In March of 2008, Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed on ABC by Martha Raddatz. During the conversation, Cheney claimed there was a general consensus for our success in Iraq, and Raddatz then asked how this could be, when two-thirds of the American people opposed the war.
Cheney’s now famous answer, “So?”
I certainly remember what it felt like to hear that from someone in charge of our nation’s destiny. I was angry, frustrated, and scared. I wondered, again, how the American voters could have re-elected the Bush-Cheney team in 2004. I wondered what the future of this country would be, if the majority of Americans voted for paternalism (not one of this Pagan’s family values), for “I’m running things and don’t care what anyone else thinks” and for just plain obfuscation (despite the fact that millions of viewers heard that “So?”, sources say it was not included in the transcript of the interview released by Cheney’s office).
Recently, seeing Senator Jim Bunning’s standing in the way of the Senate majority waiting to move on unemployment benefits and bringing construction projects to a halt, I was reminded of the Cheney interview. If you had reminded Bunning, as many did, of the lives he was affecting by becoming a one-person roadblock, his answer would probably also have been “So?”
But wait…Bunning had a point to make. After all, whatever happened to running government on a budget, as we run our businesses and households. If you watch MSNBC (yes, I’m a Rachel Maddow fan) you already know the answer: pay-go was abandoned during the Bush administration, during which Congress dutifully spent us into a huge deficit by passing legislation like tax cuts for the rich with no regard to the cost.
Now, of course, those same members of Congress are standing in the way of health insurance reform, of extending unemployment benefits and repairing our decaying infrastructure, all because they have suddenly decided that, while it was OK under a Republican administration to spend with no regard to matching revenue, we can no longer do it under a Democratic one.
Expect your legislators to be straight about what they believe, and vote accordingly? You can expect it, but what you’ll actually get is “So?”
Now what’s the point of all this? Here’s my thought: we just should not accept that fact that the people we elect can do whatever they (and their lobbyists) please with no accountability. They need to run for election, and they need our votes (and those of most of the people we know) to win.
Politics is a matter of simple math: you get enough votes to win, you get re-elected. Say what you want about stolen elections; I believe that we are still in a position to influence outcomes.
As Pagans, we understand that we are personally responsible for our actions, and for how those actions affect others. The only way the politics of “So?” continues to exist is because we, the voters, also say, “So?” instead of shutting down our computers and our televisions, and getting involved in grassroots organizing.
Think about it.
Then do something about it.
On the other hand, isn’t that exactly what Nancy Pelosi said when asked if Dems will lose elections for passing Healthcare?
So?
Public opinion has moved against Obama, now clearly below 50% approval, and against this bill.
Sure, most Americans want Healthcare reform. But most also don’t want this bill.
I support something, but I don’t support this. The answer I hear from the far left is…
So?
So tell us, what do the Trotskyites, Stalinist, and Maoists think of health care reform?
Croak!
That’s because the current plan doesn’t have a public option. People were overwhelmingly for it when that was part of the deal. Now that the Democrats have caved so much to special interests and Republican fear-mongering (OH NOES! DEATH PANELS!), what’s the point?
I think people turned against the public option because they actually had time to digest to idea.
Over time the public option would become the health-care monopoly by undercutting its competitions prices (because it doesn’t need to generate a profit and most likley will operate on a loss). Its no secret how wonderful medicare, medicaid, social security, Amtrack, the USPS have been run by the government; is it unreasonable to expect that the public option wouldn’t suffer a similar fate?
Actually, it is the public option that first turned me off. Most of the money that comes out of my paycheck is for SS and medicare. Why do I want to add a third payment to the federal govt?
Most everyone supports new regulations, forcing companies to accept pre-existing conditions, keeping coverage if you lose your job, interstate markets, etc.
Regulatory changes can do nearly all of the positive steps forward. Some may increase rates, but not nearly the same as creating Medicare Jr would.
Social issues like abortion are making blue dog Democrats think twice now.
And for those saying they are “caving in”, let’s be reminded, they don’t represent the “American People”. They represent the American People… In their district.
You really think that the money coming out of your paycheck would be worse than than a private healthcare payment? You must receive some kind of free or paid-partially-by-your-employer health care. Have you actually looked at premiums?
The last time I actually bought health care for my family, it was the biggest bill of all bills in my budget. More than my mortgage. And I still had to pay “co-pays” whenever I used it. That is insane.
And that is what the “free market” and unrestricted capitalism has given us: Paying ridiculous amounts of money for NOTHING. (‘Cause when you try to submit a claim and they deny you, you realize that you’ve been had. You’ve paid for NOTHING.)
“And for those saying they are “caving in”, let’s be reminded, they don’t represent the “American People”. They represent the American People… In their district.”
I don’t believe that Maine’s Senator Collins is representing the people of Maine at all. In fact, the ‘reason’ she gives for not attending the health-care bill meeting at the White House was that the “Republican Party” hadn’t picked her to represent it at that meeting.
