Divide and Rule
Divide and Rule
There was a time, one I can remember from when I was growing up (the 1950s and 60s), when being a liberal meant you wanted certain rights and benefits for everyone, at least ostensibly. We had Social Security because everyone should have a basic pension when they retire, and all disabled people need to be cared for. Freedom of speech was for everyone, even those horrible Nazis in Skokie. Liberals wanted national health insurance so everyone could afford medical care, but settled for Medicare, a universal program for seniors. Protestors like me were not against the rhetoric of universalism but the hypocritical practice, where blacks, Mexican and Filipino farmworkers and poor single moms were denied their share. That was then.
Now, liberals are concerned about minorities and the poor. They are against privilege, which is defined as not being a minority or poor. Public programs are designed to give assistance to the most oppressed and not waste their resources on those who have the privilege to fend for themselves. A poster child for the new politics is higher education. Liberals want bigger subsidies, like more Pell Grants, for the poorest students and those who self-select by enrolling in community college. They were distraught at Bernie Sanders’ call for free public higher ed for all, since that would siphon off scarce resources for the benefit of privileged, nonpoor families. From their perspective, this was proof that Bernie and his ilk were unwoke: unaware of the scourge of privilege, they even wanted public support for it.In fact, nothing is more important for the future of progressive politics than a return to universalism. If you doubt this, read this powerful reportage in the New York Times on the divisions opened up by Obamacare. It describes two women, one working part-time and living below the poverty line who gets ample, free health coverage, the other working full-time in a middle class job who is stuck with monthly $1000 premiums and a big deductible. That’s not a bug but a feature: the program was set up to focus its support on those at the bottom and charge full freight for everyone else.
The effect is to divide the working class into two groups, poor winners and nonpoor losers. The politics are toxic, as you might expect. (Yes, the reporter found a Democrat to represent women below the poverty line and a Republican for women above it, which gives it an unfortunate air of exaggeration, but the logic of the comparison remains compelling.) It is also bad social policy, since at the margin households making $80,000 a year (the middle class example) can also skimp on care if the financial pinch is too much.
There is an interesting analysis of this phenomenon in “When Exclusion Replaces Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism” by Daniel Zamora. He points out that modern politics has become a contest between a Right that demonizes poor people, minorities and immigrants as living off the hard work of decent folk (the role formerly assigned to the capitalist class by socialists) and a Left that valorizes these same oppressed groups and regards everyone else as privileged. They differ over which side they take, but they both see the cleavage between the bottom and the middle as the essential point of departure. I’m not on board with his solution (explained here), but he is spot on about the problem.
I wish it were enough to just espouse a universalist progressive agenda, but we are so deep in the muck today that we have to go beyond this. We should be as clear and outspoken as possible about the moral and political dead-end to which “targeted” liberalism has taken us.
A short story:
First an error in the beginning of the NYT article. Every person in a family of 3 or more does not pay $6,000 a piece. The max is ~$12,000 and this includes copays and deductibles. Now a story of facts.
As the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions and the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton came up with a plan to attack the legality of the Risk Corridor payments. They joined forces with the Appropriations Panel Chairman Rep. Jack Kingston whose panel funds the Department of Health and Human Services and the Labor Department. Kind of get the picture so far?
Questioning whether the Risk Corridor payments were being appropriated correctly, the Appropriations Panel forced the HHS to make changes in how they appropriated funds allowing Congress to stop all appropriations. The PPACA could no longer appropriate the funds as they were subject to the discretion of Congress. The GAO issued an opinion on the legality of what the HHS was doing with funds.
As it was, the HHS could no longer appropriate funds to make Risk Corridor payments unless the funds were already appropriated by Congress or Congress approved new funds which was not going to happen with a Republican controlled House.
Appropriations Panel Chairman Rep. Jack Kingston put the final nail in the coffin by inserting one sentence in Section 227 of the 2015 “Cromnibus” Act (dated December 16, 2014) which escaped notice. In the 2015 Appropriations Act, the sentence inserted said no “other” funds in this bill could be used for Risk Corridor payments.
