Posted on 10/24/2013 7:49:10 PM PDT by neverdem
Obama still does not appear to have noticed that he’s the executive and accountable.
The temptation to cry “sabotage!” is a genuinely human one, born of the understandable desire to protect one’s worldview and to attribute blame to one’s enemies instead of oneself. Discredited socialists still grumble bitterly about the impurity of the unrealized Soviet Experiment; “false-flag” kooks remain convinced that 9/11 was an “inside job,” despite there being no evidence for this whatsoever; and some conservatives who have never come to terms with the fact that Barack Obama has twice won the American presidency are now more convinced than ever that he must have stolen the elections.
If a group under siege can demonstrate “that there has been a conspiracy, which has transformed politics and society,” the British writer David Aaranovitch, astutely observed in Voodoo Histories, then they can convince themselves that “their defeat is not the product of their own inherent weakness or unpopularity, let alone their mistakes,” but is instead “due to the almost demonic ruthlessness of their enemy.”
This observation has screamed back into my mind this week as I watched the disastrous rollout of Obamacare’s much-vaunted health-care exchanges provoke apologists into spreading nonsense. Somewhere, deep down, the president’s allies must know that their man blew the launch — and blew it good. Nevertheless, some of the brighter members of the movement have caught themselves in a trap, responding to the widespread criticism of their signature achievement with the ludicrous allegation that it is being thwarted by outside forces — namely, Republicans and their donors. Indeed, even Barack Obama has proven susceptible.
In the course of a defiant speech at the White House, the president rode bravely into the realm of magical thinking: “It’s time for folks to stop rooting for its failure,” Obama said, adopting the panicked tones of a cheap infomercial salesman. Why? “Because hardworking middle-class families are rooting for its success.” For her part, Nancy Pelosi offered her own insinuation yesterday, suggesting that Republicans who continued to oppose the law were guilty of “sabotage.”
I should make it clear that I have precisely no intention whatsoever of ceasing to “root for failure.” I am actively hoping for the abject and embarrassing deterioration of Obamacare and I am not remotely ashamed to admit it. I loathe the law as a piece of public policy, as a means by which federal involvement in health care and society is being expanded rather than reduced, and as an unlovely example of the arrogance that presidents in the modern era have come to exhibit. Like Ed Rogers, “I would like to see the project’s collapse deter those who think a bigger, more domineering U.S. government is the answer to our problems.” And, like David Harsanyi, I want the project to fail “so hard that any residual perception among voters that any part of it was prudent policy is completely eliminated.”
In this regard, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent is absolutely correct when he complains that aristarchs such as myself “don’t envision the federal government playing an ambitious oversight role in regulating the health system — or spending the money necessary — in service of the goal of expanding coverage to tens of millions of uninsured.” I don’t.
That notwithstanding, my opinion on this matter has absolutely no bearing on the outcome — and to pretend that it does is extremely naïve. I am not possessed of any magical power with which I might prevent the law from working, any more than I am able to stare at an airplane and will it to crash into the ground. I did not award a no-bid contract to a failed Canadian IT firm, nor ensure that the system wasn’t tested until four days before it launched, nor allow it to be “built using ten-year-old technology.” Nor, for that matter, did Republicans. Unless you believe that the role of Congress is merely to “support” the president in all that he does, the fact that more than half of the voting public and one of the country’s two political parties have been critical should not be held against them.
Salon’s Irin Carmon complained sadly this week that “the federal exchanges [are] being burdened by so many more people than expected because for political reasons, a lot of governors refused to set up their own exchanges.” This line is not just askew, it is deeply presumptuous. While the idea that the system is failing because of excess demand has been widely debunked, Carmon is correct to note that a majority of governors declined to set up exchanges, and that they did so for “political reasons.” But, one might ask, “So what?” Texas is a state in a federal nation, and the law that the president signed allows the states to decide how to respond to what is, ultimately, a federal initiative.
To believe that the states have in some way “nullified” or “sabotaged” the law by choosing not to do the lifting themselves is to believe that the states are merely regional departments of the federal government and that their electing whether or not to expand Medicaid or set up health-care exchanges is illegitimate. In this case, “political reasons” means doing what the people in their states wanted them to do. What next? That “if Americans had just chosen to sign up, then the system would have worked”?
A frequent criticism of this president is that he does not yet appear to have noticed that he heads up the government. Barack Obama is quite capable of saying that he is as “angry as anyone” about the mistakes of his own administration, but a little less adept at knowing when to say “sorry.” Even here, with the law that bears his name, and which he fought for years to pass and to protect, his instinct is to look elsewhere.
As the scale of the disaster they have unleashed has dawned on them, both the president and his press secretary have started subtly to conflate the shutdown and the Obamacare launch. Barack Obama made sure to float this conceit during his big speech on Monday, framing discussion of the problems with Healthcare.gov by reminding the audience that, “about three weeks ago, as the federal government shut down, and the Affordable Care Act’s health-insurance marketplaces opened up across the country . . . ” On Tuesday, Jay Carney attempted this ruse, too, answering a question posed by Fox’s Ed Henry with “Ed, over many, many days now — three weeks now — even though for several of them we were focused on the extreme damage Republicans were doing to the economy through the shutdown and brinkmanship . . . ” In truth, the shutdown and the exchanges were launched on the same day. But let’s not let that get in the way of a good distraction.
