The Greek general Pyrrhus had just won a bloody victory over the Romans at the battle of Asculum in 279 B.C. Upon being congratulated for his victory, the seasoned general commented, “One more such victory, and we shall be undone!”. From this exchange we have derived the term “pyrrhic victory”, to denote a victory that leaves the winner in as desperate a shape as if he had lost.
The Supreme Court decision regarding Obamacare was a no-win proposition for the President. If he had lost the decision he would have appeared weak, and his first term would have seemed to be an exercise in vanity, pursuing some grand scheme of Universal health care while the nation’s economy foundered, only in the end to have it proven to be unconstitutional and a waste. In for the most part winning the decision, he at the least has avoided appearing “Carteresque”, but has been catapulted to an even higher level of disdain as the bully who won; and the unpopularity of the bill may very well be his undoing, as the the only way now to undo “Obama’s Folly”, is to undo Obama.
Certainly, there are some vocal supporters of the law, but the level of dissatisfaction is reminiscent of Prohibition, and the similarities in the passing of the law are striking; the deceptions used to push the law through, the over-reaching intrusion of the government into what has heretofore been a private matter, under the guise of public health concern; and the willingness of ordinary citizens to express their disapproval and take a stand. When a law is a bad law, there can be no good outcomes. There will always be the “temperance” types, willing to sacrifice freedom to require what they see as what is best, and that is a viable alternative system that to some extent has worked in other countries. It has not generally been successful in the U.S., as we have traditionally followed an equally successful path of personal responsibility and voluntary goodness, unfettered by the intrusions of a heavy handed approach to government. In the words of Frederic Bastiat:
“”Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”
The socialists believe that it is naive to assume that society can resolve these issues satisfactorily without the intervention of government. Americans have traditionally believed that society is up to that task without coercion, by the free will goodness of its citizens and their generosity. Consider the case of the bullied bus monitor and the compassionate citizens who have donated over $600,000 to help assuage her pain and degradation. I’m not saying that there’s not a role the government can play in the centralization of relief, but what level of coercion would have gotten this poor soul the level of help freely donated by her fellow Americans? That current remains strong in this nation, and Obamacare runs against the tide, as does its captain. The strength of that current will be determined in November.
All manner of theories have been postulated as to why Judge Roberts chose to side with the liberal wing of SCOTUS in what was clearly a contrived argument. As we can’t expect Roberts to explain himself anytime soon, we are left to guessing. Some have suggested that the Chief Justice was concerned with the reputation of the court as being politically motivated, and wanted to lay that notion to rest for the sake of his legacy. I would hope that our Justices would be above that on such an important issue, and I would suspect that Justice Roberts motivation was more principled, albeit misguided. I take him at his word, that he does not want his court to be seen as a shortcut to overcoming the stupidity of the American people in their election of unqualified representatives who make bad law. He does not want to see five votes of the Supreme Court nullify the 69 million who voted for Obama knowing this was his intention. “You made your bed,” Justice Roberts might as well have said, “Now sleep in it!”. He has seen what division has been caused by judicial “settling” of the abortion debate via Roe v. Wade in an unending controversy, because we never really determined the matter via legislation; and he does not want his court to be a “law maker” court. And so he has found a way, feeble as Justice Kennedy may find it, to allow this law to stand until it is overturned by the will of the people. In his concern against judicial activism and not being like previous Supreme Courts, he may very well have neglected to do the duty to which he was appointed, and in the end may prove to be the Chief Justice who brought the proverbial “knife to a gunfight”, as the liberal wing of the court will no doubt prove more dependably political in their decisions.
What remains to be seen is how intense the response to this will be. Remember that Obamacare was perhaps the seminal issue that gave rise to the formation of the Tea Party, and, by extension, the pounding the Democrats took in the last Congressional election. Romney is flawed in his standing to criticize Obamacare, which looks an awful lot like Romneycare; but I’m not sure the rage of the electorate will pause to consider that fine point. If the electorate remains rational, they might consider that giving the majority in both houses to one party along with the presidency is what got us this godawful bill to begin with. On the other hand, they might just as rationally determine that the only way to swing back the pendulum of this Democratic fiasco is to empower the Republicans for a couple of years. Most likely they’re just going to say “I’m mad as Hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” Then, who knows what we’ll get.
