How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So you heard some partisan anecdotal That no one can back up with sources and that's your proof? You don't see anything wrong with that? Anyway I'm done for the night.

The guy never got into politics believe it or not, was just one the things he talked about that helped them cut costs.

[Kuya]

I think i like this article (because it says something i agree with):

Sept. 5, 2009 | The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive "movement" have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one.

As we now see, union dues underwrote Democratic leaders who today obstruct serious labor law reform and ignore past promises to fix NAFTA. Green groups' resources elected a government that pretends sham "cap and trade" bills represent environmental progress. Healthcare groups promising to push a single-payer system got a president not only dropping his own single-payer promises, but also backing off a "public option" to compete with private insurance. And antiwar funding delivered a Congress that refuses to stop financing the Iraq mess, and an administration preparing to escalate the Afghanistan conflict.

Of course, frustrated progressives might be able to forgive the groups who promised different results, had these post-election failures prompted course corrections.

For example, had the left's preeminent groups responded to Democrats' healthcare capitulations by immediately announcing campaigns against these Democrats, progressives could feel confident that these groups were back to prioritizing a movement agenda. Likewise, had the big antiwar organizations reacted to Obama's Afghanistan escalation plans with promises of electoral retribution, we would know those organizations were steadfastly loyal to their antiwar brand.

But that hasn't happened. Despite the president's healthcare retreat, most major progressive groups continue to cheer him on, afraid to lose their White House access and, thus, their Beltway status. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Moveon.org has "yet to take a clear position on Afghanistan" while VoteVets' leader all but genuflected to Obama, saying, "People (read: professional political operatives) do not want to take on the administration."

In this vacuum, movement building has been left to underfunded (but stunningly successful) projects like Firedoglake.com, Democracy for America, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and local organizations. And that's the lesson: True grass-roots movements that deliver concrete legislative results are not steered by marble-columned institutions, wealthy benefactors or celebrity politicians -- and they are rarely ever run from Washington. They are almost always far-flung efforts by those organized around real-world results -- those who don't care about party conventions, congressional cocktail parties or White House soirees they were never invited to in the first place.

Only when enough progressives realize that truism will any movement -- and any change -- finally commence.

Interestingly, the inability of these progressive high money interest groups to challenge the Dems and Obama is practically mirrored by some liberal posters in this forum. Perhaps they do not realize, that you don't get what you want by capitulating to politicians via silly little platitudes like considering their "political capital". Maybe you American liberals should start learning how to be angriest with the Dems, rather than the Republicans; god knows your parents taught you not to listen to crazy people.

At this point, that's the best way i can describe what i'm seeing. Liberals tripping all over themselves to point out that the crazy people are in fact crazy. Categorizing every insane movement that is made, whilst ignoring the Dems who are screwing them over. In fact, if i were cynical enough, i'd say the Republicans are just a distraction so the Dems can capitulate to their donors.

[Beckwin]

E-mail I got from PCCC (I've donated to PCCC and I signed the mentioned petition as an Obama donor/voter who demands a public option):

Last night, Keith Olbermann led his show talking about the PCCC's latest campaign:
"More than 200 former Obama staffers, 13,000 Obama volunteers, 23,000 Obama donors on a petition: A bill without a public option would not be 'change we can believe in.'"
And those numbers are increasing! All weekend, former Obama organizers are putting their skills to use -- calling and emailing other Obama organizers to get them involved in this campaign!
To impact the national debate more, we're raising $100,000 for a major national ad highlighting the voices of former Obama staffers speaking out for the public option. We've already raised $60,000 -- can you help us reach $100,000 by Monday?
Please click here to donate to our ad.
Time is of the essence. This Wednesday, President Obama will speak to Congress about his health care priorities.
We need to make sure he (and any White House staff urging him to capitulate) knows that the overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option -- and that includes those who worked hardest to get him elected.
Over 1,700 people have donated so far! If another 800 each give $50, we'll reach our goal.
Can you chip in for our national ad today -- to help the voices of former Obama organizers be heard? Click here to donate.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Adam Green, Stephanie Taylor, Michael Snook, Evan Miller, Andrew Perez, and the PCCC team
P.S. After you donate, you may want to share these poll numbers with your friends and encourage them to sign the petition at YesWeStillCan.org. These numbers show that a big majority of Americans want the public option:

• National Quinnipiac poll in August (question 23): 40% of Republicans support public option, 72% overall
• National CBS poll in September: 35% of Republicans support public option, 60% overall
• August Research 2000 poll of Sen. Max Baucus's "red state" Montana constituents: 47% support and 44% oppose the public option
• August Research 2000 poll of Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper's constituents: 61% support and 28% oppose the public option

We shared this with one PCCC member today and she said, "Thanks a million. I was not getting any of that info from the media!"So, after donating, feel free to forward this email to friends with that info -- and ask them to join us at YesWeStillCan.org.

Anyhow Kuya, I'm still going to say that politics is a more delicate game than you make it out to be. Talking about political capital doesn't mean that you endorse the general way things are working; it just means you have a clue about how it does work. Political capital is certainly tied donor money, but you are also conveniently ignoring that a lot of the positions mentioned in your article:

As we now see, union dues underwrote Democratic leaders who today obstruct serious labor law reform and ignore past promises to fix NAFTA. Green groups' resources elected a government that pretends sham "cap and trade" bills represent environmental progress. Healthcare groups promising to push a single-payer system got a president not only dropping his own single-payer promises, but also backing off a "public option" to compete with private insurance. And antiwar funding delivered a Congress that refuses to stop financing the Iraq mess, and an administration preparing to escalate the Afghanistan conflict.

generally do represent the average liberal opinion. I don't think it would be correct to say that every liberal supports a single payer system, or wants stricter than cap and trade regulations, or even thinks we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. I wish they would think that, but hey.

And why are the Republicans still worth worrying about? It's simple: America is a two-party system and if one fails politically, the other gets their shot to fail politically. When you have the mainsteam conservative party going down a dark staircase of crazy and espousing anti-intellectualism, there is an impetus of not failing politically in order to simply prevent their brand of fucking things up. So while I do definitely support being critical within your own ideology/movement/whatever (and yes, I've put my money where my mouth is), it's not traitorous or dishonest to examine these situations from more than one vantage point.

As much as I'm getting tired of my own metaphor, political change isn't s lightswitch. We should be celebrating the results of PCCC and that fact that major mainstream liberal commentators are voicing criticisms rather than focusing derision on leftist groups who aren't up to snuff ideologically, instead perhaps pandering a bit too much to political practicalities and finances, even though generally they and their memberships probably have their hearts in the right places (and speaking of this derision, is the motivation for it simply to appear "less partisan"?).

[Leif]

i just wanted to say that i love all of you guys and i would probably pay for your health care anyday because i love you that much

[Kuya]

Well forgive me Beckwin, but i get the suspicious feeling that when it comes to understanding politics, you know far less than i do. I'm not saying this simply because you're from the humanities, and i actually do study political science, but you've rarely defined and represented what it is you mean by political capital or what you mean by saying "politics is delicate". Perhaps you'd like to drop the platitude, and define with great detail what it is you mean, like a political scientist would.

Because, you see, politicians are well aware of their political capital, far more than you'd ever imagine, but i don't quite see what that has to do with you.

[Kuya]

I'll let you in on a little lesson on real politik, Beckwin. The reason why you should ignore the Republicans is to marginalize them, and were you a little more devious, you'd actually hope, like i do, that they openly support violent groups, because once they do that... well we can drop the hammer and eliminate that worthless party once and for all. If you really understood politics, you'd be trying to get the republicans even crazier.

[Olo401]

I'll let you in on a little lesson on real politik, Beckwin. The reason why you should ignore the Republicans is to marginalize them, and were you a little more devious, you'd actually hope, like i do, that they openly support violent groups, because once they do that... well we can drop the hammer and eliminate that worthless party once and for all. If you really understood politics, you'd be trying to get the republicans even crazier.

Much easier said than done. How long had I argued with Donkey & Leif before I put them on the ignore list?

[Kuya]

You should always respond to them once, deride them as you would a child or the village idiot, and then ignore them for the rest of the thread. That usually does them in.

[Beckwin]

oh, so you study politics.

just like Plow

basically you're fucking retarded for underestimating the GOP. how much clearer does the picture have to be painted? If the Dems fail, the GOP wins. If the GOP wins, you will see zero progress on healthcare/insurance reform, zero progress on environmental issues (hell, maybe negative progress), and so on. You'd see backwards regression on LBGT issues, wealth gap/class issues, and so on. And for a concrete example, do you think McCain would've appointed a judge that supports Roe v. Wade? Not likely, and to top that off there's another left-leaning judge set to retire within the next 10 years.

Saying there's problems with the current liberal/leftist movement in America is not inaccurate. But simply calling a spade a spade doesn't actually fix anything, and ignoring real-world politics entirely is.... well, something suited for a class on political theory. Not trying to denigrate a class like that, and the academic/theoretical input is always worth considering, but politics is a multi-faceted game.

