I think maybe a couple of things are going on here:

1)There's an expression dating from sometime in the 19th century: "tell me where a man gets his corn pone, and I'll tell you where he gets his opinions." I think many academics believe there will be more corn pone for them--in the form of money and social status--in a government dominated by Democrats of the Obama persuasion. Certainly, this group seems far more impressed by academic credentials than was, for instance, George W Bush...also, Obama has signaled his interest in greatly expanding college enrollments.

2)Many academics--I don't know what %, but it is nontrivial--seem to have a real dislike for American society. This may well be due to a feeling that society does not give them the prestige that is due them. (Actually, every group in American society feels that it doesn't get the respect and appreciation it is due. One of the things that most struck Peter Drucker when he came to the U.S. from Austria was the extent to which every single group--business, labor, politicians, etc--felt insufficiently appreciated by the larger society. But it seems to bother academics more than it bothers most other people.) And Obama projects a far more negative attitude toward American society than is typical for an American political leader. Hence, academics of the type I am describing may see him as a fellow spirit.

Um, no. Marc Bousquet, for one, has been a loud and public left-wing academic opponent of Obama. I believe Zizek has written some work critical of the present administration, and the Counterpunch crew is always good for left-wing opposition to the president. The gay and lesbian community continues to speak out against Obama's selling out of their political goals.

However, I think it's simply wrong to expect anyone to simply criticize whoever is in power. It ignores the very pragmatism that is politics. Plenty of progressives are unhappy with aspects of Obama's work thus far, but they are well aware that Obama is better for the left than, say, McCain and Palin. They will continue to pull their punches because eight years of Obama will at least be more progressive than four.

You seem to think that academics and artists criticized Bush because they are hippies who just oppose The Man, no matter who The Man happens to be. But perhaps the academics and artists who went after Bush did so because they believed that Bush was wrong on the issues and bad for the country. Perhaps they aren't the straw-man relativists they are too often made out to be, criticizing just for the sake of criticizing. Perhaps they have actual political beliefs and intellectual positions that they wish to stake out, and they see Obama as the better option.

Of course he's getting criticized for not being left enough. That's not what I was talking about--though it's revealing in itself. I'm talking about the stuff that really ought to be nonpartisan--and unifying. The enormous spending and indebtedness, the massive engorgement and enlargement of government, the failure to keep promises about transparency, the deep Democratic ties to lobbying interests and resulting conflicts of interest, the evident disorganization and steamrolling quality of so much that has gone on in recent months. Of course Obama was the better option for Democratic / academic voters last fall. But the debate to be had right now is not whether he's preferable to Bush. It's about real, problematic things Obama is doing--and that Congress is doing. It's about how the American people increasingly in polls and townhalls show they don't want these things --and how that isn't slowing the machine politicians down at all. But I get your point: "Nothing to see here! Move on!" And it pretty much makes my point.

It's amazing to see so many putatively smart people put so much trust in government. And I don't think that this is, in its original form, a political or even a pragmatic position. I think it's visceral and easy for them--just as mistrusting government is visceral and easy for others. And it may well be that politics is ultimately secondary to more primary, more psychological phenomena having to do with people's baseline capacities for tolerating different kinds of discomfort. Virginia Postrel is eloquent on this in The Future and its Enemies, noting that far right and far left actually converge in a deeply felt, conservative desire for certain kinds of unattainable stasis, intervention, management, and control.

Erin said:

It's amazing to see so many putatively smart people put so much trust in government. And I don't think that this is, in its original form, a political or even a pragmatic position. I think it's visceral and easy for them--just as mistrusting government is visceral and easy for others.

Yes. I think the way they get to this "trust government" mind-set is to view government as an abstraction rather than as a group of individuals, with all that implies.

So my question is: why would one trust government more than big business?

But the conservative agenda, both Republican and pseudo-Democrat, has been to run the gov't so poorly that the people lose faith in it.

It's seems rather un-American -- as David wrote above, opposed to American society -- simply to distrust the government that is of the people. The true progressive agenda has always been to create a government that serves the people, especially those people who are not served well by other social institutions. So it's not surprising to see many on the left willing to trust Obama's attempts to restore to the government a large role in protecting and serving the American people.

