“I don’t wanna live in America no more
‘Cause the tide is high
And it’s still rising
And I don’t wanna see it at my windowsill.”
–
Arcade Fire, ‘Windowsill’
“You’re
a politician. Don’t become one of Hitler’s children.”
– The Ramones, ‘My Brain Is Hanging Upside
Down’
The day after the government shutdown began
I was listening to public radio, when a duo from the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think-tank, came on the air. The two guests were in an expansive
mood, all too ready to take the moderator’s questions about the unfolding
showdown in Congress. It was kind of like a game-show, really. In my mind’s eye
I could visualize each of these young, aspiring pundits squirming in their
seats, ready to pounce on each question as if it were live prey. And like a
lioness ripping apart her victim with grim satisfaction, their answers were
nothing short of appalling.
Just before the two conservatives were
introduced, the same radio program had been going over the latest casualties to
congressional gridlock. Between 700,000-800,000 government employees had been
laid off, food assistance programs for impoverished seniors and children left
to bleed, funding for national parks and historic landmarks dried up, and
programs ranging from national security to veteran services chopped off at the
root.
A government employee who had just been
laid off was then interviewed. His voice was heavy, weighed down by a deep
sense of resignation, the type of resignation that grows from the inside-out
when someone is thrown yet another blow which they had foreseen, but had no
chance to dodge. Yes, he said, this was the second
time that he had been laid off from a government job, the first time having occurred
during the (Republican instituted) shutdown of 1995-6. It will be hard, he
admitted, “but you prepare for these sorts of things.” The interviewer then
left him with the future dangling over his head, left to (once more)
contemplate what it means to live an uncertain existence in the land of the
free and home of the brave.
That should give you an idea of where
we were when these two aspiring pundits came bumbling onto the stage. I had a
glimmer of hope, though. After all the Heritage Foundation, the very think-tank
that the two guests represent, had drafted the original blueprint for what
became the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) during the 1990s. So surely they
would not subject us to the typical Republican rant against the alleged – in
other words fictitious – villainies of ObamaCare. Alas, never overestimate a
Republican.
Right out of the gate, both of them
made it crystal clear that they thought ObamaCare was a really stupid idea;
maybe even a totalitarian one. Whether they purposefully meant to insult the
intelligence of the listeners or are just that dense was not altogether clear. Their
failure to explain why a healthcare plan that was first taken up by a Republican
candidate for president had suddenly become unacceptable to the Republicans also
seemed incongruous – though by this point this disconnect was expected.
Instead, the two sunk their teeth into
the debate with relish, letting their saliva spray and teeth gnash without
reservation. The substance of their argument can be divided into three parts:
First, the shutdown is Obama’s fault:
he is refusing to compromise with the Republicans and thus engaging in
unconscionable brinkmanship.
Second, the shutdown is not a big deal
because few people are affected and the services that are being cut are
“inessential,” even “wasteful”.
And last, the shut is a great idea, a
shrewd demonstration of Republican statecraft which should be admired. Not only
does it cut “inessential” and “wasteful” government spending, but the shutdown
will show the American public just how wasteful the government really is.
There are several implications of this
argument that I would like to explore. Far from being an anomaly, the
government shutdown should be understood as a natural development in the Republican
Party playbook, reifying several ideological and strategic aims that the party
has pursued over the past half century. What follows is an exposition of these
partisan currents: an unraveling of the contradictions embedded in Republican
ideology, and an explanation of their significance. And this is no academic
exercise; for these very contradictions are what make the Republican Party
possible.
________
The first and perhaps most obvious
contradiction entertained by the two party intellectuals is their willingness
to blame Obama for the shutdown while simultaneously claiming that the shutdown
was brought about by the Republican Party – you know, a masterful stroke that
will educate Americans about the federal government’s profligate spending. It
is as if the two were a pair of schizophrenics, at one moment casting
aspersions on Obama for his refusal to compromise, while at the next moment
eulogizing the fortitude of Boehner et al., above all their refusal to
compromise on a matter that involves “principle”. But, of course, this is
exactly what they were doing. Indeed, it is what the Republican Party has been
doing for years.
The next contradiction is a bit
gutsier. It resides mainly within part
two of the argument, namely the assertion that the shutdown is insignificant
because only a few people are affected, and only “inessential” or “wasteful”
services have been put on the chopping block. I say that this contradiction is
gutsier because the two party cadres suggested that few people are affected by
the shutdown right after the radio
program noted that 700-800,000 people had been laid off. And, I should mention,
right after one of these now unemployed Americans had given a personal account
of his struggle to subsist.
This contradiction resolves itself,
however, when one realizes that it is precisely these 700-800,000 people, their
families and their jobs that the Republicans believe are “inessential” and
“wasteful”. For it is only by denying the essential dignity of these Americans
and their work that the party and its apologists can be blind to – or rather,
accept – their suffering, even when the great magnitude of their suffering has
been, quite literally, laid before the party’s eyes or, as in this case, their ears. Is
this what the two yuppies from the Heritage Foundation meant when they claimed
that Americans would learn just how wasteful government spending is? Put
another way, are these 700-800,000 Americans the very “Americans” to whom the
Republican Party is trying to teach the supposed excesses of government
spending – that is, through inscribing frugality into their souls by way of
empty stomachs, heightened insecurity and lost employment? Apparently.
