Pixel Tracker

Wednesday, November 21 , 2018, 12:59 pm | Mostly Cloudy 65º

 
 
 
 

Mona Charen: Democrats Lose Argument, Win Dirty

Health-care reform squeaks out a narrow victory, but Americans never bought in to the fairy tale

The revisionist history writers were busy last week. The health-care law was “sweeping” and “historic.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was the “most powerful speaker in history,” and President Barack Obama had cemented his place as “one of the most consequential presidents.” The media, in short, echoed Vice President Joe Biden’s view on the importance of the legislation.

Mona Charen
Mona Charen

This narrative is fantasy. We are asked to believe that the Democrats achieved a glorious victory when they were able to squeak to passage with only four votes to spare. If Rep. Bart Stupak and his colleagues had not sacrificed their consciences and gotten on board, then the speaker would have been impotent and the president a failure? To quote Biden again, “If we were unable to move the ball on this issue ... we would have been done, absolutely done.”

To declare such a close contest — during which the president was reduced to begging Democratic members to save his presidency — to be a triumph is reminiscent of Pyrrhus of Epirus. He fought and defeated Rome, but at such a cost in casualties that upon hearing of his success, he said, “One more such victory and I shall return to Epirus alone.”

In fact, though the Democrats achieved a narrow victory by passing their health-care behemoth, they lost the argument. Despite 58 presidential speeches, vigorous media cheerleading and more than a year of ceaseless lobbying, the Obama administration and the Democrats were never able to convince a majority of the American people to believe in a fairy tale. Voters were never convinced that the government that brought us a $107 trillion unfunded liability in the Medicare and Social Security programs was going to provide subsidized coverage to 32 million uninsured; create 4 million new jobs; produce, as Pelosi put it, “a healthier America through prevention, wellness and innovation”; make insurance more affordable for the middle class; and “save the taxpayers $1.3 trillion.”

No, the reality that the compliant media were eager to obscure in the days after the vote was that the Democrats had abandoned any effort to persuade the American people and had chosen to bulldoze their way to victory with old-fashioned vote buying, harsh threats and political hard ball. That can purchase (narrow) success, but it doesn’t signify a political breakthrough, far less an historic realignment.

Contrast the partisan victory Obama was able to eke out with President Ronald Reagan’s economic program. With the House controlled by the other party 244-191 in 1981, Reagan was able to persuade enough voters to call their representatives that his budget (including tax cuts) passed by a vote of 253-176.

Aware that their bankruptcy-inviting “triumph” was based on brute force rather than popular appeal, the Democrats adopted a smear-the-opposition tactic. Thus, the well-prepared stunt of having several members of the Congressional Black Caucus walk above ground to the Capitol on the evening of the vote, rather than through the underground tunnels. Their route took them past a noisy crowd of tea party protesters. Two members later claimed that they had run a gauntlet of ugly racial slurs.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said, “I haven’t heard anything like this in 40, 45 years. Since the march to Selma, really.” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., claimed that he was spat upon, and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., claimed to have endured anti-gay epithets. Headlines were assured.

Only the Frank story is confirmed by any contemporaneous outside source. A Politico reporter claims to have heard the word. Such slurs are obviously despicable and were immediately condemned as such by leading Republicans. But while the media went purple over one jerk’s shouted insult to Frank, leading members of the Democratic Party and the media (to repeat myself) blatantly slur the tea party movement as “tea baggers” on a daily basis and the media regard it all as a great “in” joke.

As for the claims of the CBC members, one cannot vouch for an entire crowd of thousands of protesters, but no video that captured the moment (and there are several) picked up any racial slurs, just angry boos and chants of “kill the bill.” As for Cleaver’s incident, it was captured on video. He passed a man who had cupped his hands and was shouting as Cleaver passed by. Some spittle seems to have sprayed. It could not have been pleasant, but it’s a world away from being intentionally spat upon.

The Democrats have their narrative and such is their influence with the media that they can circulate it widely: Virtuous liberals enact far-reaching benevolent legislation in the face of violent, racist, homophobic opposition. Their fans at MSNBC and The New York Times may even buy it. But for most of us, it’s the boy who cried “racist” once too often.

Mona Charen writes for Creators Syndicate. Click here for more information or to contact her.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >