Submitted to a Candid World

While reports (and liveblogs) continue to roll in on the DNC’s primetime defense of its healthcare plan, it’s worth confronting the only substantial conservative criticism yet to appear: that, by failing to prominently include a prominent rebuttal, the DNC (and Obama) somehow cheated Americans out of a fair discussion of the proposed plan.

I have said previously that a free and fair debate on the subject would be preferable to either side co-opting the debate. I stand by that. But absent any proof that the White House rather than the DNC bankrolled Tuesday’s primetime program, it’s hard to state any credible case for impropriety. The DNC is free to purchase airtime to use for whatever it wants – and so is the RNC.

Just so, it’s strange to hear the GOP, alleged defenders of the free market, asking the Democratic Party “Democrat Socialists Party” for what is, essentially, a handout: a chance to score political points, on their opponent’s dime. Doesn’t that fall within the ridiculously broad definition of socialism currently used by Republican politicians?

To fully grasp the inanity, imagine the converse: it’s early March, 2003. President Bush is about to start the invasion of Iraq. Although the public is sold on the idea, the RNC purchases airtime on Fox, where Bush, key generals, and Wolfowitz will explain the case for invading Iraq. The DNC is understandably concerned that the special will contain all the glaring misrepresentations of the case for war that we’ve since come to learn and, thusly motivated, asks the RNC if they’ll give Wesley Clark a 30-minute rebuttal at the tail end of the program.

Ask yourself: is there any situation in which the subsequent news cycle is not dominated by headlines like “Democrats ask for handout to fight President”?

Apparently, the GOP is okay with “socialism,” broadly defined, if it benefits their states, or their ideas. Consistency is the hallmark of statesmanship, and this is just not it. I agree, America would benefit more from a full debate, including not just citizens and doctors but prominent, intelligent opposition politicians (Kay Bailey Hutchinson?). I hope for such magnanimity and openness, even when (as here) it cuts against my political inerests, but I cannot contemplate a party that expects it.