Why I Can't Vote For Democrats in '08 (And Neither Should You) -- Part 1: Health Care Hypocrisy

Let me begin this essay with a concession I've made before: Let it be conceded that only one major political party in America cares about the poor, and that party is the Democratic Party.

With that sweeping concession made, let me ask a question. Barack Obama has raised $450,000,000 this election cycle; he has spent nearly $400,000,000 thus far. I ask without flinching: Why isn't this money going to the poor?

What follows in part comes from an argument I presented in a lengthy series of essays published under the title of "Making Poverty History."

____________

In 2005, I wrote the following, and it is crucial to my own polemic against my voting for a Democrat this year:

I want to make one point about someone who remains arguably the figurehead of the Democratic Party, John Kerry. Mr. Kerry, in case you have forgotten, is a member of that class aptly called the super-rich, with he and his wife, Tereza Heinz, worth at least $500,000,000. (That Ms. Heinz' fortunes came through her previous marriage to a Republican is not really germane to this point, though it is curious in a gossipy sort of way.) And we will recall with ease that Mr. Kerry stood for political values that included rolling back the Bush tax cuts. To Mr. Kerry, the tax cuts did nothing to benefit the poor or middle classes.…

I am wondering if you knew that Mr. Kerry and his wife chose, in 2004, NOT to pay Massachusetts state income tax at an optional higher rate offered by the tax commission for those with high incomes. That this made a few New England papers, and the talkshow circuit in Boston, is about the broadest audience this tid-bit reached. Mr. Kerry and his wife, no doubt with the shrewdest of accountants at hand, chose to keep some of their earnings to themselves, choosing not to give extra money to the state coffers, money which could have been used, in part, to fund programs for the needy or less fortunate.

Mr. Kerry's actions, or inactions, are applauded by me as actions well within his right. I am glad that he was free to do with his money as he saw fit. But I can't help but note a bit of irony here: The super-rich gave themselves a tax cut though they appear to oppose cuts in government funding.

I hope you get the point: John Kerry ran a presidential campaign in 2004 which was critical of the Bush tax cuts and opposed to gross cuts in government spending. But privately, when offered a chance to actually increase government coffers, Mr. Kerry abstained during tax time. It is really a rather telling fact.

Readers attentive to the political hankerings over the last several election cycles know that universal health care coverage is a key item in the Democrat Party's legislative agenda. Hillary Clinton attempted to develop a health care plan during her husband's presidency; John Edwards was quite passionate about health care reform during this latest election cycle. It is a wildly popular idea: just last month, New York Times columnist and Democrat celebrant Paul Krugman waxed on giddily about the prospects of universal health coverage in the United States.

But let me make this point, one which to some will seem utterly vapid: the Democrats have themselves done nothing to provide health insurance for the uninsured, or coverage for the uncovered. And they have had every chance to; like John Kerry at tax time, Democrats have chosen to keep their money to themselves. Let me explain.

After John Kerry lost his presidential bid in 2004, there was much harumphing about the callousness of America, particularly toward the 40 million souls who had no health insurance.

In the wake of Kerry's failed bid, I wrote the following:

Please recall with me two things from the 2004 election. First, that the Democratic Party ran on a platform that included federally-funded health care for the 40 million Americans without any health insurance. That these 40,000,000 include 18-28 year-olds who generally don't even think about health care; the very rich who choose to finance their own medical care; and those folks who simply do not want such insurance is interesting to note: the 40,000,000 is not necessarily replete with ONLY poor people.

Second, recall that John Kerry received over 59,000,000 votes by Americans who shared his views about health care for "the poorest among us." Recall too, that as a result of Mr. Kerry's defeat by George W. Bush in that election, many Democratic leaders and pundits rebuked the pro-Bush electorate for being uncompassionate, "un-Christian", and uncaring vis-á-vis the less fortunate. There was from coast-to-coast, from C-Span to lowly newspaper editorial pages, an outrage and disgust at the moral callousness of the Bush administration and the Republicans' cold-heartedness. Many expressed that they wanted to leave America, as it was no longer a kind or generous place: America had closed its doors on the poor. (New Hampshire bumper sticker: Bush/Cheney '04 - Leave No Billionaire Behind.)

Let me ask: What has prevented the 59 MILLION Americans who voted for John Kerry from pooling their own resources together in a brilliant 501(c) and creating a health insurance program for the needy? What has hindered the 59 MILLION Americans who believe health insurance is of primary importance from creating even a temporary and private fund for health care? Surely the 59 MILLION Americans who voted for John Kerry and universal coverage could have donated at least $1 each; but knowing that most if not at all could donate $10 apiece, why did no one see that a $590 million private program to insure 40 million folks meant that there was a safety net of more than $10 million per uninsured person? Where is the Democratic Party compassion I so often hear touted?

Let us note that Barack Obama and his party are poised to raise and spend MORE than half a BILLION dollars on getting him elected, but have not raised a single penny in the last 15 years to help care for those without health insurance. Apparently the desperate needs of so many vulnerable souls is not all that desperate. No, no. The Democrats are only compassionate when they can, by FORCE OF LAW, have every wage earner pay for health care for others. The urgency is not particularly urgent; but what is urgent is grabbing by legislative fiat the wealth of others so the "desperate needy," that group ignored by Democrats during the off-season, can be treated "justly" and "compassionately."

This is one reason why I am not a Democrat. That the Democratic Party can raise and spend an obscene amount of money merely to promote the PROMISE of health care, without ANY guarantees that such promises will be kept or the election even secured, proves two damning things: The party does not REALLY believe in health care, or else it would offer it via private funding, which it could easily do (even if only temporary); and the party is really only interested in one truly urgent need -- gaining power. The uninsured poor? the vulnerable? the desperate? Well, they will just have to wait until the Democrats win the White House and procure sovereignty over the Congress. In the meantime, those who do not have what they so desperately need can comfort and console themselves by blaming those callous Republicans.

As an aside, how odd to see the "compassionate" squirm when they learn that conservatives actually give more to charity than liberals.

Food for thought, or not.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Dear Democrats: Proceed With Caution

In the wake of the incredible news that Governor Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, I think it would behoove Democrats to protect any moral high ground they may believe they hold by choosing decorous silence. Any other tack would be profoundly detrimental to their cause.

After gross and grotesque rumors were passed around by people who should know better -- rumors suggesting that Governor Palin faked a pregnancy to protect her daughter -- it turns out that Bristol Palin is currently great with child. This, in the purest sense, is very good news: a baby is always good news.

And in a political sense it is not dire news either, at least for the McCain-Palin ticket. For that ticket can first exploit the rumor-mill crap that hummed over the last day or so for all it's worth, pointing out how grotesque and brutal folks can be. Furthermore, this makes the Sarah Palin narrative all the more real, current, and familiar: it is a 21st-century story many of us know too well. It is the Camelot of the 2000s.

And what will it do to voters' sentiments when they learn that Sen. McCain knew beforehand that Gov. Palin's daughter was pregnant and asked the governor to run with him nonetheless? (It is being reported that Sen. McCain did know, by the way.)

I do think that Gov. Palin needs to be careful not to neglect her family in all of this, though I am quite cognizant of the fact that this sort of thing happens to countless families: we are, after all, animals that reproduce. Barack Obama may someday have to face the news one of his daughters is pregnant; I doubt anyone thinks he would have to withdraw from his responsibilities because his daughter is in Nature's Way.

Lastly, even if, and maybe even ESPECIALLY IF, Gov. Palin withdraws from the ticket, the Democrats will have to be incredibly careful not to overplay any form of the "can-you-trust-a-commander-in-chief-who'd-choose-a-moral-hypocrite" kind of card. Since so many American families deal with out-of-wedlock pregnancy every day, and because they know the stresses not only parents but teenage girls are under, then Democrats can only hurt themselves if they come across as judgmental, happy, gossipy or relieved. ANY gloating, any putting on airs of moral superiority, or any arguments that begin with "Isn't it ironic..." will prove deadly to Democrats.

So, what I am saying is this: a pregnant daughter of a Republican VP candidate could be a powerful tool to garner the empathy vote.

(Watch for the offsides trap.)

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Sex, Sex, Sex: Growing Hard To The Core

I recognize that I promised to continue my discussion on learning and ignorance in America, but I feel it's important to examine some of the moral issues that may be buried in the Eliot Spitzer story. Part if not all of Mr. Spitzer's story has indeed been buried by the media avalanche which is the Barack Obama/Rev. Jeremiah Wright insanity, but that will not shake my resolve to look more closely at the underbelly of American sexual obsession and addiction.

For clearly this Spitzer tale is about obsession and addiction in more places than in Mr. Spitzer's personal and public life. American AND European media, and their consumers, are also obsessed with sex, sex scandals and the like; and not a few -- whether media producer or consumer, it matters not -- are addicted to sex as commodity, often in its most salacious forms.

Let us take note of something curious. There is a rather pervasive idea that sexual sins are private matters. One never heard the end of this particular defense when President Clinton was in office. In fact, the rather glibly spoken trope that Clinton's private life was irrelevant to his role as president was rolled out even before he was elected. And Eliot Spitzer tried to remind us all, in his resignation speech, that his sin, too, was private.

I am not here to quibble with the privacy defense, other than to point out that it is rotten and foolish to the core. What I am here to note is how our culture simply does not believe this sort of thing at all. We are a prurient and voyeuristic lot, perhaps so empty of soul and spirit that we are titillated by the sights and sounds of others' titillation. Privacy be damned!

How else to explain that thoroughly inhuman evil, the sudden interest in finding the prostitute with whom Mr. Spitzer had his dalliance? How else to explain that pornographers, like Penthouse and Hustler, want to PAY this prostitute to expose her body for their probing, salacious eyes?

