Hacker News Reader

Comment by intended | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. (Edited this for tone)

I'm not American and I've watched American politics for fun and profit for a long time now.

Firstly - "you" have already tried cooperation.

The day Obama won, the republicans regrouped from a devastating loss and promised to make him a one term president. They've converted the routine and boring debt ceiling increase into political theater, grinding America to a halt.

Iirc they've fought Medicare tooth and nail, even though it's modeled on a republican program.

Many things have aligned to create this situation. As i recall working with people on the other side is considered bad form.

This isn't simply because of a liberal agenda or because people haven't been listening. It's because people have actively been injecting narrative and false data in order to move voting populations in specific directions.

View on HN

I don't think your understanding of American politics is very accurate. For example:

> Iirc they've fought Medicare tooth and nail, even though it's modeled on a republican program.

First, you're thinking of Obamacare, not Medicare (actually, the Affordable Care Act); the narrative you're reaching for is that the ACA is modeled on Republican ideas, therefore the GOP isn't allowed to object to it. Medicare is something completely different, a health insurance entitlement aimed at seniors that's existed for decades.

And even then, neither half of the story is really true, because the GOP is not a monolith. Yes, the Heritage Foundation proposed something vaguely similar in the '90s, and Mitt Romney -- a liberal Republican governing one of our most liberal states -- pushed a vaguely similar plan as well many years ago, but the majority of Republicans disagreed with both on the idea. And even if it was based entirely on an old GOP idea, there's no logical way to therefore decide the GOP can't have problems with this implementation of it, or not believe the Obama administration would be competent to execute it.

Think of it this way. Bill Clinton supported military action against Iraq during his term, and even carried it out. Does that mean no Democrats were allowed to object to George W. Bush's Iraq war, because it was "based on a Democratic idea"? Of course not; the very idea is absurd. Same deal here.

Thanks, It helps to understand it better. I thought Obamacare was a pejorative term for medicare, but I see it is a pejorative term for the ACA.

But as I just checked, it seems that all the republicans voted against it and that support for ACA was considered toxic, and that this negatively affected Mitt Romney's standing in the party. I am of course happy to understand more.

Do note, that I have been watching and learning more about American politics and history since 1990, since before the Gulf War. Theres a distinct trend towards partisanship, which got enhanced during the era of Fox news, and has now resulted in hyper-partisanship.

(Do note that America is not particular alone in dealing with this trend)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com