Secret Democratic ploy to end two-party system -- Hatch says healthcare will make voters trust Dems

Utah Republican Orrin Hatch has a reputation as a classy conservative.

A trusted voice for right-wing causes, he is a stalwart foe of abortion who voted against Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. But Hatch, a Mormon, is also part of what might be called the Civil Caucus in Congress, often pairing up on legislation with liberal Ted Kennedy, supporting stem cell research, immigration reform and a DREAM Act that would allow children of illegal immigrants to attend college.

So it came as something of a surprise to hear Hatch, in an interview Monday night with Cybercast News Service, attribute the Obama White House passion for healthcare to a ploy by the Democratic Party to take over the political system. He seemed to suggest that healthcare reform will be so popular that Americans will come to rely on Democrats to keep it coming.

Take a listen and let us know what you think.

The 75-year-old Hatch also said he thought the Democrats' healthcare reform was unconstitutional, arguing that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Hatch and Kennedy confer during a 1987 hearing on the minimum wage. Credit: Terry Ash /T ime & Life Pictures / Getty Images

Click here to get Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot. We're also over here on Facebook.

Comments

[Bren Tierney]

So, Andrew, let's see if I've got this straight: you and Senator Hatch are trying (and with a straight face and no hint of satire or irony) to punt the idea that, merely because voters might find the current suggestions for healthcare reforms attractive, that this alone may be in some way be a secret ploy, by the Democrats, to create a one-party state?

And neither of you find that remotely far-fetched or preposterously paranoid?

[Mark]

Give the electorate what they want.... It does seem like a rather devious ploy to continue to stay in office. I can see why the GOP would be confused; they haven't yet tried something so insane.

[Tom Kucera]

"Trust" ???? I think you used the wrong word. The Dims are like drug pushers they are not trying to create trust. They are trying to create a dependency. Government handouts are addicting just like drugs. Once the populace gets hooked they will vote for the "pusher" and the "dealer." We see that everywhere in our country today. Everybody just knows they are entitled to the goodies and if the whole country goes broke in the process (which it will) it is someone else who is to blame. Drug addicts seldom accept personality and government goodies addicts never accept personal responsibility.

Charity is wonderful and we need to take care of our citizens but why don't you take the money out of your own pocket instead of voting for government pushers who steal from other citizens so you can feel good about yourself. We always need to remember that governments only revenue source is taxation. Taking from its own people (theft by government taxation) is somehow justified as the only path to accomplish goals of "social justice." Too often social justice is neither good for society nor is it justice.

Too many otherwise good citizens are OK with "theft by proxy" they remove themselves from it and think it is happening for the overall good of society - but is it?

[Bren Tierney]

With respect to Mark, above, the Republicans did, under Nixon, try all manner of underhand and illegal stunts to remain in office: up to and including cancelling Democratic Party election rallies and conventions; not to mention the whole Watergate affair...

[David Charles]

First, I am not sure if anyone (Senator Hatch included) can seriously criticize a political party in any electoral system, at any time period, in any country, for sponsoring legislation which the party believes will lead to reelection. It is a virtual political maxim that every political party, and nearly every candidate will seek reelection. True, a few individuals do promise to do it all in one term, but not many. So what makes the current moment involving health care and the democrats special? Does Senator Hatch not perform various legal and proper actions (sponsoring legislation, fund raising, log rolling) to increase his own chances at being reelected and influence within the Congress? This is not meant as a substantive critique of him personally, but as a mildly chiding rebuke of his argument.

Second, on a more philosophical point, shouldn't voters be happy that their representatives in Congress are keeping what voters want in mind? I am not sure how it would be better for democracy and American government to have a political party which ignored voters wishes in favor of a "we know better" approach. The analogy to a drug dealer is flawed because although the drug dealer has no duty to act as his/her clients would wish, a member of the legislature is expected (if not professionally required) to take into account what their constituents are asking for in making decisions. Isn't the whole point that political parties will mirror, or at least resemble cleavages/views within the electorate? Therefore, if a large percentage of the population will cast their votes based on a party stance on the health care issue, do not their elected representatives have a duty to fight for it?

In conclusion, I am completely fine with "giving the people what they want." If Senator Hatch truly believes public health care is so overwhelmingly popular that it will create a perpetual democratic majority, than perhaps the republicans would get on board. (They did on social security, as soon as it became clear that being against it was not politically viable, in sharp contrast to their desperate efforts to thwart it early on.) But most republicans are not getting on board, which suggests that the republican party in general, and Senator Hatch specifically, does not actually believe what he is claiming regarding the long term effects of health care on the political landscape of this country.

[Adam]

What does being a Mormon have anything to do with this? Why is it even mentioned in the article?

Seems like the author is trying to stir up sentiments in order to build momentum against Hatch before his statements are even heard.