Political Lessons from the Health Care Debate
This is my first post to the C&L community. Since my book on the future of the American labor movement (A New New Deal: How Regional Activism Will Reshape the American Labor Movement) came out a few months ago, an important new case study developed that is worth examining. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to share my perspective on political lessons that we can take away from the health care debate. I arrive at the following conclusion: unless progressives change how we do politics, we will never get what we want from Washington.
As Congress prepares to pass health care reform (now that the Senate passed its bill today), most talk among progressives centers on whether we should be satisfied with a piece of legislation that has been diminished and compromised. But regardless of what we make of the final agreement, the real lesson from the health care debate is a political one: Unless we change how we do politics, we will never get what we want from Washington.
It is not insignificant that 35 million Americans will be receiving something more than they had before in terms of health care. Yet even with a progressive president and a supermajority in the Senate’s Democratic caucus, we are left to quibble over piecemeal legislative victories, passed only with huge concessions to corporate interests.
The health care agreement will do little to hold accountable the middlemen most responsible for driving up costs—the insurance companies. As a result, the bill coming out of the Senate does only a minimum to meet the needs of the working poor and actually punishes the middle class by taxing those union members and small business owners who provide decent health coverage for their families.
Not only does this make for bad public policy, it also makes little sense from a political perspective. Unless Democratic lawmakers are willing to take on corporate power and advocate policy solutions that can benefit both the working poor and the middle class, they are simply not delivering for the core constituencies that make up their electoral majority.
Doing Politics Differently
A simple concept should be applied here: When something doesn’t work, don’t do more of it.
Progressives can and should organize “netroots” citizens groups and community organizations. But in terms of institutions that have the numbers and resources to take on the power of organized money, unions are still the biggest game in town. And yet the labor strategy of pouring hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours into Democratic campaigns, with only a vague idea that we will “hold politicians accountable” later if they win, is a big part of the problem. Simply electing more Democrats will not solve things.
If we’re going to start getting what we want from elected officials, labor and other progressive groups in America have to shift the role that they play in politics in three crucial ways:
1) Change What Political Action Means
First, we need to redefine political action, so that when we talk about politics we’re not just talking about the mechanics of getting people elected. Instead, we’re educating people who are running for office about the policy proposals and strategies that we believe are the best ways to solve social problems.
Right now, Democrats come to the labor movement for endorsement sessions where they are expected to proffer the proper platitudes about standing with working people. This is the wrong place for labor’s engagement with prospective political leaders to start.
Our movements need to invest in having our policy strategies ready and being able to communicate them effectively. Long before local leaders ever run for office, we must ask them to sit with us in order learn the approaches we have crafted. In this way we would define our policy proposals up front, rather than making endorsements first and lobbying on the back end.
When we do interview for endorsements, the substance of the conversations should center on how well a given candidate understands our specific policy solutions—and how hard he or she is going to fight to put those into action.
2) Creating a Partnership in Governing
There’s no question that candidates love to have progressive movements do the “heavy lifting” of campaign mobilization. But rarely do they think of us as a partner in the “heavy thinking” of public policy. We need to create the expectation among candidates that if they want our help in campaigning, they should expect to extend their partnership with our movements into policymaking once they get elected.
In places such as Los Angeles and San Jose, local union federations and community-labor coalitions have positioned themselves at the heart of generating proposals for local and regional governance. They have established themselves as a place that politicians can go when looking for ideas, and they have trained candidates to draw on them as a resource in crafting their platforms.
With this partnership firmly in place, progressive groups are not considered by elected officials to be special interests trying to pass pieces of pet legislation. Rather they are considered an essential part of the governing process—representatives of a democratic majority of poor and working people.
3) Build Our Own Coalitions First
Finally, progressives need to act collectively as one movement as opposed to everybody going their own way. We have plenty of rhetoric celebrating coalition building, but not a lot of discipline putting it into practice. In the same way that we should invest energy educating candidates about our issues, we should spend time understanding one another’s interests so that there can exist a real basis for alliances.
Labor approached health care with anything but a single voice. Going forward, we have to make a decision about whether we are going to lead with our own policy positions or wait for the president’s leadership. Our experience during the Clinton years was one of waiting for the White House to take the lead. We waited and got little. Learning from the past, we must recognize the need to develop clear public policy solutions in advance of a political fight and to devote the resources needed to build a unified coalition around them.
If we accept a model of politics that subjugates progressive movements to the role of being fair-weather friends when politicians need campaign support, the compromises and disappointments of the health care debate will only foreshadow more of the same to come in the future. We demonstrated that we have the capability to do politics differently by electing Barack Obama. We must now do that once again if we are to get real reforms, rooted in social vision, that can restore fairness in our democracy.
You were had.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
....but we DID get Obama elected...which was against the mainstream flow. Point made.
Or should we call him President Spelunker, for his capacity for caving in?
Ain't no progressive, that I can see, dahlin...
