What’s the Matter with Democrats?

BY David Sirota

Democrats tell their base that any bill is better than no bill, even one making things worse, and that if this particular legislation doesn’t pass, Republicans will win the upcoming election -- as if signing a blank check to insurance and drug companies couldn’t seal that fate.

Ever since Thomas Frank published his book What’s the Matter With Kansas? Democrats have sought a political strategy to match the GOP’s. The health care bill proves they’ve found one.

Whereas Frank highlighted Republicans’ sleight-of-hand success portraying millionaire tax cuts as gifts to the working class, Democrats are now preposterously selling giveaways to insurance and pharmaceutical executives as a middle-class agenda. Same formula, same fat cat beneficiaries, same bleating sheeple herded to the slaughterhouse. The only difference is the Rube Goldberg contraption that Democrats are using to tend the flock.

First, their leaders campaign on pledges to create a government insurer (a “public option”) that will compete with private health corporations. Once elected, though, Democrats propose simply subsidizing those corporations, which are (not coincidentally) filling Democratic coffers. Justifying the reversal, Democrats claim the subsidies will at least help some citizens try to afford the private insurance they’ll be forced to buy – all while insisting Congress suddenly lacks the votes for a public option.

Despite lawmakers’ refusal to hold votes verifying that assertion, liberal groups obediently follow orders to back the bill, their obsequious leaders fearing scorn from Democratic insiders and moneymen. Specifically, MoveOn, unions and “progressive” non-profits threaten retribution against lawmakers who consider voting against the bill because it doesn’t include a public option. The threats fly even though these congresspeople would be respecting their previous public-option ultimatums – ultimatums originally supported by many of the same groups now demanding retreat.

Soon it’s on to false choices. Democrats tell their base that any bill is better than no bill, even one making things worse, and that if this particular legislation doesn’t pass, Republicans will win the upcoming election – as if signing a blank check to insurance and drug companies couldn’t seal that fate. They tell everyone else that “realistically” this is the “last chance” for reform, expecting We the Sheeple to forget that those spewing the do-or-die warnings control the legislative calendar and could immediately try again.

Predictably, the fear-mongering prompts left-leaning Establishment pundits to bless the bill, giving Democratic activists concise-yet-mindless conversation-enders for why everyone should shut up and fall in line (“Krugman supports it!”). Such bumper-sticker mottos are then demagogued by Democratic media bobbleheads and their sycophants, who dishonestly imply that the bill’s progressive opponents 1) secretly aim to aid the far right and/or 2) actually hope more Americans die for lack of health care. In the process, the legislation’s sellouts are lambasted as the exclusive fault of Republicans, not Democrats and their congressional majorities.

Earth sufficiently scorched, President Obama then barnstorms the country, calling the bill a victory for “ordinary working folks” over the same corporations he is privately promising to enrich. The insurance industry, of course, airs token ads to buttress Obama’s “victory” charade – at the same time its lobbyists are, according to Politico, celebrating with chants of “we win!”

By design, pro-public-option outfits like Firedoglake and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee end up depicted as voices of the minority, even as they champion an initiative that polls show the majority of voters support. Meanwhile, telling questions hang: If this represents victory over special interests, why is Politico reporting that “drug industry lobbyists have huddled with Democratic staffers” to help pass the bill? How is the legislation a first step to reform, as proponents argue, if it financially and politically strengthens insurance and drug companies opposing true change? And what prevents those companies from continuing to increase prices?

These queries go unaddressed – and often unasked. Why? Because their answers threaten to expose the robbery in progress, circumvent the “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” contemplation and raise the most uncomfortable question of all:

What’s the matter with Democrats?

David Sirota, an In These Times senior editor and syndicated columnist, is a bestselling author whose book Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now—Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything was released in March of 2011. Sirota, whose previous books include The Uprising and Hostile Takeover, hosts the morning show on AM760 in Denver. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

More information about David Sirota

  • Reader Comments

    I take great exception to this.  The Democrats’ version of the healthcare reform bill included a public option.  The version that passed was a totally gutted form that only included what Republicans would agree to, which was to push everything through their big money supporters, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.  That is exactly the same thing Bush did with Medicare D when we could have bought the drugs from pharmaceutical companies much cheaper.

    The Democrats know, as does anyone with any sense, the only way to fix healthcare is to get the huge cash-sucking cow called insurance companies entirely out of it.  What they’re taking out of the system plus what we’re already paying would pay for healthcare for everyone without costing us one cent more.  In fact, if we dealt with pharmaceutical companies and healthcare beaurocracies it would probably be cheaper.

    However, since the insurance companies and pharamceutical companies have all of our money to buy the government with the only way to get rid of them is to provide a non-profit competitor to make it unprofitable for them.  Their greed has exceeded all bounds and they need to be stopped cold.

    But that’s the Republican game, gut the healthcare bill and make it ineffective then rage against it and blame the Democrats for it being unaffective.  I’m smarter than to buy that and I sure hope the majority of Americans are.

    Posted by CherisPlace on Apr 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM

    And I can tell you what’s wrong with kansas.  They’ve been brainwashed, along with the rest of the country, to be one-issue-voters.  They’ve been told the GOP is against abortion yet they’ve had a long time with control of the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade has never been overturned.  The only two Democratic appointees are the two Clinton appointed. 

    They sure can overturn the only piece of campaign fincance reform we’ve been able to get passed but they haven’t even looked at Roe v. Wade and they’re not going to.  Why?  Because they never really cared one way or the other about abortion, just about getting elected and using Chrisitan people to do it.  Doesn’t anybody see this? 

    The fact is until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade NOBODY can do anything about abortion no matter what they say or how strongly people feel.  So to lie to them and tell them they’re going to do what they want to get elected is unconscionable.  These people need to wake up and realize they are being lied to.

    The bigger issue is that when women are desperate they’ve always had ways of getting rid of babies they couldn’t feed and take care of whether there were abortion clinics or not.  So why would you vote for people that don’t even want to feed or give healthcare to the children who are already born?  Abortion rates actually dropped under Clinton/Gore because the economy was thriving and they actually did what they could to give women a choice.  I think very few women would do that if they were not desperate.

    If they really want to stop abortion they’ll raise their boys not to abandon a young girl or woman with a child she has no way to feed.  Abortion is a horrible thing to me but watching your child cry because they’re hungry is also a terrible thing.  So the real question is why do we have hungry children in the richest nation in the world?

    These same people don’t want to fund birth control.  They may claim people should be celibate but anybody with any sense knows that’s not going to happen.  So are we going to fund birth control and give women choices or we going to crucify them because they feel desperate.  I don’t believe abortion is a choice.  I believe it’s a last-ditch struggle for survival.

    Posted by CherisPlace on Apr 24, 2010 at 4:35 PM
  • Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account