Amusingly, the president’s defiance has simultaneously inspired his base and irritated the press corps. Friendly journalists such as Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent, and Ryan Lizza have been brutally honest about the scale of the mess, while, in the alternative universe that progressive users of social media inhabit, frustrated defenders of the rollout have started to blame the usual suspects. Do a quick search on Twitter for the words “Koch sabotage” and you’ll find an astonishing number of results. The same goes for “Koch Obamacare” and “Koch ruined,” too.
This was almost certainly inevitable. Both sides have their crazies, and times of trouble only bring out the worst in partisans. But it would be nice if the people who inflicted this turbulent law on the rest of us could recognize that it is one thing for the faithful to indulge in conspiracy theory and blame and to look desperately for ghosts in the machine, and quite another for their elected officials to do so. The problems with Obamacare are of design, of leadership, and, ultimately, of hubris. It is possible that they will be fixed and the program will be back on track before it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. Either way, though, there is a tough road ahead — and eliminating the kulaks won’t help one bit.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer for National Review.
Let me rather say that God led him, as he stumbled, into that mission.
I am amused by theologians who state so stoutly that psychologists are the spawn of Satan (or something close to it). Psychology is the empirical study of the human mind. Psychology by definition leaves open the question of what may be guiding that mind. Actual psychologists (most of them today in fact) can embrace sub-Christian or even baldly materialistic world views. And they run into various absurdities as they do so. But the few that embrace orthodox theological worldviews are viewing the science (as much as it can be a science) as a servant, not as a master. Ultimately it does end up getting echoed in the bible. However that doesn’t mean every biblical pastor is skilled in applying the word of God (and thus bringing the spirit of God) to such areas. Some of them seem pretty stuck up in their little constricted theological worlds, and I could name names but don’t.
OTOH, there is so much materialism and quackery (Freud) in psychology that it's good to be very skeptical of the claims of this science.
Unfortunately, too many people enter the field without a solid grounding in philosophy and theology, both of which put the field in its proper perspective.
They may not even CARE about the philosophy and theology.
Freud cooked up an allegory (with satanic elements in it) and used that as the basis of his theory. Those who were “cured” were, I fear, plopped right into the arms of whatever cohort of demons that represents. It wasn’t a reconciliation with truth, but with a lie. That’s not to say that successful psychoanalysis couldn’t be done with a fundamentally biblical bent (God is very flexible in blessing as long as He operates within a framework of truth), but it also wouldn’t be “Freudian” then.
I wonder if it’s just one more way for the alpha hotels to pour even more gas on the fire they started. They want it to become an inferno of civil unrest and societal upheaval.
I’m not really believing all the crap our gov’t is pulling was what the average LIV had in mind when they voted for hope and change.
Is THIS it? Excellent analysis of dear leader...
?
I sense no arrogance whatsoever on Cooke’s part. It is a well-written and honest article.
As usual, Obama let other incompetents make a mess of things and stayed above it all so he can now pass blame. Or attempt to.
To suggest that Obama himself sabotaged Obamacare is to suggest that Barry0 got off his skinny behind. That man is not known for involving himself in anything requiring effort, so I doubt your hypothesis.
The software they are trying to fix is not fixable. Fix one part and another link will crash. Each link has to be integrated with all the rest of the links and departments' systems. You cannot get there from here.
Republicans should sit silently and let the Democrats try to fix what will come to be known as the largest government disaster (my prediction) in history. Recommendation to Republicans: do not touch it. It is like gooey tar and the stink will stick to you forever.
Democrats did it. Democrats own it. Democrats have to fix it.
He still has a 100% perfect record for “not knowing/not bearing responsibility”. That we allow this freak, and the freaks he has installed to lord over us, to keep residing in the WH is a sign that we are doomed as a nation.
Evil is always 'with us' because evil is 'within us'.
God isn't evil, Jesus wasn't evil, the animals aren't evil, the rocks aren't evil.
That only leaves one place for 'evil' to exist.
God gave us 'free will', to choose between DOING GOOD or DOING EVIL. Unfortunately, we make a lot of bad choices.
Obamacare needed sabotaging to fail like the Titanic needed someone drilling a small hole in the hull of the ship after it hit the iceberg.
Yes it is. The problem is the ACA is not fixable.
Libs want credit for _intending_ good and _doing_ evil.
When you’re the president you don’t have to do it personally you have people do things for you.
Hell of a concept.
You might want to give it some thought before making ridiculous statements.
The entire thing was designed to be a failure right from the start. It was never intended to work.
Obama is in charge. He’s responsible for the sabotage.
The fact the dems had their talking points in place to blame the republicans for the screw up should tell anyone above the level of idiot it was designed to be a failure.
If Charles C.W. Cooke doesn’t recognize that then he’s a complete idiot.
He recognizes it. However, as the re-election of obama demonstrated, idiots today comprise a majority of the population of the voters in the United States of America. It is these, along with a complicit media and cowardly “opposition” that will keep obama and future obmamas in power.
YES!!!
Thanks FGS!
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.