Is it possible to govern a country like this?

[rubato]

Is it possible to govern a country like this? So completely disconnected from reality?


http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/01/w ... -2014.html

Josh Marshall: Something to Behold: "It's become something of a cliche: disabled, aged or relatively impoverished whites who literally could not survive without federal government assistance in many case nonetheless raging against Washington, 'hand outs' and government dependency.

It's there with a vengeance in this article in National Journal by Beth Reinhard on GOP plans to double down on race-based class warfare as the ticket to success in the 2014 elections. Kudos to Mark Karlin of Buzzflash for bringing the piece to my attention and specifically the passage I'm about to quote in full. Meet Terry Rupe ...

"I don't have any use for the federal government," Rupe said, even though his household's $13,000 yearly income comes exclusively from Washington. "It's a bunch of liars, crooks, and thieves, and they've never done anything for me. I'm not ungrateful, but I don't have much faith in this health care law. Do I think it's going to work? No. Do I think it's going to bankrupt the country? Yes."

Rupe sounds like he could be standing on a soapbox at a tea-party rally, but he happens to be sitting in a back room at the Family Health Centers' largest clinic in Louisville—signing up for Medicaid. Rupe, who is white, insists that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Africa get more government assistance than he does. (Illegal immigrants do not, in fact, qualify for Medicaid or coverage under the Affordable Care Act.)

[...]

"President Obama's idea is taking from the working people to give to the people who won't take care of themselves. It's redistribution of wealth," Rupe said. "I've always taken care of myself. You got these young girls who go out and get pregnant and then they get $1,500 a month for having a kid, so they have two."

The theme of Reinhard's article are what we might call the contradictions of Republican electoral revanchism. Thematically Republicans are now all about 'the makers and the takers'. But if you actually want to pursue this pinched logic, they're now dangerously dependent on 'taker' votes, largely because of their increasing dependence on older voters.

For what it's worth, I think this contradiction is actually pretty sustainable as an electoral trope because of the way it rests partly on misinformation but also on racial tribalism and animus.

I don't see Terry having an epiphany any time soon about social insurance.

But here's where the near-term politics disconnects from the policy realities. The Democratic fantasy scenario is not only that everyone decides that Obamacare is awesome but that that recognition has a transformative effect on their beliefs about government in general. This might be termed an excessive belief in rationality. What I think you do see however is how the dread reaper Obamacare is already becoming embedded in the nation's political fabric in a way that will never be undone.

I expect Terry will continue to rant against Mexicans, blacks, Africans and all manner of racial freeloaders and vote for Mitch McConnell to keep them in line. I also think he'll be insured, which is the fundamental good in itself. And I think it will quickly become impossible to turn back the clock on the millions of who have care because of Obamacare and the tens of millions who have dramatically improved care (pre-existing conditions, lifetime limits, etc.) because of it. And Terry will become part of the expanding Obamacare constituency which will make it impossible to repeal even as he rages against Obama's socialism and Obamacare. This shouldn't surprise us. It's the world we already live in with regards to Medicare when the GOP's increasing number of older voters demand the government keep its hands off their Medicare.

I think it's quite possible that Obamacare could hurt the Democrats in the 2014 elections. I think it's far from clear that it will. But I think it's totally possible, especially because the key Senate races are disproportionately stacked in states like are demographically similar to Kentucky. States like Arkansas and Louisiana, for instance.

But if your fundamental concern is with policy outcomes over near-term political scores, this is okay.

Promoting delusions and denying reality can work as an electoral strategy. Its amoral but it can work.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Don't know this guys age, but maybe his "household's $13,000 yearly income comes exclusively from Washington" might be social security, a fund he paid into all his life. Which is a little different than recieving welfare which the article eludes to as his income.

The dems rely on the welfare voters.

And are supposed to be the party of the blacks, meanwhile black unemployment is in the 20+% range. Hows this admin working out for them? About as well as if a repub was in there.

If there was a repub in charge you can bet that there would be a huge cry about how the blacks are being excluded from this so called "recovery".

[rubato]

the truth, for those who cared more about that than making things up, was only two clicks away:


http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/comm ... stay-alive

To understand Kentucky's conflicted relationship with the federal government, 50 years after hosting President Johnson's launch of the "War on Poverty," is to meet Terry Rupe. The 63-year-old widower can't remember the last time he voted for a Democrat, and he's got nothing nice to say about President Obama. He's also never had health insurance, although he started working at age 9. Since his wife's death four years ago, he's been taking care of their 40-year-old, severely disabled daughter full time. She gets Medicaid and Medicare assistance.

