The Party of “No?”
February 26, 2010 4 Comments
This article appeared in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/5/10. You can read the online newspaper version here, or catch the print column each week.
Sometimes “No” is the right answer
Growing up, I gained the distinction of mischief maker in my family, readily disruptive and resistant. As a baby, I was given the affectionate nickname “Baby Rambo” because of my penchant for destruction, a trait that eventually morphed into characteristic childhood defiance and eventual teenage foolhardiness. As a result, I heard one word quite often from my parents: “No.”
Today, much of the liberal movement, led by the Obama Administration, laments the Republican Party as “The Party of No.” It’s become a popular political tactic aimed to distinguish Democrats as progressive and solutions-oriented, desperately trying to solve America’s worst problems. No matter how shaky the solutions, at least they’re trying. Republicans, the story goes, stand by as angry curmudgeons, content to drive away needed reform in favor of base resistance.
But sometimes, “No” is the best answer. As a toddler, was it good for me to eat Play Doh? No. Was it right for me to whip my brother 
with a belt? No. As a teenager, did staying up until two in the morning on a school night make sense? No.
Similarly, was it wise for government to pass the largest spending bill in history (the $787 billion stimulus) based on faulty Keynesian economics? No. Did it make sense to widen massive entitlement programs, passing spend-heavy budgets in the wake of mounting deficits? No. Should government have increased its reach into the private economy through corporate pay caps, takeovers of auto companies, and bailouts of banks? No. Is the best solution for health reform implicit government control of 15% of the economy? No. Should we pass economically damaging cap-and-trade legislation based on questionable, controversial environmental science? No.
Beyond simple resistance to poor policy, however, “No” springs from a fundamental philosophical divide between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism places great faith in government’s ability to solve societal problems. Its first inclination is toward government action, growth, and involvement. Hence President Obama’s assertion that “government,” not the private economy, “will create or save jobs.” Likewise, his beliefs that tight federal regulation will spur long-term economic success, that redistributive taxation will drive societal “equality and prosperity,” and that individual healthcare is best delivered through government planners. Liberalism, therefore, can be seen as a philosophy of government action and involvement—when societal problems arise, government says “Yes” to its own solutions.
Conservatism, by contrast, views government action with a sharply critical eye. It believes in free market capitalism, in individual responsibility, and in small, limited government. It sees these tenets as vital to liberty and freedom—where government overreaches, it restricts liberty. Conservatism holds that government plays a dangerous zero sum game with its citizenry: Where it takes revenue, its citizens lose income; where it takes responsibility, its citizens lose accountability; where it grows, it citizens shrink. As a result, conservative government is a government of limited involvement. It readily says “No” to itself, but passionately says “Yes” to liberty.
That combined maxim is what conservatives must carefully articulate in the coming months. It must embrace, even champion the need to say “No” to government overreach, but it must couple that sentiment with an unwavering desire to protect liberty and freedom.
In reality, conservatives have offered prudent, measured solutions to the various problems facing the nation. On the economy, they’ve sought tax cuts to help spur investment and consumption from the private sector. On healthcare, they’ve proposed tort reform, portability, and transparency. On the deficit, they’ve offered a tough, but necessary rollback in government spending and administration. Republicans must learn to artfully weave these ideas into the fabric of foundational conservative values. Then they can become, as Ronald Reagan said, the “revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people.”
Ron Paul is famously known in the House of Representatives as “Dr. No” for his refusal to vote for any spending not explicitly allowed by the Constitution. Is he a bit extreme? Perhaps, but his defense and respect for the Constitution have proved a powerful indictment of government disregard for constraint, of how far we have drifted from our foundational structure.
Sometimes “No” is the right answer. When it comes to expansive, spend-heavy government, it may nearly always be the right answer. My parents were not “The Parents of No” for their careful restraint of my immature actions as a child. They were simply wise guardians of the right path for my life. In fact, it may be that “No” saved me from myself. Perhaps government should do the same.
-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net
In the healthcare debate, conservatives continue to lead with their belief that they represent Americans with regard to the bill currently under consideration. On the other hand, progressives point to polls and conditions that indicate millions of Americans are in support of reform, for example the 40 million citizens without healthcare. Conservative leaders may be indicating they would write a bill if it includes their ideas only, but are certainly attempting to block this legislation with increasing fervor. Are they going too far? Have Democrats gone too far? Who speaks “for us?”
Despite having a year to lobby for the inclusion of their ideas, conservatives are adamantly against this particular bill- and are not hinting at any plans to ever support a reform bill, except perhaps one that protects physicians through “tort reform.”.
Two conservative lobbying groups, “Employers for a Healthy Economy” and the “American Future Fund”currently are running TV ads about the bill that may soon pass. The first group points out the general conservative viewpoint that this bill will include “billions in new taxes…more mandates on businesses…and higher healthcare costs.” The AFF points to “sleazy backroom deals” that comprise one element of the bill that was created “behind closed doors.”
The EFAHE is primarily composed of construction contractors, you know, electricians, builders…I’m not sure if you’ve ever spent time at building sites, notably home builders as these groups seem to especially represent. I have, and I would say without hesitation such individual “lobbyists” bear little resemblance to average America and definately swing a particular way. The AFF appears to be a simpler group, seemingly much smaller and primarily composed of a few midwest rural individuals. They, theoretically, would more likely represent middle America, but the generalizations apparent in their ads make that a challenge to believe. [I always find smear ads hard to watch and take seriously.]
