I learned this morning that the insurance industry has had essentially zero input in the new healthcare bill.
Let that sink it for a few moments.
The insurance industry has had zero input into the new GOP healthcare bill. Which begs the question—who is this supposed to benefit? Not the medical industrial complex, certainly. By and large most of them have been expressing deep concerns all the way up to dystopic warnings to not do what the GOP is trying to do.
Only a couple of things make sense, one having to do with money, the other to do with power. True, usually the two go together, but sometimes they are actually separate issues. This may be one of those instances.
If it’s money, then all of the impetus for this is in the presumed tax breaks.* By now it ought to be obvious that all the benefit will accrue to the top one or two percent. Sequestering tax dollars so they cannot be used for anything other than their designated purpose is seen by those with a banking mentality as wasteful, since it is money that cannot be used for investment in high return ventures—the sort which will only profit the same people doing the investing, and at the expense of everyone else.
No, no, don’t start with the whole trickle down nonsense. After thirty plus years of it, by now only the insistently ignorant, uneducated, or blindly stupid can think trickle down works to anyone’s benefit other than those who already own the capital.
I can understand people not seeing how this happens—it is a very complex set of components which work together to funnel capital in essentially one direction—but that they fail to see it as a net effect dismays me. Usually people know when they’re being screwed over and quite often by whom. That so many people reject what they must intuitively know in order to vote for the very people ministering to this system baffles me. Yes, often their expenditures go up, but at a certain level it is not by virtue of tax increases but increases in cost of living, which while related are not the same thing.
In this instance, however, so many of the very corporate entities which in the past have supported and benefited from this system are beginning to protest its continuation. They must now see that their ruin is not far away if this system is not seriously modified if not entirely reshaped.
So why would their presumed servants not heed their concerns?
Power. And not, in this instance I think, corporate power, but a confused apprehension of the nature of power. Mitch McConnell and his ilk don’t need the money. Their position in this regard makes little sense on any practical level. The people they have been beholden to in the past, many of them, are telling them to stop, but the carnage continues.
The question then is—power to what end?
Look at the chief concerns expressed by many in this movement. An adamant denial of climate change, even in the face of the military, which they otherwise claim to respect and wish to see strengthened, telling them that it is real and a threat to national security. An obdurate rejection of the science of evolution, in spite of a medical industry informing that modern medicine is based solidly on the understanding provided by evolutionary science. A singular aversion to social programs, when the large majority of their presumptive constituents support them. A denial of any rights not already enjoyed by white males (and even a few of those they question), which is most clearly seen in the refusal to acknowledge women’s issues as worthy of their time and a consistent struggle to strip women of what rights they already have in terms of procreative self-determination. (My own state, Missouri, is about to pass a measure to allow employers to fire anyone using birth control—as if this makes any sense on any level. My question is, if a male employee is found using condoms, can he also be fired? Will he? Or is applicable only to women who may use their employer-provided insurance to buy birth control pills?) And, by no means the last thing, but a big thing, a refusal to look at income distribution and do anything about the inequities that emerge out of systemic changes they championed which now many if not most of the beneficiaries of those systems are beginning to seriously question.
Taken at face value, it would appear to be a doctrinaire effort to turn the United States into a third world state.
Hyperbole aside, it may be based on two things—a perverse reimagining of Manifest Destiny and a marrow-deep conviction that all government, unless outwardly directed, is evil.
They know their version of the repeal-and-replace bill will hurt millions. The rollbacks of Medicare will put children at risk. How is this defensible? Do they believe people will simply “find a way” that has nothing to do with government to make up for it? That might be plausible if at the same time they were doing something about income inequality, but instead they’re also trying to dismantle Dodd-Frank—without a replacement, by the way—which, while not a great law, is at least intended to protect noninvestors from the predations of the venture capital class.
No, this is designed to create an environment wherein those who are not powerful enough, in their view, will lose all ability to challenge them. They will be poor, in ill-health, without access, voiceless. The women in this pool will be constant victims, unable to control their reproductive destinies and therefore completely dependent on the “kindness” of males, who will no longer have the restraint of law or custom to govern their depredations. Just like it used to be when abortions were done with coat hangars and women could be tossed on the street propertyless in the case of divorce.
This is a blanket repudiation of the responsibility of government to do anything for people who can’t already do it for themselves.
It is that simple.
