After a week-long discussion of the right-wing smear of 12-year-old Graeme Frost and his family, Paul Krugman delivers not only an amazing summary of the facts, but a concise summary of the broader problem.
All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud.
Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.
He’s talking to you, CNN.
Just as importantly, Krugman explains the futility of attacking Graeme Frost’s parents at all — the S-CHIP is really about the kids who need care, but can’t get insurance.
I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.
And speaking of a truly vicious political movement, we have one more parting shot from Townhall.com on why the right is justified in lashing out at the Frost family.
Amy Ridenour makes her case.
Do people on the dole have a reasonable expectation of privacy vis-a-vis their financial affairs? No.
That question, though not always my answer, is coming up frequently as defenders of the Democratic Party’s $35 billion SCHIP expansion proposal condemn bloggers and talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, who have examined the statement penned by aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and delivered as the official Democratic Party rebuttal to President Bush’s weekly radio address by 12-year-old Graeme Frost, that the State Childrens [sic] Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is for “families like mine.”
The questioners’ question: If Graeme Frost’s family isn’t all that low-income, then maybe the SCHIP program doesn’t need to be expanded by $35 billion to cover millions of extra families with even higher incomes than the Frosts apparently have.
Rather than address the core question, some say it is inappropriate even to consider the Frost family’s circumstances, even if the people doing the considering are helping the Frosts raise their kids. This assumption reverses a thousand years of philanthropic practice.
There’s actually a couple of interesting arguments here. First is the notion that the Frosts are “on the dole,” which means they have forfeited their financial privacy. It’s an odd claim, to put it mildly. I know a guy going to college on the GI Bill. Does Ridenour think his financial affairs should be open to public scrutiny?
Millions of law-abiding, tax-paying Americans, at various points in their lives, receive some kind of benefits from the government, whether it be a young person getting a student loan, a farmer receiving a tax credit, or a low-income mother receiving food stamps. Should all of them expect right-wing bloggers to take a close look at their kitchen counters — or only the ones who dare to speak publicly about families in need?
But Ridenour’s other point is just as striking — healthcare assistance for low-income families is fundamentally wrong because these families should rely on the kindness of others. It’s what Bush recently told a Pennsylvania audience about his desire to shut down food aid for low-income seniors: “Food banks ought to be supported through the generosity of individuals.” If people aren’t feeling generous? Or the demand for assistance is greater than the charity? Well, too bad; people will just have to be hungry.
As Digby explained, this is why “government programs were developed in enlightened, modern Western societies in the first place.”
Charity robs the recipient of the dignity and personal liberty to which all people have a claim, rich, poor or in the middle. Using government to act as the safety net instead of the good will (or good mood) of those of means allows that. Citizen pays in, and someday, god forbid, if he needs some help, he won’t have to kiss the ass of some rich busybody or self-righteous hypocrite who thinks he or she has a right to dictate his behavior on the basis of a couple of bucks.
Rest in peace, compassionate conservatism.