There appears to be little in the way of liberal or progressive lobbying at this point, maybe because the leadership, etc. is simply engaged in finalizing or preparing for passage and for addressing the next issue. Or maybe there’s no reason to do any more lobbying after a full year of discourse.
Who do you think represents America?
8 Good Reasons to Vote Yes on the Health Care Bill
Reason # 8 — A receding tide leaves those in the shallowest political waters aground.
Like it or not, Democrats in swing districts are tied at the hip to the political fortunes of their own President. And fundamentally, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) was right last year when he argued that if Republicans can stop the President on health care reform, they will cripple him politically. Let’s face it, people don’t like to vote for losers — or for people who they put in charge who then can’t deliver. The defeat of health care reform will hurt every Democrat. And it will mortally wound those in the toughest districts – whether or not they vote for the bill.
Reason # 7 — The Republicans will say you did anyway.
Most Democrats have already voted in favor of health care reform. The Republicans will attack them for that vote regardless. So much better to be able to point to the upsides of passing the legislation. So much better to overcome the negatives created by kilotons of negative advertising, by demonstrating that the sky did not fall when health care reform was passed – and that many positive benefits of this bill went immediately to everyday Americans.
Reason # 6 – Even voters who say they oppose “health care reform” tell pollsters they support the major elements of the reform. That’s because “Obamacare” as a concept has been vilified by incessant negative advertising and the right wing noise machine. But it wasn’t so easy to convince people not to like concrete policies that were good for them, such as banning insurance companies from denying care because of pre-existing conditions, or preventing them to continue massive rate increases. Once the bill passes, Republicans will be confronted with having to rail against popular policies – not rant about vague concepts like “Obamacare.”
Reason #5 – Nobody ever votes based on “legislative process.” Democrats who worry that voters will retaliate against them for “jamming through” health care need to take a deep breath. First, of course, no one ever “jams through” a piece of legislation if it passes by a majority vote. Majority rule is the central premise of democratic governance. But that aside, no one ever remembers — or cares — how a law is passed. They care about its effect on everyday people. What normal person remembers how Medicare or Social Security, or the minimum wage, or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or any other bill is passed?
Reason #4 – This bill is a great “starter house.’ Some progressive Members of Congress are concerned that the final health care bill will not include a public option, as it should. It won’t be perfect in other respects either. But as Senator Tom Harkin says, it is a great “starter house” to build on and add to. Progressives will forgive this bill for not having a public option because there are many other great reforms. Cost lowering measures can and will follow. But not passing a bill at all will be unforgivable by progressive and moderates alike.
Reason #3 – A victory on health care reform will completely change the political narrative. Instead of “Obama fails to deliver on promises” or “Democrats confront gridlock” the new narrative will be “Obama and Democrats raise health care — like a Phoenix — from the dead.” That new narrative is heroic. It is about people who stay tough when things get hard and triumph in the end — who overcome massive odds to succeed. It is about taking on the massive insurance industry — with its infinitely deep pockets — and winning. Voters like winners. And voters love heroes. That narrative is part of a winning political narrative for the fall elections.
Reason #2 – The boost from passing health care reform will massively increase the odds that Democrats can pass other critical, politically popular measures in Congress this year.
Success on health care will enormously increase our ability to pass tough legislation to hold the big Wall Street banks accountable, to create more jobs,and to forge a path to energy independence. For Hispanic voters it will greatly increase the odds that Obama can lead the way to pass bi-partisan immigration reform. All of these measures, and many others, will boost his ability to show swing voters that Democrats deliver — and inspire support and enthusiasm among base voters.
But the opposite is also true. If we can’t pass health care reform, how can we expect to pass any other meaningful legislation?
Reason #1 – Finally, victory will allow Members of Congress to be on the right side of history. Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, a woman’s right to vote, ending slavery…. every one of the major steps on America’s road to become a more democratic society has been marked by controversy and conflict. But how many people today would want to brag that their grandfather voted against Social Security or Medicare? There is a reason why progressive leaders are the heroes and heroines of American history. They embody the values and aspirations that are at the core of American values — and human values.
When the House of Representatives finally votes this week to make health care a right in America it will be making history that will be remembered for generations. And in the final analysis, there can be no better politics than that.
Adapted from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/top-10-reasons-why-voting_b...
Honestly, I don’t even know what is in the bill anymore … but at one point I did and I was all for it. However, some of your points are a little … off. Like don’t change your mind now and your a hero if you vote yes and it doesn’t matter what you pass as long as its a victory because then you are a winner!
I don’t think this is the victory we are looking for.
Like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs before it, the Democrat’s health reform is doomed to run long on costs and short on services. Taking more from all of those who already shoulder a massive tax burden is just not wise. Services will suffer when doctors and hospitals are “squeezed” by the government (read: payed less for more work), and there will be the inevitable limited availability of care. The issue was turned into a fight about “coverage” and not about health care access. Everyone currently has access to health care services, but a few do not have health insurance coverage. With the onset of the government plan, everyone will have coverage, but you will be hard pressed to receive the care and access you have now. Write it down: what doctors can you see now if you want? What hospital can you go to? How long does it take to get in if you call right now? Compare notes in five, ten, fifteen years. You’ll be begging for the pre-government system.
But the best argument against a government takeover of the health care system is this: the Constitution of the United States of America. It cannot be read in any way that the Constitution allows for the government to force someone into a business transaction against their will. Make whatever argument you want about the “commerce clause”, but it does not allow for mandating commerce.