Dear America,
Recently I have been questioning myself regarding my generalized opinion of conservatives and Republicans in particular. Sometimes, I hear things that sound rational from them, and I am trying to develop an open mind in that regard rather than rejecting what they say in consequence of my distrust of the source. Marco Rubio, for example, is talking in very vague, general terms about some issues that are quite timely at this moment in our political history--the treaty with Iran, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and climate change to name a few--and because of his practice of merely limning the issues rather than articulating specific ideas and proposed policies, he seems almost credible. And if he is right, it is in my best interest...as it would be in yours...to consider voting for him, but there's the rub. How can you know if what he would do if he found himself in a position of power would be felicitous if he doesn't say specifically what he thinks and proposes. I suppose that's the problem with all politicians: you don't know what you'll get until you've got it. But when it comes to the issues involved in the current political contentiousness, too much is at stake to wait until it is too late to make a difference. For that reason, while I am trying to keep an open mind, I am also trying to maintain a healthy skepticism when it comes to Republicans, and even Democrats if I sense a conservative bent in them.
Thus, when Rubio says things like, science doesn't know how much of global warming relates to human activity, and therefore, when we consider measures to take, we should also consider economic impact and the burden on business that such measures represent, and reject measures that are unduly burdensome in those arenas of human activity. That sounds fairly rational as a premise, but the question is, is it really a euphemism for his presumption that any regulation related to the environment is too burdensome on business and should therefore be rejected out of hand. If you parse what he says, that possibility becomes ever more ominous in light of the tendency in the past for conservatives to be unequivocally opposed to government regulation whenever it circumscribes corporate activity no matter what the purpose or the consequence of failure to regulate. If you start your thinking from the axiom that if it's good for business it's good for everyone, almost nothing that is civic minded is viable.
And of course the Affordable Care Act is a prominent issue now with the related case before the Supreme Court about to be argued. If the conservative forces marshaled for the litigation prevail, citizens of most of the states will no longer be able to get federal subsidies if they cannot afford health insurance on their own, which translates to the inability to acquire health insurance, and hence health care, at all. With the environment there is a vague remoteness about the attendant issues like cap and trade, EPA standards and the like. We don't feel those things personally though we can understand their implications intellectually. But with healthcare, it affects us daily and immediately, so keeping an open mind about the conservative position is considerably more difficult. My immediate family and I have health insurance, but I have a half-brother who has been disabled most of his adult life, and his immediate family...at least his wife...didn't have insurance until he recently got her covered under New York's expanded Medicaid program, which many of the states whose citizens will be unable to afford insurance if the conservatives win in the Supreme Court opted not to participate in when the Supreme Court last got involved in all this. The rationale behind the current law suit seems to be that the financial burden of federal subsidies is profound, and thus, the states who didn't opt for Medicaid expansion and setting up their own health insurance exchanges are being burdened through the federal taxation system. On the surface that seems rational, but in the final analysis, the consensus seems to be that the ACA saves money for everyone by making it cheaper for our society in general for all who used to partake of our healthcare system by going to the emergency room or through various welfare programs for example, to have insurance that puts them in the healthcare mainstream. How does that become the "job killer" that people like John Boehner say it is, and given the casuistry involved in claiming that it does, why should my mind be open to people who say such things, like Marco Rubio.
I guess my point is that I have tried to see it their way. I have considered the vague protests they make and I am trying to get past the fact that they don't seem to have any suggestions for what we should do when it is obvious that we should do something, like with healthcare and the environment, but I can't seem to get over the hump. What frustrates me most is things like all this talk about the Pacific trade deal that our president seems intent on pursuing. If NAFTA is any indication, all it will do is precipitate the export not just of goods, but of jobs as well, it seems to me. President Obama, and Hillary Clinton as well, aren't conservatives, but it seems that at least in this regard, they are trying to do it to us too, so it would be nice to have someone to whom can we turn. But the only alternative to what we liberals have seems to be conservatives, not moderates...and Jeb Bush isn't a moderate no matter what he says. Come 2016, what's a lifelong progressive to do? I can't open my mind far enough to even consider voting for people who say the things...and don't say the things...that conservatives do and don't say because when you look at them from all perspectives, there's nothing new about these Tea Party types that makes them viable alternatives. And as for liberals, where the hell are they?
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment