Bob
SoWal Insider
Moderate is the new liberal | Democracy in America | Economist.com 19:12 GMT +00:00
Moderate is the new liberal
Posted by:
Economist.com | NEW YORK
Categories:
Health care
IF, WITH Barack Obama's acquiescence, Senate Democrats drop the public plan from their health-care reform bill, that measure will likely end up looking very much like The Economist's vision for health-care reform in America. Which is odd, because I never considered this paper a bastion of socialist thought.
Watching the debate over health-care reform play out in the media is a bit like watching the circus. There seem to be three rings that move from left to right across the stage (and political spectrum). In the first ring, liberal Democrats are having a debate with their moderate colleagues over the merits of different aspects of reform. Right now, it appears, the moderates are winning. In the second ring, moderate Republicans are having a debate with their conservative colleagues over reform. That debate seems to be going nowhere, with most Republicans staunchly opposed to any reform. In the third ring, we have the freak show: people screaming about socialism and death panels, and a few even packing heat outside presidential events.
If you're watching this spectacle on TV, then you're seeing a lot of rings two and three, and you may not realise that moderates are so far winning the fight over health-care policy. By pitting Barack Obama and his moderate allies in Congress against the more vocal fringes of the Republican Party, the media has moved the centre of the debate over reform far to the right. Add to this dynamic the idea that bipartisanship equals moderation and you may wonder, how can a health-care proposal be moderate if it attracts no Republican support.
Moderate is the new liberal
Posted by:
Economist.com | NEW YORK
Categories:
Health care
IF, WITH Barack Obama's acquiescence, Senate Democrats drop the public plan from their health-care reform bill, that measure will likely end up looking very much like The Economist's vision for health-care reform in America. Which is odd, because I never considered this paper a bastion of socialist thought.
Watching the debate over health-care reform play out in the media is a bit like watching the circus. There seem to be three rings that move from left to right across the stage (and political spectrum). In the first ring, liberal Democrats are having a debate with their moderate colleagues over the merits of different aspects of reform. Right now, it appears, the moderates are winning. In the second ring, moderate Republicans are having a debate with their conservative colleagues over reform. That debate seems to be going nowhere, with most Republicans staunchly opposed to any reform. In the third ring, we have the freak show: people screaming about socialism and death panels, and a few even packing heat outside presidential events.
If you're watching this spectacle on TV, then you're seeing a lot of rings two and three, and you may not realise that moderates are so far winning the fight over health-care policy. By pitting Barack Obama and his moderate allies in Congress against the more vocal fringes of the Republican Party, the media has moved the centre of the debate over reform far to the right. Add to this dynamic the idea that bipartisanship equals moderation and you may wonder, how can a health-care proposal be moderate if it attracts no Republican support.