IMHO: Romney’s strategy going forward should be to continue to go after Obamacare, but not to the distraction from the economy. This should not be a problem, as the two are easily connected. He can keep talking about how he will overturn it on the first day he’s in office, but we all know it won’t be that easy. If he can get majorities in both houses, that will help, but a super majority in the Senate is hardly a possibility. Not following Justice Roberts example, Romney may need to bring his gun to this gunfight. Reconciliation was used to ram the bill through, thus avoiding the need for a super majority to shut down debate; the use of reconciliation might be needed to repeal the legislation. In the mean time, if Romney is elected with or without majorities in the Congress, on his first day he should announce that his administration chooses not to enforce the new health care tax, or any of the other laws incorporated in the Affordable Care Act. Hey, presidents can do that now, right? It’s part of that “hope and change” thing, and “fundamentally transforming America”. Echoes of Pyrrhus call out to the White House; paraphrased they say “Beware your bloody victories, for they may just bite you in the ass!”
“…as we have traditionally followed an equally successful path of personal responsibility and voluntary goodness, unfettered by the intrusions of a heavy handed approach to government.”
When it comes to health care, this approach has not been successful at all. There are thousands of Americans who die every year because they can’t afford proper treatment. Those who keep insisting that there is no problem or that charity could pick up the slack are ignorant of the facts.
“The socialists believe that it is naive to assume that society can resolve these issues satisfactorily without the intervention of government.”
Wrong. Socialists don’t distinguish between society and the government. Under democratic socialism, every member of society is given the chance to participate in government through democratically elected structures that focus on the needs of the people instead of corporate profit. And why are you bringing up socialism in the first place? Obama’s health care reform pushes countless Americans into private insurance plans offered by profit-driven corporations. It’s the best thing that could have happened to the industry and it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.
@ tsc444: Forgive me if I have opted for “the glass half full” approach by equating the success of both systems. I suppose I could have gone for the path you chose in comparing the failures of socialized systems with charitable and free market approaches as so many conservative commentators have. In such critical evaluations no system is without fault, and therefore “not successful at all”, because some people die, or have horror stories about waiting for treatment, or there are exorbitant prices, or there are shortages of doctors. As I consider the wonderful works of The Shriners, St. Jude’s Children’s Hospitals, The Red Cross, The Salvation Army, The United Way, The Seventh Day Adventists Hospitals, Catholic Charities, etc., etc., etc…. I find it difficult to be so negative as to say this approach, despite some serious shortcomings, has not been successful at all.
Your definition of Socialism demonstrates what I was saying about the differences in the American mindset, where rule of the majority does not necessarily trump the freedom of the individual. I was operating on the technical definition of socialism as a theory of social organization that advocates the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the “collective community”. With Obamacare weighing in at 2700 pages of government regulation, I would say that qualifies as “regulated production, distribution and exchange”.
Even if your contention were true that pushing countless Americans into insurance plans is the best thing that could happen to the industry, allow me to educate you about Americans… we don’t like to be pushed around! And while you were pursuing tangents on my tangents, that was the central point of the blog, and why I think the Obamacare victory might ultimately prove to be a pyrrhic one.
Kevin, of course no man-made system is without fault but what happens in the U.S. simply doesn’t happen in countries with so-called “socialized” medicine. By comparing the fact that Americans die every day because they can’t afford proper treatment to the shortcomings you may find in other systems you are downplaying the severity of the problem. And I have found that the horror stories you mentioned are mostly unfounded. There is no shortage of doctors where I live; there are all kinds of specialists within walking distance and I’ve never had to wait longer than a few days to be seen. Other countries also spend significantly less on health care compared to the U.S. so I don’t know what you mean by “exorbitant prices”.
I agree with you that the organizations you mentioned accomplish great things and I’m grateful that they exist but charity alone has not been able (and shouldn’t be expected) to fix the problem. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
(Blogger’s explanatory note: tsc444 lives in Europe)…. The “exorbitant prices” reference was part of a list of popular criticisms leveled at the dichotomous systems wherein I alternated between the two. The reference is a criticism directed at the free market approach, not generally at socialist systems.