Does the Right really oppose a strong public option?

Submitted by Pablo-Manriquez on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 14:59

In case you missed it, The Chronicle of Higher Education published a provocative essay by Columbia University's Mark Lilla under the title "Taking the Right Seriously". Lilla writes:

"[David] Horowitz makes hay (and money) by affirming conservatives' longstanding conviction that the university is a hostile place best avoided. He apparently doesn't see how his campaign hurts the larger conservative cause, since it gives students one more reason not to pursue graduate studies and actually become professors. My brightest conservative students, brought up on hair-raising tales of political correctness, dismiss academic careers out of hand because they are certain of not being hired or getting tenure. And I can't say I blame them. Even as an ex-conservative, I was lucky to have passed through the eyes of those two needles.

The late Paul Lyons, a professor at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey until his death, in January, recognized the problem but proposed something far more radical than anything David Horo witz has considered. And that was to persuade his liberal colleagues to teach courses on conservative political thought. Lyons was an American historian who wrote about the 60s and made no secret of his liberal politics or his loathing of Reagan and post-Reagan conservatism. But he was also disturbed by how few colleges offer courses on conservatism, treating it as a "pathology" rather than a serious political tradition, and by reports from his conservative students that "most of their liberal professors blow their comments off." So he not only posted a course on American conservative thought in 2006 but also kept a diary about his teaching experience. That diary has now been published, along with some of his own essays, in American Conservatism: Thinking It, Teaching It (Vanderbilt University Press).

The diary is fascinating and reassuring, at least about our students. Lyons's class was split almost evenly between liberal and conservative students, who had no trouble arguing with each other. They seemed to understand what thin-skinned professors wish to forget: that intellectual engagement is not for crybabies. The students had loud debates over Reagan's legacy, Bush's foreign policy, religious freedom, abortion, even the "war on Christmas"—and nobody broke into tears or ran to the dean to complain. And the more the students argued, the more they came to respect one another. According to Lyons, students learned that that conservative guy was no longer just the predictable gun nut or religious fanatic. And the conservative students learned that they had to make real arguments, not rely on clichés and sound bites recycled from Fox News."

Jon Henke seems to agree, blogging yesterday that "[t]he problem is not with the basic ideals of limited government and personal freedom, either. The problem is a movement that plays small-ball and cedes responsibility for infrastructure to business interests, leadership that rewards those who make friends rather than waves, an entrenched Party and Movement support system that mostly supports itself, an echo chamber that has rotted our intellect, a grassroots that is ill-equipped to shape the Republican Party, and a Republican Party that has replaced strategy with tactics, substance with marketing."

Lyons discovers and Henke examples that not every conservative is as predictable as the ones on TV. Lilla and Henke agree that the Right needs more-substantive arguments. Lilla notes that "that intellectual engagement is not for crybabies."

That said, does the Right really oppose a strong public option to the health care reform bill? If so, why? What concerns you about it?

Average:

Your rating: None

Pablo-Manriquez's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

Well of course I oppose the "public option"

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 15:28.

Briefly: I oppose the "public option" because it is a thinly veiled Trojan horse for single-payer. Private companies cannot compete with a government-subsidized insurer and hence will go out of business. Which is exactly what the architects of the "public option" want. I don't care if Obama and the entire Congress swear on a stack of Bibles that any "public option" wouldn't be subsidized. It may not initially be subsidized, but at the moment that the government entity runs into financial difficulty, it WILL become subsidized. Just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Just like Amtrak. Just like the Post Office. Just like every other public venture. That is the history of every government sponsored enterprise operating in a competitive market.

I am not sure why you quoted so extensively from the Chronicle article, since it dealt with taking conservatives seriously on college campuses and had nothing to do with health care.

I saw the closing question

Submitted by acinphx on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 16:35.

I saw the closing question about the public option as a follow-on to the earlier remarks about the value of vigorous debate between liberals and conservatives on matters of public policy. From the post:

Lyons discovers and Henke examples that not every conservative is as predictable as the ones on TV. Lilla and Henke agree that the Right needs more-substantive arguments. Lilla notes that "that intellectual engagement is not for crybabies."

