Terry Krepel: Swine Flu Scaremongering: How Many People Will WorldNetDaily Kill?
It's not often that a news organization is determined to kill off its readers, but that's what WorldNetDaily seems to be doing in its wild fearmongering about the H1N1 swine flu vaccine.
WND has long fearmongered against vaccines. A 2007 issue of WND's Whistleblower magazine was entirely dedicated to it. Among the articles included was this:
"Doctors' group opposes all vaccine mandates." The 4,000-member Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, established in 1943, has called for a moratorium on the government forcing any vaccines on the American people, warning, "Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects"
The AAPS is little more than a conservative advocacy group whose views WND has touted in the past. Indeed, the AAPS has peddled its own medical inaccuracies, such as a notorious 2003 journal article falsely claiming that leprosy had sharply increased due to illegal immigration.
A June 2007 column by WND managing editor David Kupelian, which also appeared in that magazine, encapsulates those anti-vaccine talking points. While Kupelian concedes that "vaccines have saved countless lives," he is quick to add: "They also have a history of disastrous side effects and suspected or proven dangers - a dark downside utterly covered up by the public health establishment." Kupelian goes on to attack the societal benefits of vaccination:
It's critical to understand clearly that most "health officials" concerned with immunology are not focused on what is best for you and your individual child, but on what they perceive to be the best interests of the population as a whole. And from that macro viewpoint, they strive to maintain what they call the "herd immunity." In other words, if large numbers of people opt out of vaccination, even for the most wholesome and sensible of reasons, the medical establishment will oppose it out of fear that once-eradicated (like smallpox) or near-eradicated (like polio) diseases will come back.And yet, because there are real dangers to vaccines, we owe it to our children, to ourselves and to God to become informed, and then make our decisions based on what is truly right for us, not on other people's notions of what they think serves the collective good. They might well be wrong.
Remember, despite the medical establishment's paramount concern over "herd immunity," we are not cattle.
Kupelian refused to point out the obvious -- that vaccinations are the reason those diseases were all but eradicated, and if large numbers of people are not vaccinated against them, they will, in fact, come back.
A May 2008 column by WND editor and CEO Joseph Farah defended the idea that refusing to immunize one's children is a good thing. In railing against an apparent decision by Texas officials to have the children of cultists that they have taken into custody vaccinated against the usual diseases, Farah asserted that the parents are "mothers and fathers made conscious and well-informed decisions not to immunize their kids because of the potential for dire health risks." Really? How does Farah know this? Indeed, he offers no evidence that the parents "made conscious and well-informed decisions not to immunize their kids"; in fact, one can argue that, given that they are members of a polygamist cult, they have a demonstrated history of not making "well-informed decisions."
A July 2008 article by Bob Unruh asserted, based on the claims of an blogger with no demonstrated medical expertise (and who describes himself as "retired from corporate"), that the nasal-ingested flu vaccine FluMist poses a great danger to children. While Unruh quoted from some MedImmune press release about expansion of flu vaccination recommendations, he does not give MedImmune any opportunity to respond to the attacks. Unruh also quoted Jane Orient of the AAPS without noting the group's political affiliation or anti-vaccination activism.
WND has also long touted supposed links between vaccines and autism -- specifically, the role of thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines -- defending it even as more evidence comes to light questioning such a link. For instance, a Feb. 28, 2008, article reporting on a government agreement to pay compensation to the parents of a child who developed autism after receiving a series of vaccinations distorts the case in question to promote its own anti-vaccine agenda. WND quoted only anti-vaccine activists and ignored other evidence in the case that weakened the argument of those activists.
However, as a March 7, 2008, Associated Press article noted, the child received five simultaneous vaccines as a toddler, after which she regressed into an autistic state. The parents, according to the AP, "were exploring two theories to explain what happened to [the child]. One is that she was born with the mitochondria disorder and the vaccines caused a stress to her body that worsened the condition. The other is that the vaccine ingredient thimerosal caused the mitochondrial dysfunction."
