IS YOUR NATION ABLE TO REASON! Kristof discussed the central issue in T. R. Reids new book: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
Comparing Obamato Bush: Is Obama receiving unusual treatmenttreatment driven by racism? On the front page of todays New York Times, Jeff Zeleny ponders this question.
At one point, Zeleny makes a clownish attempt to compare to vitriol aimed at Obama to that received by his white predecessors. In fairness, the clownishness may not be Zelenys fault. In this passage, he starts his rumination:
Racially motivatedor simply akin? Its hard to tell, Zeleny says.
That statement is accurate. Except in the most obvious cases, its hard to measure racial motivation. And its hard to measure levels of vitriol, whatever motivations may drive them. Has Obama faced an unusual level of vitriol? More than was aimed at his white predecessors? Zeleny devotes four more paragraphs to that question. But can you spot a tiny problem with his analytical method?
Clown college! Zeleny considers exactly one of Obamas white predecessorsPresident Bush. For whatever reason, he doesnt consider the level of vitriol aimed at the white predecessor known as President Clinton. You know? The one who was a Democrat?
Harry Reid called Bush a liar? Just trying to remember: Did anyone ever throw such terms at Clinton? At his wife? At Al Gore?
In fact, Obamas white Democratic predecessor encountered giant levels of vitriol. He was his wife were serial murderers. He ran drugs through Mena, Arkansas; he may have been a Soviet agent. And of course, he and all his key associates were the worlds most gigantic known liars! In January 1996, the nations leading political columnist termed the first lady a congenital liar. But then, it was the nations leading Christian minister who was out there pushing the film about those serial murders.
Youre right! No Republican congressman yelled you lie at Clinton during a speech. Instead, Rep. Dan Burton shot up pumpkins in his back yard to show us how Vince Foster died.
(Wikipedia: Burton led the House inquiry into the death of Vincent Foster. He was convinced that Foster was murdered and urged extensive investigation into the possible involvement of the Clintons. Burton gained attention for re-enacting the alleged crime in his backyard with his own pistol and a pumpkin standing in for Foster's head. In fairness, liberals may not remember these things. You see, they had run into the woods to hide, as hot liquid ran down their legs. Other young liberals were standing in line, praying for jobs at the Post.)
By the way, President Clinton got impeached. No level of vitriol there!
Zeleny forgot to make these comparisons. But then, the years from 1992 through 2000 have pretty much been disappeared within the political world. This encourages liberals to make bungled assessments of the current situation. And good lord! How we love doing that!
Zelenys effort is pretty silly. But it may not be all his fault. Former officials who served under Bush are happy to discuss the vitriol aimed at him. But liberals and Democrats have made a fetish of disappearing the Clinton-Gore years. So has the New York Timesthe central player, from Day One, in the Whitewater pseudo-scandal. (The central player, from Day One, in the invention of AL GORE, LIAR.)
(Gene Lyons discussed the Times and Whitewater in Fools for Scandal. Result? The book disappeared!)
Liberals ran off and hid in the woods during the wars against Clinton and Gore. Perhaps for that reason, its hard to get our liberal leaders to discuss what happened back then. That leaves liberals thinking that the vitriol aimed at Obama is without known human precedent. It must be the racists, we declare.
Yes, theres race in the vitriol aimed at Obama. (There was race in the vitriol aimed at Clinton! Remember how hard slimy little Drudge worked to pimp that black love child?) But the similarities between these Democratic eras vastly outweigh the differencesexcept in the career liberal world.
And except on cable, of course.
Remember: If you form the wrong diagnosis for a problem, you will soon be forming the wrong solution. And good lord! How we love doing that!
Can we share a little secret? Some of us liberals are in love with racism. We wouldnt know what to do without it. Tomorrow, well consider some of the ways we strive to keep it alive.
Well also review Rachel Maddows correct review of our political history. To watch her detailed, correct review, you know what to do: Just click here.
BE SURE TO READ EACH THRILLING INSTALLMENT: Obama gave an important speech. Over the weekend, the New York Times op-ed page swung into action:
Today, in our thrilling conclusion, Nicholas Kristof reviews T. R. Reids book:
PART 4IS YOUR NATION ABLE TO REASON: The New York Times is our most famous newspaperbut we live in a highly advanced idiocracy. When you read Rich/Collins/ Dowd/Blow, youre reading a very weak lineup.
Rich will fawnor he will slander. Dowd will invent the story she likes. (No distraction will be left behind.) Collins will simper, whinny and mince. Blow will offer a graphic.
On Saturday, Bob Herbert made a decent attempt to discuss the issues raised by Obamas speech (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/15/09). But on Sunday, Nicholas Kristof went head to head with some of the major themes of the speech, taking us on a rapid tour of T. R. Reids new book.
In Reids new book (The Healing of America), the former Post scribe takes a tour of some of the worlds major health systems. But he starts with a domestic question: Why did Nikki White die?
(Warning to liberal readers: Nikki White was from Tennesseeand she was white. Statistics warn of a key possibility: She may have been a tea-bagger. Understandably, some liberals, thus warned, will want to stop reading here.)
Why did Nikki White die? Thats the question which starts Reids book; its the question which shapes Kristofs column. What follows is part of American health care, as described by someone who isnt as worthless as Rich/Collins/Dowd:
We now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system, Kristof writes. If we let that chance slip away, there will be another Nikki dying every half-hour. Thats how often someone dies in America because of a lack of insurance.
Kristof sketches several of the brutal ironies of our broken system. Whites illness made her too weak to workand so she lost her insurance! Meanwhile, she would have been better off if shed been in prison. As Reid makes clear in his book, lupus is treatable. If White had been an imprisoned felon, she would have received medical treatment. By law.
We recommend Kristofs columnalthough a problem lies at its heart. This is the way the column ends. Everything said here is accurate:
First of all, God bless the Deals for their desire to speak. God bless Nikki Whites parents! But regarding the desire to avoid future suffering, we cant entirely agree with the path Kristofs argument takes.
The central issue isnt technical but moral? It does feel good to make the statementand it makes a striking column. But the moral argument about the uninsured has never really been a winner. The liberal world has tended to lead with this issue. Granted, we havent argued it well. But we have tended to lose.
Is that really us? The answer keeps coming back yes. Paul Krugman has offered an explanation for this, dating back to the late 1940s. But just on a political basis, this emphasis has been a loser.
If the liberal world wants to avoid such suffering, it ought to consider helping people understand a wider range of argumentsincluding other moral arguments about our disgraceful health system.
Like Kristof, we think there are fabulous parts of Reids book. But at least one key part of the book is quite weak. If liberals hope to serve the Deals, we ought to consider that part of Reids book. Well look at Reids book all next week.