Mediaboss Marketing

Marco Rubio had a message for his nearly 3 million Twitter followers on the morning of June 26: As dogs return to their vomit, so fools repeat their folly. Proverbs 26:11.

That one might have been his most head-snapping, but Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, had been tweeting verses like that one since May 16. He has tweeted a biblical verse almost every day since then. Almost all of them come from the Old Testament, and specifically the book of Proverbs.

Story Continued Below

Proverbs is notable in that is presents a fairly consistent view of the world: The righteous are rewarded, and the wicked are punished. In the understanding of Proverbs, everyone gets what is coming to them; behavior is directly linked to reward or punishment. This worldview has social consequences: Those who succeed in life must be more righteous than those who struggle.

Some of the statements in Proverbs look strikingly similar to those made by modern-day conservative policymakers. Take, for example, Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who, arguing that poorer people should pay more for health care, recently said, Those people who lead good lives, theyre healthy. Its not quite a direct quote from Proverbs, but its not too far from these: The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry (Proverbs10:3) and A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich (Proverbs 10:4). In short: Proverbs is probably the most Republican book of the entire Bible.

Proverbs is really a collectionor, more accurately, a collection of collections. Some of these sayings have very ancient origins, including one section that is clearly dependent on an Egyptian wisdom treatise from the second millennium B.C. Overall, though, the book was put together rather lateand not, as tradition holds, by King Solomonand generally deals with questions of how to live a righteous life.

For example: Just this past July 5, Rubio tweeted, They will die from lack of discipline, lost because of their great folly. Proverbs 5:23. Of course, its not all diligence and righteousnessin Proverbs, faith in God, too, will keep you away from things like poverty and failure. On June 16, Rubio tweeted, Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.

Other Republicans appear to have a thing for Proverbs, too. Ben Carson, during the 2016 presidential campaign, compared himself favorably to the blustery style of then-candidate Donald Trump by quoting Proverbs 22:4: By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life. Gerald Fords favorite Bible passage was Proverbs 3:5-6: Trust wholeheartedly in Yahweh [the Lord], put no faith in your own perception; in every course you take, have him in mind: He will see that your paths are smooth. Ford repeated this when he served in the Navy during World War II, throughout his presidency and in his swearing-in.

Trump likes the idea of Proverbs, even if he doesnt know much about the text itself. Back in September 2015, Trump claimed, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, that among the biblical verses he most appreciated was Proverbs, the chapter never bend to envy. Ive had that thing all my life, where people are bending to envy. This would have been a more effective citation if there were such a line anywhere in the book of Proverbs. (His interviewer later told the Washington Post, not entirely persuasively, that Trump was referring to Proverbs 24:1-2: Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them. For their heart studieth destruction, and their lips talk of mischief.)

Proverbs, of course, is also just pithy and instructive and so has some appeal for Democrats, too. Bill Clinton employed Proverbs 29:18 when accepting the nomination in 1992: Where there is no vision, the people perish. But do a quick look at the Bible passages quoted in past inauguration speeches, and youll see that Republicans, from Ford to Herbert Hoover all the way back to William McKinley, have a clear preference for the section, relative to Democrats.

Its not just the Book of Proverbs that politicians have quoted to justify a worldview or political philosophy, however much squinting was required to make a connection. In April 2016, Trump referred (loosely) to Leviticus 24:19-21 when asked what his favorite Bible verse was. So many, he told the AM radio host. And some peoplelook, an eye for an eye, you can almost say that. He went on to explain why: But you know, if you look at whats happening to our country, I mean And we have to be firm and have to be very strong. And we can learn a lot from the Bible, that I can tell you. It didnt take very long for Trump to segue back into his talking points about the need for more American muscle: Other countries laugh at our face, and theyre taking our jobs, theyre taking our money, theyre taking the health of our country.

There is surely nothing wrong with a politician turning to the Bible for spiritual, ethical and moral guidance. The Bible is the foundational text of Western civilization, after all. But concentrating exclusively on the parts of it that affirm ones own perspective is a form of confirmation bias. One might advise Rubio to read, and tweet, more widely: from Ecclesiastes, perhaps, or from prophets such as Amos: Because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of stonebut you shall not live in them (Amos 5:11). Maybe Leviticus: When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself (Leviticus 19:3334). Or even the gospels of the New Testament: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God (Matt 19:24/Mark 10:25/Luke 18:25).

As for Trumps favorite Bible verse, we should remember that Jesus later repudiated it in the New Testament, when he said, Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:38-42).

Nor does Proverbs represent the sole biblical perspective on such issues of reward and punishment. Indeed, the entire book of Ecclesiastes is nothing less than a direct rebuke to the harsh, almost social Darwinist worldview of Proverbs: The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them all. For no one can anticipate the time of disaster (Ecclesiastes 9:1112).

Its always nice to know that whatever your ideological persuasion, theres a verse in the Bible just waiting to be appropriated. Or, as Ecclesiastes put it, For every thing, there is a season.

Joel Baden (@joelbaden) is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School.

Excerpt from:
Marco Rubio Is Tweeting the Most Republican Part of the Bible ... - POLITICO Magazine

Kentuckys Republican Governor Matt Bevin plans to cut another 9,000 people from Medicaid in his state, signaling what lies ahead if Senate Republicans pass their plan to repeal and replace Obamacare in the coming weeks.

This weekBevinrevised a plan he came up with last year, seeking a waiverfrom the federal government, to allow Kentucky to roll back Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.

The new plan would see 95,000 fewer people on Medicaid in the state at the end of Bevin'sfive-year plan. His original plan was for 86,000 to lose Medicaid coverage. The proposal is calculated to save the state a total of $358 million.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Governor of Kentucky Matt Bevin speaks at 2017 SelectUSA Investment Summit in Oxon Hill, Maryland, U.S., June 19, 2017. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

The federal Medicaid program provides health insurance coverage for elderly and low-income Americans and covers roughly 1.4 million Kentuckians. Federal money is given to each state based on their needs. Obamacare legally mandated the expansion of the number of people who would be covered under stateplans.

In Congress, Senate Republicans are working to pass a health care bill that would grant waivers to all states over whether they keep the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. Under the bill, states would also be able to decide whether health insurers in their jurisdiction could discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions in the cost of their health coverage.

Republican Governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota are both considering asking for waivers to roll back Obamacare provisions once the Senate Republican health care bill is passed. Both are particularly interested in curtailing the rules against insurance companies discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

Read more: Bernie Sanders's next move is to host rallies in red states to rail against the GOP's health care plan

The Senate health care bill, however, is deeply unpopular among Americans. A recent NPR and PBS NewsHour Marist poll shows just 17 percent of Americans approve of the Senate's health care plan.

An audit of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office said it will strip about $770 billion from American Medicaid over the next 10 years and leave22million Americans without insurance.

During Congress Independence Day recess Republican Senators have faced a backlash against the bill from their constituents, with some citizens even protesting on the July 4 holiday.

Rather than participate in local festivities, some Republican Senators decided to lay low during the holiday to avoid being confronted about the bill.

Although Virginia's Republican senator, Shelley Moore Capito said reforms to Medicaid are necessary, she is keen tomaintainthe Obamacare Medicaid expansion to helpher constituents.

The rebuke to Obamacare by Republican governors, however, continues. As Ohio's Republican lieutenant governor Mary Taylor entered the race for governor this week, she said she would confront the mistakes of Republican Governor John Kasich, a staunch supporter of the Medicaid expansion. Taylor noted on Friday that she led the state's fight against the federal health care law.

In Kentucky, Doug Hogan, Bevins spokesman for the states Cabinet for Health and Family Services, told The Courier-Journal that the governors plan will not cut anyone from Medicaid.

Rather, Hogansaid, people will opt out of Medicaid coverage if they refuse to meet requirements under the new plan that they volunteer or work a minimum of 20 hours a week or transition to employer health plans.

But, Dustin Pugel, a research associate with the Kentucky Center on Economic Policy, was not convinced.

Kentuckys new plan just takes a bad waiver and makes it worse," he said.

The rest is here:
Republican Medicaid Cut in Kentucky Would Slash 9000 More People From Health Coverage - Newsweek

On the surface, it would be appear to be the easy component of President Trump's infrastructure plan for Republicans to agree upon: a wonky, bureaucratic reform that could be done cheaply.

Yet, Trump's promotion of a long-held Republican idea privatizing the nation's government-run air traffic control system landed with a thud in Congress, failing to attract sufficient support at even the committee level in the Senate.

Late last month, a GOP-controlled Senate committee chose to ignore the proposal, approving a long-term aviation bill that maintains air traffic control as it is.

But the idea is receiving a far different reception in the House.

In the lower chamber, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee advanced a plan championed by Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., that transfers air traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration to a nonprofit corporation.