I also think many on the left question what scholars have called American childishness: we want plenty of services and we don't want to pay for them. We want health care for all, but we don't want our yachts or inheritances taxed. And the criticism of the Bush regime was never simply about overspending -- it was about what Bush (or Clinton) was willing to go in debt for. They cut social programs, but spent plenty on wars that have no clear advantage for our citizens. While Obama was running, lots of citizens liked the idea of a new New Deal. But now they are getting scared off by complete lies (Obama will kill your grandmother!!! Obama wants us to be like Canada!!!) and they don't want to pay for it.

Well, the people are telling "their" government no.

"Their" government isn't listening.

What do you suggest now, Luther?

Or are the people just woefully misinformed, and need to overridden by the smarter people in office?

Government is not an idealized parent, which is the way that many "progressives" and even old-line liberals tend to view it. It is an aggregate of people--politicians, senior officials, low-level bureaucrats--who are individually pursuing their own desires for power, adulation, money, and security.

And it should never be forgotten that government is *dangerous*. There are plenty of nasty corporations, but you can generally choose to minimize your dealings with them. You don't have that choice with government.

The following quote is often attributed to George Washington. I don't think it really came from him, but still makes a very important point:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

More on this at my post Be Afraid.

Matt said:

But the conservative agenda, both Republican and pseudo-Democrat, has been to run the gov't so poorly that the people lose faith in it.

Exactly! So why do you trust government to fix the country's ills?

It's seems rather un-American -- as David wrote above, opposed to American society -- simply to distrust the government that is of the people.

I'd argue quite the contrary: it is profoundly American to distrust the government, and to make our opinions known in widely ranging ways (you know — Bushitler, "no blood for oil," "baby killers," "race traiters" etc.).

The true progressive agenda has always been to create a government that serves the people, especially those people who are not served well by other social institutions.

Well, that's what the true conservative argues too! Except that while the "true progressive" wishes to err with more government control to help the people, the true conservative prefers to err on the side of less government control to help the people.

You know — the government can best help the people by staying out of their lives as much as possible.

So it's not surprising to see many on the left willing to trust Obama's attempts to restore to the government a large role in protecting and serving the American people.

See, I think you've put your finger on why I can't give Obama my trust and be a progressive.

I have a very hard time willfully disregarding: "I never heard the Rev. Wright say . . ."; "Ayers is just some guy who lives in my neighborhood"; "No lobbyists in my administration"; Rashid Khalidi; "Gitmo is a moral outrage that must be shut down now!"; flag@whitehouse.gov; the behind-closed-doors deal with Pharma; his on-again off-again comments about single payer; his knee-jerk description of a defensible police action as "stupid" even as his justice department dismisses charges against Black Panthers for voter intimidation (after they'd lost their case by default, no less); demonizing of opponents who raise legitimate policy questions rather than answering the questions; etc.

Given these examples, it's just beyond me to keep the Obama faith. (It's my personal failing . . .)

I also think many on the left question what scholars have called American childishness: we want plenty of services and we don't want to pay for them. We want health care for all, but we don't want our yachts or inheritances taxed.

Perhaps the trick is to not keep expanding services and entitlements. Perhaps it's a little like heroine — once on, it's hard to get off.

And the criticism of the Bush regime was never simply about overspending -- it was about what Bush (or Clinton) was willing to go in debt for. They cut social programs, but spent plenty on wars that have no clear advantage for our citizens.

Well, our citizens saw clear advantage to "wars" following 9-11. Even the progressives did for Afghanistan (and you still do, including the assassinations by Predator drone, right?), and the cost was chump-change compared to what our profligate government is spending now on various bailouts. (And it's not as if we know how that bread has been spent, either . . . the audits just can't seem to discover what's going on . . .)

While Obama was running, lots of citizens liked the idea of a new New Deal. But now they are getting scared off by complete lies (Obama will kill your grandmother!!! Obama wants us to be like Canada!!!) and they don't want to pay for it.

