraq?

Can no one else acknowledge the gross hypocrisy?

[zalinda]

8. Because, like it or not

issues that strike close to home are more important than those that don't. Impeachment doesn't touch the average American, nor does the Iraq occupation. If the Congress were to go after those agendas they would be perceived as a "do nothing Congress", instead they are trying to get the point across that they are trying to help the most Americans, but the Repubs are standing in the way. Americans can understand and care when child health care is struck down, and defeated, that will get them angry. Impeachment, not so much, they just want Bush to go away, and they are content to wait him out. Iraq, that is over there and it doesn't really touch us, so it's not that important.

Americans are at a place where only those agendas that affect them personally is the only thing that matters. They are holding on for dear life, to what little they have left, and impeachment and Iraq is not as important as their children getting medical treatment.

zalinda

[LWolf]

9. If threats to the Constitution of the U.S.,

that document that guarantees the "freedom" that Americans are so proud of does not strike "close to home," if experiencing the death of your family member, or members of your community, doesn't strike "close to home," I don't know what does.

[zalinda]

11. Go out into the street and ask people

what is more important, the Consitution or child health care. You may be surprised at how many people won't even know what the Constitution is, or why it's important. America has been very dumbed down. I would never have believed a program such as "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" would ever be on TV, because it so demeaning to adult intelligence, much less that it would be a popular program. How stupid are the American people! Now one wants to know anything, unless it effects them personally, and I mean in their immediate family.

Damn, my next door neighbor thinks caviar is fish poop!

zalinda

[LWolf]

12. I asked my students about the importance of the Constitution

last month on Constitution Day. They were well-versed on what the Constitution is, and what it provides for us.

Sixth graders, in September.

Did you know that every public school in the nation is required, by law, to teach about the Constitution on that day?

<snip>

*Constitution Day (or Citizenship Day) celebrates the ratification of the United States Constitution, which was signed on September 17, 1787. In 2004, Constitution Day became a federal holiday with the passage of an amendment by Senator Robert Byrd to the Omnibus spending bill of 2004. Before this law was enacted, the holiday was known as "Citizenship Day". In addition to renaming the holiday "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day," the act mandates that all publicly funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day.

http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/acs/2007events.html

Of course, in-depth study of the Constitution is required at a few different grade levels, as well.

My district superintendent sends out a blanket reminder about this each year, and asks admins to report to the board about what is going on in their school that day.

Perhaps this is something that could be used to remedy the ignorance you are referring to. If we can do community and school celebrations for veteran's day, memorial day, labor day, etc., maybe Constitution Day should get more attention.

[zalinda]

13. I agree, we do need to do something

but, I'm afraid that in this economy, most people don't really care. They are concerned about keeping food on the table, a roof over their head, and something that will distract them from their problems.

I'd love to see those spots on the Government and Math, like in the 80's from the people of School House Rock, be run on every station at every time slot, not just Saturday morning. Maybe then people could get an idea of what's important, even if by osmosis.

zalinda

[LWolf]

14. Schoolhouse Rock would certainly be an improvement

over much of what shows up on children's television programming.

:thumbsup:

[davidswanson]

18. Oops I forgot

Americans are all idiots who could never handle a democracy. What was I thinking?

[zalinda]

21. When they are scared, their survival mode kicks in

and they do not care about the big picture. Not all Americans are dumb, but so many are that it is incredible that they succeed. Haven't you met people who are smart in one area, and really dumb in another area. I don't know when things started changing, but they have. Maybe the repubs set the stage, I don't know, but when I talk to people, I'm always surprised about what they don't know, or care about.

A friend asked how I felt about Hillary becoming President, for him it was a forgone conclusion. He never even heard of Edwards. He also never wants to leave the country to travel overseas. He is in his own small little world and he is around 50 and has owned a business for at least 25 years. When I talk to him about things, he is absolutely astonished at what I say. He is not curious in the least bit about things around him, and he is not the only one that I've run into like that.

I know people who vote repub because their father did, no other reason. They look for the candidate with an R after their name and pull the lever. I know people who don't vote, don't want to vote, and have no need to vote.

Maybe it's because we are so far apart in this country. It used to be we all looked out for each other. Every mother knew every other mother on the street that I grew up on. They may not have socialize with each other, but they certainly would talk to one another when the kids got out of line. Now, most people are lucky if they know 3 families on their block. We don't feel connected any more. The time of "we're all in this together", has some how passed and I don't think Clinton will be able to bring us back together. This is why I support Edwards, he is asking Americans to sacrifice and work together. I'm hoping he will bring back the old feeling again.

zalinda

[ProfessorPlum]

10. David, I saw your speech on impeachment on YouTube

it was fantastic. I mailed it to everyone on my email list. Keep doing what you are doing.

[davidswanson]

19. thanks professor

don't know which speech you mean (there are a bunch), but ms peacock just dropped the Constitution in the billiard room

[ProfessorPlum]

22. It was that bastard Colonel Mustard . . .

This is the one I saw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AuMts16TaQ

and here is where I blogged about it: http://professorplum2.blogspot.com/2007/10/military-industrial-surveillance.html

Great stuff.

[davidswanson]

24. gracias

amigo

[Whisp]

15. K&r and Thank You! nt

[PBass]

16. Kicked and recommended. (NT)

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. There you have it! The dog and pony show. I agree this has all been for show.

From day one they have played their supporters for fools.

:grr:

[Telly Savalas]

20. In the House they were only 9 votes shy of overriding the veto.

And the original bill passed in the Senate with more than a two third majority.

This wasn't just political theater, but a decent policy which had a legitimate chance at getting passed. A lot of very conservative Republicans supported the measure.

[Time for change]

23. Actually doing something is a hell of a lot better than pretending to do it

I don't see how much can be accomplished until Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed from office.