Lawmakers and advocates concede the GOP disagreement over the issue highlights the uncertain prospects for fulfilling the kind of big-spending, transformative infrastructure investment that Trump described on the campaign trail.

"I am very interested in helping the administration move forward with infrastructure," said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., who is on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the panel with jurisdiction over the FAA that chose to not pursue air traffic control privatization.

"I agree with the president that we have underinvested in infrastructure, and the country's economy can be greatly enhanced by improving it," Moran told the Washington Examiner. "But I think fighting over this part of the infrastructure program [air traffic control] slows down progress we can make in getting a larger infrastructure plan in place."

Moran, like other Republican senators serving rural states, opposes privatizing the air traffic control system because he worries that smaller airports and general aviation, such as private pilots and business jets, will lose under a nonprofit governed by a board composed of industry players.

These critics are listening to warnings expressed by groups such as the Alliance for Aviation Across America, which represents general aviation airports and farmers, that argue a nonprofit system funded by user fees would favor major revenue generators airlines at busy, urban airports.

In Kansas, Moran is especially beholden to the interests of the general aviation industry. Cessna, Beechcraft and Bombardier Learjet all manufacture jets and aviation products in the state, with those companies accounting for about 43 percent of private aircraft manufactured in the U.S., according to the Kansas Chamber of Commerce.

"My general concern of privatization is if there is to be a benefit to air traffic control, it will accrue only to the largest cities in the county," Moran said. "Counties that are not the largest will find less satisfactory service."

Moran predicts privatization will meet the same fate as it has in the past. Shuster saw his proposal to privatize air traffic control fail to make it the House floor last year.

"Even with Trump, I don't see we are in any different position this year," Moran said.

Shuster sees things differently. He began selling his plan to Trump in 2014, before Trump was a presidential candidate, as the means for making America's air traffic control modernized and efficient, moving from ground-based radar to satellite-based GPS. That shift is already occurring with a technology known as NextGen, but Shuster says it will be done faster and cheaper with privatization.

Britain, Canada and New Zealand, among others, have already successfully switched to independently controlled air traffic control systems, in some form a potent pitch to a president who views America as losing ground.

Shuster's latest privatization plan passed his committee late last month as the cornerstone of an FAA reauthorization bill, mostly along party lines.

He says this year's legislation contains new provisions meant to appease holdouts, such as the one that requires providers to continue to offer flight service to places that receive it now, meaning rural areas should not be ignored.

The 13-member board governing the proposed nonprofit, Shuster says, would have broad representation, including members from passenger airlines, cargo airlines, regional airlines, general aviation, business jets, controllers, airports and commercial pilots.

Shuster says he guesses the bill will pass the full House this time, as Speaker Paul Ryan supports privatization. He says that even if the Senate passes its own bill without the air traffic control reforms, the two chambers will negotiate a solution in conference, a tough sell under a tight deadline, as the FAA's legal authority expires at the end of September.

"If the Senate passes its own bill, with or without the transformational reforms included in the committee's bill, then we'll go to conference and continue to work on this important bill," Shuster said in a statement.

Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla,. who voted for the privatization plan in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, predicts that Trump's advocacy of the issue will push Republicans to come around to it.

"Trump matters," Webster told the Washington Examiner. "He's got a veto pen, he's got influence and he will be working that issue. He worked the healthcare bill in the House, and it ended up passing."

Still, Webster contends if Trump and supportive lawmakers fail to implement air traffic control privatization, it wouldn't doom the rest of the president's infrastructure agenda.

Trump has sparsely outlined his broader infrastructure proposal, offering $200 billion in direct federal spending over 10 years. The plan would use tax breaks to incentivize private business to spend more money on infrastructure projects. With state and local contributions, total spending would equal $1 trillion.

"This [air traffic control privatization] is a tiny piece I don't think it bleeds into the overall infrastructure issue," Webster said. "The huge, deciding portion of the infrastructure debate will be the money. How do we pay for it, can we pay for it. That's the giant elephant in the room."

Robert Poole, a transportation expert with the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank that backs Shuster's proposal, says the fate of air traffic control privatization in Congress will be telling.

"This will certainly be a test for the White House to see how much sway the Trump administration has over infrastructure issues," Poole told the Washington Examiner. "We will see how they decide to deal with this and see how serious they are. This is the one thing they can do before they get over the hurdle of tax reform and health care, because the FAA reauthorization process is already underway and should be done this year. This is supposed to be the leading edge of their infrastructure initiative."