Complete lies? Well, Obama does want a single payer system, and the people aren't so dumb as to be unable to figure out what that means in terms of their own health care.

And, of course, there's that pesky problem of the rationale for massive health care restructuring: it was a policy originally sold as cutting costs, but the CBO put paid to that crapola.

Now, of course, the rationale has changed, though the push for Obamacare remains as strong as ever.

Gee . . . it's almost like there's a hidden agenda there.

I love how when hippies mistrust the government, they are labelled as anti-American goons. But when David and Minerva (who loves to out me but continues to hide behind a pseudonym in classic hypocritical fashion) caution us to fear and mistrust the government in a form of paranoia that would make a Pynchon character blush, they are being true Americans.

John Drake: There's no evidence that the American people both understand and oppose the health care proposals. When Newt and Sarah are on TV all weekend spreading outrageous lies about "death panels," and when citizens are polled as actually believing these lies, I think we need to take any polls results with a grain of salt.

Minerva: Factcheck.org, a non-partisan public policy fact-checking site, has discredited comparisons between Obama's proposal and the Canadian system. Obama himself might admire the Canadian system, but he's not proposing such a system. So yes, comparing these reforms to Canadian style health care is a complete lie. (Factcheck.org has also discredited right-wing claims about mushrooming premiums and death panels and mandatory abortions.)

Distrusting Obama because of his comments about Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers is a total non-sequitor.

And now Obama is responsible for the bailouts that Bush initiated! Can you say, "Moving target"? Plenty of folks on the left opposed these bailouts. Chomsky has been opposing them for decades.

Bottom line: there's been a good deal of left-wing opposition to Obama. But you all seem to expect that folks on the left will challenge Obama from positions in the center. But that, in the words of a janitor I've heard talk of, "don't make no damn sense."

Matt wrote:

I love how when hippies mistrust the government, they are labelled as anti-American goons.

Strawman. Nobody here has said anything about "hippies," much less did anyone label them "anti-American goons."

But when David and Minerva (who loves to out me but continues to hide behind a pseudonym in classic hypocritical fashion) caution us to fear and mistrust the government in a form of paranoia that would make a Pynchon character blush, they are being true Americans.

Ad hominem. Hypocrisy and paranoia have nothing whatsoever to do with the case either of us made. An argument should be attacked on its merits, not on the basis of what you believe are the personality characteristics of those presenting it.

Minerva: Factcheck.org, a non-partisan public policy fact-checking site, has discredited comparisons between Obama's proposal and the Canadian system.

Strawman. You're the one who brought up Canada. I merely mentioned that Obama wanted a single-payer system (of which Canada might be one form).

Obama himself might admire the Canadian system, but he's not proposing such a system.

Strawman continued. I never said he was. I only pointed out that Obama prefers a single payer system, and seems willing to work towards it.

So yes, comparing these reforms to Canadian style health care is a complete lie. (Factcheck.org has also discredited right-wing claims about mushrooming premiums and death panels and mandatory abortions.)

Strawman continued . . .

Distrusting Obama because of his comments about Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers is a total non-sequitor.

Argument by assertion.

Look — if you want to believe that Obama's membership in the hate-filled, racist TUCC was a perfectly innocent relationship, go for it! Same for his friendship with Ayers, Khalidi, Dohrn, Rezko, his association with the Annenberg Challange, ACORN etc.

I'm merely saying I find such a background a tad disturbing, and have trouble getting past it.

And now Obama is responsible for the bailouts that Bush initiated!

Bush derangement syndrome: blame Bush first.

Or is it nothing more than a tu Quoque?

Just a reminder — the democrats have been in charge of Congress since 2006. So Congressional Democrats are just as much to blame for initiating a the Bush era bailouts as he was. Perhaps more so.

In any event, that was then.

But this is now, and Obama certainly is responsible for accelerating the profligate spending of an out-of-control Democratic congress.

Under Obama and the Congressional Democrats, the phrase "trillions of dollars" has replaced the phrase "billions of dollars" as the key descriptor of government spending.

By the way . . . have you seen this? It seems to throw a little light on a major (if not the major) cause of the financial meltdown, as does this.

