3 ms·

For young conservatives who had the Affordable Care Act shoved down their throats during Obama's first term (and this was the last time Democrats controlled the

For young conservatives who had the Affordable Care Act shoved down their throats during Obama's first term (and this was the last time Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency), it feels like a great loss to be back in a similar situation. I just hope that the Democratic majority will take the polarization of our politics seriously and make genuine in-roads at attempting to solve it. Unfortunately all the things I can think of that would help solve the problem are going to require sacrifices on the part of our legislators: 1. Establishing term limits for senators and congresspeople 2. Banning insider trading by political leaders 3. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine[1] (or something similar) 4. Lobbying reform (e.g. banning contributions to political parties made by for-profit corporations) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

HDMI_Cable 6y ago
I cannot agree with you more for the fairness doctrine. It really feels like such an unknown piece of legislation, yet one which has massively affected political discourse in the US (and Canada too). Overall though, it seems like the Republican party could benefit from some of this legislation; introducing more representatives like Romney, rather than McConnell, and giving new life to a seemingly stretched out party.
jfengel 6y ago
That phrase "rammed down your throat" is itself an example of this. They lost a vote. Democrats had been desperate to get any Republican on board (cf the numerous efforts to get Chuck Grassley, as described in this 2009 article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-care-concessions-irking-liberals/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-care-concessions-irking-...). The final shape of the ACA was largely along the lines described by the Heritage Institute and implemented by future GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It wasn't a liberal dream bill, which would have included at least a government option, or even a single-payer plan. It's a very market-based solution. Instead, it was presented as "socialism", regardless of the contents. Effectively, the GOP wanted to "ram" the existing system "down the throats" of an overwhelming majority. My intent here isn't to reopen discussion of the law or even to call them out for bad-faith in discussing it. But I wanted to point out the notion that "shoving down throats" is more about spin than a realistic description of the process. They made it clear, explicitly, that their goal of denying their opponents any kind of win was more important than changing a health care system that overwhelming numbers of people felt was inadequate. It only takes one side to polarize. I don't believe that the current majority has the power to singlehandedly solve it, when the current minority is intent on singlehandedly continuing it. That's not to absolve Democrats of the need to try, but as long as Republican constituents continue to approve of the legislators who thwart it, it's important for all of us to not draw false equivalences or mis-remember history.

HDMI_Cable 6y ago

I cannot agree with you more for the fairness doctrine. It really feels like such an unknown piece of legislation, yet one which has massively affected political discourse in the US (and Canada too). Overall though, it seems like the Republican party could benefit from some of this legislation; introducing more representatives like Romney, rather than McConnell, and giving new life to a seemingly stretched out party.

jfengel 6y ago

That phrase "rammed down your throat" is itself an example of this. They lost a vote. Democrats had been desperate to get any Republican on board (cf the numerous efforts to get Chuck Grassley, as described in this 2009 article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-care-concessions-irking-liberals/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-care-concessions-irking-...). The final shape of the ACA was largely along the lines described by the Heritage Institute and implemented by future GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It wasn't a liberal dream bill, which would have included at least a government option, or even a single-payer plan. It's a very market-based solution. Instead, it was presented as "socialism", regardless of the contents. Effectively, the GOP wanted to "ram" the existing system "down the throats" of an overwhelming majority. My intent here isn't to reopen discussion of the law or even to call them out for bad-faith in discussing it. But I wanted to point out the notion that "shoving down throats" is more about spin than a realistic description of the process. They made it clear, explicitly, that their goal of denying their opponents any kind of win was more important than changing a health care system that overwhelming numbers of people felt was inadequate. It only takes one side to polarize. I don't believe that the current majority has the power to singlehandedly solve it, when the current minority is intent on singlehandedly continuing it. That's not to absolve Democrats of the need to try, but as long as Republican constituents continue to approve of the legislators who thwart it, it's important for all of us to not draw false equivalences or mis-remember history.