This bille xists for one and only one reason: So the Prez can brag about "change" in the SOTU in a couple of weeks.
Shami Farouk is running for head goober of Texas.
I thought a shami was something you used to wax a car.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
"which was against the mainstream flow"
Please support that statement.
I think he was groomed and selected. His performance is right in line with the status quo.
The "board of directors" wanted him elected.
Scroomed
in the third paragraph of her post above?
we didn't elect.
I am always keen to point out that between 62% and maybe as high 80% of the US population is more correctly called the working class. Not based on income but rather on their power to determine the nature of their own work. Hence, they are candidates for union membership.
The ruling class, the Capitalists, the 1%, have nearly complete control overr the nature of their work, which is done through their capital. Not as complete as they would like but they are working on it as I type.
The rest, the Lawyers, the Doctors, middle managers maybe small business owners too are actually the middle class.
By calling so many of the working class middle class we fall prey to the propaganda of the rulers.
This also serves the even more sinister purposes of those seeking racial divide.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
This is SUCH an important distinction, and goes a LONG way toward excplaining the anuimus against Unions: if 60% of the population were unionized, they'd have to cancel the whole charade of "elections" and just rule by fiat...
Or revolution, but that is a longer story.
And it is coming.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
How it is that between 62% and 80% of the population cannot coalesce into a political force to command government in its own behalf is the story of twentieth century Corporate propaganda.
Divide and conquer.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Amen sister. Dumbing down and mass media have killed our country.
Mass media is a double-edged sword.
It can result in wider education (since the press and reading is part of the media)
The movies can result in adaptions of classics like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGb81MsVE-Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irIPrZ4ulPQ
But can also result in american idle
And:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuMxWiRL7NM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YRF4QJC4l8
I wish the late Jim Varney had made an adaption of the Importance of Being Ernest.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Electroman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcX2mW0fEeI
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
they are the ones who comprise the lion's share of the median income in this country, which is only $50 grand...I'm guessing those in Washington don't seem to have a clue
There is a BIG difference between being working class, i.e, depending on a paycheck to survive week to week, and being middle class, i.e having independent means of survival.
Americans have for too long been taken in by the rhetoric of the MSM.
It's only with self-awareness that we realize where our true interest s lie, who are our allies and who are not.
In Europe, if a government had so flagrantly ignored the wishes of the vast majority of populace, there would be national strikes, huge marches in the Capitols and in the provinces.
In some countries the government would fall immediately. In others there would be votes of no confidence and early elections.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Those action require effort.
European democracies are more mature than ours.
They have a President, but the Prime Minister (a position we don't have) is the real executive power.
The PM comes from the majority party, or at least the majority party within the ruling coalition (yes - there are always several parties in the legislature, usually several parties in the ruling coalition).
And when the ruling coalition fractures, the government falls, and a new govt is formed either by new elections or by a new coalition being formed amongst the existing legislators.
Instead, in the US, we are stuck with the same executive for four years. Our only remedy is the lengthy process of impeachment.
So having a Prime Minister - who can be replaced at the drop of a hat - makes the government considerably more responsive to the people.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
democracies.
We don't feel attached to the idea of a cabinet having to be elected every 4 years. If the current government is not doing their job, the pressure is put so as to put the whole cabinet through a censure process in either the parliament or senate chambers.
The diversity in political parties represented in those chambers mean that in very rare occasions a single party has enough clout to dismiss such a motion with their own votes. So the government has to made very strict corrections in order to survive the motion, or if the votes are not there after the renegotiation of their political programme, the cabinet gets disbanded and elections are hold again.
I am at a loss why the American system is so disconnected from the people it is supposed to represent and work for. If a president and his team are not doing their jobs or their policies are being proven to be very counter productive for the national interests. They are simply fired and a new team is assembled.
Presidential elections in the USA seem to be more of a popularity contest, than the actual process of selecting a new executive team for the country.
It is also surprising that Americans would consider Mr. Obama a liberal or a progressive. He would fit right in with the center-right demochristian parties in the EU. In fact he may even be considered to conservative for those parties, given the policies he has implemented thus far.
In "Sicko" Moore interviews an elderly, retired parlimentarian in England. Moore wondered why all the industrialized nations had universal health care, except America. The gentleman responded that in Europe the governments fear the people, while the opposite was true in America. He said America believed in "ME", while Europe believed in "WE". This British citizen understood us better than most of us do.
Our government sold the people out!
"creating a partnership in governing"?!?
let's be serious for a moment. politicians are selfish, and you guys will vote for the democrat no matter what he does.
so why should they care if you got the public option or not?
all you need is some exciting new guy next time who can give good speeches.
you're like the republicans who vote for their guy for decades to get "fiscal responsibility", while he has a good time with his bribes.
