George Lakoff, in “What Conservatives Really Want”, lays out the right wing worldview more precisely than anyone I’ve read. You should read it.
But at least, before you watch the video below of Phyllis Schlafly at Ed Martin’s “Obamacare hearing”, you should have an inkling why she so opposes taking the sensible, compassionate course of regulating insurance companies and offering health care to those who can’t get it:
Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don’t have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
UPDATE: Coverage of the Ed Martin event has been thorough on the Missouri progressive blogosphere. St. Louis Activist Hub, in fact, has three postings:
A prominent practice these days is to use the “Big Lie” in proposals. An example of this is a bill pending in the Missouri General Assembly– the “Fair Tas” measure. It is a blatant lie in that the tax would impose a 14% pr 15% sales tax on numerous transactions and/or purchases. The average to lower income segments spend all or nearly all of their incomes on purchases and would therefore have most or all of their income taxed. At the same time an income of, say $500,000 would not spend it all and would pay no taxes on the amount left over. For even higher incomes, the amount untaxed would grow. What is fair about taxing all middle and low income and giving an exemption from taxation on most of the upper incomes? The argument is that we need to have less reliance on the income tax. It would be helpful if the proponents of this idiotic not to say insane proposal would explain where people get the wherewithal to pay taxes except from their incomes. Every tax is a tax on income. The only question to be asked is whose income is to be taxed and how heavily. We do not avoid taxing incomes regardless of the name we give to a tax or the manner in which it is implemented. Any time anyone suggests less reliance on the income tax, they should be immediately challenged to explain how some taxes do not require the taxpayer to surrender a part of income to pay a tax or taxes. The proposal with the misnomer “Fair Tax” is nothing more than an attempt to impose a heavier burden on those with lesser ability to pay and lessen the tax burden of those with greater ability to pay. It is the most regressive tax a government can levy.
Karma is a bitch (via Political Carnival and TPM) when others are relentlessly on message:
“Reporter”: Well, you know, you say they’re in hiding. They’re not really in hiding. We kind of know where they are.
[voices: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]
They’re in Illinois for most, the most part. They are just, at this point, wanting to make sure that this bill does not come to the floor in the Senate. However, in the House we have learned that in five minutes.
[voices: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]
This is Fox business network. Just FYI.
In five, at five o’clock the bill will come to the floor in the House.
[voices: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]
[sign: “Fox go report on sports/That’s the only thing you can’t twist”]
That means that they potentially could consider the bill, uh, but, what we believe the Democratic legislators in the House to do, is to, when it comes to the floor, amend the bill on multiple occasions such that they would head off a, a vote.
[voices: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]
I want to show you, they got, uh, balloons headed up here in to the beautiful capitol rotunda as this protest shows no signs of abating.
[voices: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]
Everyone making their viewpoints known. It’s always a fun time as democracy plays it’s way out.
[sign: “Fox Fascist/good for sports ONLY”]
“Anchor”: Well I tell you Jeff, those, uh, folks protesting Fox, uh, I’m wondering if they would prefer a state run television network providing all the coverage.
[voice: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]
“Reporter”: You know, I will say this, to be very honest with you, most of the protesters despite this gentleman here.
[voice: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]
Most of the people have been fairly reasoned, calm, and willing to talk because, as you know, we have done our best to get everybody a voice here. Despite this guy. [voice: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]. Do you have an opinion other than that? [voice: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”] Any [garble] answer? [voice: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”] No, that’s the only words you know. Very good. That’s the only two words he apparently knows.
“Anchor”: Jeff, one more thing, Jeff…
[voice: “Fox Lies. Fox Lies.”]
“Reporter”: Despite the rare person most of these people are here to make their viewpoint known about this bill, which of course, is the story that everyone here is about. [crosstalk]
[voice: “Fox Lies. You’re lying. You lied again. You lied again.”]
“Anchor”: Jeff.
“Reporter”: So, there you go.