Further, as a March 8, 2008, New York Times article reported:
The disease control centers, the Food and Drug Administration, the Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all largely dismissed the notion that thimerosal causes or contributes to autism.Five major studies have found no link, and since thimerosal's removal from all routinely administered childhood vaccines in 2001, there has been no apparent effect on autism rates.
The Times article also stated:
"Let me be very clear that the government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism," Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Thursday. "That is a complete mischaracterization of the findings of the case and a complete mischaracterization of any of the science that we have at our disposal today."
Similarly, the AP article added:
"There are no scientific studies documenting that childhood vaccinations cause or worsen mitochondrial diseases, but there is very little scientific research in this area," said Chuck Mohan, executive director the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, a Pittsburgh-based group that raises money for research.
It's a much more complicated case than the WND article made it appear. But WND did not feel compelled to report the full story.
As worries about H1N1 swine flu began to mount this year, WND seized on it to repeat its old anti-vaccine attacks, then ultimately filter them through its anti-Obama obsession.
In June, WND carried an ad reading: "Obama and super-flu ... a connection? Globalist's agenda of world population reduction by bio-weapon!" As blogger Richard Bartholomew detailed, the ad linked to a website asserting that the swine flu is "a bio-engineered weaponized 'flu' designed for mass population reduction." The ad went on to state:
The Globalists (people who run the world and have 90% of all wealth, influence and authority) have elected to create total chaos to undermine and finish breaking the world's economy so they can complete implementing the "New World Order" a fascist regime of world domination, brutal controls and Martial Law...The politicians who did this answer to the Globalists and not to those who elected them to office.[...]
The Globalists dug up frozen 1918 flu death cadavers in Siberia, extracted the DNA of the deadly Spanish flu and combined it with the very deadly Bird Flu (H5N1), mixed it with Swine Flu (H1N1) and merged it with a "carrier agent" of the highly contagious generic flu we all get to trigger certain and rapid human-to-human transmission.
What the ad was actually selling was "MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution)," a "germicidal agent capable of attacking and killing even early stage 'flu' viruses. It operates without regard for the strain or variation that may evolve or be manufactured." It could be yours for just $24.95. The operator the website, Bartholomew noted, is a man who runs a companion website called "SML", or "Survive Martial Law," with similar globalist conspiracy-mongering.
The website later stated (before it was shut down entirely; a copy is here): "We have removed our MMS and SML sites because of the need for people to understand what is really happening in the world and not just simple survival techniques when people still will spiral down to death regardless of what we do to keep you alive a little longer." It goes on to state, "We have moved into the period of the Great Tribulation and soon the horrors beyond anything man has seen or done in all history will be our final lesson."
(Then again, the removal of the MMS website may also be because that little potion has all the earmarks of a scam.)
An Aug. 31 article touting the latest Jerome Corsi Red Alert report claimed that the White House is "trying to cause a panic over a possible H1N1 virus that could inflict massive illness and death on the American people." The goal,WND suggested, is "to use the pandemic panic to create enough fear that the American public will acquiesce to the passage of Obamacare."
Corsi and WND engaged in more fearmongering, claiming that "a massive public relations program launched by the federal Center for Disease Control aimed possibly at creating the atmosphere in which U.S. citizens could be forced to take H1N1 vaccinations against their will." WND ignored the possibility that such a campaign should be taken for what it actually is -- an effort to save lives.
The article also stated: "Neurologists around the world have been warned to watch out for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome, or GBS, which was generated by a similar swine flu vaccine administered by the government by the Ford administration in 1976." In fact, the 1976 vaccine was never definitively linked to GBS, which also "may be an extremely rare reaction to any vaccination."
The article then asserted:
"Red Alert intends to closely watch how the H1N1 scare is handled by the White House," Corsi wrote. "With the Obama administration intent on the government taking over major sectors of the private economy, we are concerned the swine-flu pandemic scare is simply another component of that socialist agenda."
So what happens if low vaccination rates result in a swine flu epidemic? Can Corsi and WND be held liable for causing the deaths of Americans by their fearmongering?