Perhaps the question was an attempt to encourage/illustrate that substantive arguments can be formulated and expressed by conservatives on the topic of the public option, rather than mind-numbing and dishonest shouting about "death panels." And your reply perfectly illustrated that legitimate, rational conservative arguments can be articulated against the public option. There could be others. But the public rarely hears them because we're treated mostly to mindless jingoism courtesy of FoxNoise.

Let me help you with that... ass-n-phoenix

Submitted by romney2012 on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 17:35.

But the public rarely hears them because we're treated mostly to mindless jingoism courtesy of FoxNoise MSNBC, the elitist liberal media and Obama's quirky, testy, Pillsbury Dough Boi impersonator, Robert Gibbs.

Glad to help a Democrat troll who knows nothing but cliche-driven rhetoric fresh from the pages of HuffPo and DailyKos.

Mitt Romney must be thrilled

Submitted by acinphx on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 18:46.

Mitt Romney must be thrilled to have you representing him. I'll just point out for other (less obnoxious) commenters that you put words in the quote box that were not part of my comment.

It's a start, you recognized yourself as ass-n-phoenix.

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 20:04.

The quote should have included some overtyped text and that function isn't working... because your original words sounded like a projection by you of the criticisms the far Left media well deserve daily onto FoxNews... I overtyped your oh-so-witty "FoxNoise" and added the balance.

Hey, at least you recognized yourself. That's a start.

Every Conservative should be opposed to the public option...

Submitted by RBIII on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 16:37.

If the "public option" is Federally managed, every single person claiming to be a Conservative should be opposed to it.

If they aren't, they are really just Progressives in Conservative clothing.

Health Care or Health Insurance is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government. I know the arguments, I know the precedents, I don't care. Progressives hijacked the Welfare and Commerce clauses to mean literally anything they want it to. That is not the original intent and the point against this unlimited Federal power was made by the man considered the Father of the Constitution.

He said, more than once, that if the General Welfare clause was intended to mean that the Congress was allowed to pass any law it wanted to in order to provide for the General Welfare there would have been no need to bother enumerating the powers after the Welfare clause. There would literally be no need for the rest of the Constitution. Read one such quote here.

The reason we're in most of the mess we're in right now is because we have compromised TOO MUCH on our core principles. There are some basics we cannot just dismiss and the concept of Federalism and Limited Government is one we simply cannot compromise on anymore.

It's destroying the very fabric of our contract between the People and the Government.

Federalism and limited

Submitted by In between on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 17:23.

Federalism and limited government has to be broken down. In federalism, I can agree that social issues like gay marriage and abortion can be left to the states. If it is not an economic issue then leave it to the states. On limited government, this can be good or bad. Do you limit funding for war? Are you for a war because a president says so? Does the government have a responsibility on the consequences of neglecting the country on other issues?Like neglecting the infrastructure to the point that cities and states cannot help themselves. Like free trade issues that destroy cities and states. What is the responsibility of government, business, and its citizens?

Read Article 1 Section 8

Submitted by RBIII on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 17:53.

That's the starting point.

If it isn't in there, Congress has no business doing it. War and the military is in there. Infrastructure, aside from "Postal Roads" is not.

You're falling into the trap of the Progressive. You don't even realize it. You are saying "government" when you should be saying "federal government". You're ignoring the States which are not, contrary to Progressive ideology, merely extensions of the Federal Government.

Okay here is the conflict

Submitted by In between on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 18:30.

Okay here is the conflict with free trade. This is signed by presidents and supported by congress. And now what do you think cities and states are supposed to do with plants closing and people losing jobs. We have seen this ignorance for the past few years. Or we can call it laissez-faire. In any case, we have some structural problems in America and bankrupting cities and states doesn't make any sense.

Now in the mode of economics. If you do one thing, you have to balance it with another. So, if you have free trade and you want to send our jobs away, then come up with an answer on fixing the problems. Or do you just throw people out in the street. And the loss of tax revenue the cities, the states, and the federal government is losing is astronomical.

Washington is causing the problem and everyone else has to put up with it.

As far as the infrastructure, I think republicans let it go to their head on article one section 8. You can dot every i and slash every t, but in the scheme of things you want to have a wealthy country. I say let's build this country free of politics and let us have the best roads, the best air traffic control system, the best waterways, the best science, and everything else. We don't need a lot of jibber jabber. Just get the job done. Again, like I have seen in the past we just ignore the problems.

