Chris Cilizza’s latest of several attempts to relieve President Obama of responsibility for his spectacularly incompetent and disastrous presidency is too full of falsities, fallacies, rationalizations and illogical assertions to let pass, as I would dearly love to. Duty calls, however, so here we go. I’m not going to comment on the quoted “terrific” Ron Brownstein piece, which is not essential. Cilizza is in bold, my comments are not….
“Being president is the most powerful job in the world. At which you will almost certainly fail.”
- First, I must ask, fail at what? Fail at solving problems? Fail at being popular? Fail by leaving the country in worse shape than when the President took office? Fail at leadership, at management, at foreign policy, at vision? Fail at handling crises? Fail by not dealing with long-term problems? By not bothering to define the central concept of his thesis, Cilizza just betrays his ignorance and laziness. If he won’t define his terms, he can’t be challenged.
- Let me give Mr. Cilizza, who is really, absurdly arguing that succeeding as President is harder now than it has ever been, a brief history lesson focusing on how difficult this job has proved to be for others. George Washington, numero uno, had by far the most difficult job, being President of an unstable, new, confused nation with no precedents for his office, all while being second guessed by some of the most brilliant minds the nation ever produced, who were fighting among themselves to steer the country’s culture and government in radically different directions. He did a superb job, because Washington was a natural leader, perfectly suited for his grand moment in history. The next three Presidents were not, and had a terrible time of it (Jefferson’s reputation was saved by having the Louisiana Territory fall into his lap, but he was no leader, and call me a stickler, but any time a foreign power burns down the White House, I’m calling that President–James Madison—a flop), but James Monroe got the job down, beginning with having Cabinet members–like Daniel Webster–who were smarter than he was and properly delegating and managing them. The job defeated John Quincy Adams, but the next natural leader, gutsy, crazy Andrew Jackson, managed to keep the nation from dissolving over regional differences, and solved potentially disastrous financial problems, in part because he was able to project strong leadership. Being a killer will do that….
- Those regional differences, which included slavery, managed to make a living hell out of the administrations of the Presidents before and after James K. Polk. He, however, despite being small, frail, unknown and without any personal charisma to speak of, accomplished every goal of his administration. You can read his diary: he knew how to make things happen, and was a masterful, though ruthless, politician. By the time Pierce and Buchanan were President, the country was more ungovernable than it had ever been, before or since, but then Pierce was a dunk depressive, and Buchanan was an earlier version of George H.W. Bush—all resume and ambition, no stomach for contentious leadership on that scale.Was the U.S. ungovernable during the Civil War? Pretty close, but Lincoln made it through, because, as it has often happened, the U.S. blundered into having a brilliant, natural leader perfectly suited for the crises facing him. In the wake of Lincoln’s death and the toxic political mood following the war, a poor, untrained, emotionally-unsuited Andrew Johnson was doomed (even Lincoln might not have been able to maneuver through those mine fields), but U.S. Grant, who certainly had proved adept at leadership on the battlefield, couldn’t stave off crippling corruption and the cultural rot of the Gilded Age. Hayes had his power bartered away for him by his party; Garfield, another strong leader, was killed by his doctors before he could do anything. Everyone said Chester A. Arthur was a failure, though he wasn’t. Is the nation harder to govern now than during the two split terms of Grover Cleveland? (In between, Benjamin Harrison had the misfortune to be elected without a popular vote majority, a crippling handicap that has befallen four Presidents in total. Remind the W-hater in your life that Bush the Younger was by far the most successful at overcoming this, and the only one to win a second term.)
- Well, given that Cleveland faced a depression so devastating that he made a deal with the Devil, J.P. Morgan, to bail out the Treasury, I’d say things were pretty dire. McKinley did a good job until he was shot, if you consider maintaining the status quo “good,” but soon all hell was breaking loose, with the U.S. engaged in social upheaval and the emergence of organized labor, dangerous international challenges, and the increased perils and responsibilities of being a world power. Again, a unique, brilliant, trained and charismatic leader was ready, this time Teddy Roosevelt, another transformative President, and one who left office more popular than he entered it. Not so his successor Taft, who 1) had to follow a leader who made leading in difficult times seem fun and easy 2) was conciliatory and compromising by nature, and had a difficult time with a difficult Congress. Despite being one of our smartest Presidents (and a decent Chief Justice later), Taft was something of a failure. His successor, Woodrow Wilson, would be a good test for what Cilizza considers “success.” He was popular and adept (he was an important political science theorist); he won a war (that we probably should have stayed out of); he imagined the United Nations, though in fighting to launch its predecessor allowed the World War I allies to abuse Germany and plant the seeds of World War II; he also set race relations back decades, and sent the final months of his administration a hollow shell, letting his wife and doctor secretly run the country. Success? Failure? Then we had another run of Presidents who seemed successful until they died and the dirty laundry came out (Harding), seemed successful until we realized that his policies helped the wheels fall off (Coolidge), or seemed successful until they proved that they had no idea what to do after the wheels fell off (Herbert Hoover.)
- Was FDR’s task “virtually impossible”? Was it less difficult than what has faced Obama? Was FDR successful? Did he whine about how hard it was to fight World War II while battling a Depression? In some ways, Harry Truman had as tough a challenge: he entered the job universally judged as not up to its rigors; he had the Japanese to defeat, and he seemed like a light-weight in contrast to his majestic, mellow-voiced predecessor. Truman, however, had courage, he had the ability to make tough decisions without dithering; and he kept people around him who had strengths he did not. He was a leader; so was Dwight Eisenhower, whose style was guarded and far from flashy, but who had the advantage of world-wide respect. He didn’t bluff. He inspired confidence. Three skilled leaders who followed Ike all had their presidencies derailed, all after significant successes. Kennedy was felled by an assassin’s bullet; LBJ by a new kind of foreign war and cultural upheavals nobody saw coming; and Nixon, who knew how to lead and where to go but lacked the essential ingredient of character, and had his administration destroyed by that. It wasn’t the challenges of the job that defeated him, just his own nature.
- Is the nation more culturally divided now than it was during the Sixties and early Seventies, with the civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights and sexual freedom movements competing with war protests for attention on the evening news? Nobody who lived during those times can say so, unless in the throes of amnesia. After Nixon, two weak Presidents made the job look hard again. Sure enough, earlier Chris Cilizzas, the horrified Democratic pundits watching Jimmy Carter scar the brand, declared that the “modern Presidency” was no longer a job that could be performed by mortals. Then Ronald Reagan, of all people, quickly proved otherwise. Bush the First had no feel or taste for national leadership (How did he choose to use his 90% approval rating after the Gulf War? Fix Social Security? Tax reform? No…nothing.) Bill Clinton, however, was another gifted leader, almost T.R.-like, making the job look fun and eminently doable. He faced few challenges up to his skills, and frittered away too much of his potential by sparking destructive partisan warfare, but even Clinton’s worst critics won’t claim that the job was too much for him.
Yet suddenly, with the last two Presidents, the job has become overwhelming? The lesson of the foregoing is that the job has always been overwhelming…for those who aren’t good enough to do it. It really is as simple as that.
Back to Cilizza…
“Why? For lots of reasons up to and including:
—The decline of the bully pulpit as a persuasion mechanism.”
- What? The first century’s worth of Presidents seldom used the “bully pulpit.” Radio, TV and now the internet has given the President unprecedented power to reach and persuade. President Obama, like Jimmy Carter, is not persuasive, that’s all. The “bully pulpit” is only as effective in the message being communicated and the leader delivering it.
“—-The deep partisanship present not only in Congress but also in the electorate more broadly”
- A President cannot so thoroughly act to aggravate divisiveness in society and the culture and then complain that the divisions make governing impossible. Both Bush and Obama promised to be “uniters;” both were, for different reasons, toxically divisive.
“—-The splintering of the mainstream media/the rise of social media.”
- The mainstream media has not splintered—it is still overwhelmingly liberal/Democratic, in fact, more so than ever. Obama has has the benefit of most enabling, uncritical, positively biased media coverage in the last two centuries. With a competent President, this would be an almost dangerous advantage. As it was, the slant helped elect Obama twice. I would argue that the absence of proper press oversight and objective criticism has made Obama and the administration arrogant, lazy and more inefficient, but that has nothing to do with Cilizza’s argument, which he could only make as part of the slant he can’t detect. He is blaming the existence of one conservative-leaning TV network, Fox News, for making the nation ungovernable? This is essentially a White House talking point.
…
“But, it’s hard to see how Obama could be considered “successful” even if he hadn’t made the various mistakes — in governance and the politics of politics — that he did. His presidency began at a time not only of unprecedented polarization in Congress and the country but also at a moment in which a president’s ability to bend the country to his will had reached a low ebb.”
- It is not hard to see how Obama could have been considered successful. He could have come to the office prepared to learn. He could have appointed competent advisors. He could have banned the race card from his supporters’ arsenal. He could have crafted a stimulus package that actually did fund infrastructure projects, rather than letting billions go to pork and union members. He could have insisted on a less complicated health care bill, and allowed the GOP to feel included in the process of devising it. (It would have required abandoning the trial lawyers’ lobby, for the good of the nation.) He could have shown a good faith interest in reducing the budget deficit, and not reneged on the so-called “grand bargain” with Speaker Boehner at the last minute. Most of all, he could have avoided blaming Bush and the Republicans for every setback and problem. He could have been gracious, on occasion, and not hog all the glory when, for example, bin Laden was killed. He could have worked to build trust. Then, with less of a toxic relationship with Congress, he could have shown some competence…like in making sure that his “signature achievement,” Obamacare, wasn’t launched incomplete and badly managed. He could have fired incompetent managers (Justice, I.R.S., N.S.A, etc, etc.); he could have not dithered and obfuscated and bluffed his way through critical foreign affairs matters. He could have refused to use wedge issues like no other President in memory—staying out of the Trayvon Martin mess, for example. He could have taken fewer and less opulent vacations while the country was struggling. He could have told the truth, He could have kept his promise to be transparent.
He could have been a leader, in other words.
Cilizza closes arguing his case by restating it, which is essentially his whole column. He declares that the modern Presidency precludes success, and pretends that Clinton fits the mold because, well, he just has to. Clinton was a skilled President whose failure was his personal corruption—the argument that anyone or thing but Clinton himself made his Presidency less than successful is a delusion, but a necessary one to support Cilizza’s thesis, designed to excuse Obama’s ineptitude. It is based on the unstated and circular assumption that if Barack Obama can’t be successful and popular, nobody can. I’m sure Obama agrees, and has believed that since he took office. That, as much as anything else, explains his problem.
Ethics Alarms 
“It wasn’t the challenges of the job that defeated him, just his own nature.”
************************
This is the reason, in sum, for all presidents who fail. For that matter, for all failure in general. Those who aspire to leadership and succeed triumph over the deficits in their own nature. It’s not the having of deficits it’s the overcoming.
But, I suspect, this is much too easy for most pundits to accept. If we were a nation of people who are careful about who we tie our future to we wouldn’t be in this mess.
I think you were too hard on Coolidge, too easy on Lyndon Johnson and probably far too easy on Obama! If there’s any reason why a competent manager and leader can’t handle the presidency, it’s likely because the executive department and bureaucracy has expanded far beyond the limits of the Constitution and is no longer manageable by either the president or the congressional committees. Obama has certainly contributed to that facet during his terms of office. Thus, neither he nor his press lapdogs can excuse him.
For better or worse, LBJ would have this Congress eating out of his hand.
Congress, as a whole, was scared to death of LBJ. He had a way of standing over you like a prison guard with a riot baton.
Great read. Really enjoyed your deconstruction.
“but any time a foreign power burns down the White House, I’m calling that President–James Madison—a flop” reminded me of this classic (not really) Canadian ditty by the Arrogant Worms:
Come back proud Canadian’s,
To before you had TV.
No hockey night in Canada,
there was no CBC.
In 1812 Madison was mad,
He was the president you know.
Well he thought he’d tell the British where they ought to go.
He thought he’d invade Canada,
He thought that he was tough.
Instead we went to Washington,
And burned down all his stuff.
And the white house burned, burned, burned.
And we’re the ones that did it,
It burned, burned, burned.
While the president ran and cried,
It burned, burned, burned.
And things were very historical,
And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies WaWaWa
In the war of 1812.
A quote from a British General from the War of 1812, concerning American soldiers: “Those are regulars, by God!” And need I mention Old Hickory’s resounding victory at New Orleans, admittedly after the war was over? I think the people who ran and cried there were wearing British uniforms.
Poking the bear of American Patriotism is always fun. I’d just like to point out that by the time we’d battled to a stalemate, Old Hickory had to win a battle AT New Orleans. How far did the American advance get again?
I’m wrong…. New Orleans is in Louisiana…. The war didn’t get anywhere near there. Why is that battle called that?
Because it WAS in New Orleans, or at least close to, naval. Google before asking questions….
A far more decisive battle relevant to much more than just the War of 1812… but rather who would control sea access to the North American heartland.
Good thing the British clumsied around and colossally failed in that venture.
Sadly, it was all over BEFORE Old Hickory sent them running “through the bushes where a rabbit couldn’t go”, from an old American ditty, about that very battle.
R.I.P. Johnny Horton.
Amen! Vastly entertaining songwriter/singer. Been a while since I’ve enjoyed a song that much.
“They ran so fast that the hounds couldn’t catch ’em/Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico”!
The Battle of Chippewa- in Canada. It was Winfield Scott’s first victory.
Ole General Packenham lost the Battle of New Orleans more than Jackson won it…(as a huge number of battles throughout history are more often lost by the loser than won by the winner).
We did an intensive battle analysis for one of our Officer Professional Development studies at Fort Polk.
1) Pakenham’s battle plan relied decisively not on the success of carrying the earthworks manned by the bulk of the US force, but rather on carrying the lightly defended heavy guns on the west side of the river. He would then turn those guns and crush the American lines from the flank prior to the Main Effort carrying the earthworks on the east side of the river.
2) Despite that key supporting effort delay Pakenham, idiotically, launched the main effort to be chewed up in a relentless American crossfire. By the time the supporting effort to capture the guns and hammer the American flank succeeded, Pakenham’s main assault had been demolished and he lay dead as his army withdrew.
3) The successful effort that would have led to a decisive victory for the English withdrew as its completion came all too late to make a difference in the battle.
But, all that was pointless anyway, Pakenham’s subordinate, who arrived days before with his advance elements could have taken the town of New Orleans by surprise. Yet his sluggishness and non-aggressive reconnaissance caused him to plod around and dally until the main force arrived.
For lack of aggressiveness days before the battle and then lack of tactical patience during the battle, the British lost severely.
There was also another aspect. When the assault on the breastworks was launched, one British regiment discovered that it had failed to secure the ladders it was supposed to have in order to climb up into the American positions. They had to go back for them! Thus, the attack was in disarray from the onset. With the attack faltering against Chalmette Line, General Packenham bravely rode into the thick of it to rally his troops. A militia captain saw him, pointed him out to one of his sharpshooters and said, “See that fellow? Blow his candle out!” The militiaman complied.
Why didn’t we have this discussion in 2012?
The Battle of New Orleans is my favorite US rout of all time…. British casualties 291 killed, 1,262 wounded, and 484 captured/missing for a total of 2,037. Andy and the Pirates: 13 killed, 58 wounded, and 30 captured for a total of 101!!! Are you kidding me?