In Sept. 1 and Sept. 3 articles on swine flu vaccines, reporter Chelsea Schilling referenced a claim by "investigative journalist Wayne Madsen" that "even scientists who helped develop a vaccine for small pox are saying they will not take the vaccine and urging friends and family to refrain from taking the injection as well." But Madsen has a record of making dubious claims -- including claims about Barack Obama's birth certificate that apparently even WND didn't find credible enough to embrace.
Madsen has already made one discredited claim about swine flu: that it is the result of "gene splicing" and could not have occurred naturally -- an echo of the conspiracy-mongering WND advertiser from earlier in the year. In fact, research has shown that the progenitor for the virus first surfaced in pig farming and processing operations in 1998.
WND reported in October 2008 that one claim in a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg over Obama's birth certificate was that "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen." But WND has not referenced the claim since, suggesting that it doesn't believe it to be true (despite WND's history of reporting false claims on the subject).
Madsen has also claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working with increasingly discredited birther lawyer Orly Taitz and conservative groups in the U.S. to use the birth certificate issue against Obama in retaliation for the Obama Administration's pressure on Israel to restrict expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem. You'd think that this would be a claim tailor-made for WND, since it merges two of its favorite obsessions, the birther stuff and Aaron Klein's efforts to portray Obama as pro-Muslim and anti-Israel (mostly through anonymous sources).
But WND has curiously kept its hands off that claim as well. Do they not believe it? Or are they a functioning part of Netanyahu's conspiracy?
Given that WND apparently can't trust Madsen's reporting on other subjects it's interested in, it's strange that Schilling and WND have decided he is trustworthy on the subject of swine flu vaccines -- even though he has previously been discredited.
Such freak-outs made it inevitable that WND's first instinct after President Obama's declaration of a national emergency over the H1N1 flu virus was to fearmonger.
The subhead of a Oct. 24 article by Drew Zahn read, "Is president's proclamation formality, or institution of Obama martial law?" Zahn then focused on the latter, offering the possibility that "the Obama administration might use the declared emergency to suddenly expand government power," citing a writer for InfoWars -- not explaining that InfoWars is affiliated with conspiracy-monger extraordinaire Alex Jones. Zahn also cited "a WND reader in an e-mail" who allegedly wrote, "Here we go with martial law." Zahn framed these as "rumors" that were "quick to flame" because the news media offered "little explanation" about what the emergency declaration meant.
Zahn curiously didn't completely dismiss the InfoWars assertion that "we may witness a move toward martial law, forced vaccination and internment of those who refuse," and indeed suggests that it's a realistic possibility. It's not until the seventh paragraph that Zahn finally broke away from the fearmongering:
But even if there really is a plot to manipulate the H1N1 virus scare into enforcing a sweeping expansion of federal power, today's "national emergency" falls far short of martial law.In fact, the laws enacted by the president's proclamation do little more than clear administrative hurdles for quicker processing of Medicare payments, and the very provisions of the National Emergencies Act that the president cited in his proclamation actually limit the power his administration can take.
Why didn't Zahn lead with that instead of indulging in fearmongering and media-bashing accusations? Because fearmongering is what WND does.
Joseph Farah spent his Nov. 2 column alternately downplaying fears about H1N1 and spreading fears about H1N1 vaccine. Farah began with the downplaying:
U.S. deaths have surpassed 1,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control.Nearly 5,000 have died worldwide, according to WHO.
That sounds bad.
But is it worth the hysteria?
What is it about these deaths that have government health bureaucracies apoplectic?
Is it time for a little context?
What happens when we turn to the same sources to compare deaths due to swine flu with other leading causes of preventable deaths?
Worldwide, nearly 3,000 people die from malaria every day.
Worldwide, nearly 6,000 people die from AIDS every day.
Farah doesn't acknowledge the main differences: Unlike malaria, swine flu is not confined to Third World countries, and AIDS, unlike swine flu, is not an airborne disease.
Farah then wrote that "malaria could be eradicated much easier and more economically. But the most effective weapon in the arsenal against malaria, DDT, has been banned in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, even though it saved the lives of tens of millions, because of pseudo-scientific hysteria about alleged, unproven environmental effects."
