It’s Not Arrogance

Posted on January 23, 2010
Filed Under Healthcare Reform |

DrRich has noticed that the intellectual and academic elite are always far ahead of their time. They see the truth of things in a way that the teeming, Bible-thumping, gun-toting (pickup-truck-driving) masses never can. And since manifold generations can rise and fall before the hoi-polloi ever come close to “getting it,” DrRich can understand how frustrated the elite often become.

Think of how they must feel: Blessed with keen intellect and superior education; having shed themselves of ancient superstitions, and freed themselves of the constraints on human behavior imposed on mankind by unseen mystical beings; they have (through their own cognitive superiority) conceived of a plan to achieve what evolution so clearly has intended - a perfectly harmonious, productive, and sustainable human society. And what’s stopping them from achieving this embodiment of perfection? The unwashed masses, stuck in their old ways, encumbered by their old beliefs. The frustration has got to be tremendous.

On Friday,  a few days after his party (and his cause) suffered the shocking blow (a blow both material and symbolic) of losing the Kennedy Senate Seat in Massachusetts, a remarkably angry-looking President Obama went to Ohio and delivered a fighting speech. Indeed, his only real message was: “I will not stop fighting.”

DrRich agrees. He won’t. His frustration was palpable, but so was his determination.

Mr. Obama has run up against that which always most threatens to stymie the efforts of progressive visionaries - the dull-witted intransigence of the proletariat. And despite the fact that Mr. Obama and his team are indeed smarter than the average prole, and ought to know what to expect when one is forced by an outmoded political system to risk everything in an election, the outcome in Massachusetts has momentarily stunned them.

But DrRich went to college with these people, and for a brief time 40 years ago was one of them. He recalls their thinking. They have been striving to gain real political power for all these years, and in the process have carefully taken control of the unions, public education, most big city governments, and much of the underlying federal bureaucracy.  The election of 2008 was the culmination of their lifetime of strenuous effort, and it awarded them the Presidency, insurmountable majorities in both houses of Congress, the prospect of soon controlling the U.S. Supreme Court, and one or two serviceable crises by which to justify hurried and drastic action.

This is the Golden Opportunity, the one they have been working towards all their lives. They will never, ever again have such an opportunity. If they let this slip away, all is lost, possibly for generations. But more than that, their lives will have been utterly wasted, their very identities shattered. To give up now will feel to them much like suicide.

And healthcare reform is the keystone of their efforts.

DrRich believes strongly that healthcare reform is necessary, and indeed shares many if not most of the healthcare reform goals expressed by the Obama Administration. And despite the fact that he is a conservative American, DrRich initially had real hopes that the reforms proposed by the Obama Administration would at least start us off in a reasonable direction.

But, as he has explained previously, the first year of the Obama administration has turned him against their efforts to reform healthcare. The administration’s behavior has been extraordinarily disturbing to him, since it has in every aspect appeared to constitute, whether intentionally or inadvertently, a systematic dismantling of the Great American Experiment (apparently in favor of a more government-centered and collectively-oriented societal organization).

There is a lot to support such a view - from TARP, to the stimulus package, to Cap-and-Trade, to the Fairness Doctrine - but nothing supports this view more than the tactics that have been employed to advance healthcare reform. These tactics include: the massive size and incomprehensibility of the bills passed by both the House and the Senate; the demand (on both sides of Congress) to pass-it-now-it’s-an-emergency (so don’t bother reading it); the secret, closed-door negotiations that have included only those interests and factions which are favored by the ruling party; and the special deals cut for Louisiana, Nebraska, and various supporters of the ruling party (the unions, the lawyers, and apparently the drug companies and insurance companies).

Some have said that such behavior reflects simple arrogance, a habitual disregard for “the people,” and that it was this arrogance that drove the people of Massachusetts to send our leaders a “wake-up call.”

Would that this were the case. For arrogance is a learned behavior, one that can be cured through humility. President Clinton’s initial arrogance was cured, for instance, by the election of 1994 - and he moved to a place that more nearly honored the wishes of the people, and for a few years became quite an effective leader (until his presidency became, so to speak, “stained” by behaviors that were entirely peripheral to any underlying political philosophy).

If what we have today is merely the arrogance of one-party rule, the “Miracle in Massachusetts” would likely impart on the behavior of our leaders a similarly moderating influence. This, indeed, is how the system is supposed to work.