We did, Jack?? Anyway, the battle reconfirmed the stupidity of throwing uncoordinated infantry in a frontal assault on well prepared field fortifications, a mistake that the British never seemed to learn from. It should also be noted that these troops were seasoned veterans, many of whom had come from their victories in Spain under Wellington. Maybe if the Iron Duke himself had been there to lead them, it might have turned out differently!
Well, to be fair, American losses against Brock were equally embarrassing, American troops outnumbered the British 10 to 1, but America never won a material victory in Canada. Sure there were bad tactics, but it’s almost always easier to defend something than it is to attack that same thing.
Scott’s string of victories at Lundy’s Lane and Chippewa helped secure the northeastern tier while the naval victories at Put-in-Bay and Plattsburg solidified it. The Battle of the Thames kept Detroit American. (You can have Detroit back, though! I’ll even throw in Vermont.)
They have good cheese!
So does Wisconsin. We’ll keep Wisconsin!
Good Generals know tactics.
Great Generals know logistics.
Apparently though, not all Generals know when to get out of a lost battle. Hell, Lieutenants know not to press in the mass of soldiers if the key and absolutely necessary element to support those soldiers isn’t even established…
Pig headedness has a time and place. New Orleans was neither the time nor the place for Pakenham.
Valid point. I still assert that Pakenham’s impatience undid the battle. Ladders or not, the main force could have sat down just outside of US effective range and watched as the artillery pounded the US line into oblivion. Jackson would have been compelled to withdraw further, surrendering the time-consuming earthworks to the British or face annihilation.
But no, arrogance in the face of bumpkin backwaters rubes presented those bumpkin backwaters rubes the wholesale decimation of the British force.
On the other hand, Packenham found himself in some pretty sorry and unhealthful terrain; brackish water, jungle-like overgrowth and every venomous snake known on the continent. With the still-primitive medical science of the era, Packenham must have known well that he needed to get his troops out of there and on to better ground before sickness decimated his ranks. That may have played in a good part of his thinking. And he DID have some of the finest troops in the world to take on an inferior force comprised mainly of raw militia, untrained volunteers from New Orleans… and pirates!
I find it amusing to remember that, soon after the battle, LaFitte was forced to leave his base at Barataria and relocate. Thus, he managed to found what is now the City of Galveston.
Wait did you just lift that description of Louisiana from the 2013 Tour Guide introduction to the state?
My brother in law is a Cajun!
Of course if those were his concerns it just goes to show why aggressive and constant reconnaissance is imperative — which he neglected.
Excellent point about recon. Isn’t it amazing as to how many veteran military commanders throughout history have lost major battles merely because they neglected something that even a first year military cadet should have known to do? You camp down on defensible ground and dig in. You place your latrines downstream from your water supply. You place your pickets (O,P’s and L.P.’s) well forward of your positions and rotate them continuously, paying strict attention to any possible lane of approach. You aggressively patrol and reconnoiter your intended route and that of any potential contested ground. You keep tabs on your enemy’s position and movements with daily reports from your scouts. You NEVER become complacent or despise your enemy as inferior. Note that Santa Anna made nearly ALL these mistakes at San Jacinto.
They did get the last laugh, though, thanks to live oak, Old Ironsides, Old Hickory, and the British deciding, once again, that the war was too much trouble.
Which is what Obama has evidently decided – being President is just too much trouble!
And then the British were run out again that night… by a tornado! In the meantime, their attendant attempt to seize America by coup- the Battle of Baltimore by land and sea- failed miserably. It only succeeded in giving us a national anthem. With the treaty of peace, the British at last gave up their forts on American soil and promised not to impress American sailors anymore- which was what set off the war. We promised not to invade Canada again. After all, we already had the good land on this continent! The Battle of New Orleans actually happened after the peace treaty had been signed in Europe. Too late for General Packenham!
I’ll give you that the British had some very anti-American policy, but impressing American citizens wasn’t one of them, the Chesapeake was carrying British deserters. It could be said instead that America agreed not to give haven to deserters. If Bowe Bergdahl had signed up with the Taliban, would he be an Iraqi, or an American deserter?
And the Treaty of Gant was signed December 12, 1814, but the Battle of New Orleans was from December 12th, 1814 to January 8th, 1815. At that point, the British had secured Detroit and half of Maine. It’s not unfair to say that had New Orleans gone differently, the British negotiators would have a better position at the table and some current Americans might be singing “Oh Canada” today. On the other hand, if Americans had won at Stony Creek, or taken Montreal, we might be singing “The Star Spangled Banner”.
It’s funny how American history is so drastically different from Canadian history, even in the age of the internet.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/war-of-1812/
“Secured” Maine nothing. The burning of Washington gets most of the press, but in all fairness it was slightly justified be the Americans’ uncalled-for burning of York (modern Toronto). UK Admiral Barrie’s troops, on the other hand, without any provocation, burned Hampden, burned Bucksport, and pillaged the whole area along the Penobscot.
When the defeated locals asked him to please treat the place with more humanity he replied “Humanity! I have none for you. My business is to burn, sink, and destroy. Your town is taken by storm. By the rules of war we ought to lay your village in ashes, and put its inhabitants to the sword. But I will spare your lives, though I mean to burn your houses.” Nice guy. Had he followed through on the massacre he thought he should have I think things would have been a lot frostier a lot longer between the two nations. It’s because of him that I have little sympathy for the British army getting butchered at New Orleans due to stupidly walking into aimed small-arms fire across an open field.
His rampage so damaged the area that the US built Fort Knox (no, not THAT one) overlooking Bucksport to prevent a repeat performance. It never saw action, although it was used as a training base in the Civil War.
“Secured” in that instance means captured, erected forts on, held for the majority of the war, and only relinquished as part of the terms of the Treaty of Gant. And the Americans burning and looting parts of York wasn’t that bad in context (mostly public buildings), they occupied it for a few months in early 1813 before realizing they couldn’t hold it and retreated back to America. Burning Newark (Niagara on the Lake) to the ground on the way.
I don’t know…. War isn’t pretty. I don’t think it’s supposed to. There were more atrocities committed than either of us have mentioned, and I’m not going to defend them. What I was making a point of was American revisionism. By the end of the war, American had not annexed Canada, in fact they had lost ground, their capitol was sacked, and about twice as many Americans died than the British, Canadians, and Natives together, but America didn’t lose that war! And they got their anthem! Great victory!
We kept our independence. We retained our commerce. We learned the folly of relying on militia alone without a standing army for sturdiness and a navy to protect our maritime interests. We established a more or less permanent and respected border between ourselves and British North America (later Canada). We also bred a new generation of military leaders who would lead us to incredible victory over Mexico, expansion from coast to coast and a great age of prosperity. It also ultimately worked to the advantage of the British Empire (ironically enough!) as it kept them from downfall throughout the 20th Century.
America started a war of conquest and won because they retained their independence? This from a country who once boasted that the annexation of Canada was “a matter of marching”? You can spin that at the end of the day everyone benefitted, because there were favorable outcomes, but it takes a true patriot to call 1812 a win for America.
Where did this “starting a war of conquest ” thing come from??
The goal was to annex Canada…. That’s a war of conquest, no? But even if you think the point was to change British Anti-American policy, the war still failed spectacularly, because while it’s true the policies were eventually done away with, they were done away with after the Napoleonic Wars ended (the Napoleonic war being the largest reason the policies were there to begin with), not as a result of the War of 1812.
The goal was to attack British staging areas into American territory. Certainly, the concurrent conquest of Canada would have achieved that into the future. That didn’t happen, of course. But the invasions of America were successfully thwarted. I don’t know where you get this notion that America started the war to annex Canada. We didn’t even have an Army or Navy fit to challenge Mexico, much less Britain.
