Victor Davis Hanson explains why Americans are in revolt against their new masters, who have hijacked the government of the people.
36 thoughts on “Prairie Fire Anger”
Comments are closed.
Victor Davis Hanson explains why Americans are in revolt against their new masters, who have hijacked the government of the people.
Comments are closed.
Very few Americans are in “revolt” and most of those – such as VDH – remain in denial that a majority of Americans actually like and agree with Barack Obama on a great many issues
Daniel Larison at American Conservative magazine offers a good perspective:
The insistence that Obama was born outside America, or that he must be in some way foreign, may be the only way for extreme Americanists to account for how someone born here and raised for almost his entire life in the U.S. could come to have views that they regard as un-American and anti-American. Those who have elevated the nation into a sort of church or religion, and those who are most attached to this kind of national idolatry, cannot abide the idea that the President–the secular high priest of their religion–believes what Obama believes (or, just as important, what they imagine he believes). For the Americanist, this is something like the abomination of desolation.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/08/05/the-americanist-heresy-revisited/
Rand, have you done your patriotic duty and reported anything fishy to flag@whitehouse.gov yet? On my screen here I’m not yet seeing that you have reported flagged anyone yet. Oh, just a sec. I see it says you are out of state so we’ll just assume that you’ll file your report when return home. You may move along now…
Overwhelm them with compliance.
Glancing at the Rasmussen approval index, there appears to be a significant change around the beginning of July that deepened the hostility to Obama (which had been stable for several months after the post-inauguration decline). It has been stable since then. Prior to July, the approval rating (the different of “likely voters” in percent who strongly approve of Obama minus those who strongly disapprove) was positive by several points, afterwards it was negative by several points.
The timing of that decline seems to support Hanson’s claim that more people are becoming upset with the Obama administration due to Democrat proposals for health care reform.
As an aside, I think the emergence of the “Blue Dogs” as a somewhat independent voting block is a genuine phenomenon and not faked opposition (in order to smooth passage of controversial bills). It doesn’t mean that they won’t in the end vote for Obama priorities, but I see their emergence as a sign that Obama is in trouble politically. In my view, there’d be significant defection of Republicans (more than just Specter). The combination of a strong Republican front and an increasingly divided Democrat side would greatly damage his ability to steer passage of his priorities.
Very few Americans are in “revolt” and most of those – such as VDH – remain in denial that a majority of Americans actually like and agree with Barack Obama on a great many issues
America has a tradition of being a right-of-center country and I really don’t think a lot has changed. From my perspective Obama’s rise to prominence came from the confluence of four major factors: 1) Bush dragged a divided nation into a war that really didn’t have to be fought. 2) Bush, McCain and other GOP leadership succeeded in alienated much of their own party – primarily chasing amnesty, but through other misguided steps as well. 3) Obama running as a bright centrist who may not have had much experience, but promised he would unite the country and make good decisions. 4) An unprecedented financial crisis a month before the election that spooked the hell out of all voters so were voting more on emotion than anything else.
None of these factors indicate to me that Americans wanted to take the hard-left turn that Obama has taken us on since becoming President. Polls, to the extent they can be trusted, seem to be bearing this out. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, I think it is wishful thinking if you honestly believe most Americans agree with Obama. I live in the SF Bay Area and I can honestly say that where I live that may be the case as well as in LA, NY and Boston. However, America is much more than just the West Coast and Eastern Seaboard.
One other thing that I believe is in favor of my argument. If Americans are so on board with Obama’s plans, why are the Democrats desperately trying to mask their intentions to create a single payer system and a host of other leftist initiatives. Wouldn’t it be simpler and easier to just come clean with their beliefs? If Americans were on board they could simply use their numbers to push the legislation through with the Republicans not able to do one thing about it. The Democrats could then just sit back and cruise to an even a larger victory in 2010.
Something to remember is that the Dems don’t need a single Republican vote- other than the losers like Voinovich and Snowe who’d vote for their own evisceration if it got them a NYT photo op with Ted Kennedy- to pass their nonsense, They don’t want bipartisanship… they want COVER.
Also, for a man elected on the motto of “trust my judgement”, Barry doens’t seem to have any and this is becoming grimly apparent to the rest of the country.
Bill, Bill, Bill.
American Conservative???
I have yet to see evidence that it is either.
I always find it stupidly amusing that people think I will be persuaded by something because it comes from a “conservative” or a “Republican,” when I am neither.
Thinking upon the Rasmussen poll a bit, I don’t think it fully supports the claim that Obama is vastly unpopular, but the somewhat lesser claim that he is growing very unpopular. It is worth noting that Obama’s popularity has only declined since inauguration. For him to have a viable presidency past 2010, he’s going to need to reverse that trend. I have yet to see evidence that he is trying to reverse the trend. Perhaps there is an assumption that the economy and peoples’ moods will improve next year so no need to placate people this year?
If Americans are so on board with Obama’s plans, why are the Democrats desperately trying to mask their intentions to create a single payer system and a host of other leftist initiatives.
Because, aside from outliers like Dennis Kucinich, they have no such intentions. It’s proving hard enough to get the entire Dem Senate caucus to vote for an optional public plan — there aren’t nearly enough votes for single payer.
