Latimer on Law & Politics

ATTA GIRL, MARTHA!

                                                                         ATTA GIRL, MARTHA! 

                                                                   Politics is the art of the possible.

                                                                              - Otto von Bismarck

                                        I went to a hockey game last night, and a prize fight broke out.

                                                                            - Rodney Dangerfield

              Martha Coakley sought to separate herself this past week from the other contenders for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat by saying she couldn't support the Democratic health care reform bill because it would exclude funding for abortions.  At first, both of the other leading contenders distanced themselves from her on that issue, but then Capuano did a flip flop and came out with a similar statement.  He's apparently afraid of losing some of the feminist vote that Coakley is pandering to.

             We might have expected better from a self-proclaimed Washington pro like Capuano, but it seems that the political neophyte, Pagliuca, is the only one who gets it -the only one who understands the basic truth of Bismarck's aphorism that politics is the art of the possible.   He's also the only one who seems to understand the harsh lesson of 2004 when a vulnerable George W. Bush squeaked by John Kerry, winning a close count for Ohio's twenty electoral votes, votes which would have given Kerry the presidency by a five vote margin in the electoral college, because the issue of gay "marriage" got the bible thumping religious right out in droves in states like Ohio that had anti-gay marriage petitions on the ballot.

            Coakley's pronouncement on abortion, like the gay marriage issue, is an exercise in putting ideology ahead of policy, understanding that policy only works if it can be enacted and that requires that you win office first, or win the close votes on issues like health care reform.  The caption above every one of these posts is:  "Ideas, not ideology, in service of our shared ideals and the common good."

              In present context, the common good is to get a  health care reform bill passed, one which will achieve President Obama's stated goal of taking insurance industry profiteering out of health care and provide coverage to all Americans.  If that requires making concessions on controversial ideological issues like abortion, then that is what must be done. 

             We are talking here about making health insurance available to some 34 million uninsured Americans, and making coverage fairer for millions more whose existing coverage contains insurance industry goodies like the exclusion for pre-existing conditions and non-portability of ERISA coverage when people change jobs, which most often triggers the pre-existing condition exclusion when they sign up for coverage with a  new employer.

           Coakley, and now Capuano, are just pandering to the feminist ideological agenda when they insist that any health care reform bill must provide coverage for abortion.  They're also playing right into the right-wing GOP's game plan, which has always been to divide and conquer based on divisive social issues like abortion, just as they did with gay "marriage" in 2004 after the 2003 ruling in the Massachusetts Goodridge case. 

              Jim DeMint, Rush, Dick and Sarah are all saying "Atta girl, Martha," on this one, after they stop drooling that is.  Coakley's injection of the abortion issue into the campaign for Kennedy's seat can only serve to derail any kind of meaningful health care reform, just as injection of the gay marriage issue killed Kerry's shot at the presidency in '04.  The political upshot of that would be the Waterloo for Obama that DeMint and the right wing GOP are praying for, and in terms of public policy that would mean another indefinite reprieve for the insurance industry's obscene profiteering off health care.

              Some people claim that Bismarck's aphorism about doing what's possible in politics is simply an expedient because it sacrifices principles to results, but that is a false objection.  The issue being debated in Congress today is health care reform for everyone, not abortion or feminism.  The policy to be served is to provide for universal health care that is both fair and economical, not to advance the feminist pro-choice agenda or any other ideology. 

             What's expedient is the kind of ideological pandering adopted by Coakley, and Capuano's flip-flop, for a short term advantage in the polls.  That's ultimately stupid in the long term because it serves up a tasty "values" issue for Mitt Romney or any GOP candidate to work up the Catholic bishops and other religionist factions and maybe win Kennedy's seat for the Republicans.

            We liberals and moderates have already seen disastrous long-term results from the gay marriage issue in '04, when Bush got to appoint two Supreme Court justices during his second term, perpetuating the 5-4 conservative majority as opposed to the 7-3 liberal majority a President Kerry would have been able to create.  And just how do you suppose that 5-4 conservative majority is going to vote when gay marriage gets up to the Supreme Court under the federal Constitution?  Like I said, putting ideology ahead of practical policy initiatives is just plain stupid politics.

             So just think about Romney as the junior senator from Massachusetts, either using the seat as the perfect springboard for a run at Obama in 2012 or, even worse, deciding he's comfortable there and occupying the seat for the remainder of Kennedy's term and then running for re-election as a GOP incumbent who has proven he can win a statewide election in Massachusetts.  How do you suppose that would work out for all of Obama's progressive initiatives, not just health care?

             Think about it, because it's clear that neither Coakley nor Capuano have given it much thought, if any.  Again, what we need are ideas,  not ideology, in service of our shared ideals and the common good.  That's been the theme of my posts on this site from the beginning, and Coakley's injection of the abortion issue into the race for Kennedy's seat is nothing but ideological demagoguery that can only serve to energize the religious right.

             For responsible American citizens, including many independent voters, as well as the Constitution itself,  it's like Rodney Dangerfield said: "We don't get no respect" when every issue on matters of common interest like health care get polarized by partisan ideological antipathies.   Some folks like to watch hockey, others like to watch a good fight, and each has its place.  But there's really no place in hockey for fighting as it only detracts from the game, which was Dangerfield's point, except for the morons who support fighting in the NHL. 

            The same is true for an important issue of public policy  like reforming health care to provide fair and economical coverage for everyone.  It's not really the time or place to be waging ideological battles over abortion or any other so-called "values" issue on which the right-wing GOP can always "win" just by making sure nothing gets done to change the status quo.

            Way to go, Martha!  Ditto to you, Mikey.