But as for your assertion that rightwingers going real crazy and getting violent would put nails in the conservative coffin... are you ignoring the gradual rise of the GOP during the 90s? They lost in 92 for not being successful enough in their platform (not enough tax cuts, Iraq 1 was too "boring" and tame for neocon hawks, mediocre economy), lost the election, and then started going crazy.... Ruby Ridge, Waco, OK City, gays getting killed, crazy anti-choicers killing doctors and blowing up Planned Parenthood clinics, and as a result.................... we get the Republican Revolution in Congress and the accrual of enough political capital (a term you hate so much, but for the sake of discussion, let's say it's an expression for "how much a voting base will support you and your actions") to beat Al Gore and still maintain control over Congress. And then in the Bush years, you had crazy shit like Minutemen, gay marriage bans, and so on.... and we still can't bury them. Dumb shit like Tea Parties and Town Hall protests ought to, but all we see is Obama's approval ratings slide.

I mean you'd think that in the years after shooting MLK and the Kennedys, repubs/conservatives ought to have done enough crazy violent shit to bury itself, right?

[Beckwin]

The core issue is that the GOP won't die for some time, unless there's an internal schism. The American system engenders that there will always be two relevant parties and only two parties. Any emergence of third options is short-lived and quickly reabsorbed. We don't have a parliamentary system, unfortunately. Any legitimate, fundamental change to the status quo takes a lot of time and effort.

So by all means, support groups like PCCC. Give Olbermann (and Maddow) his dues when he calls out poor Obama policymaking (instead of just falling back on the bullshit "oh he's just a liberal Limbaugh"). But stop pretending you can just say something is wrong and be done with it, as if there's a lightswitch you can flip. You make those changes by supporting action, not just flinging shit from your ivory tower.

[Kuya]

oh, so you study politics.

just like Plow

basically you're fucking retarded for underestimating the GOP. how much clearer does the picture have to be painted? If the Dems fail, the GOP wins. If the GOP wins, you will see zero progress on healthcare/insurance reform, zero progress on environmental issues (hell, maybe negative progress), and so on. You'd see backwards regression on LBGT issues, wealth gap/class issues, and so on. And for a concrete example, do you think McCain would've appointed a judge that supports Roe v. Wade? Not likely, and to top that off there's another left-leaning judge set to retire within the next 10 years.

Saying there's problems with the current liberal/leftist movement in America is not inaccurate. But simply calling a spade a spade doesn't actually fix anything, and ignoring real-world politics entirely is.... well, something suited for a class on political theory. Not trying to denigrate a class like that, and the academic/theoretical input is always worth considering, but politics is a multi-faceted game.

But as for your assertion that rightwingers going real crazy and getting violent would put nails in the conservative coffin... are you ignoring the gradual rise of the GOP during the 90s? They lost in 92 for not being successful enough in their platform (not enough tax cuts, Iraq 1 was too "boring" and tame for neocon hawks, mediocre economy), lost the election, and then started going crazy.... Ruby Ridge, Waco, OK City, gays getting killed, crazy anti-choicers killing doctors and blowing up Planned Parenthood clinics, and as a result.................... we get the Republican Revolution in Congress and the accrual of enough political capital (a term you hate so much, but for the sake of discussion, let's say it's an expression for "how much a voting base will support you and your actions") to beat Al Gore and still maintain control over Congress. And then in the Bush years, you had crazy shit like Minutemen, gay marriage bans, and so on.... and we still can't bury them. Dumb shit like Tea Parties and Town Hall protests ought to, but all we see is Obama's approval ratings slide.

I mean you'd think that in the years after shooting MLK and the Kennedys, repubs/conservatives ought to have done enough crazy violent shit to bury itself, right?

What are you getting at exactly? You used a couple of buzz words, but completely avoided discussing it with any rigor. What are you trying to say about the GOP? That you have some plan to finally defeat them? I was not aware that complaining about them being crazy actually resulted in anything, but you're free to explain it with excruciating detail.

What is this real world politics you are referring to? Stop being ambigous and be specific. Use an example to explain what you mean. What disctinction are you trying to draw between theory and "practicality"? Furthermore, are you trying to say that the study of politics is simply theory? Do you know what the study of theory in politics looks like or what it is?

As for that last thing, you're trying to say that conservatives have always been violent? I don't get what you mean nor what point you're making. It would seem that you're saying that what is happening now is in no way different, i'd like for you to justify that.

