dagblog - Comments for "Joe Lieberman as Fredo Corleone"

Great question, Genghis. And

acanuck — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:51:39 +0000

In reply to Just curious, ac--why do you

Great question, Genghis. And by that I mean one I never thought to ask myself. Good guess, Neb, but no. As quinn so subtly hints, Canadians do indeed have a plot for continental domination, but that's not it. I have been authorized to promise, on condition of anonymity, that Dagblog will be first with the scoop once it's irreversibly in motion. Hint: it's diabolically clever, and involves NHL expansion teams.

But I digress. I care about the U.S. health care debate for the same reason I cared deeply about electing Barack Obama. Because deep down, despite my disagreement with virtually every aspect of U.S. foreign policy over the past half-century (which may sometimes come across here as anti-Americanism), I love America. There, I said it. OK, now let me walk that back a bit: I can see the great force for good that this country could be, and it frustrates the hell out of me that most Americans consistently fail to embrace a similar vision.

To me, Obama's candidacy and election looked like a potential turning point. Over the previous eight years, the doctrines of militarism and exceptionalism had manifestly failed. Unbridled capitalism had brought the economy to the brink of collapse. Obama spelled out some specific policies, but basically what he offered -- and Americans bought -- were "hope" and "change." Some of the things he said indicated that he knew exactly where that change had to come: he wouldn't just end the Iraq War, he said, he would end the mindset that got us into the war. He would, he said, curb the power of the lobbyists.

So here was a candidate who not only knew where the fundamental problem lay, he was willing to state it publicly and repeatedly. He would defy the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower had first warned against. (Some of you may not realize that, in his first draft of that very courageous 1961 speech, Ike had called it "the military-industrial-congressional complex." You simply can't say that, his advisers said, and Ike demurred. But his first instinct was the right one.)

And that's where health care comes in. The same forces that send American kids to kill and die senselessly for profit are the manipulators behind a health-insurance system that condemns thousands of American civilians to die needlessly each year -- again for profit. Or to fall victim to gun violence -- for profit. Lobbyists write laws, and bought-off congresscritters enact them. Obama's campaign rhetoric showed he knows that's how it works, but his strategies since election show he's trying to somehow accommodate and work within a system he knows is corrupt. I'm sure his instincts are to do whatever he can, but he seems to have been persuaded that there's nothing to gain (at least at this point) by tackling the lobby-corruption system head on.

Here in Canada, we've been lucky. We adopted universal, single-payer health care early on, then followed that up with political-party financing laws that ban contributions from companies, unions or interest groups. Individual donations are capped, and federal parties get modest government funding that's based on the number of votes they got in the previous election. Because of the financial constraints, election campaigns usually last only the legal minimum of 36 days (though some have lasted two months). With funding so much less of a factor, legislators are more attuned to the wishes of their voters rather than their financial backers. The result: our current Conservative government (Republican-lite) hasn't dared to interfere with universal health care. You too would get much better laws if it weren't legally possible for legislators to be so openly bought.

So to answer the original question, health care is sort of a litmus test for how much Obama is willing to challenge the existing funding-driven legislative system. Both houses seem to have accepted an individual mandate -- a requirement that citizens buy health insurance. To my mind, the only way that is remotely justifiable is if the government ensures there is a cheaper option available than what the insurance companies offer; otherwise, you're just subsidizing companies that have consistently screwed the public. As it stands, public-option policies won't be open to people who are currently insured, and strenuous efforts are being made to ensure those policies won't really be very cheap anyway. In other words, a gift to the insurers.

I was hoping health care would be an opportunity to at least weaken lobbyists' grip on power. It doesn't look like that will be the case. But that's the fundamental fight that has to be fought -- much more crucial than health care itself. Americans have to take back their system of government. It's literally a question of life and death.

It's hard to lull you guys

quinn esq — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:44:07 +0000

In reply to Just curious, ac--why do you

It's hard to lull you guys into a false sense of security when you're so insecure about health care.

Time to get that fixed, and then you can all just lay back for a long, well-deserved, nap.

