adj. fun·da·men·tal - of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts
Are those that openly protest against Obama's health care legislation racists, or opposed to fundamental transformation?
Let's tackle this head on. Let's forget about comments like, "Look at them... they're southerners and they're white, so they must be racists." Let's actually look at some numbers. Some proof (if it exists).
A number of weeks ago, I heard Chris Matthews on MSNBC suggest that since only 11% of Mississippi whites voted for Obama, and 52% of New York whites did the same, those that did not in the Mississippi must be racists. Did he even consider that most whites in Mississippi are conservatives, and wouldn't vote for any liberal, let alone the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate?
So as I watched Mr. Matthews use and misuse statistics (by the way - a great book and required reading for anyone with political aspirations), I asked myself, "what data would actually demonstrate his claim?"
Within a few seconds, it occurred to me that one would have to examine the voting record of white democrats in the north vs. the south. We have a natural control group here. Dems ususally vote for dems. If, in 2008, southern white dems did not vote for Obama while their northern counterparts did, it's a lot easier to suggest that the reason is because of race (still not a slam dunk, but easier than the logically unsound gopher ball Chris Matthews threw over my plate).
What I did.
To get at the answer, I looked 2008 exit poll data for democrats in seven contiguous southern states, and compared them to the same for seven contiguous northern states. (I couldn't find the data for 'white' democrats alone. If you have it, I'd be grateful... but these data should not be skewed that much as blacks largely voted for Obama - black democrats at an even higher rate). I gathered my data from the New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html)
What I found.
In the following southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee - the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 14,12,9,11,9,8, and 13 respectively (obviously a bunch of red neck racists, right?).
In the following northern states: Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island, and Vermont the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 7,10,13,8,8,8, and 3 respectively (northern bigots, the whole lot, no doubt?).
(It would be interesting to compare these departure rates against previous Presidential elections!)
So there it is. Southern democrats "out-bigoted" northern democrats 10.9% to 8.1%. Almost 3 points. Proof positive that they're racists. Right? After all, what other reason would a democrat have to vote for McCain (or more recently, oppose Obama-care) other than the color of Obama's skin?
So, Mr. Chris Matthews. Why don't you just ignore the fact that southerners tend to be more conservative - that they are more often than not are opposed to government intervention (even black southerners by the way).
Why don't you just put aside the fact that every House or Senate bill I've seen to date has been written by a white man, but the current administration made a calculated move to cash in political capital, and coin the phrase "Obama-care".
Mr. Matthews, ignore those among us that are neither southerners, nor white, but also don't want a "public option" or "socialized medicine".
Mr. Matthews and your like, please put all of these things aside. Go ahead and assume the worst of our fellow American, and call him something that is hard to prove and even harder to refute. Do so, and do it on a national stage. This way, you can shame him into silence. He dare not where that "Against a public option" t-shirt or go to his town hall meeting, lest he be called a racist.
And as you tear apart the few seems that had been mended by electing a black President, please measure the impact of your decisions.
And you dare call me and my like ideologues that don't care about practical matters? Shame on you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Isn't it the point to shut us up? If you think about it, it is a good strategy. Make us feel embarassed about showing up and publicly stating your opinion.
I am not sure if that is the reason behind doing it, but at very least it is a an added benefit.
Another great post by the way.
Fred,
Are you sure that “Obama-care” was coined by the administration? The term gets used with a variety of different connotations by people with a diversity of political beliefs. I think it is just as feasible that it was coined by a critic of the current administration in order to rally opposition to the government’s plans to reform healthcare.
I think it’s absurd to claim that the only reason people oppose healthcare reform is because of racist prejudices that they hold against the President, but I also think that it is a little Naïve to think that nobody in this country opposes Obama because of the color of his skin (organizations like the KKK didn’t just disappear when he was elected). There are racists all across the country, but they should be ignored, not highlighted on a news program.
I think the majority of the claims of racism arise from people trying to understand all of the outrage that has been targeted at the President over the past few months. People seem to be opposed to anything he does for absurd reasons that have nothing to do with his policy decisions. If you look at the signs that people have carried to recent protests it seems like there are more baseless accusations than valid criticisms.
