Is Ohio Governor a Real Life President Snow?

Posted: December 2, 2013 in The Hunger Games Op Eds
Tags: , , , ,

By Rachel Skelton

The acceptance of an expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Health Act has had some Ohioans up in arms. Republican governor of Ohio, John R. Kasich, has approved the expansion of Medicaid under Obama care. The expansion will benefit almost 275,000 people in Ohio including the mentally ill and single mothers. Kasich is one of ten Republican governors who approved the passage of the Affordable Health Act and expansion of Medicaid in the United States currently (see Appendix). With many Republican governors favoring this act, the question is, did Kasich break away from his party’s usual stance or is he using this act for his own gain. Perhaps the new Hunger Games movie and it’s portrayal of similar characters will help to solve this mystery.

Kasich claims that he is led by his Christian beliefs, and makes decisions that benefit all of his constituents. He references his time spent with Ralph Nadar closing loopholes and supporting Clinton’s weapons ban in the nineties as signs of his bipartisanship. However, he also spent time closely working with Newt Gingrich in the nineties as well. In his time spent as governor, Kasich references his neutrality when he supported the Democratic mayor of Cleveland to increase taxes in support of a better schooling system. But at the same time he cut funding to schools and local governments across Ohio. Kasich reiterates Republicans usual stance the poor as being lazy. However, his track record infers that he is attempting to win back the group. One he has cast aside since taking office for an upcoming election in 2016 (LOGIURATO 2013).

Kasich’s actions are not as egregious, but are similar to the villain in the popular series Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. In the series, a tyrannical President Snow, makes meager attempts to better his people through false pretences. He first helps to create the Hunger Games, an event where two children are chosen from every district to battle to the death. Snow would argue the games provide hope to the people he oppresses by elevating one person every year from a state of poverty to the wealth held by the people in District 1.

Snow’s tesserae allows children to obtain a meager amount of sustenance as a measure to survive. Publicly, this could be seen as a social work project benefiting the poor and individuals who are unable to work. However, they must put their name in the reaping for every year they collect tesserae. This puts the poor at a disproportionate advantage of being included in the Hunger Games and dying a horrible death simply because they are poor.

Snow is willing to do whatever he needs to be in charge. He poisons his enemies to retain power. He even permanent damages himself in order to avoid suspicion. Kasich exemplifies a similar characteristic of ruthlessness to Snows. Kasich offered hope to the poor when he provided more funding to the mentally ill during his time spent as governor. But, Kasich wanted this expansion so badly he stacked the board who voted on it. Two hours before the vote, Kasich switched two individuals who were going to vote against his expansion. He replaced those two individuals with people who would vote to support his expansion (Gabriel 2013). Snow removed countless enemies when he was in power and even poisoned himself to avoid suspicion. Snow would do whatever to stay in power. The bottom line for Kasich was that he would break whatever ethical principles were in place to achieve his end game. Instead of allowing a democratic process to occur and have a credible election, this is a clear example of Kasich wielding his power as governor in order to obtain his end goal very similar to the intent of President Snow.

Kasich should be mindful of his actions. He already has been mindful in regards to his actions prior to the election, but it could end very badly for him if voters begin to connect the dots. Looking through his track record it is clear that Kasich has often offended voters and made decisions that disproportionally benefits his constituents. For Snow the outcome was not a healthy one, and Kasich has already faced the backlash of his constituents in a referendum, which reverted one of his decisions a few years ago. Voters will hopefully be able to differentiate sincere efforts from a well-calculated move. A play that includes supporting a program of which many other Republican governors are taking advantage.

Appendix The previous presidential election voter turnout .

The states who have accepted Medicaid expansion. Works Cited Electoral Vote Predictor. Nov 1, 2012. Gabriel, Trip. Ohio Governor Defies G.O.P. With Defense of Social Safety Net. Oct 28, 2013. LOGIURATO, BRETT. GOP GOVERNOR: ‘There Seems To Be A War On The Poor’ With Republicans In Washington Read more: Oct 29, 2013. Merling, Devon. Ohio GOP governor says ‘there seems to be a war on the poor’. Oct 30, 2013. The Advisory Board Company.

  1. Funkmaster Bunting says:

    While Kasich’s acceptance of the Medicaid expansion would hypothetically allow for an increase in support among those with a lower income, I feel like your argument fails to present a compelling case in proving that his reasons for accepting the expansion are anything other than thinking it would benefit his constituents. Kasich’s lead in polling has ranged from 14 to 7 points throughout this year, indicating that his support in the state is already fairly strong, while Obama’s support has fallen rapidly amid the Obamacare rollout. With this being the case, if Kasich were wanting to win more support, he would reject all parts of the law, casting himself as being against it and effectively winning him more support with the more politically active voting groups in the middle class. While you do certainly have sources to back up the hard information of the post, it comes across in my mind as a partisan attempt to question the motives of elected officials instead of debating the actually benefits and detriments of the laws being discussed. Spending a semester in DC last year during the election, I realized quickly that even lawmakers with whom I disagreed honestly had good intentions when supporting legislation, and simply questioning a person’s motivations every time they make a political action cheapens our political discourse. While this post intends to raise some questions, I think the more interesting and pertinent questions would center upon the pros and cons of accepting the law.

  2. Jim W says:

    Intriguing thesis. I’m not sure how convincing your argument of the two subjects being parallels is, but the concept itself is very compelling. There was enough wit and factual support to add both intrigue and credibility. over all it was a respectable argument, but a tough one to prove.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s