And in the end is what we have seen, and that is the trashing of the middle class. I have often wondered why and it is simple. It is ideology of tax cuts and ignore everything else.

The main point I am driving is economics. Do we let certain sections of our country fall apart because of ideology or what an article says? Do you think China cares? They are building cities, they have the biggest airport, the longest bridge, and running highways all over. And they are buying up the oil and commodities. They are doing something for their country.

Or one more similarity would be to send all our money for war, and then neglect the country. Now, you can't have it both ways. And we see our problems today.

Where does it end?

Submitted by RBIII on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 19:47.

Look, what you're proposing is the elimination of risk. If a city or a region is so dependent on ONE industry that it will collapse they need to deal with it at a local level. For too long State and Local governments have relied on the Federal safety net to avoid taking responsibility for their own futures. They should have taken steps to diversify their economies.

Progressivism has eroded the Federalist system and what you're describing is the outcome of that. This erosion of the original framework is also distorting the market and capitalism. It's a cancer.

So what do we do? Of course we can't just let them hang out to dry now that it is too late. But there needs to be a long term plan to get the original system back on track. We're sacrificing the very principles that created this great country with short-sighted "pragmatism" which is just a nice way of saying we're making the easy choice to just give up and let Big Government handle it.

Progressives count on this to keep us playing on their home field instead of ours.

Okay, we are not connecting.

Submitted by In between on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 20:41.

Okay, we are not connecting. Many small towns rely on factories. We are not diversified. In fact there is not enough different jobs to go around. At least jobs that will employ 500 or 2000 people in one place. Let me start with Wall Street. They said, that this is going to be an information society and they did not care about our jobs. In Washington, they have talked of free trade. Actually it makes no difference. It is the fact that we have globalization. We (cities and states) are not in a position to compete with 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians. This is where Washington has to step in. We are at war with the world on globalization. We accomplish nothing if you are going to say it is the cities and states fault. We have a world to compete with. One industry towns are all over the country. You certainly not going to have (Google) build in my home town. We are a factory town. We are not high tech and we are not a tourist town.

It has nothing to do with reliance on the federal government. It has everything to do with the rest of the world. it is impossible to diversify. But there again if you want to diversify, then you need to invest in your country, in your people, and in the future. And all these resources will have to be from the federal government.

I would say it is ignorance and laissez-faire that is not accepting globalization and the fight we have. We are at war. It is cheap labor. Now we have seen this for 30 years. It was the Japanese that took our textiles, our electronics, our steel, and our autos. Yes, I understand competition and I am not asking for protectionism. But what I am saying with some 3 billion people out there that want our jobs, we will have to diminish the middle class. And we have seen it and lived it. It is cheap labor at first, then market share, then bankruptcies. And we already know that after Japan, and China and India will take the rest.

Now I know you are not liking this, but the end result of ignorance and laissez-faire is that your tax money is going to bail everyone out and it happening today.

1. Now the answer is invest in the country: That is energy independence to create jobs and for security issues. Perhaps high speed rail. A new air traffic control system (35 billion dollars) and this will make aircraft fly more direct and the airlines will make a profit on using less fuel. (We have some of the oldest fleets in the world.)

2. Invest in the people: if we have globalization and it is cheap labor that will win, then you will need mandatory vocational training. I know you don't want to hear this either, but it will be the only way to compete in the world. You need a trained workforce. Economics and globalization is forcing this. It is either that or you can pay for welfare.

Hudson Institute > Promoting U.S. Worker Competitiveness in a Globalized Economy

3. Invest in the future: That is no more religious games with embryonic stem cell research as we lost scientists to Singapore. You (the federal government) backs up innovation and science. We subsidize innovation and work with companies and universities. The first country that becomes energy independent will own the world in technology. China is working on it, also South Korea and other countries. We are behind in battery technology. And the list goes on.

We used to do great things and today we accomplish nothing. We built the Hoover Dam, the interstate, and put a man on the moon. We did not get mired down with ideology. But now we are reduced for cash for clunkers, extension of unemployment benefits, bailouts, and casinos for every state. And this is where we are today. As I see it, we have borrowed for tax cuts, sent our jobs overseas, and sent our money to Iraq. And no country can survive doing this nonsense.