Here are some gems:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42554813@N08/3919662476 Obama is the anti-Christ. Good criticism of his policies.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/3913628356/ Look! Obama wasn’t born in the United States! I suddenly don’t care about health care anymore…
http://i30.tinypic.com/2pq89w0.jpg Don’t steal from socialized medicine to support socialized medicine? You tell ‘em!
It’s good to oppose policies that you think will hurt the nation, but protesters that do so without thinking about the policy in question and forming a rational opinion based on facts do themselves and this country a disservice. Immediately dismissing any incoherent protestor as a racist is clearly wrong, but I think everyone needs to put a little more thought into the health care problem. It is a complicated problem, and it should be treated as such by people on both sides of the aisle. Let’s talk about health care reform instead of spending all day pointing fingers and launching personal attacks.
Just a conservative girl, thanks as always:) I appreciate your kind words.
Anonymous, thank you for the well written comment. This is exactly the kind of rational debate that I enjoy! Allow me to respond.
On "Obama-care", yes I'm pretty sure it was a White House term. Assuming I'm wrong though, one cannot argue that there has been a deliberate association created by the Administration between Obama himself and health care legislation. And if I were them, I'd have done the same thing... high poll numbers, an issue that you know will be hard to move people on... smart, but very costly (so far). Obama’s White House is the antipode of Thomas Jefferson’s. Jefferson that that the President should lay low, allow Congress to debate and pass laws, and for the Executive to sign or veto bills as necessary. Obama is literally driving the legislative bus! Neither is right or wrong, they’re just different.
Next, on the protesters: I did not mean to suggest that the only reason people oppose Obama is based on politics and ideology (I'm new to this writing thing, but getting better with your help).
For sure, there are racists among the protesters. I've even been asked by one of them, "What are you doing on our side?" - as if love of liberty and a desire to be free are concepts owned by white people - please!
Yes, there are racists among them. Of that, I have no doubt. But they are not the majority - dare I say, not even 10% (all though I have no way of knowing what the proportion actually is). And on the signs they carry, the majority are fair and targeted at policy. Most are level headed, concerned Americans. If out of 100 signs, 4 reveal bigoted hate, which ones do you think will make the evening news? The old "man bites dog" makes the paper argument.
Let me add this. There is a sort of xenophobia driving a lot of Obama’s scrutiny. And his oversaturation in the media is not helping matters much. He is health care. By xenophobia, I mean Obama (a black President) is "new", and he is being held to a higher bar. To me, nothing strange there. I was told as a young man that because I am black, I must do more to achieve the same thing as a white man in this country - my failures will be magnified, my successes chalked up to dumb luck. Not by everyone of course, but for sure, the burden of proof will be higher. Anonymous, if you’re a woman in information technology, or a white running back in football, I’m sure you can relate.
So back to Obama… as a black man in the White House, there’s going to be a brighter light on him no matter what. It adds fuel to the fire that he is trying to change our nation at its base - a fundamental transformation. People don’t want that. I don’t want that. We’d rather have the opportunity to fail or succeed than the security of knowing we’re all going to get “something”.
Finally, you’re right about the issue at hand. It is health care reform. Let’s talk about that. Let’s address this issue head on, and find a way to bring costs down without taking away my Freedom. It can be done. To be honest, I don’t think either side of the aisle want to just fix it. There are special interests to be taken care of.
What do you think about this bloomberg article?
Sure it has its drawbacks, but higher patient satisfaction and greater leveraging of technology don't sound so scary to me.
Also, why do you think introducing a public option would be such a radical transformation? The government already provides us with socialized education, socialized emergency services, socialized roads, and a “public option” for mail delivery. Maybe we should go ahead and privatize all of those things. Socialism is bad, right? Would you like to have for-profit fire departments and police stations?
Anonymous, is this the same "anonymous" that commented before?
Socialism is not bad, it's just not for us. It's the opposite of how we got here. Ever heard “Live free or die!”? Sweden and China, knock yourselves out. I’ll take the liberty, prosperity, and quality of life afforded to us by free markets over the socialism any day.