This came about after jeffrey beauregard sessions (Rev Kaine [Poitergeist] look alike) wrote a letter to the GAO and they agreed only Congress could appropriate funds. Michigan Rep Fred Upton and Florida Rep Jack Kingston put the plan into play in the appropriations bill that year. Rep. Jack Kingston’s one sentence purposely created a $2.5 billion shortfall in the Risk-Corridor program in 2015 as the HHS had collected $362 million in fees. Insurers who had misjudged the market sought nearly $2.9 billion in payments, many nonprofit insurance Co-ops failed, healthcare insurance companies began to raise premiums to compensate, and some healthcare insurance companies recognizing an untenable environment created by Republicans took their losses and left the market. For the record, the Rick Corridor -Reissuance programs in the ACA was no different than what exists in Part D other than being a limited to 4 years, a Dem action meant to allow insurance companies, etc. to take on numbers of people with pre-exiting conditions. This was the first zinger for the individuals market.
The next zinger was Trump killing the CSRs which were out of pocket expenditure subsidies for those up to 250% FPL as long as they had a silver plan. Healthcare Insurance again increased premiums and dependent upon how this was put into play by the states, bronze plans could be free, gold plans could be less costly than silver, etc. Again, the individuals market greater than 400% FPL were punished. The Times, the Post, etc. do not write about how the Repubs punished constituents to gain a political advantage over Dems. There are a few of us who know how we got to this point in time. I am one of the few and have written about it more than a couple of times on AB the same as the ACA along with Maggie Mahar.
Little remembered and cared-for facts that are valuable to know in explaining the “whys.”
I sympathize with them as it is a tough situation. At the worst they should have been able to get the negotiated rate instead of the chargemaster rate in the Service for Fees healthcare environment. Many will never satisfy their deductible/copay amount yraly. The one bright spot is the most they will pay is that amount plus the premium.
What is interesting is most people did not care about those who ended up in the ER because of no insurance. Now they have insurance and those who were more privileged are paying more. Eventually we will get there. Eventually we will attack the Service for Fees business model, out of control Pharma, and runaway hospital supply costs.
Peter, this is how we got to today’s issues.
“…liberals are concerned about minorities and the poor.”
What a joke. “Liberals” stopped caring about those things after Clinton showed them the “third way,” which was really just a way to be kinder, gentler conservatives.
LEFTISTS still care about minorities and the poor, which is why liberals do everything in their power to keep them from ever getting elected and would rather throw an election to someone like Trump than let Bernie Sanders be president.
How much does this middle class woman make? How many kids, if any, does she have?
I read things like this, without basic info, and I get more than a little suspicious.
Particularly when I hear, “Now, liberals are concerned about minorities and the poor. They are against privilege, which is defined as not being a minority or poor.”
Which is pure unadulterated bs. WTF gives you the right to spout that garbage?
Peter,
Well done synopsis. Run your comment puts the trees in perspective to the forest as a nice reality check.
Peter’s take on the shift of Dems I think leaves out why that shift occurred. I’m not an authority, but I, like Peter, have lived the entire period through the universalism Dem past to it’s present state.
In hindsight and even sometimes at the time they occurred I see nearly all the shift having occurred as a response (defensive response) rather than as a desired one.
The first response was in reaction to the loss of Dems to the conservatives by LBJ finally producing the Civil Rights Act and immediately following Voting Rights Act
That in turn was the Dems finally responding to the Civil Rights Movement that preceded it.
The Repubs then doubled down by appealing more directly to the white racists & “family values” religious identities as the Pill changed the behavior of women for sex outside of marriage. Both these events occurred simultaneously. it put the Dems in a deeper hole. Concurrently Labor Unions were losing more members and thus also middle class political power as direct influence with centrist Dems.
