The Obamacare Fight Has Always Been About Race And Gender Anxiety

Mike Carvin, counsel for the National Federation of Independent Businesses speaks to reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 27, 2012, after the court heard arguments on the health care refo... Mike Carvin, counsel for the National Federation of Independent Businesses speaks to reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 27, 2012, after the court heard arguments on the health care reform law signed by President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

In case the situation with the latest Obamacare lawsuit, King v. Burwell, wasn’t surreal enough, along comes the anti-Obamacare lawyer Michael Carvin, and some of his, um, more colorful ideas about why the Affordable Care Act is bad law. Trying to contrast the ACA with the constitution, Carvin characterized the ACA as “a statute that was written three years ago, not by dead white men but by living white women and minorities.”

It’s startling to see an Obamacare opponent so bluntly characterize efforts to destroy the law as a way to preserve white male privilege in this way, much less taking it so far as to suggest the privileges of dead white men count for more than the needs of living women and people of color. But it shouldn’t be. The race- and-gender-based opposition to the ACA has been baked into the fight against it from the beginning, when the bill was very nearly derailed by opponents claiming that it would somehow override federal bans on funding abortion.

Since then, though rarely with as much directness as Carvin, the conservative fight against Obamacare has been about needling the gender- and race-based resentments of the conservative base in an effort to demonize Democratic efforts to create universal health care.

Ugly racial attitudes influenced the opposition to Obamacare in two major ways: Hostility to the black President that signed it into law and hostility to the black people who might get better healthcare through it. It’s exceedingly rare to find, outside of Carvin’s bizarre comment, any conservatives overtly mentioning race in their objections to Obamacare. But then again, they don’t need to. All they need to do is whip out the standard conservative talking points that have racially loaded implications built right into them: “States’ rights,” “welfare queens,” loaded warnings about the supposed wave of laziness about to crest over our nation. All these ideas are rooted in our nation’s history of racism—indeed, “states’ rights” was invented to justify slavery and then segregation—and the way that conservatives lean on these ideas now suggest that one of the unspoken but heavily insinuated arguments against Obamacare is that it’s a way for the federal government to steal health care from white people and give it to black people. Adds a new dimension to the fear of “death panels” when you think about it.

Social science, as Paul Waldman showed in the Washington Post last May, bears this out: Attitudes about race and about the ACA are tightly interwoven. Research has shown that negative attitudes about black people increase hostility to health care reform, that opinions about health care reform polarized by racial attitudes after Obama’s election, and that nativist attitudes predicted hostility to health care reform. Research has found that white people with high racial resentment, regardless of their opinion on Obama, view health care reform as a giveaway to lazy black people. You can see why people don’t say these things out loud in public, but the eyebrow-wriggling and hinting has been strong throughout this debate.

The gender-baiting, in contrast, has been way more explicit. Ever since the HHS announced that contraception would be covered as co-pay-free preventive service, conservative media has gleefully portrayed the ACA as a program to give hot young sluts an opportunity to screw on the public dime, an argument that managed to get this narrow provision all the way to the Supreme Court. Never mind that young women with private insurance are no more on the public dime than any other people who have private health insurance. The idea that sexy young things are having fun without you but making you pay for it has been just too provocative for conservative pundits to let facts get in the way.

Arguably, race and gender anxieties are the reasons that healthcare reform, which would otherwise be a dry economic issue, has been such an ugly fight in this country. Healthcare is about bodies, after all. Racism and sexism are about a lot of things, but bodies are a big part of it, and whether or not people should have unequal status based on what bodies they have. Granting white and male bodies better care, on average, that female bodies and bodies of people of color get is a major way to preserve these kind of racial and gender hierarchies. Of course legislation that might equal out the kinds of care we receive is going to be a threat. But you don’t usually see people like Carvin spell it out so plainly.

Amanda Marcotte is a freelance journalist who writes frequently about liberal politics, the religious right and reproductive health care. She’s a prolific Twitter villain who can be followed @amandamarcotte.

Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for phd9 phd9 says:

    It’s always astounded me. Any time you see a Facebook post that expresses a person’s envy for someone LESS fortunate that themselves, you can be assured that the people MORE fortunate have found an easy mark.

  2. The Obamacare Fight Has Always Been About Race And Gender Anxiety

    Well, anyone with an ounce of intelligence figured that out years ago.

  3. Yes, but this illustrates it so baldly.

  4. Avatar for kitty kitty says:

    We really haven’t improved all that much as a society over the past fifty or sixty years. We’ve just forced the creepy crawlers into the shadows. It’s like ever since Obama was elected POTUS, all the cockroaches are slithering out of the woodwork in broad daylight. But they’ve been there all along. Gerrymandering has given them a power they hadn’t had as they elevate their ilk to office in the state houses and in the congress. Wait and see what happens if our next POTUS is a woman. We aint seen nothin’ yet.

  5. Avatar for paulw paulw says:

    I think it depends on what you mean by “about”. For the billionaires and millionaires, I still think it’s about class – the idea that the Little People (you know, the kind who have to pay taxes) should have more security and less abject fear in their lives is contrary to everything the right wing has been trying to preserve since before Roosevelt. But that doesn’t get cranky older white people with stagnated incomes on your side. So for the base, absolutely.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

27 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for phd9 Avatar for paulw Avatar for anniew Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for feathered_head Avatar for jonathang Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for mymy Avatar for leftflank Avatar for eggrollian Avatar for ralph_vonholst Avatar for emjayay Avatar for gr Avatar for richardnixonhuberthumphrey Avatar for ottnott Avatar for eric_jaffa Avatar for kitty Avatar for williamv Avatar for emilianoelmexicano Avatar for footballbat Avatar for ahumbleopinion Avatar for Drrobyn Avatar for socialbriton

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: