IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
To what extent is it in the public interest to
defund the federal government? Who
benefits? Who loses?
As a sociologist, or a student of social
relationships between and within institutions and organizations, I’m trained to
ask different kinds of questions and to look for intervening variables. For example, given the outspoken opposition
to three national public interest-type laws - Social Security (1935), Medicare
(1965), Affordable Care Act (2013) –
what is different this time? The
question is not why did 535 members of Congress fail at keeping the people’s
government running. For to focus on a government “shutdown” is to become too
distracted to see history being made in another area, a political party
becoming less relevant, and the outstanding success of the nation’s first
president of color.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
www.healthcare.gov
- Americans with pre-existing conditions may be eligible for health coverage under the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan
Go beyond the rhetoric (Obamacare) and metaphors (socialized medicine) and you begin to grasp the muddled thinking of a small group of Republicans who believe they achieved their goal by making government smaller. Some even appeared on the nightly news saying shutting down the government has been a three year goal because the public would then get to see it doesn’t really need as much government as it thinks. Such convenient ideology shouldn’t be surprising from a party which traditionally prefers marketplace solutions (competition) for health care issues. The very political party that also calls for fiscal responsibility, now sees itself as a champion of the people, even, as it downsizes the economy via furloughs or shirks responsibility to govern.
Yet, the 80 Republicans, a vocal minority, who announced on TV they were “gitty” about “shutting down the government,” are not representative of racial progress in America. In fact, this gang of 80 became the intervening
variable with calls for “massive resistance” to a law they were the first to label - “Obamacare.” So the answer to the question about what has change since implementation of Social Security and Medicare is rather obvious: RACE! The battle was no longer just between Republicans and Democrats but between a Black president and a growing number of Republicans who couldn't see beyond his race.
Using a campaign of confusion and misinformation, this gang of 80 pushed a different kind of ideological
agenda, one reminiscent of the civil rights struggle in the 1960s. Instead of
compromise and conversations, the new strategy became to kill the Affordable Care Act by any means necessary! According to media, reports, the gang of 80 comes from Gerrymandered districts, deliberately consisting of mostly
white, conservative, anti-government constituents who already believe shutting down the government is in the public interest.
But there's a problem because there's a growing perception that Republicans are not sharing the pain of the American people. Even if the GOP did actually believe that furloughed federal workers would not suffer and that downsizing government is good for the economy, the gang of 80’s insistence on using the federal budget to defeat health care reform was not the a smart strategy; it has, in fact, paved the way for what is likely to be a massive implosion within the Republican Party.
But there's a problem because there's a growing perception that Republicans are not sharing the pain of the American people. Even if the GOP did actually believe that furloughed federal workers would not suffer and that downsizing government is good for the economy, the gang of 80’s insistence on using the federal budget to defeat health care reform was not the a smart strategy; it has, in fact, paved the way for what is likely to be a massive implosion within the Republican Party.
In sociology we call the gang of 80’s style of thinking:
cognitive dissonance. The phrase
means something more than contradictions; it represents the holding on to two
opposing ideas at the same time. Such a paradox is apparent when the very group that depicts itself as “patriots” or protectors
of freedoms, also attempt to limit freedoms by dismantling the government that
produced the freedoms or tampering with the freedoms of those who might benefit from a democratically passed law, such as the Affordable
Care Act (ACA).
Hence, by linking non-budget (health reform) and budget issues (government funding), the GOP ended up holding Americans and the economy hostage.
Even if the gang of 80 had decided
to tie representation for the District
of Columbia in Congress to not funding the federal government, the results would still be
the same: distracting, insane, unpopular, and un-American.
So what exactly does the shutdown of government
accomplish for the Republican Party? Not much.
The majority of Americans (72%) did not support holding the ACA hostage strategy.
Carrying out such a scheme for a narrow-minded, racially-identifiable group of
constituents demonstrates the extent to which the GOP does not and will not represent
a diversity-changed America. But the
most extraordinary result of the Republican Party’s success
in "slimming down" the federal government is the extent to which the President of
the United States won.
No wonder
some people nearly went crazy trying to defeat Obama's potentially historical accomplishment. In the end, it can be argued that the ideological or "hard" wing of the GOP lost the battle both on the economic and social fronts. Check and checkmate! Putting political egos ahead of the needs of most Americans, especially in the age of social media, is not play well around the country. That shot heard around the country on September 30 turns out to be an injury to the foot/base of the Republican Party. As William Shakespeare would say... it merely amounted to a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing, as the GOP hobbles along more slowly in a nation its makeup doesn't reflect. The question now is how long before the GOP explodes within.
Look for the orchestrated government shutdown to be like a 72-hour hold on a mental ward, Given the impotent results, there's no reason to keep it going past three days or Thursday, October 3, 2013. After all, governing by default or organized chaos is not usually a winning strategy. The American people deserve better. Did someone forget to tell the gang of 80 that we are the government!
Look for the orchestrated government shutdown to be like a 72-hour hold on a mental ward, Given the impotent results, there's no reason to keep it going past three days or Thursday, October 3, 2013. After all, governing by default or organized chaos is not usually a winning strategy. The American people deserve better. Did someone forget to tell the gang of 80 that we are the government!