"You guys will vote for the Democrat no matter what he/she does", belongs posted on DailyKos, not here. I was a county co-ordinator for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign. After he did a 180 & broke his fervant promise to vote NO on the "Get out of jail Bush/Cheney Crime Family" FISA Bill, I knew the guy was a fraud. I bought his progressive rhetoric way back then, but no more. I voted for Nader last November, rather than waste a vote on McCain or Obama. Voted for the Green Party candidate for governor last time, not Hot "The Hair" Rod. No party has all the best candidates.
I have in the past voted republican. But I have long past seen the error of my ways.
Now that some try to promote that old ronney boy and the first bush were anything other then criminals, blunderers, and corporate shills is beyond me.
saint ronney and the first king george did so many things to screw us and clinton kept in tune with the advancement of do nothing for the money schemes that has put us in the position we are in now.
Don't give me the bullshit of voting for republicans as a way of fixing anything!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness that is killing America!
have I said anything about voting republican?
republican voters are behaving in the same dumb way.
they're after "fiscal responsibility", you are after a "public option".
neither of you is getting anything.
you like to be bullshitted by a good speech come election time.
So interested in "new labor". My senior seminar project is about organizing working and poor people and increasing their representation, not through election or "unions", but by direct lobbying.
If money is the language of Washington, working people need to use their dollars to lobby for legislation that creates an environment in which real, sustainable jobs can grow.
Campaign Finance Reform seems impossible unless we bribe Congress to enact it!
amazing concept. using the money of people who don't have any :D
24.99 a year!x10 million people (a fraction of Americans) is $250 million dollars!
Sure there were people who either didn't listen to what Obama was saying when he ran or they just projected who they wanted on the only option we had.
Obama wasn't and isn't a liberal. Maybe not even a progressive but he could have run as __________ (fill in the blank) and he would have still won because McCain/Palin wasn't even worth considering.
The politicians called progressive and liberal because the aren't republicans are clearly mislabeled.
We need to elect better and more progressive politicians to better reflect the will of the people.
It is a slow process but we are doing better.
I really hope for something solid from the next few election cycles. These are the first of the broadband era and I hope that helps to cleave the GOP-baggers and RWNJ's from the rest of the country. IMO they do not reflect the sense of our nation.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
It is well documented that Obama ran on a Public Option.
And against a Mandate to buy health insurance.
If those aren't "progressive" issues I don't know what is.
In short - Obama ran as a progressive.
He either caved in after being elected, or straight up lied during the campaign.
But either way, he ran as a progressive.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Obama ran on no gay marriage, out of Iraq but all in for Afghanistan.
He was a moderate.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Since everyone seems so intent on labeling Obama, I propose we call him a "moderate progressive".
No matter what - McCain wasn't an option.
Obama could have said or done almost anything and he would have still been the only option IMO.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
You're right - he wasn't progressive on gay marriage, nor on the issue of war.
But on his signature campaign issue - health care reform - he most certainly ran as a progressive.
And caved .. or lied.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
and that's no lie.
The label for Obama is "neo liberal globalist tool of the plutocratic oligarchy hired to put a progressive face on the slow destruction of the middle class"
That acronym can only describe a corporate owned politician, as it fits Obama to a TEE.
Point 3 of the article is especially true. Progressives have been outworked and out organized by Conservatives. With the exception of labor unions, there are basically no grass roots organizing that links various sectors of the liberal/prog "world".
Not once, again with the episodic exception of unions, did we see anything to rival the media/political
presence of the tea partys, and those who are affiliated with them. Including from within the long standing shadowy world of deep pockets right-wing financeers.
Just contributing money to candidates, and perhaps showing up for GOTV, is not sufficient any more, either to get candidates elected or more importantly to make us a viable "movement'.
We've been seduced by the Obama campaign to the extent of believing that sitting at computers and sending in donations will do the job. Forgotten is that most of the grass roots work done on behalf of Obama did not come out of the blogosphere.
Markos diagnosed this issue quite in his book. From top to bottom, conservatives are better organized because they are essentially a political movement, whereas progressives are more of a social movement. The two only overlap when the social can also become the political. From the very top:
think tanks helping to create viable candidates and messaging, to the bottom: a real network that
inter-communicates, conservatives are still outpacing us. If you don't believe me, just check out how
many thousands of web sites are now linked in the tea party/9/12 movements.
The churches here in rural Virginia have pancake breakfasts every election day.
They make sure every one of their people gets to the polls.
And you know which way they vote!
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
There's little we can do to actually combat that head on. But making sure people get out to the polls is a long-standing tactical objective of both parties. It's the GOTV effort.
But I was speaking more to the period between elections. For instance, the progressives/liberals
were apparently either uninterested or incapable of organizing any mass demonstrations either for the bill itself or for a PO.
I attended a couple of Moveon "house parties" on health care, and they were unstructured and overall poorly attended.
Though I framed it in terms of getting out the vote, my main point is that the right already has a highly disciplined organization in place - their churches.