Unless someone can offer another explanation? I’ll even buy the idea of a resurgent Confederacy that’s getting even for having been forced to give up its slaves. That may be part of this, but it’s hardly all of it.
Cutting taxes has become religion, and the faithful line up to support it even when down the road this will cost them. Cost them in terms of more expensive goods and services, poor infrastructure, unreliable information networks, and employers who have the power practically of life and death over them. Because somehow they have bought the idea that cutting taxes means they will have more money, when in fact most of them pay too little to see big pay-offs, the kind that might mean anything.
What is even more outrageous is the evident apathy of the people who are allowing these people to remain in power, because with few exceptions we are being shafted by a congressional majority kept in power by a quarter of the voting base. This is the worst expression of pandering I have ever seen and to no purpose, because now even many of those who voted for them are beginning to say “Wait a minute, now.” But once they say they, they are outside, beyond the pale, no longer reliable.
These are people committed to a path with no regard for consequences because somewhere along the way they forgot why they are there.
You doubt me? One fact alone demonstrates that they give not a damn about any of you. McConnell and Company have been railing against the ACA (code name Obamacare) for seven years. Repeal that terrible law. Replace it with something that works. We now see what they wish to put in its place, and it is far worse than what it is intended to replace. This is not hard to understand since they came up with this in the last couple of months.
Which is the problem. They have had seven years. They have spoken to no one, consulted no one, done apparently no work at all on devising a replacement. With all their resources, after seven years they could have produced a Sistine Chapel of health care. Instead we have an off-the-shelf paint-by-number thing and they couldn’t even stay inside the lines. Seven years! They never intended to do better.
They do not believe in the government they are part of.
For my money, they do not believe in America. This has been a criminal abrogation of responsibility.
- It is remotely possible that the GOP intends to starve the health care industry, seeing it as a rival in influence to other preferred programs. If so, it’s a battle that will leave many people dead on the field and solve nothing.
So The Donald was caught on tape saying something egregious about what he wants to do with women. This has caused much ire among those in his party of choice. Not most of the other egregious things he has said, alleged, alluded to, implied, or otherwise allowed to exit from his mouth. We have witnessed basically a year-long example of escalating reaction not to the content of his pronouncements but to the manner of their expression.
Paul Ryan has weighed in with an egregious bit of condescension of his own which adds to the evidence that he is a “classic” conservative who seems not to Get It.
As bookends showcasing the problem they could not be more apt.
The basic privilege the self-appointed “ruling class” has always tried to keep to itself is just this—that they are allowed, by virtue of their own money and power, to treat those not in the club any way they choose. The whole idea of equality and respect is anathema to one of the main reasons they act and think as they do. Trump is spilling the secrets of the inner sanctum by speaking the way he does. He is being supported by people who have long chafed under the requirements to matriculate from the high school locker room.
So why is what Ryan said just more of the same?
Mr. Ryan said: “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified.”
Now, on its face you might see nothing wrong with that statement. But remember, this is coming from a man who has consistently opposed women’s right to self-determination where it conflicted with his conception of morality. (To be clear, he never actually said “rape is just another vector of conception.” But he made it clear that he has a moral and ethical framework which would demote women’s ability to determine life choices to secondary status in the case of unwanted pregnancy)
This suggests that he sees women as having a role to fill. A role which under certain circumstances supersedes their position as individuals.
Women are to be championed and revered…
Why? Because they can’t champion themselves? And how do you revere something without putting it in a special category? Reverence is akin to a religious appreciation. We can revere life but it becomes trickier to revere an individual without bringing to bear expectations that merit such reverence. The first—life—is a concept not a person. It’s easy to revere ideas, beliefs, works of art. These are not people, they are categories of object. People are revered only when they are removed from the daily grime of actual living. Saints are never made so until they are dead and for good reason. A person cannot—nor should—fulfill the expectations of such status. And it is not a status one seeks but one that is imposed.
Women are not objects of reverence. He contradicts himself in the next phrase, “not objectified.”
This is the problem at the center of this whole issue, which is difficult to parse for some folks.
And the reason that what Ryan is saying is not much better than what Trump says. Only different.
Trump is saying out loud what has been implicit in a certain mindset among self-styled “conservatives” for a long time. They want their privilege. They want things made available to them and denied to the general public, because these things constitute the trappings of power.
Not all of them pushing this program. Some, I suspect, are just neurotic and insecure. Trump is neither. Ryan is just shallow. But the arrogance of a Trump has found a home in the shallow waters of what has become conservative philosophy.
Other Republicans, in response to Trump’s comments, have opted for the word respect, but given the repeated, consistent assault on women’s health care options, the concerted opposition to equal rights legislation, the open misogyny toward female politicians, and the general inability to understand the driving essence of the women’s movement for, well, forever, these pronouncements carry little weight outside the fact that they fear for their privilege because a loudmouth is talking out of school. They want to impose a style of respect on women that will push the real issues back into the box wherein they’ve been residing all along. These same people have had many gracious and pleasant and approving things to say about the late Phyllis Schlafly and given her quite unvarnished statements about what she thinks women (of a certain class, of course) ought to do rather than try to live lives of personal fulfillment, I take their repudiation of Trump for what it is—an attempt to put the lid back on that box. From time to time many of them have said things about women that demonstrate a vast disconnect—lack of understanding and lack of empathy and a total disregard for women as people.
They like women to be objects of reverence. Why can’t they just climb back up on that pedestal where they “belong” and smile?
I don’t want to beat up too much on them, because I also believe that they believe they’re speaking from conscience. I just wish they had taken the trouble to examine that conscience a few decades ago, before they laid the groundwork for someone like Trump, who has yet to say one thing that has not been part of the conservative playbook since Goldwater displaced liberal Republicans and started us on this road in 1964. They only say these things in well-turned, polite, and convoluted ways so the average person won’t understand that they basically want to turn this country into a “gentlemen’s club” where they can get what they want without having to respect those who are expected to provide them their services.
I debated whether or not to say anything about Phyllis Schlalfy’s passing. I have never held her in high regard and certainly anyone who has paid the slightest attention to my writings over the past three decades should know where I stand on the issues on which she and I disagreed. Violently disagreed at times.
But as her death follows upon the heels of the canonization of Mother Theresa, I find a certain symmetry which prompts comment.
These two women shared one attribute in common that has come to define them for the ages: an obdurate dedication to a special kind of ignorance. They have become icons for people who prefer their views of how the world should be and see them as in some ways martyrs to the cause of defending beliefs that require the most tortured of logics to maintain as viable.
Both apparently took as models their own examples as standards and arguments against those they opposed. Schlafly never (she claimed) understood the feminist argument about the oppression of the patriarchy and Bojaxhiu never understood the utility of situational beneficence. Consequently both could proceed with programmatic movements that blocked progress and flew in the face of realities neither could accept as valid.
Schlafly was instrumental in blocking the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. Her rhetoric before and after was stridently right wing, as if the very notion of women wanting opportunities as human beings was somehow a threat to civilization. She herself apparently never suffered resistance to anything she wanted to do. She essentially told women less privileged than herself to be satisfied with their stations in life and give up ambitions of being more than wives and mothers, even as she lived a life that was anything but an acceptance of such limitations. Her inability—or refusal—to come to terms with the fact that human beings deserve to be treated by each other as individuals cost her, but she has never once publicly acknowledged that she might be wrong.
Bojaxhiu set up shop in one of the poorest areas in the world to, ostensibly, minister to those poor. Normally we hear that and believe some form of relief of suffering is involved, but apparently not. She elevated the suffering of the dying to some form of divine gift, gave them aspirin, and prayed while they died in misery. It wasn’t lack of money, either. Her order has received many millions—which she used to open convents and wage a campaign in opposition to the one thing that might make a difference in those poor districts she held in such high esteem: birth control. Of all the things she might have chosen to name as the most significant enemy of our times, providing women, especially poor women, the means to control their fertility, reduce family size so what resources they had might go further and do more, is a perverse choice. Catholic, yes, but it’s not like other Catholics haven’t seen reality for what it is and did something—anything—that might constructively alleviate suffering. From the evidence, all she did was put a noble gloss on it and exacerbate it.
It could be argued that both were “of their times” and therefore exception should be made before too harshly assessing their legacies, but I don’t accept that. In Schlafly’s case, she was educated, moved among the best minds when she wanted to, had more than ample opportunity to understand what she was doing. It didn’t matter. She had picked a side and stuck with it, reality be damned. In Bojaxhiu’s case, the daily exposure to those she supposedly ministered to should have served to snap her out of whatever quasi-Freudian obsession she had with sex and start acting like a human being. (Unless you wish to argue that she was indeed “out of her time” and would have been right at home in the Middle Ages as a flagellant.) She was not stupid, she was the head of an international organization. She put on the sackcloth of the humble village girl with simple values, but she was anything but.