“Anchor”: Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. [crosstalk]
“Reporter”: Despite, as I said, guys like this are few and far between [voice: “You work for Fox.”], fortunately, in the crowd.
“…This is Fox business network. Just FYI…”
Then why are you there and not covering the stock market? Just asking.
“…Well I tell you Jeff, those, uh, folks protesting Fox, uh, I’m wondering if they would prefer a state run television network providing all the coverage…”
Or, how about a publicly supported public broadcasting corporation that would have, you know, a well deserved reputation for doing actual accurate independent journalism? As opposed to the house organ for the right wingnut republican party…
The conclusion of Judge Cook’s twenty-two page decision:
…Contested elections enhance the responsiveness and robustness of our political system. The right of the people to elect individuals to public office should be carefully guarded and protected. However, we are a republic, governed by our elected officials, whom we elect, and by the laws that are passed by our elected officials in the public’s interest. The General Assembly passed Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.530 which prohibited a person, such as Respondent Young, to stand as a candidate for public office due to his felony conviction. It is not for this Court to substitute its policy judgment. The General Assembly has spoken and found that those who have pled guilty, been found guilty or have been convicted of a felony in the State of Missouri should not be qualified to be a candidate for public office. It is for the General Assembly or the people of the State of Missouri who elect those who passed such laws, to determine whether such laws should continue to exist. But, as for this Court, it must enforce the law as it has been passed by the General Assembly.
This Court notes that should Respondent seek to appeal this Court’s decision, he is entitled to seek a stay pending appeal pursuant to State ex inf. Atty. Gen. v. Shull, 887 S.W. 2d 397, 403 (Mo. 1994).
Judge Cook’s decision addresses four issues – an equal protection argument, a retrospective law argument, the application of Criminal Code to RSMo § 115.530, and the standing of the Cass County Prosecutor to bring the case.
In reference to the equal protection argument, Judge Cook wrote:
…Respondent Young may challenge whether § 115.530 is applied to a Missouri felon in a manner consistent with the Equal Protection Clause as he is a Missouri felon….The Court notes that notwithstanding the argument of Respondent’s counsel in their motion to dismiss, Missouri does restrict the right of a person who has been convicted of, pled guilty to a misdemeanor or felony under the federal laws of the United States to qualify as a candidate for elected public office in the State of Missouri. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.348. While Respondent did plea guilty to a felony in the State of Texas, he received a “deferred adjudication” which is not a finding or verdict of guilt. Donovan v. State, 68 S.W. 3d 633, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). As such he is not a convicted felon in Texas and has no standing to raise the application of § 115.530 to felons from other states….
….In making his equal protection challenge, it is the Respondent’s burden to demonstrate a discrimination against him of some substance….Classification is the essence of legislation…In this case, Respondent has failed to make his case that the classification was invidious, arbitrary or irrational, thereby offending the Equal Protection Clauses of either the United States or Missouri Constitutions. He has failed to meet his burden that § 115.530 unfairly classifies individuals who have been convicted of, found guilty of, or pled guilty to a felony under the laws of this State….
On the “Motion to Dismiss for Retrospective Laws”:
….The Missouri Supreme Court has held that a law is retrospective in operation if it takes away or impairs vested or substantial rights acquired under existing laws or imposes new obligations, duties or disabilities with respect to past transactions.
[….]
Missouri has long held that the right to public office is not a vested right or contractual right…There is no fundamental right to run for office…Similarly, an incumbent of public office does not have a vested right…. based upon the aforementioned case law, no one has a vested or substantial right to run for office or hold office in the State of Missouri. Therefore § 115.530 does not satisfy the first disjunctive definition of a retrospective law….
Further:
….the Court finds that § 115.530 does not impose any new obligation, duty or disability. Mr. Young is not obligated or required under duty to run for office. There is no prohibition of the General Assembly to created new eligibility or qualification requirements….
….As applied to Respondent Young Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.350 is not unconstitutionally retrospective….
