Is Michael Steele's Position on Health Care Reform "Nuanced" or "Clear"? Answer: The New GOP Is the Old GOP.

I wrote an article on the Huffington Post in December of last year about the interview Steve Inskeep of NPR's All Things Considered conducted with Mike Duncan, the then chairman of GOP. In that article I observed the GOP was heralding Bobby Jindal and Ahn Cao as the saviors of the party because it was merely trying to repackage itself rather than to change fundamentally. When a caller called from Oregon to suggest the GOP needs to distance itself from the religious right, Duncan gave a typical talking point: "we are the party of the big tent." But everyone knew, including Mike Duncan through his silence, this was not just ignorance, but also a deep denial.

And on August 27th, a little over 9 months after the election and 7 months into the Obama administration, Inskeep conducted an interview with the new GOP chairman, Michael Steele, on the topic of health care reform. (Read the entire interview here or you can listen to the entire interview here.) The interview was precipitated by Steele's op-ed in the Washington Post on August 24th, in which he declared the "GOP Principles for Health Care" for seniors.

Steve Inskeep calls Steele out on his contradictory call for no cuts in Medicare while at the same time asserting that Medicare, like other government-run programs, needs to "run better and efficiently." How can this be consistent? How is it possible to call to protect Medicare while at the same time calling to oppose President Obama's plan for a government-run health care system? Steele answers as follows: "Well, people may like Medicare, and liking a program and having it run efficiently is sometimes two different things. . . So let's focus on fixing it." In a nutshell: Medicare is politically popular, so keep it and fix it. But government-run health care is bad like other government-run programs ("We have Amtrak. You have the Post Office"), so don't start it.

I am left scratching my head.

When pushed to defend private insurers against the government-run Medicare, Steele asserts: "And sure, there are issues in the insurance market that we can regulate a little bit better and that we can control better to maximize the benefits to the consumers." Inskeep is quick to catch Steele's inconsistency and responds, " Wait a minute, wait, wait. You would trust the government to look into that?"

Steele gets defensive and accuses Inskeep of "doing a wonderful little dance" and "trying to be cute." He insists that "the reality of this is very simple. I'm not saying the government doesn't have a role to play." What is then the role of the government?" Steele goes on, "The government does have a role to play. The government has a very limited role to play." Inskeep admits readily that he is "a little confused" by the positions Steele tates "because you're giving me a very nice nuanced position here."

Now it's Inskeep who is left scratching his head.

Steele answers with a declarative statement: "I'm being very clear." When Inskeep pushes him further Steele mounts a counter-offensive by asking Inskeep in return, "What's nuanced? What don't you understand?" And here comes the clincher: "I don't accept your premise" So far, Steele has accused Inskeep of doing a dance, being cute, and now of offering a view of Steele's contradictory, or "nuanced," position which he flatly doesn't "accept." What Steele implies here is this: he is "being very clear" and it is Inskeep who doesn't understand.

As I stated at the beginning , my December article on Mike Duncan dealt with Duncan's inability to accept the fact that the GOP needed a fundamental change. When suggested that it needed to disassociate itself from the religious right, Duncan responded with a mere declarative talking point: "we are the party of big tent." When Steele is asked if his positions perhaps needed to be explained, he responds with is another similar declarative statement: "I am being very clear." And by the way, "You are doing a wonderful little dance."

Never mind that the positions Steele takes are blatantly inconsistent. For example, the second principle: "we need to prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors." The seniors are already on Medicare, the reviled government-run health care, so it would follow from Steele's position then that the government is already standing between doctors and patients. However, Steele wants to assert at the same time that Medicare is not, but other government-run health care will. Protect Medicare, but other government-run health care is evil.

It seems to me that the GOP has not changed at all. The new Mike Duncan is the old Mike Duncan. The face and the color might have changed, but it is still the same. When pushed to clarify its position, Michael Steele as the face of the GOP answers, "you are doing a wonderful little dance." When asked to clarify the position, Steele gives the simple declarative answer as if it were self-evident, "I am being very clear." Steele may accuse Inskeep of dancing, but it is Steele who is doing the dance.

So is then Michael Steele's position on health care reform "nuanced" or "clear"? It is neither. It is circular. It is vacuous. It is nothing but talking points behind which there is no substance.

The new GOP is the old GOP all over again.

How Can We Get Yogis To Be Activists?

In The Yoga Sutras of Pantajali, Sri Swami Satchidananda discusses cultivating attitudes toward four different kinds of people. As a practicing yogi, your utmost importance is placed in achieving peace. This peace is ultimately achieved by uniting with the Divine with the recognition that this Divine is within us as it is also within each and everyone of us.