We didn’t send her to Wonderland (what some call Wash. D.C.) in order to represent the leaders of the party, we sent her there to represent the citizens and taxpayers of Maine. During the Bush II reign, she appears to have drifted farther and farther to the right from her self-proclaimed ‘Moderate Republican’ position, and was an active apologist for Bush’s policies (so much for constitutional checks and balances). I didn’t vote for her last time, and I most certainly won’t in the future. I may decide to actively work against her ever re-election or any election to any other position again.
On the issue of Susan Collins, I certainly agree. I hope all the Mainers who voted for Obama and Collins in the last election are happy with the results. I have publicly challenged both Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to make public the number of voter contacts they have received on health care, identifying the number for and the number against passage of the bill. Their offices have refused to reply. Any idea why?
I agree Bryon. ANd if you look at who is getting the funding from pharmaceutical and insurance companies now, it’s the Democrats over the Republicans (a reversal of a decade or more of donations). It’s obvious the Democratic leadership has sold out. Obama promised us the same insurance he gets and that’s obviously not going to happen.
Hell, Michael Moore…of all people…was on Bill Maher last night saying the same thing last night – That even he doesn’t give a damn about the current healthcare plan, because w/o a public option, it’s meaningless.
Bought-and-paid-for corporatists are not “far left.”
I’m certainly not a Cheney fan, but give the man credit for speaking truth. Very few people in power could give a r@ts @$$ about what the people want. Their job is to preserve and extend existing power structures.
Cheney and the Bu$hites have been out of power for over a year, and we still are waging imperialist low-intensity warfare all over the globe, we are still aiming our economic bailout cash-firehouse in the direction of those who neither need nor deserve the help, we are still arguing about whether or not healthcare is a right, etc. etc.
I think that history will show the Bu$hite legacy as bringing much of the corruption, greed, and just plain evil of government way out into the open, out from under the seedy underbelly of DC corridors, where anyone who pays attention can see it.
Problem is, few people pay attention to this. So?
“Then do something about it.”
Can’t wait for November…Lets vote ‘em ALL out!
Yeah, and vote a bunch of people in that will be exactly the same within four or five years!
As soon as its apparent that they are not representing your intrests, then you vote THEM out too
Without any sort of serious campaign finance reform, they’ll all be of the same batch.
Without any sort of serious campaign finance reform, and doing something about the lobbyists they’ll all be of the same batch. Doesn’t matter how many times you rotate them.
If god had meant us to vote, he would have given us candidates.
Croak!
I know that’s a popular point of view, but do, please, check out my previous blog post on term limits. An inexperienced legislator is usually surrounded by lobbyists only too willing to help. Not a good situation at all.
Excellent piece, Rita – thanks for writing it. I’m in full agreement with you – and now the sell out of the American People by the Supreme Court – it’s not a pretty picture. We have a lot of work to do as voters. And far too many people don’t even write letters to their representatives in Washington, or sign petitions, or let anybody know how they feel.
Thanks. And remember that sometimes, voting is not even enough. We need to figure out whose views are closest to our own, and get out and volunteer. It does make a difference.
I remember sitting down at the lobby desk in Collins’ office in Lewiston a couple of years back, and writing a nasty-gram to her for her staff to pass along to DC. I forget what it was I was so very cheesed off about at the time.
It does. Sometimes just being a present and countable body helps:
http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/2009/12/show-ups.html
“and now the sell out of the American People by the Supreme Court”
Is this in regard to the 1st amendment decision? Please explain how supporting the constitution is selling out the American people? They came alot closer in the DC gun ban vote, 5-4 in support of the 2nd amendment. What part of “shall not be infringed” isn’t clear?
Duane, maybe the issue isn’t “the Constitution” but “whose Constitution?” Like the Bible, or any other revered document which has come down to us through history, it reflects a time other than our own and is subject to interpretation. Some of that interpretation is a result of case law, but most of it is “informal”, just the effect of looking at the words through the eyes of someone living in the 21st century who has never experienced things like slavery, the power of the aristocracy over the lives of working people, and lifespans shortened to half of what they are now by death and disease.
I also honor and respect the Constitution (though, frankly, the Declaration of Independence often sounds like a far better expression of what I hope this nation could be). I also believe that it is a living document, subject to revision as our lives and times change.
The problem with those revisions is that they come about through a political process (remember the Equal Rights Amendment?), which is inherently flawed, and subject to the influence of special interest groups with enough money to put lots of ads on television.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but would love to discuss it. What I am sure of is that what started out as our primary document of law, the Constitution, has been read in so many different ways by so many different people that, for me, any assumption of basic truths come into question. Or, in other words, it’s not “the Constitution”…it’s “whose Constitution?”
