 |
|
FEBRUARY 2, 2011 |
 |
By Matthew Continetti |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
COLD OPEN |
 |
 |
You know the drill: Every four years, America holds a presidential election, and every four years, partisans declare that election to be "the most important ever." This is hyperbole, of course. But I'm beginning to think that 2012 will be an unusually important election for one reason: health care.
It's possible that March 2010 will be remembered as the moment American liberalism jumped the shark. In a stunning feat of political hubris, Democrats in Congress and the White House passed a law by a party-line vote despite public disapproval. Prior to March 2010, America's welfare state had been constructed and modified with consensus: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and welfare reform all had bipartisan support behind them. The single-mindedness with which the Democrats passed Obamacare sparked a reaction that threatens not only to overturn that particular law, but also to call into question the assumptions behind the welfare state more generally.
Liberals rationalized that public disapproval would fade as voters became dependent on Obamacare's benefits. Beginning a few of those benefits ahead of schedule, however, was not enough to prevent a landmark shellacking in the midterm elections. Nor do those benefits really have anything to do with the main objection to the health care overhaul, i.e., that the federal government has too much power and does not need any more. The constant liberal mantra that Americans do not recognize Obamacare's virtues has not prevented the House from voting to repeal the law, or stopped two district court judges from striking down the law in part or in whole, or done anything to disperse the Tea Party movement for limited government.
Republicans took the House in 2010. It's possible they will build on that victory in 2012. Not only will Obama be up for reelection that year, so will 23 Democratic senators. Eight of those senators come from red or purple states. It's therefore conceivable that Americans will wake up one day in January 2013 to find Republicans controlling the House, Senate, and presidency. More than any Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare, the outcome of the 2012 election will determine the future of that horrible law—and the future of constitutional government more generally. The stakes are high. |
 |
|
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSEKEEPING |
 |
 |
|
Just a quick word to subscribers: To be sure you receive the newsletter every week, please add our email—editor@updates.weeklystandard.com—to your address book. |
|
|
 |
|
LOOKING BACK |
 |
 |
"Since Iraq, President Mubarak, who used to equate democracy with 'chaos,' sees a need for 'more freedom and democracy' in Egypt. The odds are excellent he is actually trying to devise a system whereby, with less friction, he continues in power and the chances of succession for his son increase. But that doesn't mean the United States shouldn't take advantage of Mubarak's opening. If Mubarak thinks Egypt is ready for more democracy and freedom, then far be it from the United States not to take him at his word. Now is the time to announce that American aid to Egypt is henceforth conditioned on democratic progress. Mubarak cheats, the aid is cut. Mubarak cheats a lot, the aid ends. We should not allow Mubarak to scare us again with the specter of Islamic extremism. Fear of another Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—who, by the way, didn't come to power democratically—has too long paralyzed our thinking about Egypt."
—Reuel Marc Gerecht, "What Hath Ju-Ju Wrought!", from our March 14, 2005, issue.
Remember you get full access to THE WEEKLY STANDARD archive when you subscribe. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
FROM THE DESKTOP |
 |
 |
Joseph Epstein on mortality
Paul Wolfowitz on the upheaval in the Middle East
"The Constitutional Moment"
George Will talks to NRO's Robert Costa
Joan Didion's devastating attack on Woody Allen, circa 1979 |
 |
|
QUOTE OF THE WEEK (SO FAR!) |
 |
 |
"Jeff Jarvis, associate professor and director of the interactive program at the City University of New York'Graduate School of Journalism, who authored the new book, 'Net Neutrality: What Is It Again?' commented: 'In the end, this is all about our children. If we want to leave them a rich legacy of media and empower them to enjoy the same media diet of stories about polls and debates and gaffes and commentary from the left and from the right and promises made and promises broken and pleas for civility and anonymous quotes and Sarah Palin that we have enjoyed up to now, we're going to have to face facts and start rationing news."
—From Michael Kinsley's parody, "Politico Raises Bar on Media Rat Race," February 1, 2011. |
 |
|
LOOKING AHEAD |
 |
 |
|
The next issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD will include continuing coverage of the Egyptian revolution, James Ceaser's review of The Neoconservative Persuasion, articles on public sector pay, state bankruptcy, and health care—and more. |
 |
|
PARTING SHOT |
 |
 |
Somehow, I managed to see half of this year's Academy Award nominees for best picture: Inception, King's Speech, Social Network, Toy Story 3, and True Grit.
What strikes me about the nominees is how many of them are based on historical events or adapted material. The Fighter is a Micky Ward biopic. 127 Hours is based on a true story. Winter's Bone is adapted from a novel. True Grit is a remake of a movie adapted from a novel. The King's Speech and The Social Network both draw from historical sources. Indeed, the only nominees that can be described as the original products of a cinematic imagination are Inception, Toy Story 3, Black Swan, and The Kids Are All Right.
A while back, John Podhoretz acutely observed that lately the best actor and best actress award winners have been less actors than impersonators. I wonder if something similar is happening in film more broadly. Perhaps the institutional barriers to good original work are too high. Perhaps the collective nature of the movie business makes it difficult for individual inspiration to rise to the highest level. Or perhaps the studios are simply following market incentives and the public is in a derivative mood.
Whatever the reason, let's be grateful when a truly original work of quality arrives on the screen. I admit that if I were a member of the Academy, The Social Network would get my vote. But I'd still give Inception, Toy Story 3, Black Swan, and Kids Are All Right extra credit.
See you next week. And don't forget you can write me at editor@weeklystandard.com.
--Matthew Continetti
P.S. To unsubscribe, click here. I promise not to take it personally. |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
MORE FROM THE WEEKLY STANDARD |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Online Store |
 |
|
Squeeze the head to the left to relieve stress. Yes you can! Only at our store. |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Subscribe Today |
 |
|
Get the magazine that The Economist has called "a wry observer of the American scene." |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Read probing editorials and unconventional analysis from political writers with a
dose of political humor at weeklystandard.com. |
 |
 |
|