And this is the answer to a better future. Add to that the usual in cutting spending and whatever has to be done. So I am American, and I am for a better America. Now we can play games with ideology or religion or whatever else republicans want to dream of, but so far I have seen nothing in the way of managing this country from the right.

You're right...

Submitted by RBIII on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 20:53.

...we're not connecting.

You keep making the same Progressive arguments that caused the mess. With a healthy dose of failed Keynesian econonics, too.

You also seem to be obsessed with religion or being anti-religion, to be more accurate.

Well, it shows that

Submitted by In between on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 21:23.

Well, it shows that republicans cannot run a country. If we cannot connect then what else can one say. Call it any name you want, evidently I am progressive, I want to move forward and not stay stagnant with failed ideologies. Progressivism did not create this mess. It was 8 years of Bush in his ideology of tax cuts which was borrowed money creating a false economy, sending our jobs overseas-so we lose revenue, and sending our money to Iraq. That is what we saw. And they call that "guns and butter" economics. LBJ did it and Bush has done it. So we can look forward to 20 years of fixing this mess. The country is a total mess and also foreign policy. What we saw is laissez-faire at its best. Not that Bush didn't put his mind on no child left behind or expanded Medicare. It is the fact that we have globalization and we are losing the middle class, we are losing the factories, and cities and states are going broke, but you don't care about that. You are more interested in some article and chapter to suit you and only you. Who cares about the middle class? Who cares about this country? You live on theories and ideology.

I have seen a lot of the republican web sites and it is all the same. You ignore what is going on in the world. You ignore the fact if you do one thing in economics, you have to counter it with something, and you leave the middle class with no jobs. And this is what happens, the republicans drops the middle class. They end up with their clics of neocons and the religious right, and who cares about anything else. Then you wimper that we have too much government. Well, heck ya. We have to bail everyone out. And that is where we are today. So in short, you as well as others have nothing to offer.

And it is amazing that you say I am anti religion. It was Bush who was anti science. And Bush held no curiosity. You have religion. It just does not belong in government. And if you think so, maybe Saudi Arabia is a better place to go.

Heh... There you go again...

Submitted by RBIII on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 21:38.

You just had to prove how little you know about what is actually going on, didn't you?

You couldn't resist. The financial crisis we saw last year took decades to reach that point. A very long series of bad decisions, over the course of over 70 years, led to the collapse last year. A mixture of Progressive policy, Keynesian economic theory employed by both Republicans and Democrats, and Wall Street greed caused the crisis, but you blame Bush.

I'm done with you. You're a waste of time because you don't have the prerequisite historical knowledge to even begin to have a serious debate with on this issue and I suspect most others issues as well.

Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" was the final nail in the coffin, not the source of the problem. Step away from the DailyKos / ThinkProgress / Huffpo crack pipe and educate yourself... or don't. I don't care.

I have not talked about the

Submitted by In between on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 22:01.

I have not talked about the financial crisis. That certainly was one of our problems, but that is not the only one. We had a perfect storm. You did, as you say, have Wall Street Greed, but you also had borrowed money for tax cuts, our jobs went overseas, and a war that was not paid for. And they call that "guns and butter" economics. And you add a half dozen other things and this is where we are at. But we stayed the course, we stayed the course until people could no longer stand the quagmire, we stayed the course with "free trade is good" until cities and states went broke, and we stayed the course with tax cuts and the deficits and debt piled up.

So I blame Bush for his failed ideology. And Limbaugh and Hannity were right there. We have seen the far right and it is all rhetoric. Now come back to earth and fix this country.

More good arguments against the public option

Submitted by acinphx on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 19:28.

And thanks for the link - interesting quote and commentary.

This point was especially thought-provoking:

... if the General Welfare clause was intended to mean that the Congress was allowed to pass any law it wanted to in order to provide for the General Welfare there would have been no need to bother enumerating the powers after the Welfare clause.

I wish I could take credit...

Submitted by RBIII on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 19:51.

I wish I came up with that line, but it was Madison who made the argument.