” I also believe that it is a living document, subject to revision as our lives and times change. ”
Agree completely, amendments are the proper, constitutional way to accomplish this. Also, the Bible has been translated so many times that the comparison to the Constitution is a far reach. At the very least, the Constitution was written in the same language and the same “modern era”. There was a time when the SC considered the constitutional questions based on the document itself and the intent of the founders (by reading their letters and speeches, etc.) Today’s SC considers international law, corporate law and a miriad of other factors that were not imaginable to the founders. Is this right? I personally think so. They are duly appointed by the duly elected president and reflect the times. The method (amendment) is still in place for the legislative branch to nullify SC decisions. It is by design a grueling, slow process.
International treaties are, by specific citation within the body of the Constitution itself, considered a part of the Laws of the U.S.A.
So there has to be some mechanism within the ‘justice system’ of the country to deal with that part of the law.
If you want to get into “original intent,” then I doubt that the guys who didn’t consider an African-American or woman a “person” afforded to the same rights as white males…then I certainly don’t believe that they would’ve accepted the idea of a corporation being a “person” under the Bill of Rights.
Sorry, that sentence is totally grammatically incorrect. I blame Sudafed.
What I meant was, “If you want to get into “original intent,” then I doubt that the guys who didn’t consider an African-American or woman a “person” who had the same rights as white males would’ve accepted the idea of a corporation being a “person” under the Bill of Rights.”
Alexander Hamilton, the early nation’s great banker and a believer in aristocracy, might well in our time be a corporatist. The wealthy and powerful had their say then, as well as now.
I believe you misread the comment.
The Bill of Rights only applies to “persons.” The Supreme Court ruled that corporations, are essentially “persons” and entitled to coverage under the First Amendment. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US gov’t did not recognize African-Americans as “persons” under the law, they were not entitled to the Bill of Rights.
I know of no instance of Hamilton arguing that corporations were “persons,” nor would his being wealthy and powerful have any bearing on the matter.
The idea of corporation-as-person predates English common law and probably Anglo-Saxon law–it was Roman. The legal dictionary I consulted defines natural persons–us–and “juristic persons” or “artificial persons.” The word comes from Latin corporare–to embody. Hamilton would not have made an argument in favor of corporate rights, or needed to make it–in his time, corporations had most of the authority of governments.
The idea that corporations have all the rights of a natural person was a 19th-century response to moves to limit the power of business organizations. I can well believe the aristocratic Hamilton supporting it–why is it such a reach for you?
Sorry, but I have a hard time imagining Jefferson arguing that corporations are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The divergence regarding Hamilton is not particularly relevant.
This has been an issue of debate since the early 1800s ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate ) but centering the discussion on the views of a particular person (Hamilton) whose views were often radically dissenting from many of the other Founding Fathers, derails the general point that I was trying to make.
Especially considering Hamilton was pushing for a monarchy.
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. ” -A. Hamilton
“I believe the British government forms the best model the world has ever produced…This government has for its object public strength and individual security.”
and
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.”
(from http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0249.01#LF-BK0249.1pt13ch01 followed from wikiquotes)
Yes, that was my point. Such an advocate of aristocracy in his time might well be a corporatist in ours.
“I have a hard time imagining Jefferson arguing that corporations are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” ”
At that time, corporations were ‘made’ by charters issued by the crown, a person believed to have been put on the throne directly by Gawd hisself.
And yet, we don’t give corporations the right to vote…or to marry humans…or many other “inalienable rights.” We only apply the Bill of Rights to them when it helps “Big Business.”
If we were addressing a sane, logical, caring, empathetic American public who understood what democracy was all about, and had been educated during that narrow window when our educational system actually EDUCATED people, I would say that your arguments would perform some sort of service, such as stirring people to action, and expressing their outrage via the vote (a blessing WE take for granted and many people can only WISH to enjoy). Unfortunately, that is not the case. The very existence of the Tea Party proves that you can toss around facts all day long and all you will get from the average American is a blank stare.
Sad but True.
In the House matters are not so bad; the Representatives largely reflect the position of majorities in their voting districts. However, many people, especially the poor and members of minority groups, do not vote as a result of long-standing discouragement. This can be fought with the grassroots activism you advocate.
In the Senate, on the other hand, long-standing customs, and the fundamentally undemocratic practice of representing states rather than people, have led to a house of Congress dominated by entrenched privilege. In the Senate, we can grow grassroots until the cows come home, but the cows in Montana will still eat our grassroots in New York. Let us therefore also work for the institutional reform of the Senate.
Finally, let me suggest everyone read Menand’s Unpolitical Animal on the political science of US voting behavior. If you’re really energetic and up for some serious scholarly reading, read Converse’s “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” The hard-to-find original was reprinted in <i Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 18, no. 1 (2006): 1 – 74, but you will probably have to go to a university library to read it, or get your local library to order a copy.
BTW, I wrote about the interplay of privilege and populism within the Democratic Party about a month ago:
Read the rest.