We passed a notable milestone the other day.
As of Friday, it has been 100 days since the GOP promised it would have an alternative health care proposal available, and thus far nothing has been presented. My attempts at centrism are an entirely uphill battle when there are no plans to be weighed; how can one pit government-run reform against market-based controls if there's no reform in the latter? The one thing that the White House and Democrats have unequivocally won is the battle of convincing Americans that the status quo isn't working.
This leads me to ask: What do you want us to do? If you say you want reform as well, explain to me how one might go about reining in costs and securing coverage without tampering with the almighty market. Kevin Drum notes the similarities between the health care battle and the fight over cap-and-trade; in both cases, the status quo is a relatively unregulated market. There are modest consumer protections in place on insurance companies, and there are emissions standards for industry. However, people still lose their coverage when they get sick, get denied insurance for pre-existing conditions, and the world is on its way to becoming a soggy piece of charcoal in a few centuries (hopefully, none of these points are too contentious).
The invisible hand of the market is what we have right now. Where's the reform going to come from if there's no money in it? If you're dealing with increasing the standard of living, then mechanized manufacturing and streamlined production are excellent. For issues like ensuring health care for our citizens or abating climate change, there's far less financial motivation. We're faced with momentous issues that require a scale of thought and action that I honestly don't think our founders planned to deal with. Living in a smaller community, you might be inclined to help out your neighbors, pursuing your business interests but also reaching out in charity. Instead, Conservatism has protected the right to pursuit of happiness above all else in these debates, leaving little non-governmental recourse for the problems of the day.
Libertarian Matt Welch, for instance, tears into Paul Krugman's recent column that makes similar connections between the health care and climate change debates. Yet again, though, what's missing from his argument is the elephant in the room. Welch is unconvinced by the effectiveness of cap-and-trade (despite evidence to the contrary) yet he does nothing to propose an alternative. The concepts of the public option in health care and cap-and-trade for climate change are, to me, the ultimate hybrids of government action and the harnessing of market forces. Want to make money on insurance? Well, fine, but you'd better be able to do it at least as well as the folks running the DMV and the Post Office. Shouldn't be too hard, should it? And how about continuing our survival on a fragile planet? Buying and selling the right to pollute gives direct financial incentive to clean up your act (no pun intended) as quickly as possible.
If these both are considered acts of government-overreach, I again challenge you folks to come up with an alternative. These are not single-payer systems or mandated emissions caps we're talking about here; they give you a chance to step up and make financial gains WHILE fixing the problems that face us. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Prove all of us crazy socialists wrong, yeah?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Finding a Social Bookmarking Soulmate! (SBS)
Finding a user that shares my interests and analyzing their use of social media
Paul Allitor (paulallitor) of Diigo shares my passion for progressive politics, along with a healthy sprinkling of web tools, music links, and other topics (there seem to also be quite a few links to weight loss stories). He will definitely be an excellent SBS for content related to health care and politics research, but he doesn't seem to have more recreational bookmarks; Since much of my browsing time is spent on cheeseburger reviews, web comics, and other miscellaneous entertainment, I'll have to turn to StumbleUpon or my Google Reader friends for more of that.
For the political reading, though, Allitor will be a great help. He's been on Diigo for almost a year, with nearly 3000 bookmarks, showing consistent use and up-to-date content. His tags aren't too organized, since his top two tags are "nytimes" and "nytimes.com," respectively, and there are separate "fat" and "obesity" tags. Also, there are tags for the words "of" and "in", meaning he probably messed up somewhere with putting quotes around the multi-word tags. All the same, working my way down the list of the materials he's bookmarked has been quite productive.
One blog, Hullabaloo, is run primarily by the blogger Digby with other guest writers occasionally visiting. While the site looks like it was made c. 1998 (off-yellow background, TNR font, distorted picture at the top) the commentary is sharp and astute, conveniently focusing on the health care debate. I'm proud to add it to my blogroll.
Allitor also brought to my attention "Little Green Footballs," written by the conservative-leaning Charles Johnson. He's actually in the midst of a scuffle over further-right folks condemning his "conservative" label, as he certainly doesn't follow the GOP party line. He's strongly against Islamic fundamentalism, but is very outspoken in his opposition to Glenn Beck and the sensationalism coming from his corner of politics. In my search for balanced commentary that comes from examination of the issues on a case by case basis instead of dogma, Johnson is a perfect blogger to have along for the ride.
