Institutional Confusion

There was a time, recent enough that I am almost embarrassed to admit it, that I believed the leftward tilting bias in mainstream US media was institutional. It seemed reasonable that the bias was due to the fact that nearly every aspect of the mainstream media's product is conceived, validated and fabricated in left-wing echo chambers of like thinkers. There is an almost complete lack of ideological diversity within the US media establishment. The 2008 Presidential campaign was the effort that finally succeeded in disabusing me of the final vestiges of my unfortunately idealistic notion. US media bias is intentional and there is ample evidence that many within the establishment believe it to be appropriate, and even noble.

Sadly, today I find myself in a similar quandary regarding our representatives in Washington. I'm not talking about the died-in-the-wool marxists that no longer even think that making a pretense of being something else is necessary. The quandary has to do with, primarily Republican, politicians that clearly articulate conservative principles and then betray those principles with their actions. US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voted to end the filibuster that was delaying the senate Health Care bill last Friday. The reasons provided by Ms. Hutchison's office include speculation that the vote would have passed without her and that her vote was an expression of support for the troops due to the delay of a defense appropriations bill that was being delayed by the filibuster.

Senator Hutchison is currently engaged in a battle with Rick Perry over the Texas Governorship. Early promises to step down from the Senate so that her attentions would not be divided were broken for the principled reason that she needed to say in Washington and fight against the attempt to take over Health Care. Apparently we missed the fine print where it says "unless the attempt would pass without her help, or if it damages some other legislation that might interfere with her Texas Governor campaign." While Kay and Rick attempt to out-conservative each other in Texas, Texans just look on with a raised eye-brow shaking their heads. It is rather pathetic that neither of them seem to realize how ridiculous they look to real conservatives in Texas. But Ms. Hutchison's actions last Friday were nothing less than a blow at the very core of America.

The troubling aspect of this episode is how obvious the ramifications of it should be to Kay Bailey Hutchison. On the one hand we have a piece of legislation that stands to alter the character of America more than any single act since the New Deal. On the other hand we have a military appropriations bill that represents a fleeting opportunity for a hawkish politician to acquire some additional campaign capital. While it is extremely unlikely that delaying the defense appropriations bill would have resulted in the war effort being denied needed funds, it is possible that delaying the vote on Health Care would have pushed it into an election year in which it's passage would be in question.

Is it reasonable, or even possible to believe that Kay doesn't understand the far reaching impact of the current attempt to take over Health Care? This is the crux of my current quandary. Can there be any real question regarding the dramatic advance of statism represented by the Health Care legislation effort? There does not appear to be any possible explanation for any politician to be anything other than wholly invested in the Health Care "Reform" effort; either wholly invested in it's success, or wholly invested in its defeat. There is something decidedly unseemly about Kay's apparent nonchalance over her vote to end the filibuster.