By now, most who play in the political sand box have heard of Jonathan Gruber. He is the Obamacare architect and consultant who repeatedly informed the world that, in effect, the public is stupid and therefore needed to be deceived in order to enact legislation that’s good for them. The fact that it took years for these videos to be brought to the public’s attention (and that, apart from Fox, none of the mainstream press is covering the story) is a harsh indictment of the press, but that’s not really news.
Nor is it news that Obamacare was sold with lies. Beyond the promise that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would save hundreds of billions of dollars, beyond the promise of no new tax, the president repeatedly assured Americans that they could keep their plans and their doctors if they liked them. No caveats, no conditions, just an unequivocal promise declared at least a couple dozen times. The promise was repeated endlessly by his supporters and used to counter and undermine attacks by critics. Fast forward a couple years, millions were told that the plans they liked were not ACA-compliant and therefore not renewable, and millions found out their doctors are no longer accessible via their insurance policies. What happened to the promise? Those plans, the plans that were promised keepable time and time again, were found to be sub-standard. If you like your plan, great, but if it doesn’t conform to what someone else has decided it should, you’re out of luck. Your preferences are subordinated to the decisions made by Obamacare’s architects and administrators.
A big question, one that until recently remained somewhat unanswered, was whether the lie that “you can keep your doctor” was rooted in ignorance or in premeditated deceit. Some may say it doesn’t matter – the lie is sufficient condemnation of the process by which ACA was sold, but there is a world of difference between the former and the latter. After the truth started emerging, after millions of cancellation notices were sent, the post hoc explanation was that they were unaware just how “inadequate” the cancelled plans were, and that it’s the insurers’ fault for offering up such shoddy coverage. No matter that the “you can keep your plan if you like it” promise contained no mention of third party approval, the dismissal of the promise centered on an assertion that could be construed (with some serious contortions) as ignorance of how truly awful the plans forced upon the public by the heartless insurers were.
Along comes Rich Weinstein, an investment advisor with no claim to public fame. Mr. Weinstein did a little Googling and found the first of seven video clips that quote Jonathan Gruber, MIT professor of economics and aforementioned central figure in the construction of Obamacare, declaring all sorts of things that support the conclusion that the lies were premeditated. Democrats and supporters of ACA twisted, squirmed and fell all over themselves in efforts to marginalize Gruber, to disconnect him from ACA, and to distance themselves from him. Unfortunately for them, the internet doesn’t cooperate with obfuscators.
First, Nancy Pelosi declared she didn’t know who Gruber was and that he had no hand in writing the bill. Almost instantly, a quote surfaced from 2009 where she cited Gruber’s analysis regarding ACA, and evidence that Gruber was paid hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for efforts related to ACA popped up. Other prominent Democrats read from a similar script, with contrary evidence often following.
Then there’s the President. Obama made statements that painted Gruber as some random outsider. Yet, back in 2006, a recently surfaced video offers us a soon-to-be-President Obama stating:
You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I have stolen ideas from liberally, people ranging from Robert Gordon to Austan Goolsbee; Jon Gruber; my dear friend, Jim Wallis here, who can inform what are sometimes dry policy debates with a prophetic voice.
Which brings us to the title of this essay. I have long used the phrase the Best and Brightest to sarcastically explain a basic precept modern liberalism, i.e. the notion that management of our lives and control over all the things in our society that affect us is best left to a relative handful of very noble and very smart people, working from on high, to make things better for all of us and to shield us from the results of our own ignorance, stupidity and folly. Jonathan Gruber is one of those Best and Brightest. He’s got the pedigree, he’s got the correct intentions, he’s got the motivation and sense of obligation to regulate our lives via government force, and he seemed untroubled by the use of questionable or overtly deceitful means to achieve desired ends. This, in an nutshell, is what liberalism has devolved into.
David Mamet, playwright, filmmaker and, more recently, conservative convert, called socialism the abdication of responsibility. While many liberals get angry at comparisons between modern western liberalism and socialism, quibbles over definitions and meanings are nothing more than a distraction from the fact that both center on empowering the state to manage aspects of individuals’ lives that would otherwise be left up to those individuals. Many voters want this, many want decisions made for them. But, many others, many who vote for liberals and Democrats, do not. They want things made better without having control over many aspects of their lives taken from them. How that’s to be accomplished, how people get to retain freedom to act while ceding power to others so that things can be made better is a great big mystery, of course. Fortunately, they have the Best and Brightest out there, the people who are smart enough to figure that mystery out and altruistic enough to devote themselves to doing so, so they vote them into office and give them power.
It’s apparent, however, that there aren’t enough voters out there who’ll willingly cede authority to the Best and Brightest. Since our system requires winning elections before getting to do what needs to be done, the Best and Brightest realize that they must deceive people in order to be given the reins of power they want, need and feel entitled to. So, they lie. They make promises that they know won’t be kept, they’ll game the system to hide their intentions, they’ll write rules no one understands, they’ll build administrative fiefdoms insulated from the political process to run things, and they’ll do unto the public that which they think needs to be done (oftentimes exempting themselves from that which they do).
Obama came into office in just such a fashion. Broad promises of making everything better via the omniscience and benevolence of government and a vision of a really smart guy with all the right ideas taking charge made liberals swoon. The long list of promises that vanished into the ether the moment he took the oath of office didn’t matter one whit – the Best and Brightest was finally in charge.
Fast forward 6 years, and the modern Left is, understandably, a bit disappointed in Obama. There is increasing noise regarding his failure to deliver the slate of liberal wishes and dreams that was promised by his “Hope and Change” campaign, and with an eye to the next presidential election, the Left is casting about for a new standard bearer. They need their next great hope, their next Best and Brightest. Many are looking to Elizabeth Warren, senator from Massachusetts, with great hope and longing. I suggest that Jonathan Gruber, not Elizabeth Warren, is the true face of modern liberalism. He is, after all, the Best and Brightest.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters