Flashback

The National Journal's Ronald Brownstein has a fairly straightforward piece about the continuing resistance by Republicans to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), beginning with a look backward:

In the 1936 election, one year after President Roosevelt signed the law creating Social Security, his Republican opponent Alf Landon called it a "cruel hoax" and promised to repeal it. 

Landon won just two states—and, four years later, Republican nominee Wendell Willkie ran on expanding Social Security. Although congressional Republicans continued guerrilla warfare against the program into the 1950s, the prospect of full-scale repeal sank with Landon. 

In 1964, Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater staunchly opposed the creation of Medicare, the health program for the elderly proposed by President Johnson. But after Johnson routed Goldwater and then pushed Medicare through Congress in 1965, opposition collapsed. By 1968, Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon accepted it as settled law.

Meanwhile, today's reactionary Republicans want to do what?

[Rep. Paul "Lyin'"] Ryan's defiant budget—coming immediately after the rush that produced more than 7 million enrollments on the health care exchanges, plus at least another 4 million sign-ups under Medicaid—captured how much momentum the repeal cause retains in the GOP. How far apart are the two sides? Ryan's plan would not only undo the insurance expansions under Obamacare but also impose further sharp cuts on Medicaid, eventually eliminating existing coverage for an additional 15 million to 20 million people.  (our emphasis)

Brownstein's piece is titled "The Health Care Reform War Without End."  For nearly 100 years, the Republican Party has been philosophically opposed to government involvement in ameliorating the lives of the most vulnerable Americans, specifically its providing protections (a "safety net") for those Americans.  That long-held view has been further radicalized in the past 30-or-so years by the ascendance of what was once a fringe part of the conservative movement, but is now at its cold, beating heart:  far-right libertarianism =cough= Paul Ryan = cough= Rand Paul =cough=.  From 1935 to today, every effort to protect the vulnerable, the elderly, the poor, has been met with implacable hostility from reactionary Republicans.  It's always helpful to be reminded that every victory is just a battle won in a longer war -- a "War Without End."

BONUS:  Nice companion piece by Michael Tomasky on what Republicans are really all about.

Strange Headfellows

In an interview with Campus Reform, fugitive from Swedish justice and Wikileaks indiscriminate leaker Julian "Ass Is Part of Who I Am" Assange revealed his American political preferences (via LGF):

College-aged support for libertarians and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) represents the United States’ “only hope” in politics, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Campus Reform early Friday morning.

“The only hope as far as electoral politics… presently, is the libertarian section of the Republican party,” said Assange, in response to a question about the recent swell of college-aged and youth-based support for libertarianism.

“The libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice really in the U.S. Congress,” said Assange. “[I] am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues.” [snip]

Assange, who was speaking in an online video forum, hosted by the transparency organization OurSay.org, also praised American Journalist Matt Drudge saying he is responsible for breaking down the “self-censorship” of the American mainstream media.

“Matt Drudge is a news media innovator… It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship,” said Assange.  (our emphasis)

This, along with fellow Paultard and Putin houseguest Edward "Shoot My Balls" Snowden's drama, illustrates why some progressives need to be very careful in picking their "heroes."  In our view, both Assange and Snowden veer onto the "anarcho-libertarian" nihilist edge of politics, wherein a sense of "ethical egoism" and unfocused action always trumps collective judgement.  =cough= AynRand =cough= To name-check far-right conspiracy fluffer Matt Drudge (!) as a media exemplar kinda gives Assange's game away, too. 

But Gary Norton sums it up best, first on the link to Paul and the Republican Party, then on Drudge:

Yup. An anti-government, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare and Medicaid, anti-civil rights, anti-choice, anti-LGBT, pro-business, anti-minimum wage, anti-40 hour work week, anti-union, basically anti-every piece of Democratic and progressive legislation that has ever been passed in this country Political Party and its nihilistic leaders are the only hope for America.

And Matt Drudge, a guy who has never found a right wing lie that he wasn't eager to spread, is Assange's idea of a "news reporter." Wonder if Assange has a tricorn hat, breeches and wig in his suitcase?

BONUS:  Also, Tomasky.

Me, Me, Me

It's worth remembering that "libertarians" would just as soon take food from your table as blink, if it suited them. Here's Digby, recalling a personal experience with their selfish, amoral philosophy:

"I was in rush hour the other observing some self-centered dude blocking four lanes and snarling traffic for blocks to spare himself a minor inconvenience and it occurred to me that the logical result of our recent embrace of vulgar libertarianism is a total breakdown of social order. Even in rush hour traffic where it's vital to everyone's survival that we observe certain norms, there always seems to be some entitled, selfish ass in an expensive car making it worse for everyone else these days."

'Cause it's how they roll.

"'Cardigans?'"

As an equal opportunity asshole-publisher, the access- for- sale Washington Post has another "edgy" piece of crap (full-page, no less) by a couple of libertarian reactionaries from the oxymoronic "Reason.com", Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie. Entitled "What's Next, Mr. President -- Cardigans?" the p.o.s. sneers at Obama's supposed "magical realism" (the authors' preference being for just plain "magical") in his pursuit of his domestic agenda. Balloon Juice has the link, as well as a quick knee-capping for these bozos and the despicable editors at the WaPo who want to raise doubts about the progressive agenda at every turn.