________
But is the Republican Party really so
concerned about balanced budgets and the virtue of thrift? No. At least it is
impossible to justify these cuts using real logic – you know, reasoning that
does not violate the principle of non-contradiction at every turn, or defile
the raiment of truth. In fact, recent Republican policies belie the claim that
the party is at all concerned about keeping a balanced budget or the health of
the average citizen. Just last month, for example, the party voted to cut food
stamps, a vital source of nourishment for one in seven Americans, and widely
considered to be one of the government’s most efficient programs. In 2012, food
stamps – officially known as SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program –
lifted 4 million Americans out of poverty and SNAP is widely recognized as having
some of the most exacting quality control provisions of any public assistance
program. What’s more, SNAP likely generates
revenue over the long-run because it provides temporarily needy workers
with the extra support necessary for them to reenter the tax-paying, gainfully
employed middle-class.
Even so, the Republicans have slashed
food stamps on the trumped up charges of fraud and misuse. How did they slash
food stamps? SNAP is usually incorporated in a farm bill that also pays
billions of dollars to lavishly endowed corporations which are involved in mass
food production. By making a separate food stamps bill the party was able to
cut meals for hungry children, seniors and needy adults while still plowing
through subsidies to very, very wealthy corporations. According to Republican
logic – or perhaps insanity – wealthy corporations are to be further lubricated
with tax dollars in order to subsidize food that only the wealthy can afford to
eat. Or, as the Republicans enjoy reminding us, there are people who are
“undeserving poor,” people whose very existence is redundant. To use the
indelicate verbiage of our friends from the Heritage Foundation, such people
who are “inessential” and government support for them is “wasteful”.
So now we can connect the dots.
Republicans do not actually care about excessive spending, but, rather, they
are concerned about where this abundance is funneled to: is it going to the
rich or the needy? By destroying the jobs of 700-800,000 Americans and savaging
SNAP they have definitively shown themselves to be against the well-being of
the average American and firmly on the side of the ultra-rich – those, for
instance, who received corporate subsidies in the farm bill which the
Republicans just signed.
And if one looks closely at the
arguments voiced in opposition to food stamps, one further finds that
allegations of “fraud” are just a smokescreen to hide their real motives:
Republicans hate the program as a whole. This outlook was summed up by
Republican idol, Ronald Reagan, when he said that, “Welfare's purpose should be
to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.” But, of
course, they did not take on food stamps with such alarmingly candid rhetoric,
instead claiming that “fraud” has increased, this supposedly being indicated by
the fact that the number of people receiving food stamps has increased in the
past five years.
In fact, the number of people receiving
food stamps has increased because the economy is in the middle of the Great
Recession – if the Republicans have not already noticed – and, consequently,
there are more needy people. The fact that the number of food stamps has
increased during a recession is, if anything, a sign of their efficacy: most of
the people who are eligible for support are getting it. Of course, for a party
with ties to the same institutions that caused the Great Recession and one
which has never shown the least support for social programs (besides those that
help the rich), it should hardly be surprising that they are blind to the objective
facts as well as the hardships faced by the average American. Indeed the
average American is, for them, expendable – “inessential”.
________
The suggestion made by the Heritage
Foundation that the services (and people) being cut are “inessential” also betrays
another tenet of Republican dogma, mainly that public services as a whole are unpalatable
to the party. National parks, cemeteries and other public spaces are considered
by most Americans to be an essential part of the nation’s patrimony; its heritage,
something that makes America distinctive. By protecting wildlife, forests and
magisterial landscapes, the very ecology of the country is protected from the
utter destruction that would occur (as in the past) if private interests are allowed
to exploit nature at will. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill reminds us that if
misanthropic corporations are allowed to tamper with the environment without
oversight they are liable to engage in disastrous policies for short-term gain.
There is a reason why you do not see cod swelling the banks of Massachusetts or
antelope roaming the Great Plains anymore.
Yet Republicans do not believe in
public ownership or oversight. Rather, they would prefer that everything be
privatized, thus allowing the “free market” – the market monopolized by
corporations and wealthy individuals – run everything. This is why these
services – national parks, cemeteries, wildlife reserves and other public
spaces – are labeled “nonessential” by conservatives. Lubricated by lobbies,
campaign donations and kept on a steady diet of wishful thinking, the very idea of
public space is rejected by them. For most people, however, public space is
important. It denotes a spatial realm in which individuals are free to engage in
collective action, enjoy activities that could not happen elsewhere (like
scaling Mt. Adams), and have a say in how space is to be used. Public space is,
by definition, our space. We get to
choose how it is used, allocated and maintained. It is democracy in miniature,
a space within which democracy finds itself at its most organic. Indeed, the “tragedy
of the commons” is not that the commons were ravaged by the public (a myth
believed by many economists but disproved by historians), but rather, the fact
that the commons were stolen from the public by greedy landlords.