Reagan’s campaign and election was orchestrated by the Republican party (Reagan was a great figurehead for it as well) designed to double down on opposition to the Black’s now increasing encroachment in political power and providing the Dems a strong loyal base and using “States Rights” to resurrect the South’s and other racists throughout the Midwest in opposition to the civil rights acts effects. The appeal to the welfare tax burdened middle class using trickle-down promises and other very effective propaganda gave the Repubs a landslide victory over the Dem’s opposition politics.
That election spelled the doom of liberal Dem politics of the past.
What the Dems have been doing since is nothing but damage control against the Repub’s White middle class propaganda while the Repubs have waged with their anti-federalist, starve the beast, “individualism” rights and freedoms (aka white superiority) campaigns to provide the elites more and the rest of the nation less.
The Dem’s have had to shift very far right from the pre-Civil Rights era in response to the Repubs highly successful propaganda to take much of the middle class under their wing.
Yes there have some temporary backlashes (Bush Jr’s War and deficit spending ushered in Obama (or it would have been Hillary otherwise), and here we are with that backlash now having turned against the centrist Repub’s (“establishment”) with the far right nationalist Trump..
The Dems are still operating on the defensive while attempting to stay relevant or at least competitive. I don’t call a narrow popular vote win in 2016 against a far, far right anti-federalist, liar, misogynist, nationalist, race baiter any kind of a victory.
Peter:
Since I have written on the ACA, healthcare, etc., and now Opioids, I will write on what I believe is needed. The march forward is for some type of single payor, universal, Medicare for all, etc. type of plan. Universities and colleges should also be interested in this issue as this cost is one which is driving higher tuitions. It comes across at higher Overhead for business even when 50% of it is subsidized and is an excuse to escape the confines of the US to Asia where healthcare in a Yazaki plant is confined to a nurse or doctor on staff.
The minutia of funding has not appeared in Conyer’s plan, is made in general statements in Sander’s plan, and to my knowledge neither has been clearly define in costs. Set that aside for now as I take this elsewhere.
Part D, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. can not negotiate with Pharma companies over costs. In turn, many Pharma companies have the ability to act as monopolies in regard to certain drugs. Humalog for diabetes went from $2900 per year to over $9,000 per year as brought to you by our new HHS Secretary Azar when at Eli Lilly. Horizon Pharma acquired the drug Vimovo and upped the price from $13.50/pill to $750 . There is more to this scam. You can only buy the drug from one pharmacy, the company only charges the individual a small amount, and them bills the insurance for the difference. It still drives premiums up. I am sure you know about EpiPens. Pharma and hospitals supplies are out of control in terms of costs and pricing. I will add the service for fees service model employed by doctor is not based upon the quality of outcome as Dr. Berwick the former head of Medicare. He would (and did) tell you 30% of all Medicare dollars are wasted on FDA approved treatments which are over priced and have less benefit than other treatments. More of this will come forth with the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act.
My point here is, none of this is called out in any plan put forth by Dems mostly as Repubs do not give a damn. The same rising cost we see under the ACA which was never meant to control healthcare costs would still exist under any single payor, universal, Medicare for all, etc. plan. Except now, we would have given the healthcare uncontrolled access to government funding to a greater degree.
Solve the problem of rising costs similar to what our civilized European neighbors have done.
Longtooth,
I agree with your assessment, though I would add the following.
I believe that a big part of what lead to the implementation of civil right legislation and Medicare was that enough white’s were secure from the risks of life. We had changed the economy coming out of the depression such that we were obtaining economically the ideal goal as noted in our constitution: pursuit of happiness. With enough whites feeling that they were not competing with non-whites for security from the risks of life and living, even having excess such that life was not about working just to survive, a big barrier lowered just enough to get the 2 big programs representing our society maturing just a bit more toward the constitutional ideology of equality.
What then happened was the 70’s economic shocks that changed perspective to one of feeling insecure as it was perceived that the economic security was now at risk. This meant the public was primed with fear. Along comes the arguments of the conservative movement: government bad, high taxes is why your at risk of not earning more, unions are killing the companies (your sustenance) and of course it was an environment ripe for the race card and the return of whites having to compete with non-whites for security from the risks of life.