Recall the Civil Rights Movement - it would not have gotten started without the churches: the black Baptist churches and the predominantly white Unitarian-Universalist and Quaker churches were the backbone of the Civil Rights Movement.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Churches are a mobilizing force, and about 35% of them are now identified as Evangelical.
On the other hand, we have a network of Black churches that do play some kind of a role
within that community.
And I think we have the opportunity to bring aboard an increasing number of Evangelical
Hispanics. They aren't as right-wing politically as their white counterparts and have shown a strong interest in promoting immigration reform.
But I still wonder why it is that unless we're talking about mobilizing to protest a war, progressives seem unable to mobilize in support of any significant domestic agenda.
Created by David Axelrod
Produced by Rahm Emanuel
Written by Wall Street and Goldman Sachs
Starring . . Barrack Obama, as . . himself
YESSSSSSS!!
I think one lesson is that we need to break up the media conglomerations and bring them back to pre-Telecommunications Act of 1992, and bring back the Fairness Doctrine, with additional provisos concerning satellite and cable broadcasts.
And that's not Socialism, where the government controls the means of broadcast, but actually a purer form of capitalism, increasing competition.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
let me summarize:
"government isn't doing what I want. so I need government to do X, Y and Z to make people elect a government that does what I want".
is that right?
That's only an Argumentum Ad Reductio.
I'm suggesting more voices in the system not less, and then the people vote.
Right now we have a system locked up by Disney Corp, News Corp (FAUX), Time/Warner (I understand part has been sold), Verizon and General Electric, and that's most free broadcast, cable, satellite, books and magazines.
And the Fairness Doctrine splits both ways, whilst conservatives would have to at least make a good-faith attempt to get liberals on their shows, liberals would have to make the same good-faith effort to get the conservatives on their shows.
While the business people are in the background competing for a larger market share or influence, but controlled consolidation.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
thanks for explaining X, Y and Z.
not the point though.
You're just deliberately ignoring it; that's how we get the information on any debate, including health care.
Think of how often we've heard TV pundits basically dismiss single-payer as not practical; it may've been impractable due to the current configuration of Congress, but polls showed a large swath of the populace being for single-payer. But they kept the discussion off the table.
And it's buying media time that has made campaigns so expensive, resultant in politicians with their hands constantly out, and only big-money corporations (some of whom own units of the media,) being too eager to cross their palm, whilst meanwhile those of us with lower means are essentially unheard.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I am deliberately ignoring it. because you're locic is flawed from the start.
your argument goes something like this:
To be rich, I'll have to buy millions of lottery tickets.
if your problem is that government isn't doing what you want, how can your solution be government regulations? how are those ever going to be enacted?
and if you can convince your representatives to enact them, why don't you convince them to enact single-payer health care in the first place instead of broadcasting regulations so public opinion will demand single-payer?
You still insist on using Argumentum ad Absurdums?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
you having a fancy word for an argument doesn't refute it.
Nor does your over-simplification.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Your talking primary causes versus secondary causes.
If one element is held in common in various debates and controversies, causing them to occur, it is seen as a root cause, so you go after the root cause (as well as the immediate need), or you result in a game of whack-a-mole.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Y, "Argumentum ad reductio" doesn't mean anything.
It's the over-arching term for Argumentum ad Hominem, which is where the expression "strawman" comes from, but is itself under the over-arching term Argumentum ad Absurdum.
It generally translates as argument from reduction, reducing the argument of the opponent to an over-simplified level, usually in an attempt to "clarify" the issue, but at heart is an Argumentum ad Absurdum (becoming a Reductio ad Absurdum), or to attack the character of the opposition with unsupported claims resultant in Argumentum ad Hominems.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Argumentum ad Reductio can often be used successfully against one employing Argumentum ad Verbosium.
Imagine a debate between William F. Buckley and Al Franken.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Hold on! Did I miss something? I thought Barack Obama was president.
Progressive? Since when does being a risk averse, strongly corporate-leaning centrist qualify as being "progressive?"
If you're going to use Obama and progressive together you'd better pile on qualifiers or speak relativistically (e.g."Obama is more progressive than George W. Bush."). Even so, be careful, since a sentence like "Obama is more progressive than George W. Bush" would be much more accurate if stated as "Barack Obama isn't nearly as conservative as George W. Bush."
Progressive? Gimme a break.
"Yet even with a
progressivepresident who ran as a progressive ..".. there .. fixed it ..
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
whether or not Obama ran as a progressive, I contend he did not. He ran on platitudes of Hope and Change, and left out a lot of details so people could project what he meant by Hope and Change onto what he DID NOT say. As far as running a "public option", yes, it was in his literature, etc..., but in his speechifying, not so much.
Have we been had by a slick marketing campaign, and were we lied to? YES WE WERE!
Did he talk about being against Bush tactics in the war on US Citizens, like FISA (illegal spying on us) and the Patriot Act?
Did he talk about being for transparency and no cutting deals with Pharma & Health Insurers, then turn around and do the exact opposite?
Yes, we were had. Did he lie? Yes he lied, kind of like he ran against using Bill Clinton's DLC style triangulating, and then went ahead and is out triangulating any who have gone before him.
I sense your outrage, but you had to be projecting to be so upset. NO, he is not our saviour...
The lesson that the Dem leadership and Obama needs to take away from this is DO NOT undertake significant social legislation without first having most of your own ducks lined up in a row.
I realize that there was a lot going on in the first weeks/months of the administration to expect that
Pelosi/Reid would have thoroughly vetted the troops in advance of tackling health care reform. However,
once Obama was elected (Nov 2008), the Congressional Dems should have (ideally) been preparing themselves for this undertaking. But I'm not going to point fingers because this was a chaotic time and
HCR is almost a "first time" experience.
Hopefully the next time, if there is one of this dimension or close to, the Dems will not be surprised
en route by ambushes from Blue Dogs or Lieberman, Landrieu, Dorgan, Nelson, Bayh etc etc.
And, oh yes, identify very early if there any Repubs that might "come aboard", and talk to them. But
don't come up with any more of those fruitless Gangs of 6.
Well written and fairly well thought out, Amy. For a first try.
To boil it down...
1) The vote of the progressive base for Democratic candidates is taken for granted. Again, the Democratic party expects us to behave like GOP androids.
2) Progressives play politics as if it's a company softball game. Politics is hardball. That's how the right wing plays it, and they play to win. We may have to suffer defeats to get our point across, and we need to accept that. Until we're taken seriously, nothing will change. To be taken seriously, you have to get ugly. This leads to your last point...
3) Building coalitions...and that takes time. It's time to get on with it. We've essentially given up ground on all that was worked for from 1930 till the realization of the Civil Rights Act and the gradualy progressivity that followed.
We have alot of work to do.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
recommended progressives learn to speak redneck. If they can't master that forget it.
in order to extricate ourselves from The Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party and The Republican Party are hopelessly corrupted at this point by corporate America and even MULTI-NATIONAL corporations contribute money to Congressional campaigns etc.
The time has come for Progressives to get a divorce. The Democratic Party has dumped us for a new "corporate" lover. This marriage is O-V-E-R.
I'm ready to move on to a new party with values and an agenda I can put my faith, money, time and heart into.
The Democratic Party, nor ANY candidate running under it's banner can never be trusted again, at least by me.
Any political party that has power and refuses to go after Bush/Cheney for war crimes/torture indictments can never be trusted again.
Add this despotic health INSURANCE give away to the mix, plus the Wall Street bail out and, well.
That's it. I've had enough.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
need to learn to embrace Americans from all socioeconomic strata. Until then it's not going to happen. Think about the brainpower in the progressive wing, yet they fail to connect with enough Americans to become a serious political force. Affluence and position isn't enough to build a true progressive party.
The article sounds like Political Party building 101. Which is good thing. The American people, where the Federal Government is concerned, has only had two choices. Over the decades it has come to choosing between the lesser of two evils. Maybe it's time to broaden our choices. Maybe it's time to take the 'evil' out of the equation. Maybe if enough people refuse to no longer affiliate themselves with the political ideologies of the two ruling parties, start supporting and placing votes with alternatives, might be a very good start. I mean if you think about it, both the Democratic and Republican parties have managed to screw Us is some way, shape or form for many years now, as if the two parties were actually one....hmmmm. Personally I refuse to keep going back for more. Neither of them will no longer receive my votes.
Government + the Federal Reserve = organized crime
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/o...
The only logical choice left for this old progressive... just changed my voter registration to the Green Party. What kind of changes are you going to make? http://www.cagreens.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmsLQFqdiQE
Become a Green, but what district/state do you live in? Really.
I ask only because there are congressmen out there who do not fit the convenient label of corporatists, and who need our support, no matter what party we're registered in.
And remember that there's not a single Green Party member of Congress. Nor will there be in 2010.
It is an international party and I believe any "new" Progressive Party in the U.S. will have to be launched right here in order to pull in the most support.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
It starts with the government being the "people". We are the stakeholders of government. We elect people to act on our behalf to govern the country. They should be acting in our best interests. Any action that goes against that fiduciary duty can and needs to be regulated.
The public airwaves are "owned" by the "people" so laws can be passed to regulate anything from means of entry to content.
The conglomerates that own the majority of the means of broadcast also limit the means of access - it has to if it wants to make a profit. So the government can require other voices be presented on the networks. Cable companies could be required to do it too because they use public right of ways to put up their cable.
Besides having the fairness doctrine come back and limiting the consolidation and ownership of the means of broadcasting, we also need to remove the idea that a corporation is considered a "person" for legal purposes. That would make the CEOs and Board members liable for criminal behavior and negative consumer practices that cause harm.