In fact, contrary to Farah's claims that DDT's effects on the environment are "unproven," it has been found to cause cancer, endocrine disruption and adversely affect the immune system (though some studies claim otherwise).
Now, on to the fearmongering:
While no one disputes DDT's absolute effectiveness against malaria, there are no studies that prove the H1N1 vaccine actually prevents swine flu. In addition, many doctors consider it to be dangerous because it contains aluminum, a toxic metal, thimerosal, a mercury toxin and is believed to contain a squalene product that can injure the immune system.In other words, the swine flu vaccine may not prevent people from getting the swine flu and it may well cause other problems more serious than the swine flu. The cure could well be worse than the disease.
First, some flu vaccines do not contain thimerosal. Second, as the CDC states:
Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children under six years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts, except for some formulations of influenza vaccine. Unfortunately, we have not seen reductions in the numbers of children identified with autism indicating that the cause of autism is not related to a single exposure such as thimerosal.
But that's not good enough for Farah:
I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government to make medical decisions.I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government to make rational public health decisions.
I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government to play doctor or, worse yet, play God.
I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government to make decisions that affect the lives and the health of my loved ones.
Does Farah think he's more trustworthy than the government on life-and-death decisions? WND's fearmongering has likely scared some people out of getting the vaccine who will, as a result, contract H1N1. A few of those people may die.
In other words, WND may very well be killing its readers.
Farah may not trust the government, but people would be absolute fools to take medical advice from him and WorldNetDaily.
(A version of this article appears at ConWebWatch.)
More on Swine Flu
Obama gives Afghanistan directive to military officials
President Obama has informed top diplomatic and military officials about his decision on new U.S. strategy and troop levels in Afghanistan, the White House said.Obama Announces State Department Nominations For OSCE, Portugal And Others
President Barack Obama announced five nominees for administration posts on Monday, including several ambassadors.
The full list, pending confirmation:
- Ian C. Kelly, U.S. Representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, with the rank of Ambassador, Department of State
- Allan J. Katz, Ambassador to the Portuguese Republic, Department of State
- Bisa Williams, Ambassador to the Republic of Niger, Department of State
- Raul H. Yzaguirre, Sr., Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, Department of State
- Patrick K. Nakamura, Member, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
TPM notes that Katz was an important fundraiser during the last presidential election:
Katz, a former City Commissioner from Tallahassee, Florida, pulled together more than $500,000 in donations to the Obama campaign as one of the Democrat's top "bundlers."
He generated some headlines during the campaign because he was a federally registered lobbyist in 2006. He did not re-register in 2007, however.
The White House also released bios on each of the nominees:
Ian C. Kelly, Nominee for U.S. Representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, with the rank of Ambassador, Department of State
Ian Kelly has served as the Spokesman for the State Department since May 2009. He is a Senior Foreign Service Officer, with the rank of Minister Counselor. Prior to that, Mr. Kelly was acting Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau for European and Eurasian Affairs from January to May 2009, with responsibility for Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus, and the Director of the Office of Russian Affairs from 2007-2009. From 2004-2007, he was Counselor for Public Affairs at the U.S. Mission to NATO. From 1994-1996, Mr. Kelly was Director of Democratic Initiatives to the Newly Independent States at the State Department, coordinating the activities of nearly a dozen federal agencies involved in democracy building in the former Soviet Union. In addition to NATO, he has been posted overseas in Rome, Ankara, Vienna, Belgrade, Moscow, Leningrad, and Milan. Mr. Kelly holds a Bachelor's degree from St. Olaf College, a Masters degree from Northwestern University, and a Doctorate from Columbia University.
Allan J. Katz, Nominee for Ambassador to the Portuguese Republic, Department of State
Allan J. Katz is currently of counsel to Akerman Senterfitt and the Chair of the firm-wide Policy practice group. Katz was previously City Commissioner for the City of Tallahassee. In 2007, he organized and created the Village Square, a bi-partisan community based organization. Prior to that, he was the managing partner of Katz, Kutter, Alderman & Bryant, P.A. Mr. Katz was also appointed by Florida's CFO to serve on the board of the Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. He also served as the head of the Joint Planning Board which coordinates the distribution of funds to social service agencies on behalf of the City, the County and the United Way. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Katz was Assistant Insurance Commissioner and General Counsel for the State of Florida Insurance Department. He also held positions as General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Commission on Administrative Review; Legislative Director for Congressman David Obey, and Legislative Assistant to Congressman Bill Gunter. Katz has a B.A. from the University of Missouri at Kansas City and holds a J.D. from the American University, Washington College of Law.
