Frank Rich over the weekend wrote an Op-Ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html, that asserted, "That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls "Obamcare" is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It's merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964." Now I was not born till 1971 so I did not experience 1960's first hand. I have read a number of sources while studying history at UND and do not see the comparison that Frank Rich is drawing between "ObamaCare" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rich asserts that racial overtones are the main cause for all the outrage which I do not buy.
As Rich points out accurately the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate with 73 votes (bipartisan) versus the partisan vote and reconciliation of "Obamcare". From what I have read and seen, Americans are fed up with government growth and mounting debt. It has nothing to do with a President that is mullato. Pat Sajak, yes Wheel of Fortune Sajak, wrote an Op-Ed to retort Rich, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36241, Op-Ed. Sajak's message was, "Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing "Cats"." The reason I quote Sajak is because the nature of Rich's claim to fame as being a theater critic.
Sajak goes on to say, "This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let's discuss it. Let's debate it. Let's yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?" Who is more on the ball; Rich or Sajak?
Because one opposes "ObamaCare" does that automatically make them a racist, sexist and a homophobic? Let's look at the facts of the bill and debate it. Yes it is already passed but remember it was House Speaker Pelosi that made it clear that Americans will see what is in the bill after it is passed. Right now Morning Joe, on MSNBC, is discussing the fringe elements media spin and if things are being accurately displayed by the mass media. The only death threat on record, to this point, is against Republican Eric Cantor. But I digress. Will "ObamaCare" place burdens on United Sates companies as AT&T, Verizon, John Deere and Catepillar are all asserting to which Democrat leadership response is to drag the CEO's in front of Congress to defend their revelations.
How do we debate the merits of health care reform that was passed without invoking "psychobabble" and labeling those in opposition as being a racist, sexist or homophobic? Or is a post-racial America a pipe dream?