Fair and honest elections should trump free speech rights when it comes to campaign finance reform since an effective government is needed to protect maintain our rights. Also limiting campaign money allowed would advance the fiduciary duty of elected officials. Getting millions from an industry then voting to benefit them is violating the primary duty they have to the real stakeholders the people as individuals.
...he uses big words like 'particularly' and 'delicatessen.' -- Jack
The thing you can learn from this election, and this President, is that it doesn't matter how involved you are. It doesn't matter if you are more rational, or that your perspective makes sense. It doesn't matter if Progressives have more Grassroots gatherings. it doesn't matter that you even get your candidate in office.
What matters is the money and the rights that we have given Corporations, religious groups, and special interest organizations, in our political process.
Clearly, that is the ONLY thing that matters. It effects every single piece of policy.
Yes, this government is supposed to be of, for, and by the People. It isn't. And corporate personhood is destroying even corrupting our President, who we elected, and who is intelligent enough to know what he is doing, and why it is wrong.
If this doesn't change, we are finished as a movement, as a democracy, and a country.
Zev Mo Green
http://strongdems.com
and I think you are right about the major parties being finished if we allow this to continue down the current path.
But I remember last year when somebody, Move On I think, funded a full page ad on how we were the people who solved the crisis of 1929 with FDR, and as a group created a large working class that lasted for 5 decades plus.
The Republicans on the other hand went with their "movement conservatives" and decided 30 plus years ago to start playing hardball, and "play to win" at every point.
We can use a movement to change this, but it will take getting people out to the streets, (hopefully with pitchforks), to take back our country. (so disappointed to see the Tea Baggers trying to take over this basic of American democracy away from the real "we the people")
We Hoped for Change, and we are not going to get it. But our systems is broken, badly, and we need to change it or the people should revolt. But I think we are all so easily manipulated by the advertisers and Qualitative research folks (like somebody pointed out so well recently), that we may never get off of our ass and do anything about it.
We will not fix it until we publicly finance all campaigns and remove the corporate money from our electoral process, and the current rulers of our system seem to be able to insure we cannot do that?
So where do we go from here??
Let's say we all woke up tomorrow morning and there were full-page ads in all the major newspapers announcing a new Progressive Party with an agenda all of us would immediately support whole-heartedly.
Would you go out and re-register as a Progressive?
I would.
And once millions of us abandoned The Democratic Party and they SWORE THAT THEY'D REALLY CHANGE, I would NEVER become a Democrat again.
They have hopelessly bastardized themselves and the party.
For me, it is OVER.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
I'd probably be looking at the full-page lingerie ads.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
You've never been a Democrat since you've been commenting here. I remember how you supported Ron Paul in the early part of '08. How fucking progressive is he? What were his votes in this health care mess?
And you know what's so funny about this: I don't remember you saying a damned thing about health care on these pages back in early '08, and now you are the person who's the most pissed off about it. I'm starting to think that your only purpose hanging out here is to drum up anger amongst progressives in order to pull voters to the regressive, teabagging Paul camp.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
there's rather a lot of this sort of hypocrisy about.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
And I've got a hell of a lot more respect for people like Alice X and Brad, who never pretended to support Obama. I'll disagree with them, but I never doubt that they believe what they say believe.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
if there were a few posters who's agenda included trying to get the left to develop it's own version of the teabaggers. Mostly though, I think it is merely sour grapes born of disappointment at the pace of progress. Why anyone would think a politician would consider the desires of a voter who has declared that they would never vote for him again passes understanding. How do you win anything by taking yourself out of the game and joining a team that isn't even on the field?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Hell, I've read enough comments that seem to want Obama to be the mirror of Bush: The unitary executive of the left side of the aisle.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
The magic wanders?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
She was an Obamaphone, strictly…
One of many who thought they heard words of liberalism, when in fact it was neo-liberalism.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
From a post covering a GOP debate.
Registration wasn't required on the old Wordpress version of the site (the switch occurred, iirc, in early 11/08), Alice, and pre-registration comments can only be found by scouring the archives rather than by clicking on a commenter's user name. Abbybwood was, along with Brad, the most vocal of the Paulbots...Until she- for who knows what reason- wasn't.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I will be interested to hear from her if that was sarcasm.
I wouldn't give Ron Paul the time of day.
As for the current neo-liberal soon to be war-criminal candidate occupant of the White House…
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
There are provisions for getting laws passed and allowing a proposed law to be on a general election ballot for public vote. They are called 'initiatives', 'legislative referrals', and 'propositions'. We should start with making lobbying illegal.
| - oops!
v
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
the odd constitutional barrier to that dream. Namely the first amendment and the right to petition the government. That right doesn't just apply to people you agree with.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Not every state has those provisions on the books, either.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Unions are beholden to the industrial system that created them. The industrial system is tied to the irredeemable use of irreplaceable resources. The unions are part of the problem, from my perspective...
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Peak Oil and The Psychology of Work
Vinay Kumar here
tweakerbelle, socialism and the ecology, I am schizophrenic…
The Ad and the Ego
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
your quote is absolute nonsense and shows the author understands nothing about predator/ prey cycles or evolution.