Obama won the election promising to deliver universal health care coverage and a cap-and-trade bill. In the abstract both initiatives polled well then, and
poll well now. The change since then is about politics, not policy.
Because, aside from outliers like Dennis Kucinich, they have no such intentions.
Of course they do. They just want to do it by stealth.
Of course they do. They just want to do it by stealth.
I’m not sure whether this is evidence of paranoia, or projection. How exactly would one stealthily eliminate private insurance? Won’t someone notice when it goes away?
Won’t someone notice when it goes away?
You’ve never heard about the story of boiling frogs, I guess.
Jim, we’re not as stupid as you’d like us to be. We heard Barney.
Jim,
You do it by allowing the government to compete against it in a way that makes it impossible for private insurance to earn a profit. And yes, people will notice when it goes away but won’t be able to do anything about it. I noticed when it became obvious that there was only one hospital in a given county here in Georgia. No competition means quality of care drops and prices increase. But I can’t do anything about it because its illegal to setup a hospital (or anything like it) to compete against an existing one.
“Obama won the election promising to deliver universal health care coverage and a cap-and-trade bill…The change since then is about politics, not policy.”
He did? I must of missed it over the hopey changey chanting, the fainting and the leg tingling because I dont recall these being the reasons he won the election.
He won the election because he wasnt George Bush, it wasnt a mandate for some sort of nebulous set policy prescriptions it was all the soaring rhetoric filled with sound and fury that ultimately has signified nothing. He was a stealth candidate in that people didnt (and still dont) know a whole lot about him or his political history. He was (still is) woefully under qualified for the role but he gave great speeches…
I think VDH has encapsulated it fairly well with this statement, “Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats—apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president—voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out of control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort.”
It was a bait and switch and nothing more. Unemployment continues to rise despite assurances to the contrary upon passage of the 2nd stimulus package. Set aside debating the efficacy of Keynesian economic theory regarding government spending for the time being, just show us where all of the “shovel ready” stimulus projects are. There was an urgent need to pass the stimulus NOW before it was too late but to what end?
I am not surprised that Universal Health Care polls well in the abstract it is when people are exposed to the nuts and bolts of what he has proposed that the wheels come off the wagon. If Obama genuinely wanted to provide insurance for the uninsured he could create a plan to do just that for those in need but instead he is proposing an entire overhaul and takeover of a system that the overwhelming majority of the population are satisfied with in its current form. Sure improvements can be made but that isnt what he is proposing. Sure I could keep my current coverage so long as I stay at my current job or if my employer elects to provide the option, if either changes then I am forced into the proposed system where I lose choice and control over my care. (as an aside I always find it ironic that the people who profess to be “pro-choice” do their level best to restrict or eliminate choice in nearly every other aspect of life outside of abortion. They dont want me to be able to choose where my children go to school, my doctor, my car, whether I can own a gun or my dietary options without their interference but the choice over an abortion is sacred and constitutionally guaranteed).
Obama’s goal is a single payer system. We know this because it came right out of his own mouth…No parsing and no creative editing, he said it. The current set of proposals are incremental steps to that ultimate goal.
This very much is about policy. It doesnt appear that most Americans agree with him on his proposed policy.
Michael, some other things to add to what you said. In addition to unfair competition the government also gets to write the rules by which private insurance has to operate at a profitable level. Either through ignorance, malice or both the deck can be so stacked against private insurance there will be no way it can survive.
Additionally I find it interesting that Democrats lead the charge against HMOs in the 90s (with Republican help to be sure) when many of the grievances they held against HMOs have every chance of being replicated with Obama’s proposed system.
Could give one the idea that their issue wasnt really about the practices of HMOs but the fact that they werent in control.
You’ve never heard about the story of boiling frogs, I guess.
I’ve heard it. The part that’s usually left out is that the frogs first had their brains removed. I think American voters are more perceptive than brainless frogs.
The current set of proposals are incremental steps to that ultimate goal.
With each step the public has a chance to weigh in on whether they want to proceed. This year’s conversation is not about single payer.
Doing nothing is the default mode of our system of government. And every year we do nothing is an incremental step towards paying more and more for a health system that delivers results falling further and further behind the rest of the developed world.
I think Rand has the correct phrase here with the title of this entry. A prairie fire can have two end results. It can burn a field, clearing all the weeds and other undesired vegetation, returning the nitrates to the soil and making it more fertile ground and ready for planting. It can also burn to the horizon destroying all in its path. I think the outcome will be decided by the choice of individual representatives and senators to their constituent meetings. I’d say at this point either outcome is equally likely. After watching a great many of the videos out there, it looks like there is a lot of frustration with Washington generally, and congress in particular.
They took him at his word that he was going to end out of control federal spending.
And, lo and behold, he proposed a budget that reduces the deficit below what we’d have seen under a continuation of Bush policies.
They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums
And, sure enough, there are signs that ARRA is moderating the downturn.
and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort.
And he’s stuck to his campaign position of not proposing income tax hikes on people making under $250,000 a year.
Where’s the bait and switch? Did VDH really think Obama was a secret Republican?
Unemployment continues to rise
Uh, no.
Jim, we’re not as stupid as you’d like us to be. We heard Barney.
And thinking that Barney Frank’s opinion is the only one that matters is supposed to convince me of your intelligence?
Unemployment continues to rise
Uh, no.
You may want to read the information behind the latest 9.4% unemployment number. Jobs have continued to decline (more than 250K for July), it just that more people left the job market at a rate faster than the layoffs were adding the newly unemployed to the rolls. Thus the rate popped up 0.1% even though more people are indeed not working. Presumably those that left the market were discouraged or their benefits ran out — thus they are no longer tracked.
You can call us when we have a month when jobs when more people gained jobs in a month than lost jobs. Given the administration policies, I don’t see this happening for a log time.
And thinking that Barney Frank’s opinion is the only one that matters is supposed to convince me of your intelligence?
To hear those on the left speak, you would think that only Rush’s opinion matters to those on the right.
Some day I hope man will get to visit Jim’s planet.
You do it by allowing the government to compete against it in a way that makes it impossible for private insurance to earn a profit.
Medicare is a universal, single-payer, government-run health care insurance system. Do you think it’s impossible for private insurers to earn a profit writing policies for seniors? If so one wonders why they keep doing it.
One big reason they can’t pass single payer is that private insurance is a big business that hires lots of lobbyists and makes lots of campaign contributions. A telling anecdote:
I wouldn’t worry too much about private insurers’ ability to defend their profits from the government.
And, lo and behold, he proposed a budget that reduces the deficit below what we’d have seen under a continuation of Bush policies.
Hilarious. Can you give us your crystal ball that would show this counterfactual, that would be convincing to anyone other than an Obamalyte?
…And, sure enough, there are signs that ARRA is moderating the downturn.
And you know that things wouldn’t have recovered even sooner and better without Porkulus (whose spending has barely yet occurred) because…?
And he’s stuck to his campaign position of not proposing income tax hikes on people making under $250,000 a year.
He never (or rarely) said “income” taxes. It was always “taxes,” unmodified.
Some day I hope man will get to visit Jim’s planet.
Sounds like a very dangerous place for one’s mental health.
He never (or rarely) said “income” taxes. It was always “taxes,” unmodified.
What other sort of tax would kick in at $250,000 of income?
What other sort of tax would kick in at $250,000 of income?
Ah, more disingenuity. Imply that it’s an income tax by talking about income, while raising other taxes on people making less.
To hear those on the left speak, you would think that only Rush’s opinion matters to those on the right.
Over 90% of Republicans in Congress agree with Rush about health care reform. Maybe 20% of Dems agree with Barney Frank about the desirability of single payer health care.
I don’t think GOP pols follow Rush’s orders, but they certainly vote as if they do. If Dems were as lock-step with Barney Frank as the GOP is with Rush we’d have single payer and cap-and-trade (and EFCA, and a DOMA repeal, and the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) by now.
The problem is that the largest current government-run healthcare program, Medicare, is a mess. Not only does it carry a monumental unfunded liability that is expected to surpass $80 trillion within 75 years, the GAO has pronounced it a high-risk program because of rampant fraud. Despite this, fewer than 5 percent of claims are currently audited.
Given the government’s track record with Medicare, what taxpayer with a functioning mind thinks any good will result from its administering healthcare coverage for the general populace?
Given the government’s track record with Medicare, what taxpayer with a functioning mind thinks any good will result from its administering healthcare coverage for the general populace?
Perhaps the fact that Medicare does not turn anyone away, has lower administrative expenses, and higher patient satisfaction than private insurance.
Perhaps the fact that Medicare does not turn anyone away, has lower administrative expenses, and higher patient satisfaction than private insurance.
No, I don’t think that’ll work since it ignores the fundamental problem. The people paying for Medicare are not the same people using Medicare or who control the spending in Medicare. It’s a well known phenomenon that people are far more casual with other peoples’ money than they’d be with their own. And when a Congresscritter can loose their job because Medicare denied someone health care, but not because there’s massive fraud in Medicare, then that’s going to influence their decisions in the matter.
Health insurance companies actually have an interest in reducing health care costs. That’s why their administrative expenses are higher. They’re doing something other than signing checks.
Health insurance companies actually have an interest in reducing health care costs. That’s why their administrative expenses are higher. They’re doing something other than signing checks.
Yes, they’re purging their customer lists of people with pre-existing conditions, refusing to pay for various things, pestering their customers to make sure they aren’t covered by any other policy (so that they don’t have to pay), etc. It’s a lot of work, employs a lot of paper pushers, and it improves their bottom line, but it doesn’t make anyone healthier.
Yes, they’re purging their customer lists of people with pre-existing conditions, refusing to pay for various things, pestering their customers to make sure they aren’t covered by any other policy (so that they don’t have to pay), etc. It’s a lot of work, employs a lot of paper pushers, and it improves their bottom line, but it doesn’t make anyone healthier.
Yes, their interests aren’t your interests. But at least you can sue in order to force them to fulfill the contract they’ve signed with you. I doubt similar approaches would work with a government program.