Bisa Williams, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Niger, Department of State
Bisa Williams, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, was most currently acting Deputy Assistant Secretary with responsibility for Central America, the Caribbean, and Cuba in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. She has also served as Coordinator for Cuban Affairs in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State Department and as Director for International Organizations at the National Security Council. As Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Port Louis, Mauritius, Ms. Williams oversaw the organization and production of the U.S.-Africa, trade-related conference, the "AGOA (Africa Growth Opportunity Act) Forum." Her other overseas assignments include France, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and Panama. Ms. Williams has also served as Special Assistant to Secretary of State; Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Assistance to the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union; and country officer for Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Cape Verde. She received a Bachelor of Arts from Yale University; a Masters Degree from the University of California, Los Angeles; and a Masters Degree from the National War College of the National Defense University.
Raul H. Yzaguirre, Sr., Nominee for Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, Department of State
Raul H. Yzaguirre, Sr. is currently a Presidential Professor of Practice and Executive Director of the Center for Community Development and Civil Rights at Arizona State University in Phoenix, Arizona. From 1974 to 2005, Mr. Yzaguirre served as President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). Prior to that, he served as Vice President at the Center for Community Change in Washington D.C. From 1969 to 1973, he founded two sister management consulting organizations: Interstate Research Associates and InterAmerica Research Associates. Mr. Yzaguirre served as a Senior Program Analyst in the U.S. Office for Economic Opportunity (OEO) and as a special advisor to the Director of OEO, Sargent Shriver, from 1966 to 1969. He has also been appointed to the President's Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. Mr. Yzaguirre monitored several presidential elections in Latin America as a board member of the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Mr. Yzaguirre also served in the U.S. Air Force Medical Corps for four years. He has a B.S. from George Washington University, was an Institute of Politics Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and studied at La Universidad de Las Americas in Puebla, Mexico.
Patrick K. Nakamura, Nominee for Member, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Patrick K. Nakamura has practiced law in Birmingham, Alabama for over 30 years. As senior partner in the firm of Nakamura, Quinn, Walls, Weaver & Davies, he has represented clients in both civil and administrative labor, employment and health and safety litigation in federal and state courts and agencies including the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Department of Labor. His work in the area of mine health and safety began over 20 years ago. In the intervening years he has also represented Taft-Hartley benefit trusts and individuals in black lung and workers' compensation litigation. Prior to entering private practice in 1983, Mr. Nakamura spent four years providing legal services to indigent clients in south Alabama. Mr. Nakamura holds a B.A. degree from the University of California at Berkeley and a J.D. degree from the Georgetown University Law Center.
More on Barack Obama
Video: Tackling Tough Issues
President Obama will soon shine the spotlight on two tough issues, Afghanistan and jobs. As Chip Reid reports, is there enough money to pay for what he wants to do?Elayne Boosler: Getting Into The White House
You don't get into the White House by accident. It is not airport security, where if you get the fat guy thinking about lunch, your hunting knife and your eight ounces of shampoo sail on through the x-ray. It is nothing like that. The only way anybody, and I mean anybody, gets into the White House, let alone a state dinner, is because someone on the inside purposely let him in. I knew news organizations in American were dying, I didn't know I had missed the funeral.
On Fox News Sunday, Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh said, "Like [shoe bomber] Richard Reid, these folks may change the way people go to the White House," and said this breach of security would lead to stricter safety measures at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Perhaps he's never gone in as a guest. They couldn't be any stricter.
In 1993 I was the comedian performing at President Clinton's first White House Press Correspondent's dinner. Weeks earlier, I was asked to provide my legal name, address, social security number, date of birth, and on and on. Thank God, unlike when doing Letterman and Leno, I didn't have to provide the jokes in advance for approval. At least the White House understands the spontaneity needed for good comedy. No doubt my entire family history was checked out, and I was cleared. I went to a private reception with the president, vice president, their wives, and a few others. I had dinner. I performed. A good time was had by all.