I would love to have a discussion with you, but i would prefer it if you actually put some effort into it so i don't have to ask so many questions.

[Kuya]

The core issue is that the GOP won't die for some time, unless there's an internal schism. The American system engenders that there will always be two relevant parties and only two parties. Any emergence of third options is short-lived and quickly reabsorbed. We don't have a parliamentary system, unfortunately. Any legitimate, fundamental change to the status quo takes a lot of time and effort.

So by all means, support groups like PCCC. Give Olbermann (and Maddow) his dues when he calls out poor Obama policymaking (instead of just falling back on the bullshit "oh he's just a liberal Limbaugh"). But stop pretending you can just say something is wrong and be done with it, as if there's a lightswitch you can flip. You make those changes by supporting action, not just flinging shit from your ivory tower.

No idea what you mean here either. It's like whatever point you make gets lost in the specifics and you're hardly able to draw a conclusion.

You seem to be saying i believe change happens in an instant, i neither know how that is relevant to the discussion nor when or how i ever said that.

Next you make some flippant remark about flinging shit from an ivory tower... i don't even understand what that is supposed to convey. Nor, once again, how that is relevant to the discussion.

[Kuya]

I'll give you a concrete point you can debate:

You seem to believe that the arguably failed policies thus far are simply small steps towards some form of liberal progress that we will achieve eventually. Of course, this implies that the "progress" made thus far is a well planned political compromise towards progressive ideals. Who is the compromise being made towards? It is not the GOP, but entrenched interests. Are the compromises being made with plans to further enhance said policy towards progressive goals? I don't see any evidence for this, so you'll have to answer to that. You have to argue, that compromise is not simply being made because the politicians are trying to protect the resources necessary for reelection, which is what it seems like to me. In order to justify any belief that the current rounds of compromise are steps towards progress you must demonstrate that rather than compromises done for the sake of winning elections, they are compromises done by professional politicians who are looking towards long term goals, and thus are taking small, practical steps toward those goals. You have yet to prove this.

You'd also have to take into account the issues that look nothing like compromises, such as the protection of illegal wiretapping, the 180 on the release of torture photos, the attempt to install indefinite detention, the continuing of extraordinary rendition, the insistence on rejecting habeas corpus detainees, and the escalation of the Afghan war. You'd also have to explain how these seemingly incompatible goals towards a progressive agenda can actually be considered as "small steps towards change". In this regard, you have to consider the insitutional differences between Congress and the Executive, and how it is that the executive functions as a body less responsive to democratic preassures because of its characteristics; these things you should take into account if you choose to defend them.

[Beckwin]

so now you're angle is "no habla ingles"?

jesus man.

[Kuya]

Hmmm, perhaps you're simply not used to politics as anything other than a fight between your favorite football team. My apoligies. I thought you were serious.

[Beckwin]

It's just frustrating having someone asking questions for some pretty obvious shit. I mean I know it's your MO to flip out about the usage of terms you don't like, but c'mon, I know we both know what political capital refers to. On top of that, you're ignoring history in which the GOP/conservative movement in America has indeed been a longtime silent approver of violence and it hasn't managed to kill them yet.

when you break down our mainstream politics, you see there's a system in place which basically only allows for two parties- look no further than how we elect our executive. it basically dictates that winner takes all, so we have situations where marginal third party successes are marginalized by the system, and as voters, you're basically required to throw your vote behind the two most prominent options. this federal level marginalization filters down to even the lowest levels because of two reasons: the national parties who mount the task of federal electiosn are so large and powerful that associating with them gets you simple name recognition, and because people aren't often well informed politically, which means that name recognition means much mroe at the ballot booth than substantial, meaningful policy differences that actually affect people's lives. in addition, have two parties essentially written into our constitution and the long histories they've had allows them to frame the debate, which further affects how the average person views and thinks about politics.

you can't just change that overnight, unfortunately. that's what I'm saying- work from within, work with what works, however small the steps are. pushing too far without a popular opinion, majority, and backing typically results in failures; or only short-lived successes. Look at the New Left movement going into the 70s, and look what happened to Perot.

it is unfortunate that interests are disproportionally prioritized and also entrenched. capitalism kinda does that. it's also a shame we don't have term limits for senators/congressmen. our constitution kinda does that. maybe someday we can change that.

