Earlier I noted that basically being a conservative means being a reactionary and the 6 and 1/2 years of Obama have underscored this.
New adventures in GOP policy schizophrenia:
"Here, courtesy of GOP Senator John Thune, is the tweet of the day, and probably the month:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/08/happy-hour-roundup-620/
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/jon-thune-says-it-all-about-gop.html
More than just stupidity it's sheer perversity-but then this is the legacy of reactionaries who are about nothing except opposition to the President's agenda without any positive agenda of their own.
However, the Democrats are now being told that if the Supreme Court does gut Obamacare subsidies that it's incumbent on the Dems to swoop in and save the GOPers from their selves.
"Some key points from Brian Beutler about the various compromises Democrats should entertain in exchange for getting Republicans to keep the subsidies going, and why that would be a better outcome for Dems even if the political consequences of chaos could be bad for the GOP"4
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121987/democrats-have-save-republicans-obamacare-bloodletting
Now I'm in no way saying that the Democrats shouldn't keep the subsidies even if it helps the GOP; I do think it's worth noting that this would be exactly what the GOP would do if the shoe was on the other foot. During the Obama years on issue after issue, they've shown themselves willing to be willing to do anything to harm the President politically no matter how much collateral damage this inflicts on the very people they allegedly represent.
The phrase I use in the title 'The party with a conscience' is based on Zizek using a similar phrase in discussing the Vietnam War once when he referred to America as 'An oppressor with a conscience'-the very conscience of these 'oppressors' was something the Vietcong was able to exploit was Zizek's point.
For more on Zizek see here:
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=zizek&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=4967292883&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6fndxuzzq6_e
http://www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/
The GOP is the party of perversity while the Dems are the party with a conscience. Having a conscience can be a liability.
Like with debt ceiling chicken and government shutdown chicken it seemed that the GOP had the advantage-after all, they hate the government anyway, so where is the leverage? Of course, ultimately what the were counting on precisely was that the Dems are the part of conscience and would do the work of making sure it stays open for them
The constant shakedowns-like in 2011-only started when Obama called their bluff. Now the GOP has sworn off that particular tactic.
So what about King-Burwell? First of all, my best guess is that the Supremes won't 'go there'-there are just too much that is problematical in gutting the subsidies and they will recognize this. John Roberts while running a very conservative Court nevertheless is very sensitive about not having the Court as too big a lightning rod.
The SJC even as conservative as this one does put a lot of store in things like precedent and likely Congressional intent. I don't think he'll want the Court to be in the middle of such a visceral political fight.
That's not a bad barometer for how he wants to rule here: which ever decision is more likely to turn down the temperature rather than pushing it up.
In other words, I think he's going to want to be a small c conservative here and prefer the decision that is most conducive to the status quo rather than something that is earth shattering and throws the political process both nationally and at the state level in chaos.
I'm not as pessimistic as many liberals like Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent then. Assuming though my glass half full view is wrong this time, then may answer to the question 'Do the Democrats work with Republicans to fix the subsidies if the Court rules against the the government' is let me see the GOP actually do something this constructive first before speculating what we should do if they do so.
It would depend on all kinds of variable-like would it be a real fix or just another poison pill? I'm all for having a conscience as long as this doesn't mean you don't get to use your brain as well.
New adventures in GOP policy schizophrenia:
"Here, courtesy of GOP Senator John Thune, is the tweet of the day, and probably the month:
Six million people risk losing their health care subsidies, yet @POTUS continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people.
"As this blog predicted. No snark I could come up with would add anything to the rampaging stupidity on display here."http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/08/happy-hour-roundup-620/
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/06/jon-thune-says-it-all-about-gop.html
More than just stupidity it's sheer perversity-but then this is the legacy of reactionaries who are about nothing except opposition to the President's agenda without any positive agenda of their own.
However, the Democrats are now being told that if the Supreme Court does gut Obamacare subsidies that it's incumbent on the Dems to swoop in and save the GOPers from their selves.
"Some key points from Brian Beutler about the various compromises Democrats should entertain in exchange for getting Republicans to keep the subsidies going, and why that would be a better outcome for Dems even if the political consequences of chaos could be bad for the GOP"4
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121987/democrats-have-save-republicans-obamacare-bloodletting
Now I'm in no way saying that the Democrats shouldn't keep the subsidies even if it helps the GOP; I do think it's worth noting that this would be exactly what the GOP would do if the shoe was on the other foot. During the Obama years on issue after issue, they've shown themselves willing to be willing to do anything to harm the President politically no matter how much collateral damage this inflicts on the very people they allegedly represent.
The phrase I use in the title 'The party with a conscience' is based on Zizek using a similar phrase in discussing the Vietnam War once when he referred to America as 'An oppressor with a conscience'-the very conscience of these 'oppressors' was something the Vietcong was able to exploit was Zizek's point.
For more on Zizek see here:
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=zizek&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=4967292883&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6fndxuzzq6_e
http://www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/
The GOP is the party of perversity while the Dems are the party with a conscience. Having a conscience can be a liability.
Like with debt ceiling chicken and government shutdown chicken it seemed that the GOP had the advantage-after all, they hate the government anyway, so where is the leverage? Of course, ultimately what the were counting on precisely was that the Dems are the part of conscience and would do the work of making sure it stays open for them
The constant shakedowns-like in 2011-only started when Obama called their bluff. Now the GOP has sworn off that particular tactic.
So what about King-Burwell? First of all, my best guess is that the Supremes won't 'go there'-there are just too much that is problematical in gutting the subsidies and they will recognize this. John Roberts while running a very conservative Court nevertheless is very sensitive about not having the Court as too big a lightning rod.
The SJC even as conservative as this one does put a lot of store in things like precedent and likely Congressional intent. I don't think he'll want the Court to be in the middle of such a visceral political fight.
That's not a bad barometer for how he wants to rule here: which ever decision is more likely to turn down the temperature rather than pushing it up.
In other words, I think he's going to want to be a small c conservative here and prefer the decision that is most conducive to the status quo rather than something that is earth shattering and throws the political process both nationally and at the state level in chaos.
I'm not as pessimistic as many liberals like Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent then. Assuming though my glass half full view is wrong this time, then may answer to the question 'Do the Democrats work with Republicans to fix the subsidies if the Court rules against the the government' is let me see the GOP actually do something this constructive first before speculating what we should do if they do so.
It would depend on all kinds of variable-like would it be a real fix or just another poison pill? I'm all for having a conscience as long as this doesn't mean you don't get to use your brain as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment