In the CNN/Tea Party Republican debate, Ron Paul was asked about a hypothetical involving a 30 year old man of middle class means with a job who decides not to get medical insurance. The man suffers a medical calamity and is in need of care to save his life. The question posed to Paul was: 'should society pick up the check.' Paul says: 'that would be the expectation of the welfare state but the man had made a choice and needed to live with the consequences of that choice.' “So should society let him die?” was the continuing pressure from CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer. Several people in the crowd yelled “Yes!”
What does this mean?
To American conservatives it is a code of orthodoxy. A statement of faith concerning the role of individual responsibility and self determination taken to an acknowledged extreme but asserted with vehemence. The point is not to cheer a man's death, but to make a firm statement and rail against government involvement in the lives of citizens even when it absolutely benefits them. It is a strangely collective statement for conservatives, saying they would sacrifice one man for the good of the many to be free of government management of their health care choices. The codes of orthodoxy for Republicans have been changing. They now reflect such a disillusionment with government that to be conservative you need to want anything the government does that can be ended to be ended no matter what it does or who it serves.
The Tea Party conservatives who comprised a majority of the audience are already creatures of orthodoxy and ideology before politics and practicality. They are almost addicted to the process of making absolutest statements in order to stand out against establishment Republicans and make it clear where their priorities lie. So yelling 'yes' to a question of letting a man die who chose not to buy health insurance is a far less about a dying man who they know is hypothetical and far more a way to stand on the ideology of taking responsibility for one's own decisions in a way that shocks and stuns outsiders.
To liberals this scene was horrific. It was an absolute denial of the interconnected nature of our society and the long term ramifications of allowing one person's poor choices to impact the social network. The liberal sees that allowing someone to languish in pain or to die due to an unwise financial decision is a material breach of the social contract on which the government stands: The protection of the health, welfare and safety of it's population. To question government's role in saving lives even from their own choices seems to equally question the very existence of the United States. For liberals this was not a call for smaller government, it was tantamount to a call for NO government.
And as always, the Libertarian in the room was misunderstood by everyone.
Ron Paul has a problem. That problem is that he forgets that libertarian politics has its own language, models, rules, and viewpoints outside of the normal liberal/conservative dynamic that for the most part are not understood by the general population. This means he can end up saying things that make perfect sense to a Libertarian, but which confuse and baffle anyone else.
A great example of this can be found in the first debate where Ron Paul talked about 'gas for a dime' referring to the value of a silver dime. To people who understand Ron Paul's politics, this is a reference to going back to a precious metals standard for currency. But to 80-90% of the population, it sounded like random crazy talk: They had no idea what he meant or where he intended to get a silver dime or why the silver dime would be used to buy gas.
Ron Paul also forgets the obscurity of the underlying assumptions a true libertarian works from. The society that Ron Paul wants to create is not just a dismantling of the federal government, its a restructure of the entire method by which the US is is managed. He's no idiot, he knows the liberarian almost confederate government is not on the horizon, but when he speaks about his ideas and values, he does so from the perspective of a libertarian visionary where that is the ideal. The gap between his vision and reality, however, is insurmountable by most of those who hear him and therefore his popular support is based mostly on his firm, principled attacks on the existing system – something all conservatives can identify with.
So back to the issue at hand.
Ron Paul said one thing. He said that personal responsibility meant that the hypothetical man took the risks and reaped the consequences of those risks, and that without insurance, he was at the mercy of whatever sources for his care including churches and private hospitals were willing to act. His focus was not on the man's death, it was to point out that the government need not intervene. Ron Paul's was calling the entire assumption inherent in the question - that government had any role in this situation - on the carpet. His core point was not to question whether the man should receive care but rather to question why we assumed the federal government had any place in this scenario.
The Tea Party audience heard something else. The Tea Party heard a condemnation of Obama's health care mandate and their cheers were genuinely for the man's demise. Not because they were bloodthirsty monsters who wanted someone to die, but because they were reveling in the controversial extremist assertion that they stood by their anti-'Obamacare' ideology even if it killed this hypothetical man. The crowd had found a sensational way to vent their anti-Obama sentiment and ran with it. The composite picture made Ron Paul look cold, callous, and even dangerous to liberals and once again misrepresented him to many conservatives.
