View Single Post
  #39  
Old 04-01-2019, 05:29 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,474
Velocity: I agree with both those points, but would add that the fact that the Democrats couldn't get ANY support from the representatives of approximately half the country was a good reason to not do it, not a justification for doing it.

I think Obamacare was one of the factors that has led to increasing polarization, and that in turn helped elect Donald Trump. Unintended consequences, and all that. So perhaps the choice back then was, "No sweeping health care reform", vs "Sweeping health care reform, coupled with an energizing of a populist right and the election of Donald Trump."

Was Obamacare worth Donald Trump being President and the Republicans holding a large majority in the Supreme Court? Because that may have been the price. It was unknowable at the time, except for the understanding that passing sweeping legislation against the wishes of half the country will likely lead to some bad outcomes. If Trump gets re-elected, he will get to appoint at least one more Supreme Court Justice, and more likely two or three. Breyer and Ginsberg are not spring chickens. That will give the conservative side of the court a comfortable majority for a generation, which is now leading to talk of further breakdowns of norms through court-packing schemes. That may be the real legacy of Obama, but it didn't have to be.

And in case you think I'm saying this as a partisan, I think the same thing applies to the Republicans. One of the reasons I oppose Trump and his methods is that I think they are directly responsible for further radicalizing the left, which may lead to an even worse President next time. Rinse and Repeat. Norms are there for a reason. Break them, and expect unintended consequences.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 04-01-2019 at 05:30 PM.