Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT: In this paper the authors, long-time collaborators, attempt to weave into a single narrative the many strands of the organizational, cultural, political, and historical story that account for the relentless effort by Republicans and the right to repeal and destroy the Affordable Care Act (АСА). We link this persistent battle to (1) the widespread race-based hatred of President Obama, (2) the 2009 Republican Party vow to obstruct all Obama legislation, (3) the rise of Donald Trump and his feelings of humiliation by President Obama, and (4) the emergence of open racism in America. We employ the image of a three-legged stool to understand the emergence and consolidation of this movement. In doing so, we uncover the personal, political, and cultural narrative behind relentless and irrational determination to rid the U.S. of Obamacare.
INTRODUCTION
American readers who are middle aged and older will likely remember the radio newscaster and commentator, the late Paul Harvey. His narrative always followed the same formula. He would give an account of a news story the way it was widely and conventionally understood. He then would present information based on his further research into the subject. And then he would present a usually surprising, vastly different account of the news story. And he would always end with: "... and now you know the rest of the story."
The co-authors of this paper, who have been friends and collaborators for thirty years and have over 70 years of experience in academic medicine, have used this same approach in our exploration of various subjects. Our work began with the downsizing of a hospital, continued with deregulation of home loans and the banking industry, and most recently led us to explore the American saga of President Donald Trump. This exploration starts with a conventional understanding of this political, organizational, and cultural phenomenon. We then inquire into this understanding further and more deeply through psychodynamic and historical lenses, permitting us to offer an interpretation and explanation of the phenomenon that differs from the generally understood, socially acceptable, even obligatory, version of the story. That is, to return to Paul Harvey's newscasts, we would offer ". . . the rest of the story," or at least a much more thoroughly researched version of the...