All in all, I look forward to keeping up with paulallitor. He's pulled together some great stuff, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so.
Paul Allitor (paulallitor) of Diigo shares my passion for progressive politics, along with a healthy sprinkling of web tools, music links, and other topics (there seem to also be quite a few links to weight loss stories). He will definitely be an excellent SBS for content related to health care and politics research, but he doesn't seem to have more recreational bookmarks; Since much of my browsing time is spent on cheeseburger reviews, web comics, and other miscellaneous entertainment, I'll have to turn to StumbleUpon or my Google Reader friends for more of that.
For the political reading, though, Allitor will be a great help. He's been on Diigo for almost a year, with nearly 3000 bookmarks, showing consistent use and up-to-date content. His tags aren't too organized, since his top two tags are "nytimes" and "nytimes.com," respectively, and there are separate "fat" and "obesity" tags. Also, there are tags for the words "of" and "in", meaning he probably messed up somewhere with putting quotes around the multi-word tags. All the same, working my way down the list of the materials he's bookmarked has been quite productive.
One blog, Hullabaloo, is run primarily by the blogger Digby with other guest writers occasionally visiting. While the site looks like it was made c. 1998 (off-yellow background, TNR font, distorted picture at the top) the commentary is sharp and astute, conveniently focusing on the health care debate. I'm proud to add it to my blogroll.
Allitor also brought to my attention "Little Green Footballs," written by the conservative-leaning Charles Johnson. He's actually in the midst of a scuffle over further-right folks condemning his "conservative" label, as he certainly doesn't follow the GOP party line. He's strongly against Islamic fundamentalism, but is very outspoken in his opposition to Glenn Beck and the sensationalism coming from his corner of politics. In my search for balanced commentary that comes from examination of the issues on a case by case basis instead of dogma, Johnson is a perfect blogger to have along for the ride.
All in all, I look forward to keeping up with paulallitor. He's pulled together some great stuff, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Trifecta
For the first paper of the semester, all we're doing is reposting our first 3 posts, revised slightly. Here goes!
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello world!
This semester I'm excited to delve into the ongoing health care debate. As a relatively new, fresh-faced political junky, I have a long way to go in figuring out the facets of health care policy itself (reimbursement rates, co-op systems, drug subsidies) as well as the political side of the battle (various committees putting together legislation, key players, etc). As a Political Science major, I'm naturally excited about such a momentous project put before our legislators by President Obama, and I hope that the ongoing developments will fuel my writing as I try to break down both the political and practical aspects of American health care.
I come to the debate, though, from an admittedly liberal perspective; I'm that guy with the laptop festooned with "No on 8" and Obama campaign stickers. However, I'm hopeful that further examination of the arguments of each side will drive me to a more centrist conclusion. Currently, pessimism has set in, with the public option's chances waning and looking to be replaced by what sounds by a relatively spineless co-op system. Republican pleas for bipartisan compromise have come across to me as little more than a begging for concessions through what often seem to be bad faith arguments.
A focused dissection of health care policy should fill a void left by the various forms of media and the corners that they understandably cut in their coverage. Bloggers, especially those with a partisan posture (which is the vast majority), have a vested interest in "securing their base" to both hold onto loyal readers and seize new ones; try as we might to be adventurous, there is a natural appeal to placing ourselves in "echo chambers" by surrounding ourselves with assenting voices. I've read Steve Benen (Washington Monthly) for years now, for instance, but while he is an astute and convincing writer, his blog is essentially a case built day by day against the Republicans. When you know your author enters the fray with certain preconceptions (that the GOP has given up on rational, good-faith debate, as in the linked post above) the partisan blogger loses some of his or her own credibility.
As we seek out our respective, ideological blogs, we tend to be drawn similarly to cable networks, with Fox holding down the right wing and MSNBC (and CNN, to a large extent) holding down the left. Just as blogs clamber for readers, these stations need to duke it out for viewers and advertising dollars. It is entirely in their interest to cultivate a select group of loyal viewers and hold them than to use their position for an impartial realization of our First Amendment. With their enormous national clout, they have the power to make or break a legislative battle, to sweep scandals under the rug or to end careers.
