We had an interesting (if occasionally strained) discussion yesterday in my diary about the constitutionality of the health care mandate, which I hope you'll check out. My basic position now is that after the "train wreck" Supreme Court argument, we really have to up our game, whether that means defending the mandate or finding a "Plan B," and discussions such as the one there serve a useful purpose towards that end. Just convincing each other in places like this that "we're right and eventually everyone will come to realize that we're right" is not "upping our game."
Much of my argument in that diary is that I think that we're fooling ourselves if we think that we'll be able to tar the Justices who find the health insurance mandate to be unconstitutional as being merely political. That seems to be the new progressive conventional wisdom, but I think that it's deeply mistaken.
This case doesn't strike me as another Citizens United; it strikes me as another Kelo v. New London, where we ran into a buzzsaw of public horror at the thought that a city could use eminent domain to take private land from one entity and give it to another entity because doing so would serve a public purpose. Kelo was rightly decided, but a hard pill for many to swallow. When and where the Tea Party really is a grass-roots movement, one of its main sources is revulsion at the Kelo decision and what it says about the power of government versus the citizenry.
Well, guess where we've landed once again? We had better take this situation less smugly and more seriously. And so, to promote that seriousness, I propose a game.
Even if you aren't one, I want you to try to think like a Democrat defending the health care law. (If you find this impossible, just don’t answer. I don’t want your brain damage on my conscience.)
All I need you to do in comments is to fill in the blank within the statement below as simply (meaning in as few words) and honestly as possible -- although if you need to write a full paragraph to do it justice, go ahead:
“The health care mandate as currently structured is constitutional because ______.”
Please do not look at other people's answers before you give your initial response. This is a question that you, and I, and everyone else here, should be able to answer. (If we don't believe it ourselves, we should be able to explain to voters why our fellow Democrats are not idiots and imbeciles for believing it.) So let's see how we do when asked this simple question. Can we come up with simple answers?
I'll probably be away from this site for much of the day due to work obligations, but I have a feeling that lots of other people will be able to comment perfectly well despite my absence. Please don't be jerks to each other. Even if we disagree about the merits here, by far most of us have a common interest in providing health care and a common interest in protecting the welfare of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party. I think that this exercise will be instructive -- but, if it works out as I think it will, let's use it as a goad to action, not as a reason for tweaking each other.
Again: fill in the blank with a top-level comment first, then read other comments. Thanks!