Sentiment for the radical wing is real, otherwise there could not exist a caucus whose purpose is to advance the radical agenda, an agenda which relies on extreme tactics such as shutting down the government, flirting with a US credit default, or relying on sequestration to slash budgets across the board. Across the country, enough citizens are electing these extremists. In order to be heard on Capitol Hill, the radicals influence the establishment by voting together, refusing to negotiate with moderates. This has the effect of pulling more moderate Republicans to the right to be viewed as not aiding and abetting Democrats. The entire party gets pulled into a more radical direction.
Tea Party Republicans should be labeled as radicals and extremists because their positions are so far from where the majority of Americans are politically, their policies would be damaging to the US economy and to its citizens, and their positions on issues are based on pure ideology, not reality.
One example is in healthcare reform. To be fair to Republicans, the way Democrats went about drafting legislation was too partisan so there is no mystery why it was not supported by the party. But was there not an opportunity for Republicans to respond to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that would have been more productive than simply saying no?
After all, Republicans are clearly not against expanding healthcare at the expense of the taxpayer. Notice how they are not calling to end a popular government run health insurance program called Medicare? Remember how in 2006 the Bush II administration expanded Medicare with the new prescription program called Part D?
In fact, given how much Democrats had to compromise just to get enough votes to squeeze the ACA through, the bill could have very well been a Republican bill! Except their vehement opposition from the beginning meant they cut themselves off from providing alternatives. They were so intent on proving healthcare reform was a bad idea that they neglected to come up with another solution. Here is what I mean about the ACA being a Republican bill:
1. There was no public option
2. States were not required to comply with creation of state exchanges
3. Long Term Care was scrapped from the bill for cost purposes
In addition, look at healthcare, health insurance, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device companies' stock price and profitability since the act was put into effect. These industries were given a corporate handout to keep their support for the bill. The industry helped draft the legislation!
The radicals in the Republican party believed the ACA undermined some fundamental American freedoms. They were against the taxes which would be required to pay for the program, the tax penalty for not enrolling, the rules and regulations for insurers and providers to provide a more consumer-friendly plan of care. This radical position prevented the moderates from working more with Democrats or from creating some alternative solution. Now that the law is in effect and is being used by millions of people, Republicans can be labeled as being anti-healthcare reform.
What it shows is how a radical wing of the Republican party can successfully be anti- practical things without being pro- anything that is not some sort of idealism. It is easy to imagine... the key word here being "imagine"... an America with a superlative health care system where health insurance is not a necessity because costs are reasonable, and for those who want health insurance, the only companies which exists are ones providing excellent coverage and will never cut off benefits as long as the customer is paying premiums. This ideal is what radical Republicans either think we have or think we could have. Even if it was possible to reach this ideal, they missed the opportunity to put forward proposals to get America to that place!
So just like the situation with the ACA, this is the common theme for the back and forth between Democrats and Republicans in Congress:
- Democrats recognize a problem exists
- Moderate Republicans agree it does exist while radicals do not
- Moderate Republicans are called out by the extremists for being too liberal which hurts their chances of being reelected so the moderates pull to the right
- Meanwhile, Democrats attempt to fix the problem with practical solutions
- While Democrats are fixing the problem, radical Republicans say over and again how they don't want Democrats to fix that problem, that it can fix itself by free market economics
- Democrats keep fixing and eventually move to pass the legislation
- Moderate Republicans allow the radicals to speak for the whole party out of fear. The radicals use tactics like shutting down the government, holding up funding for routine bills, etc. in order to stop Democrats
- Democrats pass legislation
- Republicans have no alternative ideas
- The problem slowly gets fixed and Republicans have to keep saying it is not getting fixed
Democrats do not think practically most of the time. In fact if they did Republicans would not even get as much support as they do. The Republican party is one which started an unnecessary war, tanked the economy, and shut down the government all in a span of 10 years! It should not be as popular as it is. When I say Democrats think practically, I mean they attempt to address problems with realistic solutions. Right wing extremists in the Republican party who have so much influence and often speak on behalf of the party do not attempt to address problems because they are too busy arguing that their idealistic solutions would be better, without providing a practical way to reach that ideal.
These extremists are exactly why qualified Republican leaders like Mitt Romney and John Kasich could not or will not get elected. The terms in which they speak are too practical and nuanced for the shouting of the tea party.
No comments:
Post a Comment