On the application of the Criminal Code to § 115.350:
…The purpose of the revision of the Criminal Code regarding legal disqualifications was to reduce the number of statutes providing for collateral consequences of criminal convictions, and to promote rehabilitation.
[….]
This Court believes that reading the statutes in harmony provides that disqualification or disability may occur to one having a felony conviction if it is provided by Constitution, Code, or by statute. While in 1977, when the statutes in the Criminal Code were passed modifying the civil legal disqualifications that occurred due to a felony conviction, the General Assembly focused on rehabilitation, it chose, in 2005 through H.B. 1900, to focus on ethics and the public’s confidence in their office holders. Thus the general Assembly chose, in 2005 to pass pass legislation prohibiting a person having pled to, found guilty, or been convicted of a felony under the laws of the State of Missouri to qualify as a candidate for public office. It is presumed the General Assembly knew and understood the import of § 561.021.2 That it chose to limit candidacy of public office to felons must be given deference. Alternatively, the specific statute as to candidacy qualifications would govern over the general statute of § 561.021.2.
Therefore, this Court finds, notwithstanding the provisions of § 561.021.2, that § 115.350 prohibits a person convicted of a felony conviction, as respondent is in in this case, from being a candidate for public office….
On the standing of the Cass County Prosecutor to bring the case:
….Respondent contends that Relator Teresa Hensley lacks standing due to the Comprehensive Election Reform Act of 1977 and specifically § 115.526. However, this argument is not persuasive. Missouri courts have long held that equity has no jurisdiction to try election contests…However, the right to title is different from an election contest and should be settled by a quo warranto…The present case presents a right to title, not an election contest, and therefore Relator hensley has standing to bring the action, and this Court has jurisdiction.
[….]
The court also not
es that respondent has already stipulated to the jurisdiction of the relator in open court.
[….]
In the present case, there is no dispute that Respondent Young has a felony conviction in the State of Missouri. There is further, no dispute, that § 115.350, which prohibited individuals convicted of felonies in the State of Missouri from being a candidate for public office, was effective prior to the 2010 general election. This Court finds that Respondent Young was not qualified or eligible to hold the elected office of Presiding Commissioner of Cass County. Whereas he was not eligible or qualified for office, Respondent Young had no legal right to the office. Therefore the Court grants the Petition Quo Warranto and orders his ouster from office….
We shall see if there’s an appeal. Judge Cook’s decision appears to be measured and thorough – it addresses all of the elements of the oral arguments in the February 3rd hearing.
Former State Treasurer and declared 2012 U.S. Senate candidate Sarah Steelman (r) decided to comment on the organized labor situation in Wisconsin via Twitter:
@sarah_steelman Sarah Steelman
Kudos Wisc leadership standing up for taxpayers against union demands. Wisc shows problem with collective bargaining for public employees. 4 hours ago
Apparently, Sarah Steelman is too busy catering to teabaggers to read the Missouri Constitution:
@MBersin Michael Bersin
@sarah_steelman So, I take it you don’t believe in Article I, section 29 of the Missouri Constitution? 11 minutes ago
Section 29. That employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.
….(2007) Section applies to public employees as well as private sector employees. Independence-National Education Association v. Independence School District, 223 S.W.3d 131 (Mo.banc).
In 2007, from the Missouri Supreme Court [Independence-National Education Association v. Independence School District, 223 S.W.3d 131 (Mo.banc)] – SC87980 (download):
….Both sides of this controversy cite the debates of the constitutional convention to support their respective positions as to whether the constitutional convention delegates did or did not intend that public employees be included in article I, section 29.(FN3)
Section 29 is part of Missouri’s current Constitution, which was the product of a constitutional convention in 1943 and 1944 and was adopted by the voters in 1945. While the debates of the convention are interesting, they neither add to nor subtract from the plain meaning of the constitution’s words. Missouri’s voters did not vote on the words used in the deliberations of the constitutional convention. The voters voted on the words in the Constitution, which says “employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively….”