Until the USA solidly populated the Heartland in the 1830s and later, Canada, in essence was America’s “Ukraine”. A landmass, the control of which, gave the controller immediate ability to invade the USA “Core” of Boston-Washington. Just as Russia today cannot allow EU or US domination of Ukraine as it represents the exact same land-based invasion platform that Canada represented, back then, control of Canada represented the same strategic threat to the USA – one the early leadership could never tack down and presented worries until the wholesale settlement of the Heartland.
With something like 90% of Canadian population within 45-60 miles of the border, Canada is for all cultural purposes, another set of US states.
I remember how one Canadian professor noted that 80% of the Canadian population lived within 100 miles of the American border and that all America needed to do to take over Canada was “to roll over in her sleep”!
When we gain territory, I would rather gain people assertive enough to take secessionist movements seriously…
I’d rather have a functional government, a healthcare system that works, and crime statistics that don’t embarrass me. But that’s just me.
Your healthcare system works? Brilliant. Tell the Canadians who come here then to stay.
Our system is slow. I’ll give it to you. People that can afford it can go south and buy services if they don’t want to wait here. You have people dying at home because their insurer didn’t cover chemo. Are you really going to argue that American health care is superior to Canadian?
It was until we passed that massive piece of crap legislation. Until it really kicks in I’d still say yes. But not by much. What would make ours even better would be some free market action.
Feel free to peruse any of the 2013 discussions on health care. This has been discussed as nauseum.
To summarize my opinion of Canadian notions of superiority:
It is easy to claim being more advanced when one sits inside the blanket of security and peace established by the very entity you disdain, while not having to expend hardly any cultural energy towards that security.
When we get this far away from the topic, the thread begins to remind me of the threads at Mediaite, where every set of Comments eventually ends up with name calling—Democraps, Repugs—and arguments about Iraq and Obamacare.
I was going to comment that this discussion escalated about like the War of Jenkin’s Ear, the Flagstaff War or a 3rd world soccer game.
Or like when Sarge983 (a staunch northerner) and I discussed civil war battles over one to many drinks…
We’re relearning that medical care works a lot better when government keeps its nose out of it… as in just about every other professional field.
I think we’re going to disagree here. By almost every benchmark I can think of (with the exceptions of speed and multi-tier premium care), I feel the Canadian system is better. The average medical procedure in America is about 300% the cost of the same procedure in Canada, every Canadian citizen is covered, and even if the lines are sometimes long (it’s a disgusting 12 month wait to get a replacement hip), we still get service. When we see an issue in health care, we have a healthy, legitimate national discussion, and up until now, the balance of favor has been on the socialized system. Even as a conservative leaning libertarian, I can say that the economies of scale of having a single payer system have more than offset the costs of added use…. I’d prefer a system that allows a private option, but it works.
As for sitting inside the blanket of American protection… We just had a discussion of the war of 1812, remember? When America tried to annex Canada and was rebuffed? Every time Canadian sovereignty has been addressed, the matter was solved, and Canada is still here. Perhaps Americans don’t recognize it because there wasn’t a war and people didn’t have to die.
Your national health care system is your own business. However, whenever you give government bureaucrats charge over a vital element of your life, you’re just asking for a loss of money and of liberty. Remember, too, that American health care was much cheaper and more effective before our government started meddling… unconstitutionally. Also: When Canada was British North America and when Britain and America were at war (twice), Canada naturally became a battleground. You were the enemy at the gates. Happily, this is no longer the case. Just try to stay united and reasonably sane, huh? We have enough trouble on our other border.
I saw Rudy Guiliani being interviewed this afternoon, and before he said a word, recalled that around the time of John Lindsay, Abe Beeme and some of the other flops, there were multiple articles about how New York City couldn’t be governed…until Ed Koch, Rudy and Bloomberg, whatever you think of their policies, proved otherwise. And suddenly Rudy read my mind, and said, “When they say a city or a country can’t be governed, it just means that it hasn’t been. The Post article is just an admission that Obama has been a failure.”
“Those that say something should not be done should get out of the way of the people doing it.”
GAH NO EDIT FUNCTION. “Those that say something can not be done should get out of the way of the people doing it.”
A telling point from Hizzoner!