We tend to think of the way things are now, with a huge army of lobbyists permanently camped in the corridors of power, with corporations prepared to unleash misleading ads and organize fake grass-roots protests against any legislation that threatens their bottom line, as the way it always was. But our corporate-cash-dominated system is a relatively recent creation, dating mainly from the late 1970s.
And now that this system exists, reform of any kind has become extremely difficult. That’s especially true for health care, where growing spending has made the vested interests far more powerful than they were in Nixon’s day. The health insurance industry, in particular, saw its premiums go from 1.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1970 to 5.5 percent in 2007, so that a once minor player has become a political behemoth, one that is currently spending $1.4 million a day lobbying Congress.
That spending fuels debates that otherwise seem incomprehensible. Why are “centrist” Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota so opposed to letting a public plan, in which Americans can buy their insurance directly from the government, compete with private insurers? Never mind their often incoherent arguments; what it comes down to is the money.
Krugman points out that more is at stake than health care reform:
And what about other challenges? Every desperately needed reform I can think of, from controlling greenhouse gases to restoring fiscal balance, will have to run the same gantlet of lobbying and lies.
As you read Krugman's conclusion below, recall that a major campaign pledge by Barack Obama was to bring a new politics to Washington in large part by banning the influence of lobbyists from his administration. Krugman writes:
I’m not saying that reformers should give up. They do, however, have to realize what they’re up against. There was a lot of talk last year about how Barack Obama would be a “transformational” president — but true transformation, it turns out, requires a lot more than electing one telegenic leader. Actually turning this country around is going to take years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system.It's no wonder that 93 readers of Krugman's op-ed recommended this response by Paul M. Coopersmith of Inverness, California:
One of your best-ever columns, Paul. A rather devastating, but totally accurate indictment of the current state of affairs in 21st-century America.
Until we liberals and progressives take to the streets, fill the town hall meetings with our bodies, and let our elected officials understand in no uncertain terms that they will lose their jobs if they continue putting their own needs above those of their constituents, conditions in this country, for all but the very wealthy, will only continue to deteriorate.
This is what is so mind-boggling to me, about the DNC's choice of 2008. To place a neophyte, with no real legislative accomplishments at the head of the party. To go up against the entrenched interests Mr. Krugman describes.
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth were they thinking?
I mean... yes it is true. Hillary would have faced the same. But she has the know-how and the experience to engage in the necessary warfare.
At times it seems to me that all the DNC cared about was "winning" a personality contest , and issues be damned.
Yes, SYD, Obama won the personality contest, just as Dubya did in the previous presidential election. It's that "likability" factor our media is so fond of citing. Never mind qualifications or experience.
ReplyDeleteI apologize in advance but I do not agree that BZero "won" a personality contest. This was a two prong attack on democracy. Hillary was pilloried - smeared with lies and disrespected by the media and it's shills because she would not - EVER - sell out the people of this country to the corporations - WS, GE, AIG, GS, etc. in the wholesale manner like BZero. There was no, I repeat, NO cover-up used. It was done night and day, shamelessly. Hillary would not give up - that's why we know - knew for a fact - it was fixed. I sob when I read blogs that are still waiting for the smarmy one to actually do something about ANY promise he made during the campaign. There is a legal blog that has a corporate attorney front pager who thinks "pols is pols" - he is so sophisticated? That front pager is the reason we have the criminal political parties we have today. It's just a smutty game to him. I guess my naivety prevents me from voting for known or suspected thugs. That same principle makes me still think people should be held accountible for their illegal actions and punished, especially when lives are lost. Now I don't have a political party because apparently the D leadership morphed over the last few years - they stand for nothing I thought they did. All of Bu$hit's illegal actions are being continued and some are being expanded.
ReplyDeleteBoth Hillary and Bill are threats to this Corporate based party that goes by the name of Democrat - they can never let up on the maligning and smearing. Unless of course, as another commenter stated on another post you made - the American people take to the streets and voice their displeasure and disgust - vote these parasites out of office.
Personality wise - BZero puts me to sleep - too much of a narcissist. It's all about him. He should have either been a straight out con man or a minister. Funny how much he is like Bu$hit - it's a sad funny.
Sorry for the rant Virginia. I have been enjoying your posts again and here I go ranting. It's okay if you delete it. ;>{
Hi Boo,
ReplyDeleteI would never delete one of your comments. You make some good points in this one, although I do recall some serious discussion during the primary by our dangerously ill-informed and immature media applauding Obama for rating high in polls on the likability factor as did Dubya. I also agree with you that the Obama camp's smear tactics against the Clintons helped them win and of course, they were aided and abetted by party leaders and media allies.
You're always welcome here, Boo!