I'm just not sure I want to trust government with overseeing much of anything, much less healthcare's 1/6 share of the economy.

Can you say, "Moving target"?

I can! And I can also say "distractors galore" because you still haven't told me why Obama in particular, or the government in general, should be trusted more than big business with managing our healthcare system! (Hells bells — some of these guys admitted they either didn't read the legislation or couldn't understand it if they did. And none of them want to limit their medical care to what the government wants to foist on us.)

Plenty of folks on the left opposed these bailouts. Chomsky has been opposing them for decades.

Red herring. However true, that doesn't provide a reason to trust the government more than big business.

Bottom line: there's been a good deal of left-wing opposition to Obama.

Which, as Erin pointed out, is because he's not far enough to the left (though it's not for lack of inclination and sympathy).

But you all seem to expect that folks on the left will challenge Obama from positions in the center.

That's not my position. I just wonder how my friends on the left can overlook Wright; Ayers; Pfleger; ACORN; "legislation will be posted for 5 days before I sign it;" Rezko; Predator assassinations (what happened to the rights of these Taliban guys?), lobbyist influence; the politics of expediency (what I said about single payer healthcare then is not what I'm saying about it now); the snitch program; presidential attacks on news stations; presidential attacks on radio talk show personalities; Gitmo morphing from a moral outrage to a complex problem that needs to be studied; knee jerk declarations of police "stupidity" even as the justice department dismisses the already won case of the Black Panthers who were guilty of voter intimidation; etc. etc. etc.

I'm afraid I'm getting in Obama exactly what I expected. Are you?

Minerva:

David described academics, wholesale, as opposed to American society. Apart from the fact that I don't quite know what that would mean -- I mean, what exactly *is* American society as one thing to be opposed? -- this is a common shorthand for writing them off as unAmerican scum, as hippies, as Manson freaks who will climb in your windows at night and kill your bunnies. So I still find it odd that you and David and Erin distrust the American government will adoring American society. The government is, in a democracy, a reflection of the society at large. So if you hate the government, you hate the society that made it.

Again, Factcheck.org discredits analogies between Canadian healthcare and the American proposal. Raising the spectre of Canada here is simply playing on stupid forms of patriotic sentimentalism and American exceptionalism. We might as well call the present health care system Hitlerite because it benefits large corporations.

Insofar as none of Obama's personal associations have anything to do with health care, I don't think we can make any assumptions based on them. The Annenberg Challenge was funded by conservative interests (Annenberg pere is a right-winger) and conservatives chose Obama and Ayers to sit on the board. Ayers has made a name for himself in Chicago education reform, regardless of his past actions. If every Republican who associated with Gordon Liddy or Oliver North was tarred and feathered, how many would be left? Guilt by association. (And while we're on the subject of the Gates Affair, notice how the Right quieted down when details about the case became clear, such as the less than 20 minutes that elapsed between response to the call and Gates' arrest, along with the fact that the caller did not ever refer to the alleged criminals' race, which gives the lie to the cops' story.)

Finally, why not try Big Government when Big Business has balled up health care as it has? Americans are happy with the care they receive, but that tells us nothing about the insurance that helps pay for that care. No American should be bankrupted because of health care costs. If the price of health care is bank-breaking, then all Americans should be insured.

Plenty of right-wingers have tried to scare the people by telling them that Medicare will disappear if the government takes over health care. That tells us exactly why the government should take it over: Americans love Medicare, and Medicare is government run.

Erin claimed that there was no dissent. I have shown plenty of it. She and David and yourself seem to think that everyone on the left should oppose the government en toto -- which, oddly enough, would make them libertarians. Asking such things is like wondering why Republicans didn't oppose the war in Iraq. You can't blindly oppose the government and remain a Democrat. You can't oppose stupid wars and remain a Republican. It's like calling oneself Jewish while not believing in any of the tenets of the Jewish faith or following any Jewish customs!

LB...you say "David described academics, wholesale, as opposed to American society." What I actually said was "Many academics--I don't know what %, but it is nontrivial--seem to have a real dislike for American society."