DB,
I think you overestimate the economy of the 70s and downgrade the racism. One of the best books I have read in awhile “Ian Haney López, in Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class.”
His story starts in the 50s with George Wallace(not surprising). Wallace “decided he lost his first election for governor of Alabama because he ran as a racial moderate. After conceding defeat, he told his supporters, “Well, boys, no other son-of-a-bitch will ever out-nigger me again,” and with that, he launched his political career as a strategic racist, which proved to be a winning approach for a few years.”
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/152904/author-ian-haney-lopez-decodes-dog-whistle-racism
Wallace begat Goldwater, who begat Nixon, who begat Reagan. And since Reagan is has evolved into an art form for the GOP. Not that Dems are totally innocent to a degree.
““Here are the basic moves: 1) Punch racism into the conversation through references to culture, behavior, and class; 2) parry claims of race-baiting by insisting that absent a direct reference to biology or the use of a racial epithet, there can be no racism; 3) kick up the racial attack by calling any critics the real racists for mentioning race and thereby “playing the race card,” he writes.”
Trump is the epitome of this.
It is why our political environment is all about race. Using economic strife as a reason for people’s votes ignores every single election since the Civil Rights Act.
BTW,
Wallace’s campaign motto in 68?
‘Stand up for America”
“Despite all this, conservatives still like to argue that the surge in Southern white support for the Republican Party was driven not by racism, but by other factors: economic growth; migration from other regions; and by the evolution of Democratic views on redistribution, free speech, abortion, and other issues. Unfortunately, it’s hard to find quantitative data that can settle this dispute.
But a couple of researchers recently found some: Gallup poll data starting in the late 50s that asks if you’d be willing to vote for a qualified presidential candidate who happened to be black. Respondents who answered no were coded (quite reasonably) as racially conservative. They then looked at differences between the Democratic Party ID of Southern whites who were and weren’t racially conservative. Here’s their conclusion:
We find that except for issues involving racial integration and discrimination, whites in the South and elsewhere have indistinguishable preferences on both domestic and foreign policy in the 1950s….We find no evidence that white Southerners who have negative views of women, Catholics or Jews differentially leave the Democratic party in 1963; the exodus is specific to those who are racially conservative. Finally, we find no role for Southern economic development in explaining dealignment.
The charts on the right show one specific data point: JFK’s televised civil rights speech of June 11, 1963. Among Southern whites, approval of JFK plummets right at that moment (top chart). And in the Gallup polls, racially conservative Southern whites leave the party in droves (bottom chart). This is not a steady decline. It’s a sharp, sudden exodus at a specific moment in time.
So: why did Democrats lose the white South? For the reason common sense and all the evidence suggests: because the party became too liberal on civil rights, and racist white Southerners didn’t like it. Southern white flight from the party began in the 1940s, took a sharp dive in the early 60s, and continued to decline for several decades after as Democrats became ever more committed to black equality. This might not be the only reason for Southern realignment, but it’s surely the most important by a long stretch.”
EMichael,
I get that racism was there, it did not go away. As I stated, whites feeling secure against the risk of life and living via an economy that was paying labor on a 1:1 ratio to productivity (labor was finally getting it’s proper pay) I believe was enough to minimize the use of racism to stop social progress toward the ideal of equality. It was a moment in time.
As I have read, the conservative movement definitely recognized this effect. For them, it was that young people were protesting the conservative ideology via the women’s movement, anti war movement, demanding loosening of current “Christian” sourced morals etc. They understood that a financially secure population was one with freedom due to reduced time constraints (less hours worked, 1 person working to sustain a household etc) allowing the population to become more aware.
I believe what we see today is proof of what we have failed to recognize was happening by the 60’s. Today, people are feeling far less secure, have far less free time, 2 person working households, stagnant wages, and ultimately less security from the risks of life and living. Ultimately, less political effectiveness and more susceptible to propaganda.