No matter. Two years later I was to entertain the president and congress again, this time at Ford's Theater, for an ABC TV special. There was a reception at the White House first. Again, despite having been cleared by the network and okayed by the White House and thoroughly vetted earlier, I filled out all forms in advance. When I showed up with my husband at the White House clearing gate, we were kept there for half an hour while they matched us to our documents, then ran checks. Literally, a half hour outside in the cold. They kept apologizing, but explained this was the way it worked. They made copies of our I.D. My husband had to remove his jacket, and we were frisked: and I mean frisked. I almost bought a pregnancy test on the way home. At every step of the way our passes were checked and rechecked with intense scrutiny. To approach the president and Mrs. Clinton, we were rechecked on the receiving line. Photos were taken. At every step of the way, there were more men with earpieces standing poised than in even the most overblown Bruckheimer movie. Always checking our passes, our demeanor, us.
You don't "breeze on past" White House security by simply "walking in with confidence." It's not a hotspot in the Meatpacking District. The guards are not intimidated, they are of a military mentality, and while they kept us there, we talked about show business. They knew who I was and that I wasn't a danger, and still ran the abc's because that is the protocol.
Something is wrong here. Instead of the press speculating over whether the two gate crashers are asking to be paid for their TV interviews, they should be asking how this couple is allowed to be free at this moment. Instead of bloggers angrily speculating that if this couple was black, they would not have gotten past security, they should be chillingly stunned that anybody not cleared got through security. These kinds of breaches don't just "happen." Somebody in this government is putting this president's life at risk. Reality show? Time to bring back The Mole. And if it really, really, really did "just happen"? Well, a lot of intelligent, hard working people are looking for jobs right now. I suggest replacing the president's detail with people who weren't rejected by the TSA. Or Wal-Mart.
Video: 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan
President Obama plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, a decision he will address in tomorrow night's nationally televised speech. David Martin reports.Hondurans elect new president
Voters in Honduras have elected a new president, but it remained in question Monday whether the international community would recognize conservative candidate Porfirio Lobo Sosa.Obama orders launch of Afghanistan strategy, prepares to address U.S.
After telling military leaders to put plans into action, the president calls world leaders to seek support. In Tuesday's West Point speech, he is expected to announce specific numbers on troop levels.Hours after issuing orders to launch his new strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama this morning began calling world leaders to tell them of his decision and ask for their assistance.
Michael J.W. Stickings: Liberalism Revived: Jacob Weisberg on “Obama’s Brilliant First Year”
I don't always agree with the top man at Slate, but I'm inclined to here:
This conventional wisdom about Obama's first year isn't just premature -- it's sure to be flipped on its head by the anniversary of his inauguration on Jan. 20. If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn't an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It's a neutral assessment of his emerging record -- how many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office.
Take health-care reform, for example:
The case for Obama's successful freshman year rests above all on the health care legislation now awaiting action in the Senate.
*****We are so submerged in the details of this debate--whether the bill will include a "public option," limit coverage for abortion, or tax Botox--that it's easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change. For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government's role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism.
And then there's the economy:
There's mounting evidence that the $787 billion economic stimulus he signed in February-- combined with the bank bailout package -- prevented an economic depression.
And foreign policy:
Obama's accomplishment has been less tangible but hardly less significant: He has put America on a new footing with the rest of the world. In a series of foreign trips and speeches, which critics deride as trips and speeches, he replaced George W. Bush's unilateral, moralistic militarism with an approach that is multilateral, pragmatic, and conciliatory.
What is striking -- and this is largely, I think, the ironic result of how successfully he inspired so many of his supporters during the campaign, including me, and how many of his supporters (and voters) began to hope again, and to believe that genuine change was possible -- is that Obama is being judged by the standard of perfection, that is, by an unattainable standard of success.