You say you don't know what it would mean to be "opposed to American society." How about something like Michael Moore said:

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned (in an interview with the British newspaper The Mirror). "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

"That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Michael Moore is of course not an academic, but this kind of tone is fairly common among leftist academics.

David, conservatives from Bill Bennett to Mark Bauerlein have been calling Americans stupid for years. So I don't there's any left-wing monopoly on that phenomenon, which is far different from hating American society.

I mean, the Right loves to bring up American citizens' inability to locate major countries on a map or to name the three branches of government -- when it serves them to beat up on public education or multiculturalism or whatever bete noir needs beating that week. Moore isn't really saying anything different, is he?

Matt wrote:

Minerva:

David described academics, wholesale, as opposed to American society. Apart from the fact that I don't quite know what that would mean -- I mean, what exactly *is* American society as one thing to be opposed? -- this is a common shorthand for writing them off as unAmerican scum, as hippies, as Manson freaks who will climb in your windows at night and kill your bunnies. So I still find it odd that you and David and Erin distrust the American government will adoring American society. The government is, in a democracy, a reflection of the society at large. So if you hate the government, you hate the society that made it.

(Trivia) Please provide a quote where I said I hated the government. For that matter, I'd accept a quote from either David or Erin to that effect.

(Substance) I would also point out that the issue is not now and never has been what Erin, David or I think of the government — at least insofar as you and I are concerned.

I merely asked you why you trusted the government more than you trusted private enterprise, and provided you with reasons why my trust in government is such that I'm unwilling to cede to it 1/6 of our economy and the health of our citizens.

You are perfectly free to believe what you wish, though I doubt you'd be so trusting of many government enterprises were Bush still president.

Again, Factcheck.org discredits analogies between Canadian healthcare and the American proposal. Raising the spectre of Canada here is simply playing on stupid forms of patriotic sentimentalism and American exceptionalism. We might as well call the present health care system Hitlerite because it benefits large corporations.

Well, the obvious question is why you raised the spectre of Canada?

You were the one who raised it, which, of course, is a strawman.

Insofar as none of Obama's personal associations have anything to do with health care, I don't think we can make any assumptions based on them.

I think we can conclude a number of things from Obama's personal association. But we can conclude even more from his failure to tell the truth about them.

Would you like examples?

And it's not at all like he's reluctant to lie about policy issues, either. Remember the 5 days that pieces of impending legislation was going to be on the WH website before he signed them? How about his repeated assertions that he'd conduct negotiations with lobbyists on C-SPAN before the entire citizenry (no more behind-closed-doors negotiations)? Or that bit about closing Gitmo immediately (something Bushitler could have done on a moment's notice, had he wished to?).

If you'd like more examples, you have merely to ask. (Why do I think you won't?)

The Annenberg Challenge was funded by conservative interests (Annenberg pere is a right-winger) and conservatives chose Obama and Ayers to sit on the board.

That's a partial truth, but for the sake of debate only, I could concede your assertion in toto and my point would stand. I'd merely have to say: "So what?"

Ayers has made a name for himself in Chicago education reform, regardless of his past actions.

Again, so what? You act as though "educational reform" can only have a positive outcome. It cannot.

For example: educational reform could involve mandatory school prayer, the abolition of sex education and mandatory accounts of the heroic battles American soldiers fought during Viet Nam.

Would you agree that that educational reform was positive?

If every Republican who associated with Gordon Liddy or Oliver North was tarred and feathered, how many would be left? Guilt by association. (And while we're on the subject of the Gates Affair, notice how the Right quieted down when details about the case became clear, such as the less than 20 minutes that elapsed between response to the call and Gates' arrest, along with the fact that the caller did not ever refer to the alleged criminals' race, which gives the lie to the cops' story.)

Matt, with all due respect, you're struggling. If either G. Gordon Liddy or Oliver North were hateful racists who ran a white supremacist church, and a President attended that church for 20 years, had his daughters baptized there and dragged them and his wife there as well, you might have a case.

I'm afraid your moral equivalence falls flat.