“Employees” plainly means employees. There is no adjective; there are no words that limit “employees” to private sector employees. The meaning of section 29 is clear and there is, accordingly, no authority for this Court to read into the Constitution words that are not there. Kearney Special Road Dist. v. County of Clay, 863 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Mo. banc 1993).(FN4)
The doctrine of stare decisis promotes security in the law by encouraging adherence to previously decided cases. Medicine Shoppe Int’l, Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 156 S.W.3d 333, 334-35 (Mo. banc 2005). Stare decisis, however, “is not absolute, and the passage of time and the experience of enforcing a purportedly incorrect precedent may demonstrate a compelling case for changing course.” Id. at 335. This is such a case. Clouse contradicts the plain meaning of article I, section 29, which states simply that employees, without qualification, have the right to collective bargaining. Deviations from clear constitutional commands – although longstanding – do not promote respect for the rule of law. If the people want to change the language of the constitution, the means are available to do so. Mo. Const. art. III, sec. 50. This Court will not change the language the people have adopted. Clouse is overruled.
In addition to being consistent with the plain meaning of article I, section 29, this decision does not violate the nondelegation doctrine, to whatever extent the doctrine still exists. To allow employees to bargain collectively does not require the employer to agree to any terms with the represented groups. The employer is free to reject any and all proposals made by the employees. The employer is therefore not delegating or bargaining away any of its legislative power. Missey, 441 S.W.2d at 41.
The nondelegation doctrine is no impediment to applying the plain meaning of this explicit constitutional command….
[emphasis added]
I don’t believe we’ll be seeing organized labor going door to door or making phone calls on behalf of Sarah Steelman’s campaign in 2012.
Is that elephant on the left side of the spectrum?
Now that Representative Nancy Pelosi (D) is the House Minority Leader isn’t that a demotion rather than a firing? And ultimately isn’t it the voters in her district who make the decision to retain her? Did you drive your truck around San Francisco to let those voters know your opinion?
Last evening, local activist Marilyn Morton was telling me that she opened the Thursday Post-Dispatch and found no mention of the strikes in Wisconsin. She called the P-D to see if she could possibly have overlooked it. Surely the Post wouldn’t pass up such an important story. The woman who answered informed Marilyn that the Post is a local newspaper now. But Marilyn persisted: “What do you mean, local? You carry stories on Pakistan.” And then she explained that some 30,000 public sector workers were striking in Wisconsin–the biggest strike that state has ever seen.
“Oh! Really?” said the voice on the other end of the line. “Hmm.”
I’m sure there were people on staff there better informed about Wisconsin than the lady who answers the phones. They were probably going to cover it this morning anyway. Right? But Marilyn’s complaint couldn’t have hurt.
Lee Enterprises has turned a once great newspaper parochial. It’s sad, but what the hey? Their profit margin is doing nicely.
Wednesday evening at Drury Plaza in downtown St. Louis, Ed Martin gave a party aimed at drawing mainstream media. But the media stood him up–as did many of his own people. We didn’t stand him up though. At least seventy health care reform advocates attended his “Obamacare” hearing, outnumbering his own crowd. ACA proponents listened stone faced to Peter Kinder’s disembodied voice from Jeff City describing his heroic lawsuit; to Phyllis Schlafly’s tirade about what a vile socialist Obama is; and to Bill Hennessey, insisting that “Obamacare” is unconstitutional–though why, exactly, he didn’t explain. More in later postings about Schlafly and Hennessey.
As soon as the Q & A opened, Rea Kleeman was on her feet challenging Ms. Phyllis’s idea that health insurance accounts would be a better solution than the Affordable Care Act. Kleeman, who is an M.D., pointed out that such accounts don’t work because they require a thousand dollars to open one and because many people are too parsimonious to get the preventive care they need, thus opening themselves up to more serious expenses later. Unable to respond to Kleeman’s specific criticism, Schlafly repeated her canned speech and then blamed the fact that the accounts are ineffectual on Teddy Kennedy. Rea was just the opening salvo, though. Next came a soft spoken woman named Alice Sgroi, who gently blasted Mr. Hennessey out of the water and brought the house down.
