Serious Liberal Thinkers™ Compare Accepting 2,000 Page Legislative Monstrosity to Moral of Children’s Story
In one of the more bizarre public policy debates in recent memory (and that’s saying something), Serious Liberal Thinkers™ responded to Senator Ted Cruz’s 21+ hours of floor speech against Obamacare not with facts or substantive arguments, but by analyzing a children’s book. Seriously.
As is often the case for filibusters (or filibuster-like speeches, as this was), Sen. Cruz had a lot of time to fill. Those in similar situations have sometimes opted to read the phone book, for instance, but he chose instead to at one time recount some of the best quotes from TV ratings juggernaut Duck Dynasty, as well as read his little girls a bedtime story through the TV since he wasn’t going to be home to do it in person. While most Americans might find the latter to be endearing, liberals instead seized upon the parental act as an excuse to sidestep the many substantive arguments Sen. Cruz made against Obamacare, or the letters he read from anguished citizens (and Obama supporting unions!) already feeling its ill effects.
Serious Liberal Thinker™ Matt Yglesias got right to the heart of our healthcare debate at Slate by explaining to us “what Ted Cruz doesn’t understand about Green Eggs and Ham.” His brilliant observation? It’s about trying things!
The Democrats’ bet on the Affordable Care Act is that it’s like green eggs and ham—they’re convinced the public will like it when they try it.
Conservatives like Cruz claim that this is wrong. That Americans will taste the green eggs and ham and they’re going to hate it. But their actions speak otherwise. They’re desperate to repeal the law before it’s implemented. …Because deep down they fear that Dr. Seuss was right.
Or maybe they just think it’s a bad idea and are doing their jobs by seeking to undo it before it does any more harm? You know, exercising their legislative judgment as they were elected to do.
Matt Yglesias has a point of view and it would be awfully convenient for him if his opponents adopted silly governing philosophies like “try it and you might like it” that enable him to get what he wants without opposition. I get it. But that’s a silly way to run a country – which I suppose explains its appeal to the left where those who say they “would not, should not” try the latest fad are just anti-progress fuddy-duddies. Back in the land of reality, lawmakers would not, should not pass laws just to see what happens.
Yglesias was hardly the only offender advocating government by children’s book. Serious Liberal Thinker™ Rachel Maddow also admonished Cruz because “he apparently didn’t understand the story.” Serious, Elected Liberal Thinker™ Senator Chuck Schumer even threw some faux-outrage into the mix by declaring he was “appalled” by Ted Cruz’s refusal to exercise his Constitutional duties without first checking that his actions pass the Dr. Seuss test.
In making his case, Yglesias referenced favorably Nancy Pelosi’s declaration that they had to pass Obamacare so the rest of us could find out what was in it. But I’m reminded of another of her quotes – specifically her remark in 2006 before assuming the speakership that “The gavel of the speaker of the House … will be in the hands of America’s children.”
It’s hardly hidden knowledge that laws put into place are harder to undo, for a myriad of reasons, than laws not yet fully implemented. Matt Yglesias sees recognition of this fact as deep seated fear among Obamacare opponents. I, on the other hand, see his and other liberals’ widespread decision to sidestep via childish antics any form of serious debate over an unpopular law already proving to be deeply destructive to the economy, as well as to the quality of the service it was purporting to benefit, as evidence that they would not, could not win that debate on the merits.