"I don't have any use for the federal government," Rupe said, even though his household's $13,000 yearly income comes exclusively from Washington. "It's a bunch of liars, crooks, and thieves, and they've never done anything for me. I'm not ungrateful, but I don't have much faith in this health care law. Do I think it's going to work? No. Do I think it's going to bankrupt the country? Yes."

Rupe sounds like he could be standing on a soapbox at a tea-party rally, but he happens to be sitting in a back room at the Family Health Centers' largest clinic in Louisville—signing up for Medicaid. Rupe, who is white, insists that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Africa get more government assistance than he does. (Illegal immigrants do not, in fact, qualify for Medicaid or coverage under the Affordable Care Act.)

...."President Obama's idea is taking from the working people to give to the people who won't take care of themselves. It's redistribution of wealth," Rupe said. "I've always taken care of myself. You got these young girls who go out and get pregnant and then they get $1,500 a month for having a kid, so they have two."

63 so he might be on Social Security, just, which is a federal social insurance program and somewhat redistributive. If it is his entire retirement income which the article says it is, than he would have nothing without federal social insurance. Without the federal government requiring him to save for retirement he would be a pauper living on handouts. Those with lower benefits like him get more relative to payments those at the top of the scale pay more. And he is getting Medicaid (walfare) for his daughter.

The Republican party faithful are all just as hypocritical and in denial about reality as this cluck.

He is wholly dependent on the federal government for his existence and then asserts that the federal government can't do anything; except keep him alive. And this 'hard-working individualist' apparently was too incompetent to save for retirement or qualify for a pension.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

What did I make up?
Black unemplyment rates?
Black overwhelmingly voting for dems?
Saying "maybe" the guys income is from soc sec?

How far down the rabbit hole do we have to go to find out exactly what his income stems from? We know it comes from the gov. The question is, is it soc sec or welfare? IMO there is a big difference.

[oldr_n_wsr]

He is wholly dependent on the federal government for his existence and then asserts that the federal government can't do anything; except keep him alive. And this 'hard-working individualist' apparently was too incompetent to save for retirement or qualify for a pension.

If in fact it is soc sec, that is money he earned and the gov took to save for him to be given back when he is older. That is money he is owed. Where is that lock box it was supposed to be in? Oh wait, the gov treats it as any other money it gets. I would give the gov a failing grade for it's handling of soc sec monies.

Too incompetant to save for retirement? Maybe he was one of those who always was week to week. Covering bills with each pay day money. Never getting ahead, but never bothering anyone for his needs either. Less taxes taken may have helped, I don't know. And not all jobs give pensions, especially private secor jobs.

[Econoline]

The facts remain that he is both (a) dependent on federal government programs* and (b) insisting that he has no use for the federal government and that they've never done anything for him. He's in complete denial about what the federal government is doing and has done for him, but if it ever stopped doing it he'd probably notice that.

* Even *IF* he took early SS he's dependent on a government program for doing his savings for him--which he couldn't or didn't do on his own (and if he lives long enough he might get way more money back than he ever put in)--and to take care of his daughter's health care, which he can't or won't do on his own.

[rubato]

"...

Too incompetant to save for retirement? Maybe he was one of those who always was week to week. Covering bills with each pay day money. Never getting ahead, but never bothering anyone for his needs either. Less taxes taken may have helped, I don't know. And not all jobs give pensions, especially private secor jobs.

So without the federal government he would have nothing. Only with the aid of the government he has some retirement at all plus the welfare he is getting for his daughter.

The whole point is that there is a complete cognitive disconnect here. He would have nothing without it but still pretends he is a sturdy individualist and that the government cannot be trusted. But the government has come through on S.Sec. for 70 years, without fail.

He in fact proves the premise that people need SSec and cannot be trusted to save and provide for their old age on their own. He proves that we have to have the federal government to ensure the common well-being.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Isn’t that, in some ways, the entire story of this administration? That what it has actually done – from rescuing the auto-industry to ending wars, from the stimulus to universal access to health insurance – is actually popular on the ground, but still powerfully toxic to a vast swathe of Americans. Maybe history will help us understand that critical cognitive dissonance. Or maybe we’re just fucking complicated human beings, whose emotions – primarily fears – alternate and contradict each other with increasing impunity. Obama’s gift is his liability. He sees through the psyches to the actual pressing needs. He does not feel the way his opponents does. Which has made him far more effective and pragmatic in implementing his vision, while losing political altitude in a very emotional and ideological country precisely because of these successes.

source