By that point, the Ed folk had to know they were in for an earful. If they didn’t, the next speaker cinched it. A gentleman pointed out the hypocrisy of creating a Medicare Part D program where the government doesn’t negotiate for low prices, thus handing billions over to drug companies and costing people like him money. He laid out the excuses that Republicans have used to defend that smelly setup and, pointing at the panelists, wondered aloud “Where were you then?”
That brought us to break time. After a ten minute break, audience members were to be given two minutes mic time to express their concerns about health care reform. My understanding of a “hearing” is that the panelists speak, then listen to other testimony and respond. That didn’t happen. Schlafly evaporated; Hennessey and Martin stood in the back of the room for ten or fifteen minutes, often chit chatting; then Hennessey slipped out. After that, Martin murmured asides to the other suits in the back. Okay, so it wasn’t a hearing.
But Martin’s people, especially Bob, who was in charge of the mic, get credit where it’s due. They did let the left wingers speak. Frankly, I was shocked, because it is uncharacteristic of right wing politicians, in my experience. Left wingers let it rip. I attended those McCaskill town halls in the summer of 2009 where she was subjected to heckling and screaming from angry mobs. In Jefferson County, despite the coarse uproar from those yahoos, Claire put all the questions from the audience into a fishbowl and put two right wingers in charge of picking questions out of the bowl.
Contariwise, the only town hall Todd Akin ever was foolish enough to announce so that I could attend it, his media person tried valiantly to talk me out of coming. But I went, and what I filmed that day was totally scripted. Akin and Luetkemeyer took only the “questions” that fitted their agenda. When one gentlemen in the audience, tired of having no chance to speak, challenged a baldfaced lie, that man was escorted from the room.
So, Ed and Bob. You took me off guard. You said both sides could speak and … you actually allowed it. Bob handled the mic with fairness and good humor. The hard part for me, then, is picking and choosing who, of the many that spoke, I’ll include here. More left wingers spoke since there were more of them in the audience. I’m going to offer you a selection. Choose the ones that pique your interest, but I especially recommend the one about death panels–and be sure you see at least the first five seconds of “Generally confused”.
Oh, and you might want to check out the last video, where Martin reveals that he doesn’t understand the term “socialized medicine”.
A Martin supporter contends that death panels are rampant in countries with socialistic medicine.
LaDonna Appelbaum describes how health insurance companies made it virtually impossible for her to get health coverage for pregnancies.
A Martin supporter, after scornfully dismissing “these people”, seems confused about what she’s trying to prove–not to mention being hardhearted.
Judith Parker describes the worry her family endures over the possibility that her four year old granddaughter, who has cancer, would–were it not for health care reform–meet her lifetime caps very soon. The clip begins with a previous speaker talking about what “insurance” means and includes Parker’s response to that.
Fritzi Lainoff praises Medicare and, by extension, the idea of involving the government in our health care. A right winger objects to something Lainoff said and an interesting compromise ensues.
This young man sees the big picture.
This woman is angry that illegal immigrants get care that she has to pay for.
Bunnie Gronborg refutes the right wing canard that we’re getting socialized medicine. And she explains the billions that ACA will save the government.
Ed Martin disagrees with Gronborg. She tried to explain what “socialized medicine” means. Honest to god, he doesn’t seem to get the concept. Furthermore, he continues disputing the Congressional Budget Office’s prediction that ACA will save the government $143 billion over ten years.
I’m sure that we did little if anything to shift attitudes among the Tea Partiers at that event. But we lefties are delighted that we went. We were exhilarated by the show of strength and unity we mustered, by seeing how many well informed, well spoken people trekked to the Drury to defend the idea that health care corporations must no longer be allowed to hold us and this economy hostage. The worries about death panels from the other side were so small minded they were, really, pitiful. I’d be embarrassed if my confreres couldn’t do any better
than that.