But you get full marks for spunk and cajones.

Finally, why not try Big Government when Big Business has balled up health care as it has? Americans are happy with the care they receive, but that tells us nothing about the insurance that helps pay for that care. No American should be bankrupted because of health care costs. If the price of health care is bank-breaking, then all Americans should be insured.

Where to start?

1) ". . . why not try Big Government when Big Business has . . ." The absence of logic in this statement is stunning:

a. If X is bad, Y must be better.

b. If you want change, the burden of proof is on you to show why change is better than non change . . . not on me to show why change shouldn't occur.

Don't you know anything about argument?

2) The rest of that paragraph is a non-sequitur. Please think before you write.

If you think the present system is expensive in $$, try Obama care. At least, that's what the CBO says, and even the democrats have changed the rationale for why they're pushing it. Now they say we'll get better care, though they won't commit to accepting only what they want to foist on us. Why do you think that is?

Plenty of right-wingers have tried to scare the people by telling them that Medicare will disappear if the government takes over health care. That tells us exactly why the government should take it over: Americans love Medicare, and Medicare is government run.

Whoa! Hold your horses, Matt! Medicare is driving the country to financial ruin according to Obama!

Is that your idea of a well-run program? And the CBO says that if the government play is passed, it'll drive costs even further up!

You want to cut costs? How about this: No illegal aliens covered. Tort reform to cap awards and lawyers fees. Insurance reform so that people can shop for insurance across state lines.

Make the Indian Health Care system functional (actually deliver good health care), and clean up the VA, Medicare and Medicade financial systems to show that the government can do so, and then I'll listen.

Erin claimed that there was no dissent. I have shown plenty of it.

What Erin might or might not have said is irrelevant to what I say.

She and David and yourself seem to think that everyone on the left should oppose the government en toto -- which, oddly enough, would make them libertarians. Asking such things is like wondering why Republicans didn't oppose the war in Iraq. You can't blindly oppose the government and remain a Democrat. You can't oppose stupid wars and remain a Republican. It's like calling oneself Jewish while not believing in any of the tenets of the Jewish faith or following any Jewish customs!

Strawman. A confusing one, resembling a stream of consciousness, but still a Strawman.

Say — are you ever going to answer John Drake's question?

Wow, Minerva, thanks for the advice on proper argument style! Jeepers, I didn't realize that it *was* OK to get all overheated and snippy in an argument. But I'll continue to learn from you. You can call me Luke, and I'll call you Yoda.

I'll just number this bad boy, cuz if you haven't noticed, I just fire these things off without a lot of concern for the finer points of writing. I have no hope ever that anyone around these parts will change his/her mind in such an exchange; it's what that nasty postmodernist Lyotard called the differend, or what I call a pointless argument. But it makes me feel karmically better to know I at least said something when I smelled something fishy.

1. I already responded to John Drake earlier in the thread.

2. I'll give in on the "hating American society claim," but I'm sticking to my "your paranoia about the government would make a Pynchon character blush" claim.

3. While I addressed the beginning of my comment to you, Minerva, if that is your real name, (& yeah, I never tire of that joke), I'm throwing you in the boat with Erin and others around here because you all generally, like, cheer each other on. I mean, you can generally guess who's gonna dissent around these parts. And yes, the issue is about trust of government. Because right-wing spin artists are turning the health care issue into a game of "name that irrational fear about the government."

8. The whole "if Bush were president" issue is again confounding. It goes back to my Jews who don't do anything Jewish example. If Bush were the sort of guy who thought the government should be run in a trustworthy manner and who thought certain services should be public, then he'd no longer be the Bush I knew and disliked. He'd be, uh, FDR.

43. But the House plan is not about Total Governmental Control of health care. It's nowhere near socialized medicine. And so the "giving the government 1/6 of the economy" scare tactic doesn't work. But it's a good attempt to make us distrust the government. Not that you think trusting the government is an issue here. Because you said it wasn't, and that's enough for stupid ole me, who doesn't know how to argue.

17. I made a tongue-in-cheek reference to the "Obama is gonna make us all Canadian" scare tactic. Minerva wrote that it's true enough. Which is false, according to Factcheck.org.