In regards to bashing elements of the liberal/prog/whatever movement, just consider this: people don't like to be called traitors or stupid or whatever, especially when they're on the same team. some of the groups you (and the article) disagree with may honestly have their hearts in a similar place, ideologically, as you but perhaps are more concerned (for better or for worse, your call) with avoiding another Jimmy Carter-esque situation. I know you hate the idea of playing politics, but pushing for progressive initiatives in a manner that would/could result in another Ronald Reagan and Moral Majority isn't really something to take lightly. It's a very delicate situation at times- push for progress at the risk of a monumental setback (like the Reagan Administration, or the Nixon Administration).

Now I suppose that the lesson from Carter is that a stronger hand may be what's needed, but that might be another discussion.

Yes, that was all over the place, because I'm doing a few things at once at the moment.

[Beckwin]

Hmmm, perhaps you're simply not used to politics as anything other than a fight between your favorite football team. My apoligies. I thought you were serious.

and don't fucking play the bro card on me; I was making the case for leftist politics while you were still in your let's-listen-to-both-sides ultramoderate bubble (ooh and to be edgy let's talk about circumcision).

[guartz]

I think Kuya is referring to what Chomsky calls "washington status quo". Plainly speaking, the elite "think tanks" who are embedded in politics decide upon policies washington needs to follow, and support any candidate that aligns himself with those policies.

It's been like that for over 50 years now.

[Beckwin]

I'm aware of what Kuya is referring to; I just don't think attacking them is effective as positively supporting other options. And again, it must be highlighted that you don't really kill off other parties in American politics... they pretty much have to split on their own and you see how it pans out from there. The average American seems to have a pretty short political attention span, as I've semi-demonstrated with my recounting of violent conservative outbursts leading to election victories, so I do believe it's still worthwhile to continually be reminding America how badly the the GOP is failing/how crazy they are. Don't let them distance themselves from this bullshit.

What's more promising, to me at least, isn't the naive idea that the GOP can be killed off in the public eye but for the party/conservative movement to actually split/schism, sort of similar to what happened in 92, only hopefully with a greater lasting effect (ideally the emerging GOP would be at least more socially liberal, causing the democrats to move leftward out of basic need to be distinguishable).

I think for third parties to actually be viable, we need fundamental election/congressional structure changes. but until then, I wager that the best hope for the left/progressives is to try and influence the Democratic party from within. The article Kuya posted asks the question "After subverting their ideologies for electoral unity, what did progressive organizations get?"- the immediate answer is they got Sotomayor, which is comforting insurance for women's reproductive rights versus McCain making the pick, and I think there's still a shot for a public option (we'll have to wait and see; next week should be very interesting). The article points out watered-down policy from the White House, but it's not backwards GOP policy (ok... barring the Iraq/Afghanistan policy). So no, that's not getting exactly what you set out to do, but you are making small gains and preventing a worse alternative.

[Rhinox]

http://media.gamerevolution.com/imag...panda_bear.jpg

Give me a fucking break..

What exactly are you proposing Kuya? That the best way to deal with rival political ideology is to ignore them? really?

Also I don't think anyone aside from Maybe Senoska is blindly cheering on Obama. You cite an article that uses Labor unions as an example but you ignore the fact that a few of them are speaking out against his seemingly backing away from a strong public option. I take issue of you broadly dismissing Progressives as some puppets for Obama. You also leave out the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Weiner from the House Progressive caucus have came out to say that there will be no health care reform without a public option. An opinion that goes strongly against the current administration. It's gotten to the point where "unnamed top white house officials" are firing back at congress for those very declarations from the Progressive caucus.

He (obama) wants to thread the needle of voicing support for a public option, without promising to kill health reform to get it. But liberal congressional leaders were unyielding in their support for it on a conference call he held from Camp David yesterday, and he's going to meet with them at the White House early next week.
The White House line has been: “We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition. There are lots of different ways to get there.” But now he’s going to step on the gas a little harder. One top official gave this formulation: “He has consistently said that he thinks the public option is an important way to make sure that there is both cost and competition control. He’s also said consistently that if someone can show him a better way or another way to get there, he’d be happy to look at it. But he’s never committed to going with another way. He’s always said he’d be happy to look at any proposal that gets to these goals, but that he thinks this is probably the best better way to do it.” Obama spoke by phone Friday with the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“Caucus leaders expressed absolute commitment to the idea of a robust public option, and said they expect it to be part of any health care reform legislation,” the groups said in a statement. “The president listened, asked many questions, and suggested that the dialogue should continue.”

What Obama will say in his address - Mike Allen and Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com


So I take issue with you saying Progressives are taking marching orders directly from the White House because its clearly not the case.