"This exploding population eventually depletes irreversibly the very resources that sustain the population and this leads to a large scale die-off and a precipitous fall in the species population sometimes leading to extinction."
If this has ever happened to a non-human population I am not aware of it. In predator-prey cycles the population of predators increases in response to the available food supply and falls when the prey is exhausted. Unless there is other prey, or the predator population is mobile etc. Besides humans, other species never "irreversibly" consume resources and it never leads to extinction except in isolated geographical location.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I can give you a few examples. Alewives in the Great Lakes, which I don't think I need to link for you. Another is the reindeer herd on St. Matthew Island. Malthus based his work in the 19th century on quite a few other examples.
That said, I don't think that it's been proven to work the same way outside of the parameters of ecospheres.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
on isolated geographical locations. The reindeer, as a species, were never at risk. The alewives were an invasive species that colonized the great lakes through the Seaway. The population went out of control until coho were introduced to act as a predator. I don't really think either example exactly supports the author's thesis. There probably are a few examples that do conform with that thesis but I am unaware of what they might be. In any case they would be exceptional rather than the rule. I don't think his argument is correct.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Homo sapiens weren't always around on the land. Hell, our evolutionary ancestors lived in the canopies of the African forest before they invaded the floors of the forests. That's part of evolution, isn't it?
Alewives came into the Great Lakes just as another species (lake trout) that would have checked the alewife population was dying off because 1).it was overfished and 2). it was further decimated by the lamprey.
And the reindeer example shows what would happen if the domesticated herds would do if turned back into the wild, where man has been responsible for killing off the reindeer's primary predator, the wolf. If you weren't aware, Michigan has greatly expanded the number of white-tailed deer a hunter can now take, because after wee killed off the wolves, the deer started feeding on domesticated crops and the population exploded. Now we have to manage the herd or be overwhelmed by it until deer eat out entire fields of crops, first depriving humans of food, then starving themselves out. Our own action (killing off the wolves) has caused us to take an active role as stewards of the herd.
And now that I think about it more, the more sense Alice's link makes. We're dependent on petrochemicals not only to plow, sow and reap the fields, but to produce higher yields, too; we've used those high yields to grow our own population at a pace that can't be sustained without the fossil fuels and petrochemicals that we know are finite.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
we do what we, as a species, have always done. Adapt to the change and find alternative technologies. That is one of the reasons I find suspicions about science as an endeavor so disturbing. Especially when they come from the left. Most people don't understand, for example, that even if we had alternative power sources (including fusion power) it would probably not stop a single barrel of oil or cubic meter of gas from being extracted from the earth. They don't seem to get that the most valuable fractions of a barrel of oil are the petrochemicals that are used as the precursors for plastics and pesticides, medicines and damn near everything else we make or use. They don't understand that things like solar panels and advanced batteries (like lithium) require rare materials like indium or gadolinium or tantalum which are even now in short supply. The cures are to be found in materials science and biology (think genetic modification) and nuclear power (which can generate more fuel than it uses). Those are bad words around here.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I understand that fully, burning gasoline which is some 70% of the product of petroleum is about the most foolish thing we could do.
---
And indeed, genetic modification and nuclear energy are very bad words.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
However you care to challenge the quote, done in an inflammatory manner tends to be counter productive. There was no mention of the predator/prey relationship. So your argument begins with a non sequitur.
Did you read the article? The title Peak Oil and The Psychology of Work leads through to this:
I think it an interesting piece. I am not certain about the statement merely a political arrangement but I am certain that we face cognitive breakdown.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Kumar's article is derived from the likes of Daniel Quinn, Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel, and, earlier, Thomas Malthus, who all talk about predator/prey relatioships. In an ecosystem defined by interdependence, you can't just write off the predator/prey dynamics inside of the ecosystem.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Nitpick and you never get to the issue.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
could that be?
Post Industrial Marxist
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
that simple.
The creation of the American Middle Class was DONE by Progressives in this Country as they dragged the 'finnacial elitists' of FDR's fight into a Progressive Populism and Unions that spread into Europe after WW2 and can be found alive and well in the countries that poll year in and year out as the happiest citizens on the planet.
REPUBLICANS where is your 'model' of your 'conservative utopia'?
IT DOESN'T EXIST!
What are the 'conservative policies' that helped form the strongest Middle Class in the history of the world and PEAKED in the late 60's?
THEY DON'T EXIST!
Since that peak we have been torn off the Progressive Path that had been forged by USA and trickled down to the Middle Class on life support!
GOOD JOB BROWNIE!!
The Obama Administration (who, according to the Constitution, is supposed to have a minimal role in the drafting of legislation) has now learned the same thing President Carter had to learn. Elected officials will NOT vote in line with the best interests of the People. Instead, they will vote in line with the best interests of contributors, pressure groups, their public image, the most effective thing for re-election purposes, their Party, and the People (at least, the ones that count) - in that order.