62. Going off on Obama's Chicago ties continues to have no bearing on the health care bill. Intro to Logic says: ad hominem. I'm not gonna bite your bait on the Liddy + North

467. See, the whole Government vs. Business argument here makes no sense because you seem to think this is about Getting Bargains At The Supermarket. No. It's about the people without insurance. It's about the people who get bankrupted by health care. It's about people who cannot afford their meds or cannot afford to get mental health treatment. Big Business failed and shows no interest in helping those people (precisely because it's Business and these people have Zero Market Value, socially or, apparently, morally). I don't care if politicians are trying to sell this to Middle America by promising them bargains. I don't expect to find bargains. I'm just hoping never to see a person lose his life because he tried to save it at a hospital.

901. Medicare is the perfect example of a government service that provides a service that people on the whole value. How it's funded might be a problem (which is what Obama is addressing), but clearly the government can provice good services. Again, we might just have to get over the childishness of thinking we can get Great Service at Bargain Prices. Anyone who goes to Wal-Mart knows what one loses by getting that shite DVD player for $10 that runs for three months.

xi) I'm happy to have insurance companies duke it out. It won't lower prices, because doctors are under no obligation to accept one insurance or another. I've gone to out of network doctors precisely because they're cheaper than insurance-accepting doctors. So I might get cheap insurance and get reamed by the doctor. Or I might get cheap insurance and have no choice of doctors.

190. Tort reform would also be nice.

6xd) But the House bill wouldn't get in the way of either. So the absence of them is no reason to oppose the bill. Unless you think only a perfect bill should be passed. In which case: wrong country.

f) Re wanting centrist criticism from leftists: again, it don't make no sense. If a leftist gave centrist critique, it would make the leftist a centrist. So either Erin thinks that the Left is wrong and the Center is right, or she thinks that we should all put aside what we think it right in order to be Popular. If the former, then it's wrong to decry the lack of centrist dissent from leftists; you should just say, "The Left is wrong and needs to be convinced of its wrongness." If the latter, then we're back in high school.

Matt:

I've systematically responded to each of the issues you've raised in your past comments, going so far as to break them down and address them point by point.

For my efforts, I receive an increasingly shrill, chaotic and cathartic deluge of verbal diarrhea, often replete with various logical fallacies, not an organized point by point response to what I've written. When I point outlogical transgressions, one by one, you choose to ignore your failures and segue on to things you'd rather talk about. Then, you spurt them out like water from a loose, high-pressure firehose, evidently hoping that something, anything, will strike some target somewhere.

(I've seen this tactic used by people who don't want to deal, within the context of an organized discussion, with sticky questions put to them. Jesse Jackson is a prime example of just such a person. It's used to avoid taking responsibility for one's words, and although the tactic doesn't further a discussion, it certainly is a rational self-defense response, when one is called upon to defend the indefensible.)

But this, your latest post, is — frankly — unhinged.

I don't know what your problems are (like, what's your obsession with Erin? Why do you continue to bring her into the conversation, when that was totally unnecessary?), but I hope you will find someone who can help you through them (you don't want to become the Helen Thomas of Critical Mass).

Hey, Minerva, again, like, thanks for all the concern and stuff, but I've also taken apart your points point by point. The misnumbering was quite conscious, because your own responses have been rather devoid of transition or logical cohesion. You chose to break the argument into as many fronts as possible, from Obama's personal associations to ad hominem attacks on both myself and the President. A sawed-off shotgun is not an argument. My original point remains: there is plenty of dissent from the President's policy ideas on the left. It might not be the dissent you want, but it's there. And while you continue to spout Great Archetypal Images of Governmental Scaryness, you've never addressed the fundamental notion that every one of our citizens deserves healthcare s/he can afford. The only real question is how to pay for it, and I'm happy to have that argument. (I'd personally suggest decriminalizing and taxing marijuana and prostitution, but I'm a good for nothing social libertarian.) But I'm not prepared to discuss the relative failure of Big Business in America (a joke) versus Big Government in America (a joke).