That the Church has canonized her is no surprise. In Dante’s Paradiso we meet many saints and upon reading about them and their character we begin to wonder why these people are where they are. Dante makes the case—among others—that the price of admission to this paradise is a lifetime of obsessive devotion to a view of divine truth that is essentially selfless. In other words, in the consequences of their lives, the Paradisiacs are not much different than the Infernals, other than they are selfless rather than selfish. Both share a conviction that their view of the world is right, but for very different reasons.
Of course, Dante’s Paradise is not really a place anyone rational would care to spend eternity.
That Schlafly has devoted followers is also no surprise. One of the curious similarities between her and the so-called “New Woman” of the post-liberation era is the image of someone who does it all. Wife, mother, lawyer, political organizer, mover, shaker. Whatever roadblocks might have been thrown in her way, she went around, over, or through them. If she could do it, by gum, so can anyone, and we don’t need no damn ERA to do it!
Except for the privilege. No, she wasn’t born to money. But she got the advantages of a college education at a time women weren’t going to college much. She also married money. Draw your own conclusions, but without that her later ability to do all the things she chose to do would have been absurdly more difficult. However, she has the background to appeal to the self-made, the education to talk constitutional law with the best, and the security to assert herself in ways women traditionally do not. However you want to spin it, she was privileged.
Both women offered ideologies that overlooked or flatly denied certain inconvenient realities. But they had their lives, their callings, their successes. What is this reality that makes any kind of claim on the conscience of the visionary that either was obliged to respect?
My father worked with a man once who made a big deal out his religious conviction regarding abortion and birth control, roundly condemning both. He based this on his self-professed Catholicism. It evidently got to the point where weekly there would be a virtual sermon at lunch time on the evils of promiscuity and the horror of contraception. Finally, my father had had enough.
“How long have you been married, Bill?” my dad asked.
“Fourteen years,” the man responded proudly.
“How many kids do you have?”
“Three? Where are the other eleven?”
The point was made—publicly, in front of several co-workers—and the sermons ended.
Had anyone suggested to this man that the state should have a right to knock on his door, request records of his sexual activity, and then, warrant in hand, search his house for condoms, and upon finding them indict him for wanton disregard for life, he would have been horrified. More than that, he would not have taken it seriously. And yet when pronouncing on the should-haves and oughts of other peoples’ private lives, it never occurred to him that what he prescribed would necessarily include him along with some unintended consequences.
It’s never about the person doing the condemning, it’s always about Other People. There is evidence showing that a goodly percentage of the women dutifully picketing abortion providers end up in those clinics, availing themselves of the very option they then resume trying to deny every other woman. The mirror fails to show them the nature of their hypocrisy. They prefer to be seen railing against something they feel is evil rather than sit down and do the hard work of looking inside and understanding that this thing has nothing to do with them—and everything to do with them.
Among people who often stridently take the position that None Of Your Damn Business is the unwritten law of personal liberty in this country, it is amazing how many of them assume this—and this alone, really—is very much their damn business, when of all the things that might be this one surely isn’t.
We’re seeing a spate of anti-choice legislation in states across the country right now. Judging by the reaction to large numbers of Americans, these are not as popular as the legislators apparently assume they are, and will cost them. It makes no sense really…
Unless they are actually thinking longterm and assume that it will be harder for their replacements to repeal these laws because they won’t want to appear unchristian or immoral or, gawd forbid, Progressive. The same with the so-called religious liberty bills passing in the South. These are traps, perhaps, cudgels in waiting to beat up on any politician with the temerity to suggest they be repealed. If so, I think the legislators passing these monstrosities are even dumber than they seem to be.
But it’s all about appearances, isn’t it? Things don’t get done because people are afraid to look a certain way. In the film Kinsey about the sex taxonomist Alfred Kinsey there is a scene where Kinsey, desperate for funding, is appealing to a millionaire for support. The millionaire is clearly in his sixties, maybe seventies, and has at his side a young wife, at most in her early thirties. This aged and privileged sybarite refuses Kinsey’s plea because “If I do that, people will think I support sex.”
A beat. Look at the young bride. Another beat. Look at the ridiculous man afraid of what people might think. Wait another beat. Realize that “people” really would react that way, even while pursuing sex with all the ardor nature has given them, and denying that they approve the act for anyone else.
