Rebellion For or Rebellion Against? The Republican Party Puts America on the Knife Edge

The knife edge between the rhetoric of rebellion and inciting rebellion is sharp, ragged,  and stained with the blood of the innocent; the severing blow comes all too often from a hand unexpected and beyond the control of those speaking as the Advocates for that Rebellion’s Agenda.

Read this interview exchange between Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), who is the Republican Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, and Jeffrey Brown, of PBS’s The News Hour on September 17, 2009:

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: Well, I think — you’ve heard me over the last several months make it clear that we want Americans to involve themselves in this discussion, but it ought to be civil. And, by and large, almost all of it is. Oh, there’s going to be someone now and then who’s going to get out of control or yell, but we are in the middle of a modern-day political rebellion in America.

JEFFREY BROWN: Rebellion?

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: Rebellion. I’ve never seen anything like this. I’ve been around the country in a number of members’ districts, and I’ve been watching this grassfire grow all year.

And the American people, they’re concerned about what their government is doing. They know that these trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, this is not sustainable. And they’re concerned that government here in Washington is getting too big, getting too much control, and they’re making their opposition to it known. And all of my colleagues have encountered their citizens more engaged than they’ve ever seen them.

Now, I went to a tea party in West Chester, Ohio, on September 5th, Labor Day weekend, along with some of my colleagues; 18,000 people were there. And there were some Democrats there and some Republicans there. But three-fourths of the people there were people — average Americans who’d never been engaged in the political process, really didn’t know much about it, except that they were concerned about where our country was going.

And so this conversation that’s underway is healthy for our democracy. It was Thomas Jefferson 220 years ago who said, “A little rebellion now and then is good for our democracy.”

Are Rep. Boehner, and the Republicans who advocate this language, rebelling for something or against something?  Are they fanning the flames of anxiety by the use of such words to what end?  I honestly can’t tell.  They cry “Give us back our country!” but what do they cite as evidence the country has been lost?  They cry “Don’t take away our guns!” and make threatening inferences, “We came unarmed…This time.”  They cry “Our constitutional rights are being squashed!” but I cannot remember a time when our constitutional rights were more protected.

What is the rebellion?  What is truly the word “rebellion” being used to communicate?

John Boehner, will you tell us the truth why you are using the word “rebellion?”

And here is why I make this demand:  The Declaration of Independence sets the standard for initiating rebellion against tyranny.  Rebellion is a just cause when a people are under the yoke of a government that deprives them of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The advocacy of rebellion for any other reason cannot meet that standard.

The advocacy of rebellion as a political means to bring down a legally and constitutionally elected president and government, because you refuse to abide by either the law or the Constitution as the Loyal Opposition, is not justifiable by the standard set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

That is not rebellion, Mr. Boehner, that is revolution.  I pray that is not your true agenda.  For that you cannot control, and it will exact a cost you and all who follow you cannot pay.

There Will Never Be Another Tax Cut

Huh??  What do you mean there will never be another tax cut? Congress can vote to cut taxes anytime it wants.  Have you lost your mind, Waggoner?

Consider this statement:

Using tax levels consistent with the past half century in America, then subtracting entitlement payments as currently promised for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, The Heritage Foundation (another conservative think tank) estimates that sometime just before 2020, there won’t be enough money in the federal treasury for anything but the entitlement programs.

It was written by Bruce Brattain, owner of Wisdom River Partners, who, among his many talents, is an elder care consultant.  Now, don’t roll your eyes over the word “consultant.”  Start reading a few of the pieces in his blog, aninconvenientbruce, and you’ll instantly realize, this is one very astute observer who has his finger on the pulse of a number of national issues.

And, just to entice you more to go read the entire article from which this quote was taken; it’s not what you think it is.

Now.  Please. Go read what Bruce has to say.  Oh, and be prepared to not only to have your assumptions challenged in a classic Extreme Thinkover manner, get ready to be entertained by a guy with one wicked wit!  Click here.

Then come back to my post for this:

Post Script:  I just watched PBS’s The News Hour:

In an ongoing series of conversations on health reform, Jeffrey Brown speaks with Robert Laszewski, a former insurance executive and skeptic of a public insurance option.

Laszewski, in this interview, lays out the manifesto for Big Medicine’s opposition to health care reform.  He is articulate, clearly believes in his cause, and goes over their case against the public plan point by point.

And proves the argument for implementing a public option in the health care reform legislation so beautifully, I almost jumped up from the couch to give him a standing ovation.

Huh?   Two times in one post?  Read the interview of Robert Laszewski, former insurance executive and Big Medicine consultant by Jeffrey Brown.  Click Here.

Radiation Sniffer: On Alert for the Nuclear Option

In my post of July 3, I made the bold suggestion that the various Big Medicine groups could very well be planning to “drop the bomb” on the whole effort toward Universal Health Care, either before the legislation was finalized and voted on, or perhaps even after.  I called this the “Nuclear Option.”

Do not assume for a micro-second they have given up. They are preparing the Nuclear Option. One all-out attack on universal health care, with no regard for collateral damage, just the health of America. In the Board Rooms of the Insurance Megacorps, Big Pharma, Corporate Hospitals, and dozens of other stakeholders firmly anchored in the Status Quo, they are planning to bring this down. Once and for all, to obliterate the very notion of universal health care so completely, that it will never threaten their companies and profits again.

The question is, in all fairness, even though my hypothesis using organizational theory predicts the likelihood of an attempt to prevent UHC from becoming law, or destroying it after it is passed, is there any evidence to support it?  I also stated,

The door for the Nuclear Option is now open. Why? Because the real-life environment to which we are applying my theory is not just one company; we are applying it to a multifaceted industry that has for decades successfully resisted and obstructed the move toward universal health care. And they know that by conspiring together and pooling their resources, they can potentially create a huge wall of resistance. This strategy has a flaw, however. A significant percentage of companies in the industry are supportive of UHC, and are already changing the practice of their organizations to successfully ride the transformative wave. This fact only serves to increase the opponents’ anxiety. Who has the most to lose?

The political and economic environment is volatile and turbulent.  What I needed was a “radiation sniffer,” so to speak, a virtual monitor that would look for “leakage” that might be evidence of the Nuclear Option being planned.  At the same time, I needed an operational definition for “sniffing radiation” that would naturally provide boundaries against my finding “evidence” under every rock just to prove my hypothesis.

That set up two basic choices.  One would be to look for evidence that claimed outright that this group or that was planning to use their version of the Nuclear Option.  The other was to look for evidence that the players known to be facing the biggest losses were playing their game very close to the vest; in other words to look for evidence where what was not being said was more important that what was.

I chose the second.  This is why:

Therefore, if the individuals on the [Big Medicine] Boards and their Executive Management fail to manage their anxiety about the turbulence and the implications of transformative change in motion, and as they realize their historical resources for influence (i.e., lobbying) are waning, they will tend to take the most conservative stance to defend the survival of the organization, and that stance will tend to be to preserve the status quo at all cost.

And, the status quo has been for decades to work politically behind the scenes through lobbying and other forms of influence.  The job of the Public Relations department is to create a public face for the organization that oozes altruism and the common good over the corporation’s true mission to make as much profit as possible using every Machiavellian principle in the book.

Preparing the Nuclear Option requires planning, stealth, subterfuge, and sleight of hand.  In Board rooms around the country listen for the clink of glasses filled with expensive hooch, accompanied by the toast, “They’ll never see it coming!”

Am I skeptical and mistrusting of organizational motivations?  Of course I am.

Here is my first example for possible radiation, in a piece written by David Herzenhorn and Sheryl Gay Stohlberg for the New York Times, July 7th, titled “Health Deals Could Harbor Hidden Costs:”

Rather than running advertisements against the White House, the most influential players in the industry are inside the room negotiating with administration officials and leading lawmakers, like Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee.

“The very groups we have been talking to have been the most vocal opponents of health care reform; they are now becoming the vocal proponents for health care reform,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

How very “chummy” of them.  Sniff, sniff.

The Radiation Sniffer is now fully operational and on-line.  Watch for more to come.  Or if you find something interesting, send to me and I’ll check it out.