It is my contention that Ron Paul dropped the ball on this question badly.
Here's why:
If you listen to Ron Paul's response, you realize he doesn't clearly explain an important assumption on his part and fails make a critical distinction. The assumption is that is that the private sector will handle this: The man absolutely will get care. The distinction is even more important: The man in they hypothetical failed to buy insurance. Insurance PAYS for medical coverage, it does not PROVIDE it. Lack of coverage need not prevent you from actually getting medical care, it just holds you financially responsible to the provider. The question as presented had a completely valid and easy conservative answer if this distinction had been made.
Here's what Ron Paul should have said:
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. This isn't about if he gets medical care, it's about how he PAYS for medical care, and if he didn't buy insurance he is going to have to pick up the tab no matter who gives him that care. Now my position is that government shouldn’t be providing care, that's for the private sector, but this man made a choice and he will be, as he should be, paying whomever gives him care for the full cost of that care because he made that choice.
This would have answered the question directly, given a more clear view into Ron Paul's politics, and removed the life or death decision from the policy position of a government official, something Ron Paul would have likely preferred.
But that's not how it played out. Paul didn't make that distinction and because of it was placed in a position of having to choose government action or the life of an individual, a nasty and unenviable position for any conservative courting the ever more orthodox Republican base. The last line, often cut off by liberal sound bytes, answers the question of 'should he be left to die' and reads as follows:
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
In this answer you see the inherent underlying Libertarian assumption Paul believes but constantly fails to explain: That private organizations, if given the chance, would find a way to provide for people such as this and are more than capable of dealing with emergencies. That this man's lack of insurance will cost him, but that price will not be his life.
So the take away points from this comment are three. First, the much touted and sensationalized quote from the Tea Party/CNN debate was more complex than anyone was making it appear. Second, Ron Paul failed to communicate effectively in the situation, but never believed for a moment this man should die or not receive care. He botched an important distinction that would have protected him from this fallout. Third, the Tea Party has once again doubled down on it's ideological extremism at any cost. They have reminded us once again why they are a blight on the political landscape and have now stained Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement with colors they never would have picked for themselves.
What does this mean?
To American conservatives it is a code of orthodoxy. A statement of faith concerning the role of individual responsibility and self determination taken to an acknowledged extreme but asserted with vehemence. The point is not to cheer a man's death, but to make a firm statement and rail against government involvement in the lives of citizens even when it absolutely benefits them. It is a strangely collective statement for conservatives, saying they would sacrifice one man for the good of the many to be free of government management of their health care choices. The codes of orthodoxy for Republicans have been changing. They now reflect such a disillusionment with government that to be conservative you need to want anything the government does that can be ended to be ended no matter what it does or who it serves.
The Tea Party conservatives who comprised a majority of the audience are already creatures of orthodoxy and ideology before politics and practicality. They are almost addicted to the process of making absolutest statements in order to stand out against establishment Republicans and make it clear where their priorities lie. So yelling 'yes' to a question of letting a man die who chose not to buy health insurance is a far less about a dying man who they know is hypothetical and far more a way to stand on the ideology of taking responsibility for one's own decisions in a way that shocks and stuns outsiders.
To liberals this scene was horrific. It was an absolute denial of the interconnected nature of our society and the long term ramifications of allowing one person's poor choices to impact the social network. The liberal sees that allowing someone to languish in pain or to die due to an unwise financial decision is a material breach of the social contract on which the government stands: The protection of the health, welfare and safety of it's population. To question government's role in saving lives even from their own choices seems to equally question the very existence of the United States. For liberals this was not a call for smaller government, it was tantamount to a call for NO government.
And as always, the Libertarian in the room was misunderstood by everyone.
Ron Paul has a problem. That problem is that he forgets that libertarian politics has its own language, models, rules, and viewpoints outside of the normal liberal/conservative dynamic that for the most part are not understood by the general population. This means he can end up saying things that make perfect sense to a Libertarian, but which confuse and baffle anyone else.
A great example of this can be found in the first debate where Ron Paul talked about 'gas for a dime' referring to the value of a silver dime. To people who understand Ron Paul's politics, this is a reference to going back to a precious metals standard for currency. But to 80-90% of the population, it sounded like random crazy talk: They had no idea what he meant or where he intended to get a silver dime or why the silver dime would be used to buy gas.
Ron Paul also forgets the obscurity of the underlying assumptions a true libertarian works from. The society that Ron Paul wants to create is not just a dismantling of the federal government, its a restructure of the entire method by which the US is is managed. He's no idiot, he knows the liberarian almost confederate government is not on the horizon, but when he speaks about his ideas and values, he does so from the perspective of a libertarian visionary where that is the ideal. The gap between his vision and reality, however, is insurmountable by most of those who hear him and therefore his popular support is based mostly on his firm, principled attacks on the existing system – something all conservatives can identify with.
So back to the issue at hand.
Ron Paul said one thing. He said that personal responsibility meant that the hypothetical man took the risks and reaped the consequences of those risks, and that without insurance, he was at the mercy of whatever sources for his care including churches and private hospitals were willing to act. His focus was not on the man's death, it was to point out that the government need not intervene. Ron Paul's was calling the entire assumption inherent in the question - that government had any role in this situation - on the carpet. His core point was not to question whether the man should receive care but rather to question why we assumed the federal government had any place in this scenario.
The Tea Party audience heard something else. The Tea Party heard a condemnation of Obama's health care mandate and their cheers were genuinely for the man's demise. Not because they were bloodthirsty monsters who wanted someone to die, but because they were reveling in the controversial extremist assertion that they stood by their anti-'Obamacare' ideology even if it killed this hypothetical man. The crowd had found a sensational way to vent their anti-Obama sentiment and ran with it. The composite picture made Ron Paul look cold, callous, and even dangerous to liberals and once again misrepresented him to many conservatives.
It is my contention that Ron Paul dropped the ball on this question badly.
Here's why:
If you listen to Ron Paul's response, you realize he doesn't clearly explain an important assumption on his part and fails make a critical distinction. The assumption is that is that the private sector will handle this: The man absolutely will get care. The distinction is even more important: The man in they hypothetical failed to buy insurance. Insurance PAYS for medical coverage, it does not PROVIDE it. Lack of coverage need not prevent you from actually getting medical care, it just holds you financially responsible to the provider. The question as presented had a completely valid and easy conservative answer if this distinction had been made.
Here's what Ron Paul should have said:
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor. Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. This isn't about if he gets medical care, it's about how he PAYS for medical care, and if he didn't buy insurance he is going to have to pick up the tab no matter who gives him that care. Now my position is that government shouldn’t be providing care, that's for the private sector, but this man made a choice and he will be, as he should be, paying whomever gives him care for the full cost of that care because he made that choice.
This would have answered the question directly, given a more clear view into Ron Paul's politics, and removed the life or death decision from the policy position of a government official, something Ron Paul would have likely preferred.
But that's not how it played out. Paul didn't make that distinction and because of it was placed in a position of having to choose government action or the life of an individual, a nasty and unenviable position for any conservative courting the ever more orthodox Republican base. The last line, often cut off by liberal sound bytes, answers the question of 'should he be left to die' and reads as follows:
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
In this answer you see the inherent underlying Libertarian assumption Paul believes but constantly fails to explain: That private organizations, if given the chance, would find a way to provide for people such as this and are more than capable of dealing with emergencies. That this man's lack of insurance will cost him, but that price will not be his life.
So the take away points from this comment are three. First, the much touted and sensationalized quote from the Tea Party/CNN debate was more complex than anyone was making it appear. Second, Ron Paul failed to communicate effectively in the situation, but never believed for a moment this man should die or not receive care. He botched an important distinction that would have protected him from this fallout. Third, the Tea Party has once again doubled down on it's ideological extremism at any cost. They have reminded us once again why they are a blight on the political landscape and have now stained Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement with colors they never would have picked for themselves.
Comments
Post a Comment