Go here to read the rest:
Republican air traffic control disagreement could be trouble for Trump infrastructure plan - Washington Examiner

Indias prime minister Narendra Modi met President Trump for the first time last week.

Modi and Trump are similar in many ways: both are populist nationalists who draw large crowds, and both are dedicated to putting their countries first, economically and strategically. Yet while Modi is wildly popular among the Hindu-American community in the United States, Trump did not even get a tenth of its vote. Why it is that Hindu-Americans, a group so favorably disposed toward a right-wing Indian leader, voted overwhelmingly against the candidate from the right in the United States?

Hindu-Americans are a high-income, family-values oriented group, yet vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. This paradox can be explained by the nature of Hinduism as a religion, Indias historical social, cultural, and agricultural patterns, and Indias experience with British colonialismall factors that influence Hindu-Americans to vote for the Democratic Party.

While Hindu-Americans are one of the largest religious groups in the United States, they do not yet have the clout, influence, or even general public recognition that other large religious groups in the country have, such as Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, though there are advocacy groups such as the non-partisan Hindu American Foundation (HAF).

Perhaps this is because they have been taken for granted as a Democratic Party voting bloc. According to data from the Washington Post, fewer than 7 percent of Hindus are likely to have voted for Trump. Only a slightly larger percentage of Hindus voted for Mitt Romney. Hindus strongly favor the Democratic party over the Republican partymore so than almost any other ethnic or religious group in the United States.

According to data collected by Pew in 2015, there are now 2.23 million Hindus in the United States, making them the fourth largest religious group in the country after Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Hinduism belongs to a family of religions known as Indic or dharmic religions. Hinduism is the largest dharmic tradition in the United States. Two other dharmic religions also have large populations in the United States: Sikhism, with around 500,000 individuals, and Jainism, with around 180,000 adherents. There are also large populations of Muslims and Christians from the Indian subcontinent in the United States. Approximately 16 percent of Muslims in the United States are from South Asia (around 600,000 people). Additionally, there are smaller populations of Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) from South Asia in the United States.

Hindu-Americans have the highest retention of any religion in the United States, with a full 80 percent of those raised Hindu still identifying with Hinduism as adults. In comparison, the rate among mainline Protestants is only 45 percent. This is not surprising due to the nature of Hinduism, whose philosophical and cultural traditions encompass several religious viewpoints including monism, pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, monotheism, polytheism, and atheism. Most Hindus are either immigrants or the children of immigrants from India, Nepal, Guyana, and Suriname, although there are some from non-desi (South Asian) backgrounds.

Given this diversity, how can we explain the fact that Hindu-Americans political preferences and social norms generally point them in the direction of liberal politics in the United States? After all, as The American Conservatives executive editor Pratik Chougule has pointed out, Indian-American (including Hindu-American) economic interests, merit-based educational aspirations, and family-values are much more aligned with the Republican Party.

There are several factors that explain Hindu-Americans mentality, political patterns and views on economic and social issues.

There is the nature of Hinduism itself. The worldview of Hinduism is different from the Judeo-Christian tradition that often informs the right in the West, though it has many more commonalities with the Greco-Roman pagan tradition. Hinduism advocates a live and let live attitude toward theological viewpoints. Its plethora of customs, philosophical systems, and regional traditions embrace diverse ways of understanding the divine, as well as ordering life in this world. Hinduism is the collective wisdom of sages, seekers, gods, and kings accumulated over several thousands of years. In short, it is not monolithic. Hinduism says that people take multiple spiritual paths and reach the same goal: the paths of knowledge, action, devotional worship, and meditation. The Rig Veda, composed over 4,000 years ago, states:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varua, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmn.

To what is One, sages call by many names they call it Agni, Yama, Mtarivan.

(Rig Veda 1.164.46)

This can be reworked for the modern world and would still be valid under the Hindu perspective: They call him Bhagavan, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, and he is heavenly, shining Krishna. To what is One, sages give many a title Ohrmazd, Ishtar, Zeus, Osiris, Amaterasu. This means:

In the Indian belief, no one religion can have a monopoly on truth. A common Indian metaphor, about blind men and an elephant, tells of how some blind men touch different parts of an elephant, and then compare notes to find that they are in complete disagreement about the shape of the elephant. The analogy, which is with religion, argues that only by putting together the experiences of all the blind men (individual religions) will gain us an approximate understanding of the whole (truth).