Using the U.S. Postal service as an example of a viable public option is a bad idea. Post Office "competitors" are forbidden BY LAW to charge less than them to send a letter. Is that a real option? They can’t make money – check that, they can’t break even. The Post Office is one of the worst examples of a government run business that I can think of.
Socialized education as a case for socialized medicine? We spend more money per student than anyone, yet we rank somewhere in the 20’s among industrialized nations.
And on emergency services, I’ve seen some evidence that shows municipalities that have private ambulance services have lower overall costs of operations and better response times. That darn evil profit motivation must be behind that I suppose. Having said that, I do believe that police protection, fire services, and armed forces are within the proper scope and role of government.
The closest example of the road this will go down is Social Security. A sure loser – its bankrupt now, and no hope of getting any better as baby boomers age. Social Security got here with the advantage of the government making the rules. Wow.
I’d like to start a different blog post on this, but what we need is real competition, not just one more option in which the referee owns one of the teams on the field. Some good questions: why can’t I choose from the more than 100 health insurance providers in America now? Why is a 40 year-old man’s policy in New Jersey required to include coverage for breast cancer? Why can’t I take my policy with me from job to job, state to state (like my auto insurance)?
Let’s get some real competition into the system and actually drive down costs. The so called “public option” will actually drive up the overall cost of care (CBO, not me).
Fred is a black guy that cant identify with african americans, african or any minority group. He is lost! living in the wrong skin
I'm lost? Really? Thanks for pointing that out. I'll go ahead and shut down this blog, get in line, and start acting 'black'.
Who is really lost? One that follows sheepishly, or one that states his position and attempts to articulate the reasons for said position?
"Socialism is not bad, it's just not for us. It's the opposite of how we got here. Ever heard “Live free or die!”? Sweden and China, knock yourselves out. I’ll take the liberty, prosperity, and quality of life afforded to us by free markets over the socialism any day."
It's the opposite of how we got here? You mean we've always had privatized education, mail delivery, and emergency services?
No comment on the Bloomberg article? Go ahead keep ignoring parts of posts that you find convenient to ignore.
Who ranks us twentieth in education? Cite your sources. How many of the nineteen countries ahead of us have entirely privatized education systems? Wait a second; every one of the top 20 countries has socialized education? But, but, socialism is bad!
UPS and FedEx aren't allowed to offer normal mail service, but they don't have any limitations on express mail or package delivery - from Wikipedia: "FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS) directly compete with USPS express mail and package delivery services". I bet you've decided to have a package shipped to you at some point in your life via the dirty socialist USPS because its competitors were more expensive (by choice - not mandate).
I'd love to see your evidence of privatized emergency services being cheaper / more efficient than their public counterparts, if you don't mind sharing.
I agree that social security is currently in an abysmal state. When the program began in 1935, the average life expectancy was ~62, and people didn't receive payouts until they turned 65. Less than half of the people that paid into the system ever collected monthly benefits. Seventy-four years later the average life expectancy is ~78, and the average person collects 13 years of payouts. Combine this factor with the declining birth rates, and you get a program that is in a lot of trouble. When the Social Security act of 1965 was passed over 40 years ago the fate of the program was sealed (It caused the revenue generated by the program to go straight into general congressional funds instead of a separate trust fund). No one should count on this program continuing for much longer, as it is destined to fail.
Men in New Jersey have to buy a policy that covers breast cancer because men can get breast cancer. The odds are very low, but on the off chance that you get it (about 1/1000), wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about potential bankruptcy in addition to a horrible disease?
You can't transfer policies from state to state or chose from all of the different providers because health insurance regulations vary from state to state. The only way to fix those problems is by taking rights away from states and giving them to the federal government, but that would go against the 10th amendment and prevailing conservative opinion.
I responded to every item in your post, and I'd appreciate it if you did the same, instead of just responding to the parts that you find convenient to respond to.
Also, don't listen to that other Anonymous, he sounds like a bigot. It takes courage to stand up and say what you believe in even if it is unpopular (just be sure to back up your arguments with facts and citations when necessary :P).
Anonymous, by “how we got here”, I mean that freedom over security has provided Americans with the highest standard of living the earth has ever seen. Of course we’ve had some social programs, but they were not the cornerstone of our form of government.