It's amazing that so many folks can take the high road against those men who have sinned with prostitutes, and yet are curiously silent when those same prostitutes are paraded nude through video and print so they may incite lust and lubricity among tens of thousands. It is wrong, no doubt, for Mr. Spitzer to use prostitutes; but it is, apparently, OK for the snickering masses who denounce him (and men like him) as hypocrite to later go and salivate and secrete at the sight of the same exploited prostitutes in magazines and movies. Remember tele-evangelist Jim Bakker's 'paramour,' Jessica Hahn? Sure you do. Perhaps you remember her from her Playboy pictorials and videos that followed that scandal.

And one can never forget the great fall of that other tele-evangelist, Jimmy Swaggart, who was busted frequenting a prostitute not so he could have intercourse with her, but so he could watch her in various poses in order to whet his beastly appetites. Recall the great hue and cry over this scandal; recall the righteous multitudes denouncing (rightly so) the flagrant hypocrisy of Mr. Swaggart. "How could men of such allegedly high moral standing fall to such depravity?" many of us asked.

Curiously, that was about as deep a moral question we could ask, because our culture went suddenly silent as Mr. Swaggart's prostitute posed in Penthouse, hovering over the camera to reveal to the world how she serviced Mr. Swaggart's lust (yes, I saw that issue years ago, when I visited the men's room -- there was a stack of magazines -- at a tire warehouse while waiting for my company truck to be fixed). No one seemed to care that this bit of 'journalism,' too, was a form of prostitution (as is all pornography), or that millions of men were consuming in print what had been so roundly condemned only weeks before when Mr. Swaggart was a headline.

Again, I am not a person who stands on high ground in this matter. Ever since I was shown my first Playboy when I was about to enter the 6th-grade, pornography has been a difficult temptation for me (as it is for millions and millions of men). It is, indeed, an addictive product, and pornography's peddlers know it. It is also a gross product, and it is every bit as immoral and empty as prostitution. Gratefully, I have been spared the greater temptations: I've never been to a strip club (and I pray I never will), nor have I ever sought the comforts of a prostitute. But this is more a function of God's grace, and not any function of my personal constitution.

Let me put it this way for anyone who does not get the power of the visual image for men. Please note the next time you drive down the freeway: notice the chrome, two-dimensional silhouettes of women, baring virtually NO RESEMBLANCE to any woman in three dimensions, that are affixed to mud flaps on tractor-trailer trucks. Why are those there? In part, they are there to incite lust among an invisible fraternity of men: it is code that hot babes are what all men crave. It is a reminder of sex, of copulation; it is really a subconscious trigger reminding men they are designed to fertilize (a compulsion that never really sleeps). And it is a reminder that men, too, are reduced to sex objects, susceptible to the slightest temptations.

Think, then: if mere chrome stickers are known to trigger something in the brain of a man, how much more powerful the images of women on the cover of Cosmo, or in the newest Victoria Secret catalog? (And why do you think so many TV news shows have gorgeous anchors? We all know the answer, but think what it means: men can hardly go ANYWHERE where they can get a break from being reminded of what they "really want.")

Many men know that they've been trained by peer support, and the Madison Avenue push of high couture and sexually suggestive advertising, to become visual predators, stalking women they pass with their eyes, women they might see for but a moment in passing. I have talked with enough men to know that this is indeed a real problem; I have sat in cafés, or in my car on a busy street; I have watched men in the fitness club, and I have seen how they move their eyes: I HAVE SEEN HOW THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES. Some men will walk out of their way while grocery shopping to catch a glimpse of the woman they spotted at the end of aisle 3.

It is, in fact, a nightmare for many of us. And I have not even touched on the fact that the internet is in our homes allowing us access to the world's darkest imagery. (And the technology is still in its primitive form.)
___________________

How is it not a matter of broad cultural denunciation that the pornography/news/internet industries are trying to find Eliot Spitzer's prostitute so they can exploit her (of course, they'll compensate her handsomely) again, and again, and again; so that they can use her body to exploit millions of men for financial gain? And think of the motive, which is not mere profit: the idea is to show her naked wonders solely to judge them, to see if she is "worthy," to see if she is "hot" enough -- or not. This is precisely why images of Mr. Spitzer's prostitute have been shown on even the pages of the New York Times; editors and readers are responding -- and I've already heard radio comments along these lines -- to the pictures with a "would YOU spend $5000 to have sex with ... this?" The very reductionism should send us out in the streets in riotous rage.

But it won't, and it doesn't. We are too dulled, too inured, to care. We can't think of it; we just leave this all to 'privacy' and 'free speech' and 'market forces' (and, for not a few, 'boys will be boys' and even 'female empowerment' are suitable defenses).

We are fools, killing ourselves, our souls; we are grinding all that is romantic and beautiful and transcendent about sex beneath our feet, grinding it into a mundane mash of culturally permitted abuse. We denounce on Monday morning what we condone Monday night; and we do not care, really, that there are millions of men and women, men like me, women like you, who are imprisoned (or have been), or will be imprisoned, by the trappings of pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of sexual oppression.

The deep cultural hypocrisy is seemingly insurmountable. It is, in the end, like a pervasive blindness, a narcotic that has stolen our time and killed our inability to feel what is perhaps our most noble emotion: moral outrage.


'Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.'

Peace to you.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.