I agree that Roberts was likely playing the "long-game" in shifting the ruling out of commerce and under tax-authority, and thus strategically voting the way he did. However, I think your analysis of the political implications of this -- that it implies a real "victory" for the conservatives, and loss for the democracts -- is somewhat off the mark. It seems this would only be the case if our national policitcal discourse is continually framed according to far-right sensibilities, for which any "new tax" is anathema, no matter how many people it's actually "imposed" upon, and to what ends.
Your whole article seems to hinge on your predictions that, because such far-right sensibilities are now framing the discourse, and are obviously here to stay, then we know how this decision will play itself out in the upcoming election. This prediction, it seems, allows us to then retrospectively understand the "real meaning" behind Roberts' decision and the passing of the bill.
My problem with this is two-fold. First, it severely downplays the real short-term gains in actual health insurance policies, which -- while by no means ideal -- really do expand the possibility of coverage to tens of millions of Americans. And secondly, as I hinted above: you are only right about the "long-term" consequences of this (that it is a "victory for the conservatives"), if in fact our political discourse remains predominantly set in a . I'd suggest, alternatively, that in addition to the short-term gains for expanded healthcare access, and affordable coverage for millions, the passing of this bill altogether shifts the paramaters of our national discourse; it requires new conversations about whether basic care is a right or a privelege, and whether the unfettered privatization of services that provide for basic needs is a real good, or requires some public restriction. Obama will of course be put on the "defensive" because the "mandate" was passed as a tax; but that sentiment will only carry the day as long as the majority continues to resist a serious, historically informed dialogue about those basic questions that this bill raises for the US, at this juncture.
If, on the other hand, Democrats, liberals and progressives of various stripes all respond to the vitriolic rhetoric about Obama and the dreaded "expansion of government" in a way that clearly articulates why those basic questions about our shared rights, liberties and responsibilities need to be on the table, then, even in the long run, the ultimate "meaning" of this decision could like much less like a victory for conservatives. Such a response from liberals and progressives, and a confident defense from the Obama campaign along those lines, might well force Republicans and Libertarians to offer more-sound explanations for their working presupposition that a corporate-dominated market will humanely and fairly provide for our basic human needs.
stprather says...
I agree that Roberts was likely playing the "long-game" in shifting the ruling out of commerce and under tax-authority, and thus strategically voting the way he did. However, I think your analysis of the political implications of this -- that it implies a real "victory" for the conservatives, and loss for the democracts -- is somewhat off the mark. It seems this would only be the case if our national policitcal discourse is continually framed according to far-right sensibilities, for which any "new tax" is anathema, no matter how many people it's actually "imposed" upon, and to what ends.
Your whole article seems to hinge on your predictions that, because such far-right sensibilities are now framing the discourse, and are obviously here to stay, then we know how this decision will play itself out in the upcoming election. This prediction, it seems, allows us to then retrospectively understand the "real meaning" behind Roberts' decision and the passing of the bill.
My problem with this is two-fold. First, it severely downplays the real short-term gains in actual health insurance policies, which -- while by no means ideal -- really do expand the possibility of coverage to tens of millions of Americans. And secondly, as I hinted above: you are only right about the "long-term" consequences of this (that it is a "victory for the conservatives"), if in fact our political discourse remains predominantly set in a . I'd suggest, alternatively, that in addition to the short-term gains for expanded healthcare access, and affordable coverage for millions, the passing of this bill altogether shifts the paramaters of our national discourse; it requires new conversations about whether basic care is a right or a privelege, and whether the unfettered privatization of services that provide for basic needs is a real good, or requires some public restriction. Obama will of course be put on the "defensive" because the "mandate" was passed as a tax; but that sentiment will only carry the day as long as the majority continues to resist a serious, historically informed dialogue about those basic questions that this bill raises for the US, at this juncture.
If, on the other hand, Democrats, liberals and progressives of various stripes all respond to the vitriolic rhetoric about Obama and the dreaded "expansion of government" in a way that clearly articulates why those basic questions about our shared rights, liberties and responsibilities need to be on the table, then, even in the long run, the ultimate "meaning" of this decision could like much less like a victory for conservatives. Such a response from liberals and progressives, and a confident defense from the Obama campaign along those lines, might well force Republicans and Libertarians to offer more-sound explanations for their working presupposition that a corporate-dominated market will humanely and fairly provide for our basic human needs.
On The Partisan Blindfold
Posted 12 July 2012, 4:29 a.m. Suggest removal