The conservative plan for how stop society from moving further into the maturity of equality has worked well. That we had economic shock in the 70’s was just the luck of history for a group who wanted to stop the progression. Keep a people poor, scared, and fighting and you can control elections.
You are familiar with Jude Wanniski and the 2 santa clause strategy? He coined “trickle down” in the 70’s. You are familiar with the Powell memo of the 70’s? Paul Weyrich and his “goo goo syndrome”?
I think your other reasons add up to, at most, a tiny percentage. Even the pols from the 50s show that.
Obviously there is no objective measure that can determine this.
EM,
Racists, closeted and otherwise have merged and combined their racist beliefs, even morphed it into welfare — Medicare, Medicaid, and all other federal and state welfare benefits — which is another way of saying the dreaded word socialism which is right there next to communism as the baddest thing on the globe for conservatives in the U.S. Taxes used to support welfare are used to support the non-whites in their minds as another reason to reject welfare — if you’re not capable of supporting yourself its “your on fault” , “you made bad choices”, etc.
It’s hard enough to distinguish, much less objectively measure the degree opposition to welfare systems as they relate directly to code for white supremacy (white racists’ beliefs)..
Here’s paper that economistsview just linked to today. It traces the events leading to Trump — or shall I say leading to the recognition by those that have been economically disenfranchised which led to Trump.
http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6868.pdf
In it’s composite as well as most (though not all) causes the paper describes, it is the best and most well-founded causations history I’ve come across… directly relating to “Divide & Rule”.
To make the point about conservative and the world socialism, LaPieirre head of the NRA, speaking at CPAC today:
“LaPierre warned that growing calls from students for stricter gun laws would lead to a European-style “socialist wave” that would strip law-abiding citizens of their firearms.
Referring to politicians who back stricter gun laws, he said, “They hide behind labels like Democrat, left-wing, and progressive to make their socialist agenda more palatable, and that is terrifying.” ”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nra-offense-cpac-florida-shooting_us_5a8f3e93e4b01e9e56b9cd8d
Oh, wait, there’s more: Conservatives & the word socialism.
LaPierre, head of NRA, at CPAC today:
“He specifically called out a “tidal wave of new European socialist” leaders of the Democratic Party. The crowd booed as he listed off several names, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.).”
” “Socialism is a movement that loves a smear,” he said. “Racists, misogynists, sexists, xenophobes and more. These are the weapons and vitriol these character assassinations permanently hang on their targets because socialism feeds off manipulated victims.” ”
http://angrybearblog.com/2018/02/divide-and-rule.html#comments
whoops — here’s the other link to LaPierre’s 2nd set of statements:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wayne-lapierre-cpac-speech-school-shootings_us_5a8ef95ee4b005bb0fef501e
Longtooth, while that paper is good, it is missing one key component that makes it incomplete in my mind.
Where is the discussion of women?
Other issues are starting with Reagonomics rather than well before that, as the change was well under way for over 20 years before the 80’s.
This data, while good, is incomplete. The focus of the paper actually seems to ignore two very large shifts. The south leaving the Dems and women entering the workforce.
Daily:
Please maintain one identity. We do not allow multiple identities.
Daily Reader,
I agree that the paper leaves out LBJ’s Civil Rights & Voter Rights passage by giving up the Southern Dixicrats to the Repubs and also leaves out the effects of the Pill (eg women in the workforce, changes in “family values” (sex before marriage with no risk of pregnancy and no inconveniences)
The author starts with Reagan’s admin which is the outgrowth of the LBJ and follow-on years.
But for that which the author provides, though starting late in the series of events, his synopsis is still the best I’ve come across.
Personally I always start with Kennedy/LBJ and then the Pill show cause and effect.
Daily Reader,
Read my comment of February 22, 2018 12:02 am where began my quick cause & effect analysis with LBJ responding to Civil Rights movement..