When Republicans attack public
space they are implicitly questioning the ability of those in charge to take care of it;
in other words, they are questioning the public’s ability, our ability, to handle our own land.
But what does all this have to do with
the Republican Party? First, and to reiterate, the party is ready to sell off
the nation’s patrimony, especially its natural wealth and public spaces,
because of their theology of privatization – a policy which has seldom (if
ever) panned out well in the past. This conviction was vividly evoked by Ronald
Reagan when he opposed the expansion of Redwood National Park on the grounds
that, “A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?”
Secondly, ObamaCare makes healthcare
part of the nation’s patrimony, a right which is guaranteed to all citizens. It
is a public service to the poorest members of society, as they will receive insurance
without cost, and it provides other Americans with more space within
which to choose insurance. Yes, the program has its problems but, if anything,
these problems are linked to the fact that there are still loopholes which could
allow insurance companies to form cartels. If insurance was entirely a public
good – an option the Republicans fiercely oppose – then this would not be a problem. Even
so, the extension of insurance to all Americans regardless of income, and the
elimination of obstacles for those with preexisting conditions are two reforms
that we can all appreciate.
________
When the Republican Party chose to
shut-down the government, their decision was replete with symbolism. Rather
than a break with the past, the shutdown was the natural synthesis of party
doctrine, representing the “best” from the party’s illustrious history. In the
tradition of Reagan the red-baiter, the party attempted to smear Obama as a “socialist”
for creating universal health insurance, a plan the Republicans originally created
and had already put in place elsewhere. Then in the tradition of Nixon they
attempted to scare Congress into caving into their demands by feigning insanity
– Nixon’s famous “madman theory” – leading the responsible adults to wonder as
to whether or not the party was just that stupid, or just that cruel.
Would
they really risk defaulting on the national debt, needlessly sending the economy
into a nosedive, one possibly worse than the meltdown in 2008? As Nobel Prize-winning
economist Paul Krugman writes, “hitting the ceiling would force a huge,
immediate spending cut, almost surely pushing America back into recession.” And
given a history distinguished by ignorance, the plausibility of their present ignorance
– or “madness,” to borrow from Nixon – seems high. Krugman notes that “On the
economics: Republican radicals generally reject the scientific consensus on
climate change; many of them reject the theory of evolution, too. So why expect
them to believe expert warnings about the dangers of default?”
I suppose, if anything, the shutdown has
taught us that all the moralistic talk about fixing the national deficit and fiscal
responsibility that the Republicans have disgorged on the public for the past decade
was all a charade. After all, it they were really so concerned about the nation’s
credit rating then they would not be setting the U.S. up to default on its
debts.
And again, the Republican Party has evolved
over the years, but in the present assault on ObamaCare one can spot
certain threads from the past: contempt for the most vulnerable members of
society, whom the party stigmatizes as “inessential”; antipathy for all social programs
which allocates money to help the poor that could be used to pad the rich (like
the money that goes to food stamps); the desire to make all public space a
private commodity that can be sold, even if this means destroying the country’s “wasteful” natural patrimony; and a willingness, yes, even a compulsion to lie
in order to keep the party – an organization based on lies – afloat.
For the Republican Party is a study of
how one lie can birth more lies, starting a snowball effect that only stops once
the whole structure, a foundation of lies, crumbles under its own great weight.
The result is farcical but deadly. And it may bring down the country’s
government, not to mention the economy. In this way, the lies of the Republican
Party are like a cancer within the
body politic, seeping deep into its veins before literally shutting it down. A sick, ignorant and confused public will not
recover from this disease, this web of lies, until they are able to see again
with unclouded eyes, freed from the dizzying influence of disease and opiates
administered in mass – through Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other
unlicensed “professionals”.
And how can Americans get better unless
they have healthcare? With access the healthcare the public would finally see
that the lies about “ObamaCare,” “big government,” and “socialism” are indeed false.
That, in fact, healthcare is a good idea and a country as wealthy as the United
States should be able to guarantee that its citizens are protected by insurance
just as in every other first-world country. In other words, with healthcare the
cancerous lies of the Republican Party would be defeated, disproven.
But if the Republican Party does
succeed in dismantling the Affordable Care Act then their cancerous lies may
continue to metastasize. And this much is certain. Every death from preventable
illness or cancer that could have been stopped with healthcare will be on the hands
of the Republican Party. In other words, each death will have been an act of
murder. But this is a party which simply does not give a damn: not about the
poor who rely on foot stamps, not on the 100,000s who have lost their jobs in
the shutdown, not about the millions who will suffer if the economy implodes
because of a Republican initiated default. No, we do not have time to wait.
Let us stop this cancer before it reaches the point of no return.
No comments:
Post a Comment