by
Brian Mann on March 26th, 2010
It’s been making the headlines the last 48 hours that conservative writer and activist David Frum was kicked out of the American Enterprise Institute for blasting Republican opposition to the healthcare bill.
Now this story surfaces in the blog of Bruce Bartlett, another former Bush-era official who’s been sidelined by the conservative movement.
Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something [David Frum] told me in private a few months ago.
He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI “scholars” on the subject of health care reform.
I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
The In Box blog is a general news and discussion site for the News Department of North Country Public Radio. In Box contact information
Latest NCPR News
It doesn't matter. The Tea Party types hate all intellectuals.
The "conservative movement" is just anti-Democrat/pro-Republican movement; any resemblance of conservatism is coincidence.
The "conservative movement" is just anti-Democrat/pro-Republican movement; any resemblance of conservatism is coincidence.
I think you might be right, Brian. I read Andrew Sullivan's blog "The Daily Dish", and he is another intellectual conservative who supports Obama's presidency.Obama did not run as a liberal. He ran as a pro-defense, pragmatic politician who believes that government does have a positive role in improving the lives of its citizens.The political landscape of this country has shifted far enough to the right that a person with a philosophy akin to a British Tory is seen as a liberal.Anita from Russell
If the media (including NPR) would get the opinions of people who are really liberal more often the conservatives would see just how mainstream most of the Democratic Party is.
Brian,With this sort of stuff and the doctor you had on this morning it seems like NCPR is working hard like the administration to convince folks after the fact that this new law is a good idea. Given your admittedly balanced reporting at NCPR I assume tomorrow you will have an interview with one of the many doctors who thinks this new law is bad news. There is no topic that deserves evener coverage. The country is still split down the middle.
Paul – We will have other people with other points of view (including critical ones) on the air. The day before the vote we aired an interview with Mark Barie, a tea party activist from Plattsburgh who condemned the bill. But it's worth noting that the people quoted in this blog post are all…conservative.What interests me here is the conversation underway WITHIN the GOP about its ability to function as a serious policy-making body.-Brian, NCPR
Also, there has always been plenty of Republican support for WHAT the President is/was trying to do. The opposition has always been geared toward HOW it was being done. What is really now worrying the more conservative elements is that the president has made it crystal clear that this law is only a FIRST step toward what he hopes to accomplish. But I think the title of this blog is misleading. This hints at the fact that if you are an "intellectual" (lets call it Smart, "scholarly" whatever) conservative you maybe agree with Obama. The opposite might also be true. If you disagree with the president you are less than "intellectual" lets call it "un-smart".
"What interests me here is the conversation underway WITHIN the GOP about its ability to function as a serious policy-making body."Yes, and that conversation right now seems to go something like this–GOPER 1990: "You know, Obama's plan is a lot like the Heritage Foundation plan from the 90s that preached individual buy-in as a form of responsibility, similar to what Romney rode to victory in Massachusetts."GOPER 2K10: "SHUT UP! SHUT! UP! SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!!! I'm going to throw a brick through your window!!!!"
I think Charles Krauthammer articulates pretty well here at the Washington Post (see below) what one possible next step might be. Imposition of a Value Added Tax to cover the cost of this law that I seriously doubt will be financed with 500 billion dollars in Medicaid cuts as planned:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502406.html
Weuns whut ain't inteelekchewals don't cotton to this here ideer at all. Coarse weuns ain't smart like youall. Skeewz me, I got to go rape my daughter n grow more pot n hang some darkies.Give me a break people. The arrogance displayed here is enough to make me ill. Why not give your egos a rest for a second and try to return to planet earth where the rest of us mortals live. I know no one happy with Obama, and I mean that literally- no one. Either he went too far or not far enough or isn't doing what he said or is going beyond what he said. Personally, after seeing the display or sheer arrogance (and bigotry) in this thread, if this is what it means to be an intellectual then I'll remain a dumb ol' hick thank you very much.
Ed, I bristle at a lot of the arrogance from the left but in my opinion I don't see it or bigotry in this thread. jpmThat said, Brian, so what if there are those at AEI that were supportive of the President's / Pelosi's plan?Perhaps their support was reached pragmatically; that is, it's better to preserve much of the current system than have a complete government take-over of health care. I'm willing to bet there would have been vocal opposition had the plan included a public option, single payer, or something in between. The real question is whether or not conservatives agree on philosphical grounds with the president's plan. The answer is probably no.jpm
Brian can't define who is intellectual or who is conservative anymore than you or I can.Here is a quote from the blog of Bruce Bartlett that kind of dismisses him from the realm of intellectualism.[on the firing of Frum]"I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw."So, if you are "intellectual", you blame the Republicans for failing to work with the Democrats. Seems to me the Dems didn't need a single Republican vote, anyhow.This may be too intellectual an argument, but if I am a Democrate and want to sell a house for $300,000, and I have a taker at $300,000, and along comes a Republican who offers me $10,000 for it, do I blame the Republican for not helping me sell my house?You get the idea. Bartlett is far too intellectual for me to argue with.
Fidel Castro must be a conservative intellectual. He praised Obama care.AP story.HAVANA (AP) — It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaBigotry"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."Hence, those who consider all conservatives or Tea Party types or anyone on the right a mouth breathing moron, as was displayed here, is a bigot.
"The real question is whether or not conservatives agree on philosphical grounds with the president's plan."JPM, I think Brian's post is pointing to conservatives who DO agree with this plan, which was a CONSERVATIVE PLAN, some 15 years ago. The arch-conservative Heritage Foundation put it forward as an alternative to the Clinton plan. And Romney installed this in Massachusetts. That's what Frum's saying, and Brian is pointing out.
Whatever you think of Bartlett, he comes armed with facts in this piece on what people actually pay in taxes under Obama (they pay less than before he was in office), in the commie-pinko rag Forbes:http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Is Newt an intellectual? Does he count?
"I know no one happy with Obama, and I mean that literally- no one. Either he went too far or not far enough"Sounds to me like the guy we elected… a centrist who wasn't going to play to the extremes of either party.The Dems did NOT get the bill they wanted. Hello public option, hello single payer system…The Republicans got some 200 of their ideas and amendments included in the bill – including some pretty substantial ones – even though there was absolutely no political reason to include them since doing so produced no votes.This is a fairly centrist, middle of the road, compromise bill. The meat of which has been championed and put forth by both democrats and republicans alike at different times over the past several decades.If you ask me, an intellectual conservative is one that can recognize this even though it might not be what Rush and Beck are saying. The "non-intellectual" conservatives? Well, to me they are the ones who supported the idea of health care reform when they were told to do so, and now do not support it… because they are being told not to.
Mervel, Newt is an intellectual in the circles he travels in. I think he's a history professor. He's smart but he's also got some skeletons in his closet. What's more, he's not a lefty, therefore he can't be an intellectual according to most here unless he starts backing left wing ideas. Mouth Breather- To be centrist, wouldn't Obama have to support ideas like a health care reform package that doesn't involve unconstitutional actions? Or do we follow the John Conyers pattern and make up clauses like his "good and welfare" clause to support unconstitutional acts? Obama is as much a centrist as Karl Marx and Karl Rove. You may agree with his policies and ideas, but please don't try and paint him as a middle of the roader.
"Obama is as much a centrist as Karl Marx and Karl Rove. You may agree with his policies and ideas, but please don't try and paint him as a middle of the roader."I don't agree with his policies… THAT is the point. My political views range from right of center on some topics to middle left on others, and in this case, I wanted his policies to be MORE progressive. They aren't.That is true of almost every liberal democrat you will find. This bill came in to the left of the right wingers, and to the right of the left wingers.You don't need a compass to know where that points.And again, the meat of this bill has been championed BY conservatives in the past… including most recently by ole' Mitt (despite his efforts to backpedal away from his achievements in MA)
Sarah Palin is a teabagger idea of an intellectual.
Yes, and Bill Clinton is a liberals idea of a faithful husband and honest politician. Are we down to trading stupid insults Anon? IS that the best you've got? At least have the character to use a screen name.
"wouldn't Obama have to support ideas like a health care reform package that doesn't involve unconstitutional actions?"Bret,Thanks for this. And I'm glad you were out burning effigies in front of the Heritage Foundation in 1994, and of Romney last decade, when they put forth this unconstitutional claptrap that Obama is using to subvert our country.
And I suppose you were out there supporting Romney and Heritage? I don't care who supports it, it's wrong and if Heritage or Romeny supported FORCING people to buy insurance or face jail time then it's news to me.
"if Heritage or Romeny supported FORCING people to buy insurance or face jail time then it's news to me."It's in David Frum's piece that Brian refers to in the above post.And here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100327/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_requiring_insuranceHeritage, I don't think, suggested mandated buy-in, but the exchanges originated with them.I don't, by the way, like Obama's plan. Rather have Medicare for all. But it's better than nothing. People in my family can't be thrown off for their pre-existing conditions now.
Let me ask you anon- since you and others seem to think it's Constitutionally allowed for the Federal Gov't to force it's citizens to buy something from a private entity, is it also all right for them to do it with other things? Force us to buy Chrysler automobiles for instance, since the Fed Gov't basically owns Chrysler now. Or for them to mandate we only buy approved foods? Or for them to mandate what activities we take part in? It seems to be headed that way and I honestly wonder what the "other side" thinks about this.
sorry i'm late to the party, but here's justice scalia, of all people (emphasis mine, or more correctly, matt yglesias's):The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.i think it's important to understand that when people on the right say things like "the insurance mandate is unconstitutional," what they really mean is "i don't like it." because there's nothing unconstitutional about it at all!
Huh, seems Obama isn't going be able to sell the idea http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/Video/2010/03/Feulner-response-to-Obama Heritage came up with this plan-
HT- So you're platform is that FORCING people to buy something is regulating Interstate Commerce? Sorry friend, that's nuts. Where is the mandated purchase of an item covered in Interstate Commerce or any where else in the Constitution or BoR? There is NO interstate commerce involved here. This has nothing to do with the regulation of interstate commerce.For those that will eventually mention automobile insurance- that's a choice you make if you wish to drive a car and varies from state to state. This is a MANDATORY order from the Federal gov't to every citizen.
"It seems to be headed that way and I honestly wonder what the "other side" thinks about this."From the "other side" (why the scare quotes, friend?): I hate the Obama plan. It's dismal, but it's better than nothing; as has been said before, it will keep people with preexisting conditions from getting kicked off the insurance they've already paid for.I'd rather have Medicare for all, because this is a giveaway to the crappy insurance industry.But it was YOUR SIDE'S IDEA!That's the point of this discussion. Obama tweaked the idea, yes. But the private mandate was about the used-to-be-sainted GOP concept of individual responsibility. And a giveaway to crappy insurance companies, because giveaways to private industry are better than SOCIALISMSOCIALISMHITLERSTALINSOCIALISM, as the right likes to say.Own it, right wingers. It's your boy Romney's plan.
dear bret,of course there's interstate commerce involved here. let me just quote from the matt yglesias article i linked to above:Purchasing health insurance is clearly economic activity, and the state of the health insurance market in any given state clearly does substantially affect interstate commerce. As is generally the case with words in the English language, the phrase “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” could be construed in a few different ways. But for a very long time now the Supreme Court—including its most conservative members—have construed it as authorizing general economic activity.
HT- Sorry, but you're blowing smoke here. REGULATING commerce has never before meant mandating the purchase of an item by all citizens of the nation, never. It refers to establishing equal footing for all players in the various states and of course Gov't being able to skim some bucks from those commercial enterpirses involved. Voluntary purchase of health insurance from a citizen in NY, for instance, from a company in California is interstate commerce and would clearly fall under the purview of the Federal Gov't. Mandating each citizen in each state purchase insurance is not regulation, it's slavery! And since currently health insurance plans are regulated to each state, that is- there is NO INTERSTATE COMPETITION…..you're blowing smoke friend.So let me rephrase the question- Where in the Constitution or BoR do you find any reference to the Federal Gov't having the power to mandate what it's citizens MUST purchase? Or put another way, if I were President and passed a bill MANDATING each citizen MUST purchase an AR-15 rifle and keep on hand 5000 rounds of ammunition, MUST drive a 4wd Chevy half ton pickup or Chrysler mini van, and that all citizens MUST reside in a single family home of between 800 and 1200 sq ft with gas heat, no central AC, a metal roof, a poured foundation and that each home MUST be painted bright green regardless of family size, location or preference…where would the right of Gov't come from to allow that? Please tell me because that's no different than what is being done with the health care laws.