I have no such clout, so I have no reason to be anything but even-handed and discerning.
Again, with the sole goal of informing myself and my audience along the way, while I may come to partisan conclusions, I aim to approach each development, each twist and each turn, with a critical eye, healthy background research, and an open mind.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Analysis of another blog in my field, for inspiration and direction: FiveThirtyEight.com
Assignment for Aug. 31
In a political world increasingly defined by polling numbers and electoral struggles, FiveThirtyEight.com provides a statistics-based blog on goings-on both inside and outside the Beltway. Nate Silver, who started as a career baseball statistician, now uses his powers to predict (with great accuracy) the results of elections, check the accuracy of polling and other meters of public opinion, and just generally break down every political question to numbers and regression models to take a stab of measuring the otherwise immeasurable.
FiveThirtyEight rose to prominence during the 2008 election and the year running up to it, rising from a relatively unknown corner of the net to the 57th-ranked blog on technorati.com, an amazingly quick ascent. During the 2008 election season, Silver posted a few times daily, often more, aggregating polling results on the congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential races as well as providing commentary for any current developments. In recent months, though, his personal posting rate has fallen to several updates per week, with supplemental content provided by a few other bloggers who have a similar statistical bent. Between calculating the Democratic primary results and eventually nailing the popular vote spread (52.4%-46.3% predicted, compared to 52.3%-46.2% actual), Silver has earned his credibility with consistent results and an eye for effectively weighing the day-to-day developments in politics. In this post of Nate Silver’s final election projections on the morning of November 4th, he explains not just what he thinks the numbers will be, but why:
Our model projects that Obama will win all states won by John Kerry in 2004, in addition to Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida and North Carolina, while narrowly losing Missouri and Indiana. These states total 353 electoral votes. Our official projection, which looks at these outcomes probabilistically -- for instance, assigns North Carolina's 15 electoral votes to Obama 59 percent of the time -- comes up with an incrementally more conservative projection of 348.6 electoral votes.
We also project Obama to win the popular vote by 6.1 points; his lead is slightly larger than that in the polls now, but our model accounts for the fact that candidaees with large leads in the polls typically underperform their numbers by a small margin on Election Day.
Far more wonkish posts outline the exact models used, showing the probability of each state being won by each candidate. By building a foundation of rock-solid methodology, Silver can maintain both a casual tone at no cost to his professional reliability.
This simultaneous accessibility and credibility has brought him a vast, broad readership. He is referenced and linked to across the web, with his data analysis often considered something of a primary source. Because of his transparent calculation methods and well-documented models, Silver can defend his assumptions against other bloggers who, quite often, take issue with certain posts. He truly brings something new to the table, even though his work is based upon widely available data.
Besides election analysis, Silver, who leans left, has been keeping tabs on Obama's campaign promises as well as the ongoing health care debate. He still maintains a monthly list of which states are most likely to have a senate seat switch parties in the upcoming midterm elections, but he has certainly turned his eye to the ongoing policy battles with critical analysis of other bloggers' assertions as well as generating his own thoughtful graphics and theses.
In this gaping hole between election seasons, filled by the heated back-and-forth on health care, Silver’s mathematical commentary is welcome in a world of fiery misinformation and partisan attacks. His years of experience making a living off his statistical expertise show through in each post, compensating for minor details that others often overlook, paying off in consistency and credibility.
My blog, obviously, won’t have the statistical clout. I’m inspired, though, by his impartial data analysis used to bolster any ideological arguments made. Rational analysis of research to a logical conclusion is exactly what I’d like to shoot for.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Voice Critique
As this blog is a class assignment first and foremost, there's going to be a certain amount of exercises on here; as eager as I am to jump into the crazy world of 'triggers' and co-ops, today is for analyzing the voice of another blog.
A prime candidate for this sort of examination is Steve Benen on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, whose partisan leanings come through in posts that are well-argued yet occasionally a bit hostile. With an often sarcastic and sometimes condescending tone, each post comes across as building a case not only against the GOP but for liberalism:
As for those deeply concerned about the politicization of America's classrooms, I'm sure the right-wing critics of the president's stay-in-school message will be quick to denounce the conservative efforts in Texas. Any minute now.
