The Health Care Divide – The Republic versus A Democracy; Which Will We Choose?

August 30th, 2009

The Senate appears to be considering the ramifications of pretending we live in a democracy instead of a republic. Tired of the health care battle, in which there will assuredly be no survivors of that old, ‘wheel and deal’ process, there may actually be an old-fashioned vote in which the majority rules.

Fancy that.

The NY Times discusses it in their latest editorial, “Majority Rule on Health Care Reform.” It is past time our Senators were introduced to the concept that the people who voted for them actually hoped their will would be the guiding force behind the actions of the individuals designated to make our decisions for us.

The flaw in the process by which a republic operates is best demonstrated by the editorial’s quotation from South Carolina Senator James DeMint (referred to as ‘Jim,’ except that I have no intention of getting that informal with this character.) Apparently, his views take no notice of his constituents’ needs for medical services, but is solely concerned with ending any chance of Obama presiding over a nation that can actually consult a physician when the need arises.

Perhaps if such a privilege were called the “DeMint Prerogative,” we’d have a better chance of obtaining that goal with his extra vote? Hard to say, when elected officials only address issues one can not even call partisan at this point. The Republicans are no longer recognizable as a party. Instead, they appear to be buffoon-like caricatures of their former old boys’ network of well-educated, if exclusive (in all senses of the word), club of wealthy conservatives who once had some investment in the stature of their country in the world community.

Here is the comment left on the NY Times blog about this today:

153. B.R. August 30th, 2009

We should not attribute President Obama’s ‘efforts’ to obtain bipartisan cooperation in any area as naive or ineffectual. A man of his intellect and experience had to have known such efforts were destined for failure. However, that effort was the greatest source of enlightenment for a badly misinformed public. We have learned that our struggles with economic and health care issues are not based upon an unwillingness of reformers to reach across the aisle. It is based upon the determination of many elected officials to prevent reforms from ever becoming a reality for the American people.

Perhaps if the NY Times stopped paying people to publish obstructionist material in your paper, we might see an end to conservatives laboring in the service of industrial ‘dis’ interests, including the welfare of its own labor force. Perhaps we’d see an end to interminable debate and delay strategies by legislators being applauded and redefined as ‘incrementalists‘ by your own columnists.

President Obama had no choice but to parade this futile dance before our eyes to convince us once and for all that many of our representatives are busy representing something other than their constituencies. A show of reasonableness, and the offer of a clean slate for previous contributors to divisiveness, was a necessary step towards the political education of the American people. We must no longer be willing to be led down the garden path accompanied by slogans and waving flags as we sink into homelessness, under/unemployment, ignorance, poverty and disability. Just look at the plight of our veterans if anyone thinks conservatives today represent American values.

There are no conflicts – just incorrect premises. Thank you to President Obama for revealing those premises upon which so many of our political fiascoes are based.

Categories: NY Times, Published

Tags: , Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Feed / The Health Care Divide – The Republic versus A Democracy; Which Will We Choose?