But really, it’s None Of Anyone Else’s Damn Business and it’s about time we stopped all the posing and posturing about this. Before those ominous men with warrants start showing up at your house looking for those other eleven kids.
A short bit here. Donald Trump came out—finally—and said what must be in the back of the minds of most of the hard-core religious fundie contingent of the GOP, that women who get abortions ought to be punished.
It doesn’t matter that he backpedaled not four hours later and shifted it to doctors, it matters that someone at this level of politics finally said it. Out loud. For everyone to hear. If you criminalize abortion, it just naturally follows that some form of punishment should be involved. That’s logical, right?
But very quickly, two of the largest anti-abortion organizations came out in opposition to this, saying “No no no, we don’t wish to entertain any ideas about punishing women who opt for abortions.” I listened to one on NPR this morning going through ethical contortions about victimhood, which I gather means they perceive unwanted pregnancy itself as the result of women being victims and it would not be right to further victimize them for, basically, breaking the law should they, under a criminalized regime, opt to abort their pregnancies. Which in some ways is correct, but in so many other ways just misses the point. She also went on about the thousands of willing volunteers standing by to help these women once they have the baby. Which is great, I suppose, but again it misses a very large point and borders on the disingenuous. It’s like saying, “We’ll be there for you when you see your appendicitis through, don’t worry.”
Because for many women that’s roughly the equivalence. We’re talking about a condition they do not wish to be in.
Even more, the whole victim thing smells of a particular kind of slut shaming. “Oh you poor thing, you gave in and had sex, didn’t you? Well, it’s all right, you didn’t know any better, we’ll help you be a decent person now.”
But back to Trump. He said it. It’s been hovering out there all along. If it’s illegal, then what are the penalties.
A few years back some people did spot interviews with picketers at clinics, asking them the same question—what kind of penalty should there be—and the question was consistently dodged. They didn’t want to talk about that. I wrote about it. At the time I said it was quite obvious why. What they want more than anything is for abortion to simply go away. If you attach penalties, it never will. It will be in the courts then, constantly, until one day the pendulum swings the other way and suddenly abortion will not only be legal again but we’ll have laws clearly protecting the individual right to one’s own body and full say in its uses. Penalties will put it back in play in the courts.
And frankly they will lose.
They will lose because, to state it again, this issue is not about fetuses but about sex. If the concern were to reduce abortions, then the concomitant campaign against contraception and comprehensive sex education makes no sense. We know how this works, we have evidence. Abstinence only sex ed does not work. It is a dismal failure. We know this, it is not up to debate. Comprehensive sex education combined with clinics and contraceptive availability shows dramatic reductions in unwanted pregnancy and, thus, abortions. We know this, it is not rocket science.
So why won’t the so-called pro-life movement support such things?
They have excuses of course, but basically they are waging war against sex. They can’t seem to abide the idea that women have a right to their own sexuality. They can’t quite get past the conviction that sex is solely for procreation, even though obviously, possibly even for them, it is not.
But back to Trump again. He said it. Put it out there. The genie, as it were, is out of the bottle.
And it will have to be discussed. And in so discussing it, the underlying realities of the GOP platform will be laid bare. No hiding.
Trump may or may not be serious about these positions, who can say, but one thing is certain: he is a berserker. He is tearing the curtains down in the Great Hall of Oz so we can all see the man working the levers. He has said nothing which is inconsistent with any Republican position for the last umpteen years. They’re afraid of him because they all know they have to soft sell this stuff, because stated bluntly like this it sounds crazy. But they can’t just dismiss him without repudiating the very policies and beliefs he has based his own rhetoric on. In other words, now that the beast is all naked, slathering and snarling, before us, in order to get away from it they have to stop being Republicans. At least, as the party is currently formulated.
And he backpedals just like any of them have done in the past. Run on a hot-button issue and once in office try to do nothing about it, even reformulate the position in order to look reasonable.
We are right to be afraid of this man, not for what he is but for the slack-brained, adrenalized, shambling, violence-hungry bigots who follow him. He has brought them out onto the streets for all to see. They are angry and misinformed and intolerant and frightened and he has given them a stage. We have, some of us, been trying to reason with this side of our culture for a long time, convinced that surely they cannot be as bereft of the capacity to deal with reality as they seem to be. Now we know.
And the GOP knows it, too. Why do you think they don’t want open carry allowed at the national convention?