I picked this quote from literally his most recent post simply because of how consistent this tone is. Without fail, a post will end with a sort of parting shot at whoever he's just torn apart, some sort of final jab at his opponent. The closing brings a sort of resignation to the craziness of the opposition and just how darn silly/scary they all are:
The crazies have a political party, a cable news network, and a loud, activist base. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take their medications anymore.
Of course, such positions require a bit of dehumanization of the opponent. A mere 2 posts down (he makes my job too easy), Benen finishes an entry saying,
About one in three Georgians lack health care coverage. Some state representatives want to make sure it stays that way.
While I agree that some representatives don't seem to have their heads screwed on entirely right, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to assert that they actually wanted people to stay uninsured. I mean, maybe to the Georgia representative it's less important than bringing down the deficit or standing up for free-market values, but to assert that he is trying to perpetuate a dearth of coverage in its own right hinders discourse.
This hostile tone fits the content, though. Posts tend to focus on refuting conservative talking points and efforts, positioning the blog as an oppositional force. Arguments are picked apart bit by bit using credible sources and commentators, and Benen is impeccable at picking up the perfect older post or on-the-record comment that can contradict his opponent.
His dismissive tone and occasional exaggerations, though, honestly make me feel guilty for reading him. If this is how very partisan he is and how much he despises the Republican Party today, should I be listening to him? The very best writers on either side can make a compelling point and argue it using cherry-picked facts. A writer's revealing their disdain of an opponent doesn't speak well for their putting forth a strictly rational argument.
Don't get me wrong: I really do like his work. He takes the irritations I'll have at the events in Washington and present the perfect people and facts that can refute the disinformation flying around. I just hate to have to rely on such a biased fact-checker.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Repost a Comment - Posted originally at Kevin Drum
I'm curious who those 6% or so are that like the public option but NOT current reform. I mean, I know they don't need to overlap necessarily, but there's a certain chunk out there that apparently like the public option but DON'T support the plan. Would that mean that the talk of triggers and co-ops is making these folks pessimistic, and would only be happy with the public option?
Also, though, I'd like to agree with JS up top, there. I know Obama has tried to explain those points, and if the whole nation watched his address they'd get that the public option doesn't make up more than 25% of this multi-pronged health care fix. Again it comes down to a messaging war, though. Your progression of points is great, but it requires an actual speech to make; you just need scary pictures of mourning, frightened seniors looking out windows at a cloudy sky in a 30 second spot to refute that for millions of folks.
This whole debate has felt like a free-fall in ambitious discourse... we're supposed to argue, and we're supposed to make reasoned arguments like JS. Instead, we get health care ads running one after another that are so utterly contradictory that one or both need to be either fabricating or badly mutilating what few facts we have. We're going into new territory, so there's a certain amount of uncertainty, but these aren't the days when one can make an argument and be respectfully heard.
I'm curious who those 6% or so are that like the public option but NOT current reform. I mean, I know they don't need to overlap necessarily, but there's a certain chunk out there that apparently like the public option but DON'T support the plan. Would that mean that the talk of triggers and co-ops is making these folks pessimistic, and would only be happy with the public option?
Also, though, I'd like to agree with JS up top, there. I know Obama has tried to explain those points, and if the whole nation watched his address they'd get that the public option doesn't make up more than 25% of this multi-pronged health care fix. Again it comes down to a messaging war, though. Your progression of points is great, but it requires an actual speech to make; you just need scary pictures of mourning, frightened seniors looking out windows at a cloudy sky in a 30 second spot to refute that for millions of folks.
This whole debate has felt like a free-fall in ambitious discourse... we're supposed to argue, and we're supposed to make reasoned arguments like JS. Instead, we get health care ads running one after another that are so utterly contradictory that one or both need to be either fabricating or badly mutilating what few facts we have. We're going into new territory, so there's a certain amount of uncertainty, but these aren't the days when one can make an argument and be respectfully heard.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Live Blogging the Joint Session Speech!
What a festive-looking day on the House floor. An actual analysis post will come later, but this is obviously the en vogue way of covering such events. They're a bit behind schedule, since the cabinet seems to be greatly enjoying their grand entrance.
8:11PM Eastern: Here comes the chief! Over-under on how long it takes to actually get to the podium: 5 minutes.
8:16PM: ...and we're off, after a jaunty 5 minutes of clapping and hand-shaking!