And on mail delivery and the army: these among the original reasons our states decided to create a federal government. I repeat - the federal government came after the states. And on public education, it wasn’t always there. A case could be made that this is not within the proper role of government. I won’t make that argument here and now though.
I had not read the Bloomberg article. I have now. Well written, but ask the Canadians or the Brits about their experiences with a large “public option”. But I don’t think that you could argue successfully that a single payer or even a public option would improve care for most Americans. Under what force? What would motivate better care?
Articles citing US rank in education:
•http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
•http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/19/US-slipping-in-education-rankings/UPI-90221227104776/
You suggested that I think that “socialism is bad”. When and where did I say that? I didn’t. I said it’s different, and it’s not for us. And ubiquity should not be associated with quality. McDonalds is everywhere. Is it better than Ruth’s Chris? I’d argue that the best educated among us are home schooled (neither private nor public).
You’re flat out wrong about the USPS and its competitors. FedEx and UPS are expressly forbidden by law from charging less than the government for express package delivery. They are not allowed to compete in regular mail delivery – at all. They pay taxes – the USPS does not. All this, and only one of them loses money every quarter. Are you sure you want to use them as a model of an efficient social organization? Anyway my point is that they have an uneven playing field but still can’t compete. And “the dirty socialist USPS”? Come on - I’ve been more than polite, and never referred to socialism as “dirty”. In fact, I went out of my way to say it’s just not for us. If you’re looking for an obtuse conservative that can’t look to the left, you’ve got the wrong guy.
I found this article on private vs. public ambulance services. It’s old but appears to be fairly written: http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3999
You explained the problems Social Security is facing very well. What makes you so confident that this will not be the fate of a public option in health care? It seems inevitable to me.
On the New Jersey man paying for breast cancer coverage, that was just an example. He also pays for coverage against ovarian cysts. And his 12 year-old daughter’s premium includes coverage against prostate related conditions. You see in New Jersey, you must cover everybody against everything. An a-la-carte approach to coverage would be cheaper for all. But that would make too much sense.
On the insurance portability question, it’s related to interstate commerce, the promotion of which is central to the role of the federal government. Any law that prevents it can and should be addressed by the federal government. Like you, I did see this at first, as a state’s rights issue. It’s pretty clear (to me now) that fair interstate commerce trumps a state's right to do "x". Can you imagine what would happen in Virginia if for example, they allowed 80 health insurance providers to sell coverage in the state? Of course you can – prices would come down.
I hope I covered it all. Thanks for your support. It’s good to know that some can disagree while being level headed and civil.
Freedom over security? Are we talking about the PATRIOT Act or health care? Introducing a public option would increase competition by giving consumers an additional option.
Do you think we should get rid of Medicare and Medicaid? They weren't one of the reasons our federal government was originally established either. What about government funded veteran care? Where do we draw the line?
Check out this Wikipedia entry – it compares US and Canadian health care systems. Both seem to have their pros and cons.
On Education: I’m not equating ubiquity with quality. I’m just saying that all of the top performing education systems in the world are publicly funded. Not one of the top 20 systems is privately funded. Your restaurant analogy is flawed – give me an example of a Ruth’s Chris (a country with privatized schools that performs better than all of the “McDonalds” out there). Home schooling is not a feasible option for every family, and I think that it limits the children’s interaction with other kids of their age group, which can impede the development of social skills.
I’m flat out wrong? Point me to evidence that private companies cannot charge less than the USPS for express package delivery. They are forbidden from competing with regular mail delivery, but nothing is stopping them from offering lower prices for package delivery. You still haven’t said if you’ve used the USPS for package delivery. Have you? It isn’t for us, but we all use it anyway.
Good article on ambulance services. It looks like the competition provided by the private sector really helped improve outcomes in some cases. As far as I can tell, fire services are still 100% public though. Maybe we need some competition to shake up that field as well.
Forcing a man to pay for insurance against ovarian cysts does sound pretty ludicrous. Do you have a source for that as well? New Jersey needs to fix that.
Why shouldn’t the states be able to regulate insurance companies however they see fit? What specifically should the federal government do to make insurance more transferable?
Post a Comment