Last week I found myself in Omaha, at the city’s Old Market, hoping to visit with some of the locals about the upcoming election for another CJR Town Hall. As usual, my sample was not scientific, but it did show what some voters are thinking. Four of the people I interviewed were young adults who seemed deeply insecure about their economic futures. As I found in my recent visit to a Walmart in Pennsylvania, these Nebraska people were not sold so far on either Mitt Romney or the president.
Mike
At the Antiques Annex, 21-year-old Mike Kronberger was shining up some blue bowling ball cases to sell. He had migrated from northern Wisconsin to Nebraska so he could attend the Creative Center, a commercial arts college from which he would graduate in a couple of days, with a degree in graphics design. The day I talked to him he was selling old jewelry and other objects in an effort to make ends meet. Near the front of his mind was the burden of his student loan—$75,000. “All the graduates are facing heavy, heavy student loans that are unrealistic to pay back,” he said. You have to take out loans to be a functioning member of society, he said, but he quickly added that the idea that if you don’t go to college you won’t be successful is “dissipating somewhat.” “I don’t know that I would recommend college to anyone graduating high school,” he said. “Taking the risk of going to school and investing in education doesn’t guarantee your success.”
Kronberg said he couldn’t afford cable. In fact, he doesn’t have a TV set. Michelle Obama sent him a Facebook solicitation, asking for a $3 contribution to the president’s campaign, but he didn’t contribute. “My next concern is to get $5 for a money order to pay the electric bill,” he told me.
Where did he stand on the candidates? “I’m definitely not voting for Romney,” he said. “He is seriously disconnected from the working class.” Kronberg said he didn’t necessarily agree with Obama either, but argued that the president was not afraid to take a stand on issues like gay rights. Were the candidates speaking to him? “Not necessarily,” he said. “They aren’t speaking to my class, my age group.”
He told me he watched some of the Republican debates online and sees a lot of political ads on social media sites. “The election seems like a big avalanche of opinions. I don’t want to get buried under them.”
Kronberg said he did not have health insurance and knew the risks of being uninsured. He didn’t know what the health reform law might do for him. “I have to figure out where my next meal is coming from or how to put gas in the car,” he said. “I don’t have time to take three hours out of a day to figure out the law.” He does know about the consequences of being uninsured, though. His family had declared medical bankruptcy because his mother, who has Crohn’s Disease, did not have insurance.
Heather
While Mike and I talked, Heather Brown and her fiancé came by. Brown—an LPN who works three jobs to pay her bills—asked the cost of a print of Goofy, the Disney character, that her fiancé had just bought for her. He had gone to a cash machine to get the money, and she worried it cost too much. It was $15. Brown collects Goofy figurines because, she says, “I like to make people laugh.”
Besides working as a nurse, she takes care of old people, getting those jobs through private agencies, and also works at a Home Depot. She is 38, and does not seem optimistic about her future. She is saddled with $35,000 of college loans, which helped her earn a degree in psychology.
Interesting interviews. Very sad that most of the people interviewed would benefit significantly from the Affordable Care Act but are either uninformed or misinformed about it.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 12:48 PM
Harris gives us Iteration #5893 of the standard liberal "The Average Slob Is Too Stupid To Know What's Good For Him" elitist, anti-democratic nonsense.
Some pigs are always more equal than other pigs in Liberal La La Land.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 12 Jun 2012 at 11:28 PM
"Harris gives us Iteration #5893 of the standard liberal "The Average Slob Is Too Stupid To Know What's Good For Him" elitist, anti-democratic nonsense."
What Padi actually believes liberals believe:
"Can you perform the surgery required to excise a brain tumor? If not, you must be stupid."
Implication? Padi believes we don't need expertise to understand complicated systems or perform complicated tasks. The "average slob" should be able to perform your brain surgery.
Of course, when you use his arguement to claim executives and lawyers don't merit their high compensation, especially when their understanding of complexity is so low in quality you could hardly imagine how the "average slob" could cause more catastrophic damage, he gets a tad upset.
The fact is that Romney care does solve relatively well some major healthcare problems:
http://m.npr.org/story/146701343?url=/blogs/health/2012/02/13/146701343/health-care-in-massachusetts-abject-failure-or-work-in-progress
And in the state that it was first implemented, people have high rates of satisfaction. The problem it avoids solving is:
"That doesn't mean everything about Massachusetts health care is wonderful. The 2006 law didn't do anything about controlling health costs, which were already among the nation's highest. Dreyfuss says that's at the top of the agenda now.
DREYFUSS: When suddenly every employer is offering insurance, everyone is paying for it and the government is subsidizing it, and it's growing at 8 or 10 percent per year - year over year - suddenly, there's a lot more interest in doing something about it."
So that is the problem which needs dealing with in future. However, we can't focus on that problem because republicans want to nulify everything.
""The president's plan assumes an endless expansion of government, with rising costs and, of course, with the spread of Obamacare," Romney says. "I will halt the expansion of government, and I will repeal Obamacare."..
"I will not go back to the days when insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, or deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men," Obama says. "We're not going back there. We're going forward."
There is no overlap at all in the two men's current approaches to health care. If Romney is elected, he'll work to get rid of the law that was based on his own plan. If the president wins a second term, he will fight to keep what he can."
We're not going to face the problems to come because republicans have defined the president and his party as their problem. And when they are in power, under Bush or Romney, they will continue to avoid looking at solutions to problems because, in their minds, they have the solutions - it's just the problems which need redefining. It will be a return to bush style government based on pr campaign, not knowledge or expertise. "invade Iran + tax cuts for the rich, that will solve everything!"
And fox news will run with that story, everybody else will be "balanced". When the "average slob" is uninformed or misinformed by his institutions, that isn't because he's stupid and "liberals are elitists", that's because institutions are failing to inform the public in a meaningful way.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 03:22 PM
You want elitism? Here's conservative David Brooks;
"Maybe before we can build great monuments to leaders we have to relearn the art of following. Democratic followership is also built on a series of paradoxes: that we are all created equal but that we also elevate those who are extraordinary; that we choose our leaders but also have to defer to them and trust their discretion; that we’re proud individuals but only really thrive as a group, organized and led by just authority.
I don’t know if America has a leadership problem; it certainly has a followership problem. Vast majorities of Americans don’t trust their institutions. That’s not mostly because our institutions perform much worse than they did in 1925 and 1955, when they were widely trusted. It’s mostly because more people are cynical and like to pretend that they are better than everything else around them. Vanity has more to do with rising distrust than anything else...
To have good leaders you have to have good followers — able to recognize just authority, admire it, be grateful for it and emulate it. "
Shorter David Brooks:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003626.html
"DAVID BROOKS: Okay, so our act starts with us inflating a giant internet bubble. Then that collapses, taking the country's economy with it, just as we massively cut taxes on millionaires because, we say, if we don't the government will have too much money. Right after that we blow off warnings about terrorism and let 3,000 Americans get slaughtered. We use that as a chance to lie the U.S. into invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack, killing hundreds of thousands of people and turning millions into refugees. In the middle of all that we borrow torture techniques from the Inquisition and use them on people in secret sites around the planet. Then we make billions off another financial bubble, the biggest in human history, and do nothing as it collapses, plunging the world into the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression. To fix that we open up the national bank vault and shovel out money as fast as possible to all the criminals who made it happen in the first place. Then—as the amazing finale—we refuse to prosecute anyone for that, for the war, or for torture, and we start killing U.S. citizens with flying death robots.
[LONG PAUSE]
AGENT: ...That's a hell of an act. What do you call it?
DAVID BROOKS: The Aristocrats!"
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 03:29 PM