Sleeeeeeeep, gentle Genghis and Nebton, sleeeeeeeeep.

I'm pretty sure it's because

Nebton — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:45:00 +0000

In reply to Just curious, ac--why do you

I'm pretty sure it's because he hopes the Republicans are right, and that it does lead to our destruction. At which point, the Canadians will sweep in and take what's left over.

Just curious, ac--why do you

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:08:21 +0000

In reply to The real parallel with the

Just curious, ac--why do you care about U.S. health care? U.S. international and economic policies have global impact, so it makes sense to me that you Canadians would be interested, but health care is confined to our borders. Not that you wouldn't support universal health care here, but why would you care about it more than, say, Russian or French or Chinese health care systems?

This is an excellent post,

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:03:55 +0000

In reply to Joe Lieberman as Fredo Corleone

This is an excellent post, but I wonder if you're giving the rational possibility short shrift. First, CT voters are not as into health care as you might think. While Obama's approval rating in CT is 58%, only 45% approve of the way he is handling health care, and 64% says that Dems should not strip Lieb of his chairmanship if he supports the filibuster.

Second, Lieb's constituency no longer consists primarily of Dems. Against Lamont, he won 33% of Dems, 74% of Repubs, and 54% of indies. We can infer that his constituency does not actually support health care. More importantly, at least to Joe Lieberman, since he has pretty well alienated many of his remaining Democratic supporters, he will have to rely even more on Republicans in the next election.

Finally, CT is huge insurance industry center, and many of Lieb's moneyed backers are probably against reform. Courting big donors may not be admirable, but it's not irrational.

And don't forget, this could all be posturing for the sake of the CT Republicans and insurance folks. Even if he votes with the Dems in the end, Lieberman wants to look like he at least tried to fight the public option.

The real parallel with the

acanuck — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:44:21 +0000

In reply to Joe Lieberman as Fredo Corleone

The real parallel with the Godfather's Fredo is that both think their status within the organization makes them invulnerable. In both cases, that idea's been reinforced by past tolerance of their failings. Puzo's Fredo at least had the good sense to cover up the extent of his disloyalty, but the Democrats never demonstrated to Lieberman their willingness to bring out the piano wire. That's why he thinks they'll agree to gut their already watered-down health-insurance bill to keep him a happy camper.

(The reason he and McCain are such buddies, BTW, is that both project themselves as principled mavericks, rather than the wishy-washy opportunists they both really are. Lieberman sucked up to McCain in exactly the same way McCain weighed being Kerry's running mate. Pundits call them moderates, but they're both people without a core, other than personal ambition.)

Anyway, as Nebton says, it's time for the Democrats to show some cojones. Call Lieberman's bluff. If he sabotages Reid's bill, he's dumped from caucus, loses his chair, and Obama actively campaigns for a real Democrat against him. That threat may not be enough to bring him into line, but it's worth laying down as a marker for other conservadems like Nelson, Conrad, Landrieu etc.

I can't work up much enthusiasm for Reid's bill, with its insipidly weak "public option." But it's clear that passing that (at a minimum) is essential if there's to be any hope for the rest of the Democratic agenda. As the Republicans whip their congresscritters into rigid ideological opposition to that agenda, Democrats have to realize they are the majority party, and start acting like one. Booting Lieberman out, if he can't toe the line, would be a crucial first step.

Thanks, Nebbie. Yeah, it's

Doctor Cleveland — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:40:14 +0000

In reply to I like it. The "Fredo

Thanks, Nebbie.

Yeah, it's something I made up a few years ago and use in conversation. I'll eventually post my basic bit as its own thing.

I like it. The "Fredo

Nebton — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:07:58 +0000

In reply to Joe Lieberman as Fredo Corleone

I like it. The "Fredo Problem". Is that original with you?

I suggest that Godfather II will close in 2012, when Lieberman is permanetly expelled from the Senate (via the electorate). Meanwhile, we'll have to mitigate the damages. I think removing him from the caucus is effectively a no-lose situation at this point. I.e., it can't really make things worse. What it does do, is make it clear we don't have 60 votes, which should already be clear to anyone paying attention.