8:17PM: In case you forgot, the economy still has us collectively bent over. How 'bout that.
8:23PM: Focusing on middle class folks; no, they're not all welfare kings. We're the "only developed-nation" that doesn't have this figured out, and people are 'losing their insurance at a rate of 14,000 per day.' Followed by those horrible "people-dying-because-insurance-companies-are-big-old-meanies" stories, for Personal Connection!
8:27PM: Leaving any notion of single-payer by the wayside; 'let's build on what works, because it isn't our business to change what's working for most people.' Again, I'm not entirely sure what the objectionable bit is.
8:28PM: 'Too many people have used this as an opportunity for cheap political shots... the time for games has passed!'
8:30PM: Oh man, the plan! There shalt be details, he says!
Ok, so far this is all unanimous across the bills that have passed through committee already. 'Since there's consensus on this, we will definitely pass SOMETHING. We'll iron out the rest, but this stuff is hugely significant regardless.'
8:35PM: Boehner is still very, very orange.
8:38PM: Republicans take a page from their constituents' books and start bitching when Obama says illegal immigrants won't be covered. Great, guys.
8:43PM: Public Option! Just as I was typing about how we've heard this all before. Excellent analogy with public and private universities... UCLA didn't drive us out of business, thank God.
8:45PM: Mentions the trigger, and co-ops... "But, if you still cannot find affordable coverage, we WILL offer you a choice." Sounds like a ringing, continuing endorsement of the public-option, without actually committing to it. Can't expect much else, really.
8:47PM: 'It will have a bit in the bill that requires us to cut spending if the savings don't come through. Also, thanks turds for not paying up for YOUR spending.'
8:48PM: Silly Eric Cantor can't keep his thumbs off his Twitter-machine.
8:50PM: We won't privatize Medicare? Didn't know that was even on the table.
8:53PM: NEW STUFF! Starting the process of reforming malpractice laws, which is a big GOP favorite. I like that idea quite a lot. Very kind gesture on his part.
8:54PM: 'I want every idea you have, but I won't waste a minute on any of you that have decided that politically it would be best if this died.'
8:57PM: Kennedy. This means we're wrapping up?
8:59PM: "This will express the 'character of our country.'" 'It's gonna be tough, guys, but this is a moral obligation. Kennedy was driven by empathy, not just an expansion of government. Compassion is not a partisan phenomenon.'
9:03PM: ...and we're out of here!
I think he's done a great job of laying out what feels like a broad consensus. He's positioned it in such a way that we're 90% on board together, and that the public option is little more than a speed bump to be ironed out. All I can say is I genuinely hope that many people tuned in. In the room, of course, it was harshly partisan (one GOP congressman yelled very audibly, "You lie!" in reference to Obama's assertion that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered).
I'm glad he threw in the bit about malpractice reform. Without any new policies this could have felt hollow.
In other news, one could have basically written the Republican Response from the talking points we've all heard a million times recently. Not really worth further analysis.
Update: In case you missed it, here's Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) giving us an excellent "Oh-no-he-di'nt" moment:
8:11PM Eastern: Here comes the chief! Over-under on how long it takes to actually get to the podium: 5 minutes.
8:16PM: ...and we're off, after a jaunty 5 minutes of clapping and hand-shaking!
8:17PM: In case you forgot, the economy still has us collectively bent over. How 'bout that.
8:23PM: Focusing on middle class folks; no, they're not all welfare kings. We're the "only developed-nation" that doesn't have this figured out, and people are 'losing their insurance at a rate of 14,000 per day.' Followed by those horrible "people-dying-because-insurance-companies-are-big-old-meanies" stories, for Personal Connection!
8:27PM: Leaving any notion of single-payer by the wayside; 'let's build on what works, because it isn't our business to change what's working for most people.' Again, I'm not entirely sure what the objectionable bit is.
8:28PM: 'Too many people have used this as an opportunity for cheap political shots... the time for games has passed!'
8:30PM: Oh man, the plan! There shalt be details, he says!
- Ok, we're all aware that this won't change what you have, yeah?
- No more pre-existing condition denials
- No more recision (cutting off coverage when you get sick for BS reasons)
- No more annual/lifetime caps
- Preventative care!
- Marketplace system for policies, in the same vein as Congress or businesses' systems.