In the realm of earthly action, the duty of humans is defined by dharma, a word that is difficult to translate but whose shades of meaning include righteousness, duty, calling, and order. The Mahabharata tells us that dharma is subtle, and as such, doing the right thing in a certain situation is often circumstantial. However, the concept is usually linked to duty. To do ones dharma is to do ones duty to the utmost, which is why suggestions by some Republicans that Hinduism doesnt align with the constitutional foundation of the U.S. government, or that Hinduism is a false faith with false gods, are deeply problematic to the Hindu community. Observant Hindus dont necessarily agree with the secular, materialistic worldview that characterizes many on the left, but they see the Democratic Party as less hostile to the Hindu tradition than the Republican Party.

Two prominent Indian-Americans, Bobby Jindal, former governor of Louisiana, and Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, are both converts from their respective religions (Hinduism and Sikhism) to Christianity and are thus not really strong advocates for Indian religions. Bobby Jindal in particular has acquired a reputation for trying to disassociate himself from his roots. Because of the nature of Hinduism, it is difficult for many Hindus to understand why someone would want to leave the religion. Most Hindus do not appreciate Christian evangelization because Indian identity is strongly linked to religion (relative to say, Chinese identity, which is more ethnic and linguistic).

On the other hand, there are four Hindus in Congress, all of whom are Democrats. Hindu-Americans have an especially strong advocate in U.S. Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). She was the first Hindu-American elected to Congress, and has since been a staunch champion and advocate of Hindu causes. She was instrumental in bringing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the United States.

Hinduism is already an eclectic tradition; American Hinduism is even more so. Many young second or third generation Hindus also identify primarily as Hindu, although in a different way than first generation immigrants. Older Hindus are more ritualistic and temple-oriented. Younger Hindus, particularly those born in the United States, either see their Hinduism as more of a tribal badge and are cultural Hindus or are more interested in Hinduism as a philosophy, or a collection of metaphorical lessonsan interest they often discover through their own study of ancient Hindu texts with universal application, including the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, and Mahabharata. This newer Hinduism is in contrast to a more traditional and conservative Hinduism, which is often a reflection of factors specific to pre-modern Indian culture and history, and more influenced by later Hindu literature, the shastras (codebooks relating to rules and conduct) and puranas (traditional lore and myths). This individualistic, non-institutional approach resembles the spiritual but not religious approach toward religion often adopted by individuals less in tune with their religious traditions; in other words, people who are non-conservative in their attitude toward religion.

If religious issues are taken out of the picture, it would seem that Hindu-Americans potentially have a lot in common with a more conservative worldview. Affirmative action and higher taxes both hurt Hindu-American communities. Most Hindu-Americans are well-educated, legal immigrants who have waited their turn to enter the United States. Additionally, some Hindu-Americans are not favorably disposed toward Muslim immigration due to centuries-old tensions between Hindus and Muslims in South Asia. Yet Hindu-Americans lean toward Democrats on many non-religious issues as well.

On the topics of immigration and civil rights, because most Hindu-Americans are Indian-Americansa minority in the United States whose descendants were once subject to British colonialismcombating racism (real or perceived) is particularly important to Hindu-Americans. Hindus and Muslims are, so to say, on the same side in the United States, as they might not be distinguishable to the European-American population. This predisposition for racial grievance among Indians can be taken to absurd lengths by second-generation Hindus (and Indians), many of whom drinkup the more extreme kool-aid of identity politics on college campuses. Because of the perception that the Democratic Party is more friendly toward immigrants, civil rights, and non-Western cultures, many Hindus support the party en masse in a tribalistic manner. On a related note, Hindu-Americans also want more legal, educated immigration for their kinfolk back in India; any scheme to curb H-1B visas is met with hostility on the part of the Hindu-American community, particularly because they contend that allowing more Indians into the country would be to the advantage of the United States.

The support of most Hindu-Americans for the Democratic Party in the United States is not necessarily tied to support for left-wing or right-wing politics in the American sense. Many Hindu Democratic voters in the United States are also strong supporters of the right-wing, Hindu-nationalist party currently in power in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The partys name means the Indian Peoples Party. Yet conservatism in the Indian sense is not particularly related to the American classical liberal tradition of individualism and small-government, although the right in India is generally more business-friendly than the left. The guiding philosophy of the BJP is Integral Humanism, an ideology that sees humans as both spiritual and material beings and seeks a compromise between capitalism and socialism. This philosophy resembles theories of Catholic economics and the One-Nation conservatism found in Britain that views society as organic and values paternalism and pragmatism; in the United States, some Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower had similar views. Very few Hindu-Americans, including business-friendly and socially conservative ones, identity with the Republican orthodoxy that emphasizes cutting taxes and services and reducing the size of government. It is an alien ideology to the Indian tradition, despite Indians being the single wealthiest Asian-American group in the United States in terms of median income.

In the Indian tradition, it has long been assumed that the well-off must assist with uplifting the poor, who would otherwise be incapable of doing so on their own. Perhaps this is because Indian society was inherently biased against individuals working their way up. According to the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, one of the prime duties of kings is government-sanctioned charity. More communitarian views of society (reflected by governance) are common in Asian cultures relative to Western societies. India has traditionally functioned as an interconnected society of villagers and peasants. Rice agriculture is an intensely cooperative activity. According to research in Science magazine, rice-growing societies are less likely be individualistic. As Thomas Talhelm, who led the study, explained: Families have to flood and drain their field at the same timeSo there are punishments for being too individualistic. He also noted that rice paddies require irrigation systems: That cost falls on the village, not just one familyso villages have to figure out a way to coordinate and pay for and maintain this system. It makes people cooperate. As such, an individuals or a familys self-interest has limited relevance in understanding Hindu-American political leanings.

Just as in the United Kingdom, the Conservatives recently beat Labour among Hindu and Sikh voters, Hindu-Americans current leanings toward the Democratic Party could change in the coming decades. The Republican party is becoming more economically populist and may become more influenced by Catholic notions of distributism. These trends could make the Republican Party more like the British Tories. In this scenario, more minorities might embrace the Republican Party.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative. He also writes for The National Interest and The Diplomat. He is part of the Hindu-American community.

View original post here:
Hindu-Americans Don't Vote Republican - The American Conservative

For the six years they ran the House before President Donald Trump arrived on the scene, Republicans voted repeatedly -- more than 50 times -- to either fully repeal, defund or in some way undermine Obamacare. On Capitol Hill or back home, they railed against the law, pledging to gut it -- if voters would only hand them the fillet knife.

And then, after some convincing, voters did.

The simple promise, launched years ago, to "repeal Obamacare" was the first, crucial error. Not because it wasn't a winning message, but because it was, in a way, too good. It was simple and clear. But there was no open reckoning with the downside and little apparent planning for the day it became possible. Clawing back welfare programs is never politically popular. For those who insist on trying, common sense says plowing ahead without a stress-tested alternative will only complicate matters.

A look back at recent comments from Republican officials on the front lines of the fight offers some telling suggestions. At the root is a very simple matter of conservative orthodoxy and the possibility that Republicans, newly empowered by Trump's election, appear to have read into his win a broader mandate than voters actually offered. That shouldn't come as a shock. Both parties tend to make too much of their presidential fortunes.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill set to work in 2017 with little more than a series of talking points -- the kind that seemed more in line with Reagan-style convervatism than Trumpism. Right off the bat, the idea of providing better access to medical care, which would be shifted back in the direction of the open market, emerged as a central theme of their pitch.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, during his confirmation hearings in January, telegraphed the strategy. Skirting skeptical Democrats' cross-examinations, he promised to work with Congress to assure "every single American has access to affordable coverage." During an earlier round he said all Americans should "have the opportunity to gain access" to it.

But access does not equal coverage. Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" how many people might lose coverage under the House plan, Speaker Paul Ryan said the number of uninsured would likely rise, but sought to frame it as a symptom of well-exercised "individual freedom."

Facing pressure from both moderates jolted by a fierce opposition and hardliners who still preferred full repeal, Ryan pulled the initial bill. A tweaked version designed to convert Republican holdouts would pass, narrowly, about a month later.

Over time, Republicans began to back off the "access" proposition, but never seemed to agree on a new direction.

Senate Republicans promptly trashed the House legislation and set about writing their own.

But there was another problem brewing. Congressional GOP messaging about what the final product would deliver ran up most rudely not against Democrats' objections, or protesters at town hall meetings, but the most powerful Republican of them all: the President. Throughout his campaign, Trump promised, vaguely but consistently, that his health care plan would cover more people and -- crucially now -- not mess with Medicaid.

"That ought to be the goal -- repair, replace, whatever the words are people use today," he said. "The question is, (is) there something that can be done, and I await that conclusion."

Continue reading here:
Why the Republican health care message is floundering - CNN International