Last week, Kevin began to debunk two recent articles - one by the Times' Anatole Kaletsky and the other an article on recent statements by Sec. Hillary Clinton - which boldly argue that the death of current U.S. health care legislation will mean the inevitable death of America's influence around the world.
Clinton's argument is that ObamaCare's failure will signal to the rest of the world that American government is broken, and that this perception will adversely affect foreign countries' views on whether America still has the capacity to "move forward" and lead on international issues. Money quote: "Their view does color whether the United States â?? not just the president, but our country â?? is in a position going forward to demonstrate the kind of unity and strength and effectiveness that I think we have to in this very complex and dangerous world."
Kaletsky takes an even harsher line and argues that the demise of ObamaCare will dismantle the American economy, and by extension, America's influence in the world. He writes:
If nothing is done to change the US healthcare system, it can be stated with mathematical certainty that the US Government and many leading US companies will be driven into bankruptcy, a fate that befell General Motors and Chrysler largely because of their inability to meet retired workersâ?? contractually guaranteed medical costs....Gridlock over healthcare would imply similar stalemates on taxes, public spending, the budget, macroeconomic stimulus and financial reform. As a result, an active response to any future financial crisis might become impossible. Even worse, any important action to control US government borrowing could be ruled out.
Alrighty then. Kevin did a great job dismantling these arguments from the foreign policy angle by providing some excellent historical perspective on the issue, so I'm just going to weigh in from the international trade and economics angle.
My conclusion in short: Clinton's and Kaletsky's arguments are nonsense.
