Doesn't Anybody Really Care?

Almost nine years ago, on March 8 2001, I posted a commentary entitled: “The Death Of Outrage."

I went on to discuss the agenda of the Bush Administration even in that early configuration and found them the most outrageous of any bar none. Their agenda made the Reagan “revolution” mild by comparison, but I did not get any sense of outrage among the American people, not even among its most progressive elements. Somehow that ability to be outraged even by the most egregious agenda, or for that matter the most anti-democratic tactics brings no emotion and no outrage.

The Right, seems to be able to mobilize a sense of “Outrage,” as can be seen from their ability to mobilize the “Tea-Party” demonstrators. But liberals do not seem to be able to bring that kind of emotion into their movement, except maybe against their allies.
My last commentary, was entitled, “Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!."

In that I set forth the lies that Republicans have deployed against the President in general, and the Health Care bill in particular, and their use of the extra-constitutional filibuster to prevent an overwhelming majority from governing. I expected outrage primarily against Republicans, but also against the many liberal groups who have often been unintended allies of gridlock imposed by the filibuster.

But instead of outrage, I get the following comment from Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn.

“It is true that there were many smears and lies by the Republican and that had some influence on the outcome in Mass. However, the main reason for the voter revolt there and in NJ and Va. was the use of federal money to rescue the automobile companies, AIG, and the banks, coupled with the unemployment situation in the country, and the fear that the health bill would result in more taxes. The trouble with Obama's approach was not that it was wrong, but that there was no real attempt to educate the voters as to the reason for his policies. I know that it does not seem fair for voters to penalize the democrats for policies that are much more reasonable than those of the Bush administration but that is the way voters are. The fact that special deals were made with the senators from Louisiana and Nebraska rubbed many voters the wrong way, and confirmed their negative view of Congress and politics. It is now imperative to fashion a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snow, if possible, though the road will be much rougher now. Moreover, there is still time for Obama to try to educate the voters.”

What Bruno says undoubtedly has some truth in it, but is totally unresponsive to what I wrote. I wrote about the misuse of the filibuster and he clearly finds nothing about it to upset him. He dismisses it with, “(It may have had) some influence on the outcome in Mass."

Whether it had an outcome in Massachusetts is beside the point. It prevented the Health Care Bill from passing; it caused the stimulus to be watered down. It kept innumerable other bills from seeing the light of day. And it gives the election of one Senator out of a hundred a significance, which it should not have on the legislative process

He shows no anger or even consternation at the smears that have been told and he clearly finds nothing about it to upset him.

It is totally unresponsive to the petty carping of the various liberal special interest groups who refuse to compromise. But for those liberal groups, who will not support the Senate bill, that bill could already have been passed, and can still be passed. All the House has to do is pass the Senate bill. But I have not seen one liberal columnist, commentator, or organization advocate that.

As for a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snowe that is totally unrealistic. Snowe, said she would support the bill if there is no public option. There is no public option and she voted for the filibuster. She has never said what else she wants, and doesn’t say what would be needed to secure her vote. Furthermore whatever is given to Snowe, is likely to lose votes of liberals in the House.

But allow me to return to the “liberal” groups like moveon.org who savage the Administration for having rescued the banking system from collapse and thereby avoided a ’29 meltdown. Who write, “Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate.” Not one word about how “Pro-bank” Democrats were empowered only by the Republican filibuster. They rant about the Auto company bailout - do they not care about the huge number of jobs it saved? - and very likely without any cost to the taxpayer in the long run, since it is expected that every penny will be repaid. They show some outrage – but at whom? They sound like an adjunct to the Republican Party.

Or Paul Krugman who I said in my last commentary had a short memory. He deliberately ignores the political realities.

Or boldprogressives.org who distributed an e-mail saying:

“Tonight, Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a bitter special election… The Senate health care bill is not the change we we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use 'reconciliation' to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

Or Credo Action:

“The loss of Ted Kennedy's seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use 'reconciliation' to pass a better bill with a strong public option.

Or NOW, the National Organization for Women:

“Tell members of your congressional delegation that throwing women under the bus in health care reform legislation is not acceptable. Contrary to what women's advocates have repeatedly been told, it now appears health care legislation allows gender rating after all. This, coupled with the anti-abortion rights language and other problems, renders the bill not worth passing unless these harmful provisions are removed.”

And Campaign for America’s Future:

“Let’s see. Obama packs his White House and economic team with former Clintonistas; devotes one-third of his stimulus plan to ineffective tax cuts; rescues the banks without reorganizing them; wastes months seeking bipartisan support on health care, jettisoning the public option along the way and insisting on taxing health care benefits rather than the wealthy.”

I don’t know from where the people who write these diatribes get their information, for they seem astoundingly out of touch and misinformed. A Health Care Reform bill cannot be passed by “reconciliation.” If that could have been done, don’t they think that this procedure would have been employed in the first place? Reconciliation under the rules is limited to taxes and expenditures. If a bill passes, reconciliation could be used to fix some of its rough spots. But for them to call for reconciliation on the whole bill is pure demagoguery.

As for NOW’s concern. It is understandable. But it is not a question of getting a bill with this provision or that provision. It is a question of getting a flawed bill or none at all. And there is no question that a flawed bill would be better for most women than no bill at all. The discrimination in rates exists now. The bill would not make it worse. It would reduce it by eliminating Pre-Existing Health Conditions and by increasing coverage for pre-natal care. It always comes down to allowing the perfect from being the enemy of the good.

As for Campaign for America’s Future, do they really think that turning the country back to the Republicans would serve their objectives better? As I said about Krugman, The Democrats didn’t have 60 votes when the stimulus was passed. To get the three Republicans, and even some of the Democrats from conservative states they had to have tax cuts, which were most certainly not totally ineffective. The banks, as unpopular as they were and are, had to be rescued or we would have had a ’29 meltdown. First the rescue – then the regulation-, which without 60 votes may no longer be possible - thank you very much. Since a unanimous Democratic vote on Health Care Reform was made necessary by Republican intransigence and the filibuster, and some Democrats wouldn’t accept the public option, it was again compromise or nothing and the Public option was made into a symbol which as long as we had adequate regulation, which the bill provided for, was far from essential, though it became a rallying cry for organizations more interested in raising money for themselves than in reform.

As for taxing some Health Care benefits – that, it is agreed, is one of the few means for controlling costs, and without controlling costs we will all lose out.

But as can be see all these “liberal organizations” train their attacks not on Republicans but on the people laboring to actually accomplish reform instead of grandstanding.

They seem intent on returning Republicans to power. Maybe that will further increase their fund raising, but it will not advance reform. I for one will no longer contribute to any of them.

But right or wrong, sincere or not, they show passion.

What bothers me about Bruno Lederer's comment is its total lack of passion, or even any indication that he cares. He appears to seek the position of an uninterested commentator.