But DrRich believes otherwise. He finds it more likely that what we’re dealing with is the culmination of a 40-year effort to replace the Great American Experiment with something else, and that the ostensible “arrogance” we’ve seen on the part of our leaders is not really arrogance; it’s not a potentially remedial failing of attitude. Instead, it is a fundamental and essential aspect of the Progressive Movement.

For in this movement it is fundamental that the proletariat is not really to be honored or listened to, much less obeyed. Rather (and while ultimately for its own good), the proletariat is to be manipulated, circumvented, soothed, intimidated, threatened, cowed, anesthetized, or (and here DrRich is merely relying on well-documented historical precedents) euthanized. That is: whatever it takes to reach the proper ends is justifiable.

Now that it has become obvious even to our political leaders (and the mass media) that their activities have managed to arouse the unwashed masses, and that in a very short time their hard-won window of opportunity will close (possibly) forever, what will they do? Will they respond to the built-in checks and balances of the American system of government, and moderate their “arrogance,” so as to optimize their continued viability in the upcoming election, and achieve as much of their program as they can ultimately convince the people to support?

Or, after weighing the relatively trivial importance of a mid-term election (and a continued majority in Congress), against their hard-won but rapidly fading, one-and-only opportunity of a lifetime to change America fundamentally and forever, will they double down and press forward against the surging tide, using every political, parliamentary, and who-knows-what-else maneuver at their disposal?

It should not take long for us to find out. There will probably be infighting within the Democratic Party to reach a decision.

But based on the President’s message on Friday, prepare for battle.

Comments

14 Responses to “It’s Not Arrogance”

  1. Michael Kirsch, M.D. on January 24th, 2010 10:33 am

    Another thoughtful piece from CRB. What was responsible for the Massachusetts upset? Arrogance? Hubris? An AWOL candidate? God? None of the above. When Obama made fun of Scott Brown’s truck, he crossed the political Rubicon. More at http://bit.ly/64qwGg

  2. Liz on January 24th, 2010 11:57 am

    “…the proletariat is to be manipulated, circumvented, soothed, intimidated, threatened, cowed, anesthetized, or (and here DrRich is merely relying on well-documented historical precedents) euthanized.”

    As an anesthesiologist, I can see that I may be expected to provide one (or more) of these important functions. Would DrRich care to elaborate on his vision for how the proletariat will be anesthetized?

  3. DrRich on January 24th, 2010 1:48 pm

    Liz,

    As far at anesthetizing the proletariat is concerned, I am speaking here not literally of anesthetic drugs to put people to sleep. Rather, I am speaking of the “bread and circuses” kind of anesthetic, whereby the peasants are lulled from noticing what’s really going on by the production and promotion of spectacles and such. This usually requires the cooperation of the major media, rather than highly-specialized physicians such as yourself.

    So your talents will not be required for the penultimate function on my list. As for the ultimate function. . . . well, perhaps you should stay tuned.

    Rich

  4. Red Baron on January 25th, 2010 8:47 pm

    I will sell this house today ;-)

    Be well Rich

  5. LizK on January 26th, 2010 2:22 pm

    Actually, Massachusettes already HAS a healthcare system that looks very much like the Senate Bill and most Massachusettians like their system very much. Scott Brown voted for it and defended it during the election. So, apart from the fact that it is the fashionable thing to say, would you conclude that the election of Brown was a referendum on healthcare reform? Since much of Coakley’s loss can be attributed to young Obama supporters staying home, perhaps you might want to look at the data instead of repeating talking points.

  6. DrRich on January 26th, 2010 2:46 pm

    LizK,

    No, I don’t think the Brown election was primarily, or even mainly, a referendum on healthcare reform. I think it was a referendum on whether we should scrap the Great American Experiment, in favor of a broad, collectivist, government-first arrangement. I suspect many voters had a similar mindset to mine - while the healthcare reform plan (whatever it turns out to be, since none of us are privy to the deals going down) may itself not be all that objectionable, the context in which it is being ramrodded through carries much broader implications for America than just what kind of healthcare system we will have.

    I’ve said before that before we can make a legitimate pass at healthcare reform, first we have to decide what kind of country we want to be. Our leaders have been assuming we’ve all become collectivists. The voters have said they don’t agree with that conception of America. For that, I am very happy.

    Rich

  7. Red Baron on January 26th, 2010 8:58 pm

    Liz, Mass’s medical system is one great sucking sound as it pulls cash from the rest of the nation into its boarders. Give everyone else in the US the same health care system as they have in Mass and the money flows most definitely the other the other way.

    You can increase the percentage of our GDP we spend on health care if you want- though I have already pointed out there is data to suggest health actually drops in the US for every additional dollar we spend on health care as it crowds out funds from things like primary education, road safety, etc…

  8. Praveen on January 27th, 2010 1:02 am

    Dr. Rich, I suppose you really do believe that the healthcare debate was handled differently than other policy making in the US? Since when were Defense appropriations debated publicly? The Congress has been engaging in sausage-making as the primary means of creating legislation for some decades now. Feigning horror at this point makes it seem as though you don’t follow the overall realm or history of political process very closely. At any rate, I’m not suggesting that the health care legislative process thus far has been a good one - only that it’s not atypical.

    More importantly, we both know that now is not the true opportunity for reform. The true (and only) opportunity for reform will be at the fiscal deathbed of Medicare, which is not far from now, 2015 by my calculation.

    Only when crisis is imminent does a Democracy make hard decisions - it is the nature of Democracy. When do people make hard decisions? When they really have to. Why should we expect more of our government?

  9. DrRich on January 27th, 2010 6:55 am

    Praveen,

    I do see several substantial differences between the way healthcare reform is being handled by our leaders and the way other major legislation initiatives that altered American society have been handled (such as Civil Rights, Medicare, and even welfare reform under Clinton). I do see this as a substantial departure.

    I agree with you, though, that one way or another, healthcare “reform,” in one form or another, will become unavoidable within a few years. Not only will Medicare become insolvent, but so will the private insurance companies - which is why they have been silently supporting present reform efforts, despite their being cast as the villains in the current production.

    Rich

  10. Red Baron on February 1st, 2010 8:44 pm

    Rich, is there any way you could switch to one of those blog platforms that let comments get forwarded to your email inbox after you post? It is a real pain to have to remember to come back and check to see if there were any more comments.

    I know all the blogger comment sections allow this feature.

  11. DrRich on February 1st, 2010 8:59 pm

    Red,

    It was so painfully difficult for me to set this blog up that I would sooner have my fingernails extracted than have to re-do it.

    Sorry.

    Rich

  12. jtnRN on February 2nd, 2010 6:51 am

    DrRich,
    The irony of your post is that your proposed health care system for our country is a progressive one, one that could be supported by todays real progressives but of course would be derided as socialism by today’s conservatives and considered too radical by the corporate wing of the democratic party - which by the way includes Obama, Clinton, Reid, & Biden. The healthcare bill passed by the senate cannot be called by “progressive” by any measure, and the one in the house is only slightly better.

    And by the way, I believe that most self described progressives are members of the working class, although I admit that it cannot be proven - we do not have ID cards yet. The public discussion on healthcare in this country has been a farce, and when someone of your caliber buys into so much of the framing and straw man arguments of the obvious and furtive supporters of the status quo it makes me despair of any hope of a better future.

  13. DrRich on February 2nd, 2010 9:15 am

    jtnRN,

    My proposed system is progressive only on the surface, in that it includes universal healthcare. However, while progressives believe that universal healthcare is an obvious good (probably a “right”) that government ought to provide, I believe it’s a necessary evil. It’s necessary because we’ve already created a system of public funding for healthcare that (I think) we cannot retract, and under our current system millions of Americans who are subsidizing your health insurance and mine (through their payroll taxes) have no insurance themselves. So it is simply a matter of justice that they should receive this benefit they are already paying for.

    My system is designed to strictly limit the publicly funded portion of healthcare (through rationing), and encourage individuals to pay out of their own pockets for the rest. (Those with low incomes would receive a subsidy to cover their out-of-pocket expenses).

    It is a system both progressives and conservatives alike can hate with a passion.

    Rich

  14. jtnRN on February 3rd, 2010 4:00 am

    It is true that if it were up to me I might not pick your exact system as my number one choice - I would not, nor do i think most progressives would either, hate your system. That is because it meets my number one priority - universality. If I thought that a free market approach would provide access to quality healthcare for all Americans than I would welcome a free market approach; since it won’t, I don’t support it. What would be nice would be an honest, open discussion of our true goals, and then lets pick a method that has some hope of meeting those goals.

Leave a Reply