It's like, if he doesn't remodel the entire American way of life for the better -- fixing health care, righting the economy, reversing global warming, ending terrorism, establishing world peace -- he is somehow deemed, even by those inclined to continue to support him, by those who generally agree with him, to be a failure. It is to be expected that conservatives wish failure upon him, and upon America if he can be blamed and they can score some political points, and applaud his perceived failure at every turn, but it is disheartening when those who should know better, those who should have the good sense not to rush to judgement, criticize him with such gusto.
Don't get me wrong, there is a good deal to criticize. I have been vocal in my criticism, as have many others. Indeed, while conservatives may think that all of us on "the left" worship Obama as a god, the reality is quite different. We have not fallen into lock-step behind the president -- or behind the Democratic Party generally. We have not done what Republicans do -- Republicans only turn on their own much later on, when the polls show abject failure, as they did for both Bushes later in their presidencies, that is, they only do so when they have lost, or are on the verge of losing, and when Bolshevism takes over.
Meanwhile, Obama faces criticism from within his own party -- from both the left and the right -- as well as from more or less friendly liberal and progressive voices in the media, including the blogosphere. An obvious example is Glenn Greenwald, who continues to be one of Obama's smartest and most persistent critics on a wide range of issues, notably national security (where Obama has been much too much like Bush). But he is not alone, and what we find on "the left," including among Obama's supporters past and present, is a generally healthy culture of constructive criticism.
The problem comes when Obama is criticized not for this or that policy but for not being perfect. And it is simply wrong, as many high-profile commentators have claimed, that Obama has done nothing so far in his first year as president.
There is obviously a lot more he could have done, and perhaps should have done, but Weisberg is right that he has actually accomplished a great deal. I'm not sure Obama's first year has been "brilliant" -- let's wait to see what what happens with health-care reform, as well as with Afghanistan, and then where he goes from there in the new year -- but I think it's true that it's been fairly impressive, all things considered.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
More on Barack Obama
Mike Lux: Death Wish Politics
Digby (taking numbers and quoting from Markos) had a great post over the weekend about the single most urgent topic facing Democrats going into the 2010 elections: the lack of enthusiasm by Democratic voters about voting next year. I have cited some polling and turnout statistics in the past from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and Digby focused on another polling fact that is as harrowing a number going into an election year as I have seen in a long time:
From the new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll:We have added a new feature on our weekly national poll -- a gauge of voter intensity. The question offered to respondents is a simple question about their intentions for 2010:
QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?
Markos writes:
The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting
Republican Voters: 81/14
Independent Voters: 65/23
Democratic Voters: 56/40Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will "definitely not vote" in 2010 than are Republicans.
The way some Democrats want to respond to numbers like these is pure and simple death wish politics. It's the bizarre inside-the-Beltway centrism that cares more about what corporate lobbyists and CBO scoring than about what anyone who might actually vote thinks: don't anything too tough to Wall Street, don't create jobs because it will add to the deficit, don't put anything into health care reform that voters might actually notice for the next five years, and be "fair" to the poor insurance companies.
The quote of the day that has me gnashing my teeth:
White House health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle said the president was moving as quickly as possible. She said that the insurance industry cannot be forced to accept people irrespective of preexisting conditions until everyone is required to have insurance, and that the administration does not want such a requirement until the exchanges are up and running.
Insurance companies have been making enormous profits for decades now by hiking prices through the roof and denying care to sick people, and we are going to worry about being fair to them in the transition to a better health care system? When we are going to mandate that people buy insurance, and subsidize them to do so, after the new system is in place? C'mon now. If the insurance companies have to reduce their profit margins for a few years, I don't think we should be shedding any tears for them.
Democrats have to figure out how to produce real benefits for real people now, not in some future years from now. A new poll out from Democracy Corps nails it: rather than bragging about the signs of progress in the economy when voters don't feel them yet, Democrats need to focus with urgency on jobs, and other tangible benefits voters can see and feel. Trickle-down economics (first get the banks healthy, then eventually everyone will get jobs) and health care reform with benefits kicking in for people in 2014 will make the 2010 elections ugly.
It's time to kill off death wish politics in the Democratic Party.
More on Careers