Blog Stage 3

On July 18, 2017, The New York Times published an editorial by David Leonhardt called The Health Care Collapse Is a Victory for the Truth ridiculing Trump’s approach to the current healthcare crisis and what it means for the future of America. David Leonhardt has built his credibility over many years writing for The New York Times, and by covering numerous political events with accurate statistics and a satirical voice.

Leonhardt’s central argument in his editorial is that political facts do not matter in the government anymore. He claims that Americans have plagued their minds with so many fallacies that they live in ignorance, which subsequently allowed Donald Trump to win the presidency through a constant stream of falsehoods. From launching his campaign with a lie about Obama’s birthplace to refusing to release his tax reforms, Trump seemed to violate the core values of the United States. Yet despite all of this, he was still elected into office, leaving the country in a state of despondency.

However, the editorial takes on an optimistic turn stating that in recent days the American public has demonstrated that facts still indeed matter due to the rejection of the Republican healthcare plan. The rejection proved that the American public still possessed a realistic view on their rights and would not let the government implement a new system that would infringe upon them. Republicans had spent years criticizing Obamacare and conjugating lies, which allowed many politicians to be elected into office, but ultimately were faced with the problem of creating a “real-world” healthcare plan. They instead created unrealistic bills that would have taken insurance coverage from millions and raise costs for others. Experts from all medicals fields, as well as common citizens, belittled their bill. Additionally, many Republican senators understood that the bill’s defenders could “make up fictions about it for only so long”, eventually, real people would lose real health insurance and be denied real medical care for their illnesses.

All in all, Leonhardt’s claim that facts still matter in the national government is well supported. The internet, as well as the media, is filled with so much fake news, it makes it difficult for people to clearly understand political matters. The rejection of the Republican healthcare plan stands to prove that people are still making an effort to stay vigilant and protect their medical rights. I agree with the authors claim that facts still matter, without them, our national government would not be an accurate representation of the people. Furthermore, I agree that Trump is his own worst enemy and is doing an ill job at handling health policies. He possesses a low approval rate and must adjust his views in order to re-establish his legitimacy with many individuals. The targeted audience is the public, specifically those who are not as politically active. Leonhardt conveys his argument to these less engaged individuals to show that they need to learn the facts in order to protect their rights and maintain a successful government.