President Obama tried to get away from the Imperial Presidency model and return to the Constitution. It appears that both the Left and the Right liked the unconstitutional methodology ... as long as they benefited.
All the fine talk accomplishes nothing. Draw a line in the sand, we will not take this anymore. It is critical that we don't, for the reasons listed above and most of all for the good of the country. We live in a country where the leadership is corrupt. What to do?
Nothing will get attention more than if we demand the health care bill include a public option. Period. Or else. Pile on and support those in the House that can accomplish this, organize to primary blue dogs and pieces of crap like lieberman, nelson, etc. We can do it, establish and strengthen links with unions and union leadership. Jane and others are trying to provide leadership, get behind them now, move and move quickly. We can do it, but it requires we get off our butts. Recognize and promote that which enables and strengthens us. Each of us has links to many people, talk to them, do what you have must to get them aware and on board.
<
Hasa Diga Eebowai
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/60....
Listen and act, there is a list of House members who said they won't vote for a bill that doesn't include the public option embedded in the post. Let those Congress people know you support them, give them a foundation to take their stand on.
Here's a link to the list. Surprise, it's from Jane.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/16/s...
"Simply electing more Democrats will not solve things."
Republicans are at least honest about their intellectually bankrupt ideas. Democrats make promises they are unable or unwilling to keep. It's misleading to vote for them. We are still largely getting Republican policies because they are so effective at stopping progress, and Democrats are so ineffective at reciprocal thuggery. We need more balance.
that was a superb effort. It not only identifies key problems in translating progressive policies into legislation but identifies good solutions. Post on amybdean.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
If you did not get all you wanted in this healthcare reform bill, then you can only blame yourselves.
Obama went to war on healthcare and his supporters and progressives largely did not show up.
The other side was way more organized and vocal. Where were the $100s millions of progressive dollars and the mass pro-healthcare reform rallies. If there was so much support for much more stronger reform, then why where the progressives not swamping the townhall meetings.
You cannot just elect your people, and sit back and do nothing. It does not work that way anymore, particularly given how big the Democratic tent is. Given that you now need 60 votes to pass anything substantial, progressives need to convince all senators that it is in their interest to vote on any particular piece of legislation. No easy feat when there are many different senators from across the political spectrum in the democratic party.
Two reasons why stronger reform did not pass:
1) the recession; it was a major distraction for the Obama adminstration, almost killing everthing else and certainly putting a major freeze on the Obama agenda. If we had a much stronger economy I am sure the blue dogs would have felt much more secure in their seats and had been more willing to vote for stronger healthcare reform.
2) progressives largely did not show up for the war and lost the messaging battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. How the hell do the majority of Americans now not support healthcare reform? You lost the messaging war. Easy to sit here on these websites and preach to the converted, but you needed to be in the townhalls and in the streets and raising money. The other side was.
Easy to whine and bitch and complain about Obama, but at the end of the day he did bring healthcare up for reform, which was no small feat in this brutual economy. He did go to war, although I am sure some of you will disagree with his style and method, but they made their political calculations in a very difficult environment.
Like Clinton once said regarding Don't Ask and Don't Tell, he wanted to change the policy, but the democratic voters did not rally the troops, or at least rally their congressmen and congress women to get him the votes and support he needed.
Democracy in America has to be much more interactive. It is now that way on the other side. Say what you want about the teabaggers, but at least they are active, vocal and rally the troops. You may discount them because they are a small group, but they will rally their base to vote, which may make the difference in 2010, particularly if the progressives do not show up to vote.
elsewhere.
I agree with you that we Progressives basically went to sleep after the election, and viewed the President as "our guy". We all said, hey, maybe he has some inside track, and he is playing chess while we were thinking in checkers terms.
Nope.
The problem is, again, that the current Democratic leadership, from the top down, was completely unwilling to use any and all methods to win this war. There were countless procedural things that they could have done to shut down Lieberman, the filibuster, Finance committee's stalling/ gang of 6 BS, and the "New Democrats" demands. They didn't do it. Mainly because we don't have the money that the transnationals do. We also don't have a base that coalesces around one singular talking point. And, frankly, we are far too concerned with everyone liking us.
Let's face it, the current leadership is weak. The Republicans can lie and throw tantrums, but in the end, the Dems just back down because they want to appear as though they are concerned with bipartisanship. How many times over the last 30+ years do the Republicans have to piss all over our parties principals to finally say, gee, maybe they don't really care about doing what is right... maybe they just care about us not "winning?"
The whole leadership has to 1) Grow some, and 2) learn that your primary goal is not to make kiss-kissy with Republicans, it is to get the job done and stand up for your principals. Disagree with Republicans, but respect the fact that, as Bill Maher said, sometimes you just need to be an A-Hole to get things done.
Zev Mo Green
http://strongdems.com
Comments are closed on this entry