Now the four different kinds of people: the "happy", the "unhappy," the "virtuous," and the "wicked." Swami Satchidananda urges friendliness and compassion to these respectively. In my mind, the first two have to do with with feelings. One feels happy or one feels unhappy. On the other hand, the virtuous and the wicked, in my opinion, have to do with morality. Unlike the ephemeral feelings of happiness or unhappiness, the virtuosity and wickedness seem to go beyond spontaneous human emotions. They seem to speak of human disposition, seated more deeply within human psyche. One cannot be virtuous one moment and not virtuous the next. Likewise, one cannot be wicked on moment and not wicked the next. For these last two Swami Satchidananda urges delight and disregard respectively. Regarding "wickedness," he writes that maybe if we leave them alone, they will come out of their wickedness. "Don't try to advise such people," he writes, "because wicked people seldom take advice. If you try to advise them you will lose your peace."

Because in trying to convert these people into good people, I will lose my peace, and my peace is of UTMOST important above all else, I am not to try to give them any help in how to stop being wicked. I understand Satchidananda to be saying this: if you find peace within yourself, and you radiate this peace, this peace will cause othersfollow your example and find their way to peace and, therefore, enlightenment. This is what it means to detach from the world, by detaching from the world, by this "involution," one sets a chain reaction of sorts. This is enlightenment. The more wickedness you see, the more inward you turn.

I have a problem with that. Since there will always be "wicked" people as these people are not to be advised, we also have to be willing to live with this fact. This seems to be extremely undemocratic and defeatist. Isn't democracy all about getting that majority to agree with you? How do you get someone to agree with you if you don't try to advise them?

I know lots of politically engaged people. I know lots of yogis. I also know that lots of yogis silently supported Barack Obama, but it was also a taboo to publicly acknowledge such favoritism. If, following Swami Satchidananda's words, yogis were to completely detach, to practice indifference toward the "wicked," where could yogis be activists? How could we even begin to convince people to turn to the yogic life style without trying to advise others? I know the standard answer would be to live by example, but what if some people just deliberately ignore forever?

Well, I guess Satchidananda is right. I am getting agitated and disturbed just by this mere thought. The question to ask yourself is, "what is more important? My own peace or the peace of others at the cost of my own?"

Libertarians Will Never Be Free

After some time of observation and rumination over the different factions of political thought in this country, I have come to conclude this:

1) The Religious Right.

I vehemently disagree with them. However, I have respect for them because they believe in principles and act according to these principles. They have a strong moral compass and believe in a higher calling. That, in my opinion, though extremely naive and uninformed, is noble. I have to separate the religious fanatics from the religious right here. The religious fanatics, including those who kill in the name of God, or a god, or many gods, are crazy and belong in an institution.

2) The Liberals.

On the opposite end of the religious right, we have the liberals. I respect them for their compassion for fellow humans. They do see serving humanity as a higher calling not because it serves a greater god, but because it in itself is good. While the religious right draw their strength from a supposed higher authority, the liberals draw their strength in their faith in the progress of humanity. This, in my opinion, is noble.

3) The Libertarians.

Today's libertarians are in a league of their own and bear very little resemblance to the classic libertarianism of individual right. Today's libertarians have become all about money and taxes. These people pursue so-called liberty to such a degree that they will always be slave to this pursuit. Therefore, they will never be free. The young Ron Paul crowd is the good example of this kind of libertarians. These people have no higher calling other than the pursuit of so-called liberty, usually liberty from taxes, and have no compassion for others. The Libertarian Party's slogan: "Smaller Government, Less Taxes, More Freedom" -- as if one follow from the other? Hence, these people rank the lowest of all factions in my opinion in terms of moral rectitude (they have none), mental acuity (they really lack it), and compassion (only for themselves, which is, by definition, selfishness).

We Have Placed Fellow Human Beings Below Dogs

When I was a teenager growing up Germany, we had a subscription to a magazine whose title I no longer remember. But I do remember one issue in particular, it was an issue on American white supremacy. Germans like to understand their own history through many different lenses, so an issue like this would not have been out of the ordinary.

This particular issue contained an interview with an unnamed white supremacist. The interviewer asked him if this professed white supremacist would stop to help a black man on the road who had been hit by a car. Sure, the white supremacist said, just like he would help a dog.

That answer stuck with me for years.

Now, during this health care reform debate, which has been about everything else but really health care reform, another issue has come up--that of illegal immigration. The congressmen and women and senators are being asked again and again if illegal immigrants would also receive health care. Some of these people are even saying unimaginable things like, "they should all be sent back with bullet holes in their heads." Under no circumstances should illegal immigrants receive health care. No visits to ER, no visits with doctors. Send them straight to their home country without any medical attention. Can my fellow Americans really be saying these things?

Alas, some Americans have placed fellow human beings below dogs. That is very, very sad.

Help Me Understand Why There Is Even a Debate on Healthcare Reform?

So, these are the typical arguments from those who oppose healthcare reform.

1. "The government is going to step between me and my doctor."
2. Or, "The government is going to kill my grandmother."
3. Or, "I don't want socialism." "What insurance do you have?" "I have Medicare." And if these people are on Medicare and know that it is a completely government run program, therefore socialistic, "Don't mess with Medicare. I don't want Medicare to run out of money because I need Medicare."

Here are my responses.
1. No conscionable doctor will divulge personal information about you. If you can't trust your doctor, and you don't trust the government, well, you can't trust anyone. If you are on a private health insurance policy, do you trust that insurance company, whose sole purpose is to make money, more than the government?
2. Now where did this come from? End of life counseling is not a death panel. If there is one, that would be the insurance companies that operate now who decide what procedures are covered and which one are not. I trust these people less than my government. The government is there if I need protection. Private companies, only if they are paid.
3. Medicare is a completely government run program that is there for those who would otherwise be rejected by ALL private health insurance companies. How would they ever get health insurance? If you are past 65, chances are that you have chronic ailments. Drugs to take everyday. You may supplement with private health insurance, but Medicare becomes your primary health insurance policy. So, don't be selfish and let others have that option too.

Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times that illustrates why we need healthcare reform in this country. And why there has to be a safety net for those who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot get healthcare. I don't see the difference in the need for medical attention between these people and those over 65.



A country trying to take care of its citizens who cannot take care of themselves is not socialism. It is good government.

Palin Made Hatred Pretty

Where do I begin?

I hate the fact that a woman with a pretty face and an attractive figure made it pretty and attractive to hate. She gave hatred a pretty face, lent credence to hatred and made hatred acceptable, even attractive.

That is Palin's legacy. She brought hatred and ignorance to a whole new level.

There is no other way to describe her legacy than this simple fact.

Health Care Deja Vu: The Craziness and Ugliness of the Election Are Back

When the election was over, I thought, phew, the worst has passed. We have finally someone of a sane mind in the White House, someone who can inspire us to do good.

It seems that the election season has returned. I am seeing all the ugliness that I saw during the election all over again. Though I like to forget, I still remember being shaken on many occasions, one of them in particular.

I went to an address looking for a person on the list of registered voters. A woman in a small SUV drove up as I walked onto her driveway. I identified myself as a volunteer for Obama, and her demeanor changed. Her facial expression turned diabolical and full of fury. She shouted at me, "I HATE THAT MAN!" I wondered then how anyone would be so hateful of someone that they personally don't know. I started to walk away without saying much, I was just shaken, having lost another little piece of faith in the humanity. She jumped back in the car, looking intently at me out of the rolled down window, all while giving gas as she was looking. Vroom. Vroom. I feared for life and left as quickly as I could.

I looked at my list. I was not about to have someone like that shake me so badly, so I went to the next address on the list. And who I do see driving up to that address? The hate-filled woman with her young child in the back of the car. I saw an Obama sign in the yard, and I was glad to have that sign as the woman and I converged on the driveway of this particular address. A man was working on a boat, and I asked may I talk to so-and-so. He said that was his wife who is a big Obama supporter. I asked him if he too was a supporter. He said he didn't know.

Now the woman, with a big smile on her face, chimed in. She said cheerfully that her mother was a Catholic and that as a Catholic her mother would never vote for Obama. As for her, she said she didn't know. Then she added that the co-owner of the house, on whose driveway we had all congregated, was her sister-in-law and that her sister-in-law lets her live in the house across the street for free. She looked at me as if to say, and with as much hatred and menace as before reserved just for me, "you'd better not tell her what I just said to you."

This two-faced woman really shook me up. I was shaken more by how she was so casually lying through her teeth, with a kind of platitude even as if it were the most normal thing to do, than by the fact that I had thought my life was in danger just minutes earlier. How can humans behave this way?

What I am seeing during these town hall meetings reminds of these incidents that I encoutered during the election. There was so much ugliness. There was so much hatred. The same ugliness is coming back.

Those who oppose health care reform at these town hall meetings are not opposing health care reform. Many of them are fighting it as if they were still fighting the election.

All of the issues of the election are coming back with all the same incendiary rhetoric, hearsay, untruths. They oppose health care because Obama's administration is pushing for it. It could be a bill to give them free socks for life, they would oppose it. They oppose the cap and trade and all green initiatives because the Obama administration sponsors them. It is as if they want the whole country to fail because they refuse to believe that Barack Obama is our 44th president and the majority of this nation voted for him.

There is no doubt that the nation's health care needs a reform. The system can't go on. Those who have insurance are afraid to go because of the sky-rocketing co-pays and out-of-pocket costs. Those who do not have insurance, just hope that they do not get sick. This is a country where the citizens seem to get into financial trouble whether or not they have health insurance. If that is not crazy, I don't know what is. What is paid for and what is not is decided completely by the insurance companies whose sole purpose of existence is to make money. They are the "death panels" and the opponents of health care reform want to keep the operation the way they are now?

The simple fact is that the cost of health care is bankrupting the whole nation and its citizens, and this important issue is the one that Obama-haters latch on. They are hijacking an all-important issue that will sink or save the nation. It seems not just crazy to me, but also completely against self-interest if these so-called opponents were to even think clearly.

I want civility back. I want civil public discourse so that we may all fix what is wrong. No doubt about it.