- Tax credits, 'course. And John McCain is just such a fine upstanding citizen that we should all buy him a beer.
- Individual + business mandates
Ok, so far this is all unanimous across the bills that have passed through committee already. 'Since there's consensus on this, we will definitely pass SOMETHING. We'll iron out the rest, but this stuff is hugely significant regardless.'
8:35PM: Boehner is still very, very orange.
8:38PM: Republicans take a page from their constituents' books and start bitching when Obama says illegal immigrants won't be covered. Great, guys.
8:43PM: Public Option! Just as I was typing about how we've heard this all before. Excellent analogy with public and private universities... UCLA didn't drive us out of business, thank God.
8:45PM: Mentions the trigger, and co-ops... "But, if you still cannot find affordable coverage, we WILL offer you a choice." Sounds like a ringing, continuing endorsement of the public-option, without actually committing to it. Can't expect much else, really.
8:47PM: 'It will have a bit in the bill that requires us to cut spending if the savings don't come through. Also, thanks turds for not paying up for YOUR spending.'
8:48PM: Silly Eric Cantor can't keep his thumbs off his Twitter-machine.
8:50PM: We won't privatize Medicare? Didn't know that was even on the table.
8:53PM: NEW STUFF! Starting the process of reforming malpractice laws, which is a big GOP favorite. I like that idea quite a lot. Very kind gesture on his part.
8:54PM: 'I want every idea you have, but I won't waste a minute on any of you that have decided that politically it would be best if this died.'
8:57PM: Kennedy. This means we're wrapping up?
8:59PM: "This will express the 'character of our country.'" 'It's gonna be tough, guys, but this is a moral obligation. Kennedy was driven by empathy, not just an expansion of government. Compassion is not a partisan phenomenon.'
9:03PM: ...and we're out of here!
I think he's done a great job of laying out what feels like a broad consensus. He's positioned it in such a way that we're 90% on board together, and that the public option is little more than a speed bump to be ironed out. All I can say is I genuinely hope that many people tuned in. In the room, of course, it was harshly partisan (one GOP congressman yelled very audibly, "You lie!" in reference to Obama's assertion that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered).
I'm glad he threw in the bit about malpractice reform. Without any new policies this could have felt hollow.
In other news, one could have basically written the Republican Response from the talking points we've all heard a million times recently. Not really worth further analysis.
Update: In case you missed it, here's Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) giving us an excellent "Oh-no-he-di'nt" moment:
This, to me, is simply stunning. I expect the rules of public discourse to fall apart a bit in a contentious battle like this, and when you have citizens that are out of the loop feeling under attack. When you are one of the most powerful people in the country, though, with hundreds of thousands of constituents relying on you to represent their region and interests, you fail utterly when you fall to such a level.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Plot Thickens...
Our first real blog post is conveniently timed just after Obama's speech Wednesday evening. This has been a tough month, as no actual legislating work could possibly proceed as Congress was on its August recess.
Now, with Labor Day over and our various representatives reconvening in Washington, we should set the stage for what could potentially be an enlightening speech to a joint session of Congress.
...and the health care situation will not be solved by any stretch.
So, the ball is in your court, Mr. President. For all the flashy CNN graphics declaring August to be "HEALTHCARE MAKE-OR-BREAK MONTH," this is the last chance before any hope of effective reform rolls off the cliff. Obama doesn't seem to be planning to present a full bill on Wednesday(login required for link), yet without a definite road map the constant back and forth that is tearing apart any congressional collaboration will continue.
It's go time!
Now, with Labor Day over and our various representatives reconvening in Washington, we should set the stage for what could potentially be an enlightening speech to a joint session of Congress.
- Our senators and House reps spent their summer vacations being shouted at by the most fired up of their constituents. Democrats managed to lose more ground in what was already an uphill battle for moderate votes as "government-run takeover" talking points proliferated and were promptly yelled at representatives across the nation.
- A robust, "immediate" (in 2013, that is) public-option is seeming more and more unlikely. What was once described by the White House as a "necessary" part of reform has been relegated to merely "a good tool."
- Polarization is tumbling along at an alarming rate. We have the most liberal House members digging in their heels FOR a public option, while many moderate senators have declared total opposition to such a plan. Each representative that takes an uncompromising, make-or-break position damages these efforts of bipartisanship that they all profess to crave so deeply.
