Sorry, this is a bit "all over the place". I've been thinking about this, on and off and not in any coherent way, for some time, but have only just decided to take the time to write about these thoughts. I am not taking the time to edit this bit of nonsense... :-)
================================
The Republicans are (quietly)
backing off their "we'll repeal Obamacare" nonsense. Instead they'll try to defund some bits, and repeal other bits. The essential architecture of the health care bill will, however, remain. I think Orrin Hatch (R, Utah) said it best:
“I would prefer to have 50 state laboratories doing it rather than the almighty federal government,”
He lost that chance when he decided to go with the solidified Republican opposition.
The basic problem for the Republicans was that they misunderstood the battle they were in. The more conservative elements still do. They think they're arguing for the heart and soul of America. That battle has been lost, and it was lost a long time ago - I'd say somewhere in the first few years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, actually. After that, they've been either been giving gifts to their increasingly wealthy supporters, or merely ranting.
America changes all the time; all societies do. Well, most - North Korea is a good example of what happens when a society doesn't change. America is less homogenous than it used to be, minorities are starting to make their political power felt, technological changes are rapidly changing the way things are done, challenging preconceived notions in the meantime. Some of these changes aren't easy to accept, so people have, almost literally, gone on a rampage against them. Arguing about fictions is easier if you accept a fiction as truth, but believing a fiction doesn't make it a truth. In dire times it's also much easier to peddle more fear than it is to be hopeful. For the last 60 years, conservatives have been pushing forth an interpretation of America that is, quite frankly, backward and demeaning.
Social change is always the hardest to accept. Acknowledging that blacks had rights in the 1960's was, and still is, seen as the start of the decay of America. But the "decline" started much earlier - with the advent of the "Beats", America suddenly had to confront its identity, but more so its social conventions. Conservatives still haven't recovered from the beating they took way back then. Oh, there are some who put up a good fight - Phyllis Schlafly, for instance. William F. Buckley can only be admired for his fighting spirit and ability. Others punch airbags; Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, among others. What was worse for the conservatives was that, on the whole, they didn't even realize they were taking a beating!
Now the social battles are about gay marriage, the piety of Americas founders and how interpretation of sacred documents should be done. Not so much what should be interpreted - those are skirmishes and battles in their own right - but more about how such interpretation should be done. Simplistic reasoning won over protestant Christian theology, and the battle has now moved to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Immediate concerns about the deficit, the bailouts and so on aren't really important; sure, the deficit needs to be addressed, but America is not in any danger of becoming a nation of paupers because of it. The more immediate concerns are mere political tools; they always have been, and will always continue to be. Such issues should be in any political toolbox; they're far too useful for the process of democracy to be cast aside!
America is a nation of the people, for the people. Before America's founding, no one had tried such a nation. Power was invested in, and by, the leadership and that was that. No one considered that Plato's benign leadership model could be challenged, and yet it was steadily being eroded. Once the idea that individuals have a dignity of their own was introduced, somewhere in the Renaissance, it was a matter of time before something like America happened. That it occurred in a brand new nation that didn't have true borders is probably more than academically interesting. However, America was started as an experiment; the founders knew their Constitution wasn't perfect - the even-then contentious provisions for slavery serve as more than adequate proof! They allowed for changes in the governance of the nation; they made the procedure severe and difficult - to act as a brake on popular whim, and to prevent one branch from usurping the others. This mechanism has been employed with generally favorable results; it has only failed when a imperious moral minority have managed to impose their will upon the process.
Interestingly, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are devoid of moral judgment. The Declaration of Independence contains a single reference to a "creator" (not a God, but a creator), and then there's the Treaty of Tripoli - which specifically mentions that the United States is not a "Christian nation". And this is where the conservative arguments start to unravel. The founders decided that any American government should not be in the business of judging the morality or piety of the nation's citizens - they specifically say so in the First Amendment. But still there are those who argue that the morality and piety of others is their business! They've been doing so since time immemorial; indeed, America is one of the few nations that specifically precludes itself from judging the morality and piety of its citizens! (If you're inclined to wander down a criminal path with that argument - be forewarned, it's not where you want to go.)
Strict "interpretations" of the Constitution lean to a facetious libertarianism. They also tend to introduce, usually through tortured reasoning, concepts that aren't actually in the founding documents. Again, being told something is true is not the same as it being actually true; when you're told that America's founders wanted free enterprise, you ignore the debates that occurred between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. When you suppose that the Constitution should be literally interpreted, you forbid any consideration of the many ambiguities and problems that exist. Privacy isn't mentioned, for instance, but it only becomes an issue when someone wants to invade the privacy of the doctor's office and the sanctity of the interaction between doctor and patient. Literalism is always a simplistic and stupid argument; it doesn't seek to explore the intention of meaning, it always seeks to impose a meaning. The desperate search for supporting evidence betrays this philosophy so often it's a wonder it hasn't collapsed of its own burden.
One of the fundamental reasons the Republicans lost the health care debate, and will continue to lose it, is because they thought it was an ideological battle. It was partly a rancorous debate about the future of America, but it was mostly about how some people don't like the changes that are being forced by an ever-changing world. When Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin and others argue against "Obamacare", saying it's unconstitutional, they're not arguing about the constitution - they're arguing against the social changes the nation, and the world, are going through. They think they're arguing about America and what America is; they are actually trying to impose their view of America. When they debate where a civil center should go, or argue against gay marriage and try to keep DADT - they seek approval to limit rights. They seek to impose a short-sighted, stupid, anti-American view of what America is.
The world is changing as rapidly, and as fundamentally, as it did during the 1960's. Back then it was civil rights; that debate morphed to include women's right and gay rights. Today, the debate includes muslims and immigration. The debates are rancorous, often despicable, frequently bereft of fact or accuracy, rife with innuendo and distortion and are generally pretty ugly. They are the face of democracy, and the result of a grand experiment that continues because people want it to continue. Democracy is truly a frightening concept, but it has no philosophical rival. America is an idea that has no other philosophical rival - the idea that hateful speech is protected is not a common one. American democracy remains as vibrant, and raucous, as it has ever been.
Here's hoping some half-witted populists don't change that.
Carolyn Ann
(Lord Jesus Christ cast out of Belchertown library for bad behavior)