...and the health care situation will not be solved by any stretch.
So, the ball is in your court, Mr. President. For all the flashy CNN graphics declaring August to be "HEALTHCARE MAKE-OR-BREAK MONTH," this is the last chance before any hope of effective reform rolls off the cliff. Obama doesn't seem to be planning to present a full bill on Wednesday(login required for link), yet without a definite road map the constant back and forth that is tearing apart any congressional collaboration will continue.
It's go time!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Voice Critique
As this blog is a class assignment first and foremost, there's going to be a certain amount of exercises on here; as eager as I am to jump into the crazy world of 'triggers' and co-ops, today is for analyzing the voice of another blog.
A prime candidate for this sort of examination is Steve Benen on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, whose partisan leanings come through in posts that are well-argued yet occasionally stinging. With an often sarcastic and condescending tone, each post comes across as building a case not only against the GOP but for liberalism:
I picked this quote from literally his most recent post simply because of how consistent this tone is. Without fail, a post will end with a sort of parting shot at whoever he's just torn apart, some sort of final jab at his opponent. The closing brings a sort of resignation to the craziness of the opposition and just how darn silly/scary they all are:
Of course, such positions require a bit of dehumanization of the opponent. A mere 2 posts down (he makes my job too easy), Benen finishes an entry saying,
This hostile tone fits the content, though. Posts tend to focus on refuting conservative talking points and efforts, positioning the blog as an oppositional force. Arguments are picked apart bit by bit using credible sources and commentators, and Benen is impeccable at picking up the perfect older post or on-the-record comment that can contradict his opponent.
His dismissive tone and occasional exaggerations, though, honestly make me feel guilty for reading him. If this is how very partisan he is and how much he despises the Republican Party today, should I be listening to him? The very best writers on either side can make a compelling point and argue it using cherry-picked facts. A writer's revealing their disdain of an opponent doesn't speak well for their putting forth a strictly rational argument.
Don't get me wrong: I really do like his work. He has taken the irritations I'll have at the events in Washington and point to the precise people and facts that can refute the disinformation flying around. I just hate to have to rely on such a biased fact-checker.
A prime candidate for this sort of examination is Steve Benen on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, whose partisan leanings come through in posts that are well-argued yet occasionally stinging. With an often sarcastic and condescending tone, each post comes across as building a case not only against the GOP but for liberalism:
As for those deeply concerned about the politicization of America's classrooms, I'm sure the right-wing critics of the president's stay-in-school message will be quick to denounce the conservative efforts in Texas. Any minute now.
I picked this quote from literally his most recent post simply because of how consistent this tone is. Without fail, a post will end with a sort of parting shot at whoever he's just torn apart, some sort of final jab at his opponent. The closing brings a sort of resignation to the craziness of the opposition and just how darn silly/scary they all are:
The crazies have a political party, a cable news network, and a loud, activist base. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take their medications anymore.
Of course, such positions require a bit of dehumanization of the opponent. A mere 2 posts down (he makes my job too easy), Benen finishes an entry saying,
About one in three Georgians lack health care coverage. Some state representatives want to make sure it stays that way.While I agree that some representatives don't seem to have their heads screwed on entirely right, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to assert that they actually wanted people to stay uninsured. I mean, maybe to the Georgia rep it's less important than bringing down the deficit or standing up for free-market values, but to assert that he is trying to perpetuate a dirth of coverage in its own right hinders discourse.
This hostile tone fits the content, though. Posts tend to focus on refuting conservative talking points and efforts, positioning the blog as an oppositional force. Arguments are picked apart bit by bit using credible sources and commentators, and Benen is impeccable at picking up the perfect older post or on-the-record comment that can contradict his opponent.
His dismissive tone and occasional exaggerations, though, honestly make me feel guilty for reading him. If this is how very partisan he is and how much he despises the Republican Party today, should I be listening to him? The very best writers on either side can make a compelling point and argue it using cherry-picked facts. A writer's revealing their disdain of an opponent doesn't speak well for their putting forth a strictly rational argument.
Don't get me wrong: I really do like his work. He has taken the irritations I'll have at the events in Washington and point to the precise people and facts that can refute the disinformation flying around. I just hate to have to rely on such a biased fact-checker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
