How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Rhinox]

[Kuya]

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.

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.

I'll humour you because i like you.

First of all, rival political ideology? Question, since when does DEATH PANELS and SOCIALIST FASCIST equal conservatism? I don't know, but i feel that real conservatives would feel insulted that you're equating that to your rival political ideology, in fact, intellectual conservatives have been segregated in some dark corner ever since the Republicans allied themselves to the religious right. You can take them seriously if you like, but i feel you are doing yourself a disservice.

Next, the article is basically about how liberals have made the mistake of confusing mechanisms and groups designed to get politicians elected with groups designed to put preassure on politicians. It ties into the idea that i brought up a while ago, that it seemed that some liberals thought that they didn't have to preassure the dems or Obama because these former two were to enact liberal policy with little resistence. What they seemed to have ignored was the resistence that would be coming from within the party. Now, the article never says there aren't groups preassuring the dems; i don't know where you're getting this from, furthermore, and even stranger still is how you take the author's omissions and conclude that what is omitted is somehow my opinion. You also mention that i dismiss progressives as puppets of Obama... you don't seem to quote where i said that, and you're probably going to say i implied it, but it doesn't help that you didn't quote anything so anyone can see for themselves whether you're reaching or not.

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.

First, could you reply to post #1153? I'd really like to understand why it is you think what is happening now is a planned progression towards liberal goals and not patch work lesgislation that does not achieve goals.

Second, since you did not define it, i will define it for you; political capital can mean, as i undertand it, both the resources provided for election campaigns, and support from the general public. Now, these two things are, as i would call them, branches of what the real problem is here. That is, one represents what politics is now/turning into, that is, political influence being achieved by a particular number of individuals, and the other, represents democratic movement as we understand it. Because this issue is vital to what we're discussing now, i will put some time into fleshing it out.

The first form of political capital, political influence from particular sectors is what we understand as lobbying. Lobbying of course used to take two forms, one being older and now less powerful, the other newer and arguably stronger. The first is where specific organizations mobalize constituents to influence politicians, the second is where groups need only rely on money from wealthy individuals to engage in influence. Now two phenomenons that i think are important to consider in order to understand why one is stronger than the other. First is the issue that political activity has been diminishing and political apathy increasing; this can be evidenced by the heavily decreased interest and activity in congressional elections, which represent the democratic institution proper. I will not go into the reasons why political apathy is increasing. Next, is the fast develpment and heavy investment into campaigning technologies, with that you should understand propaganda, advertising, and the use of new media. The former, which is dimishing requires the ability to mobalize constituents, the second simply requires investment of huge sums of cash. One requires people and organizers, the other requires money and professionals.

The second form of political capital, and what the executive has been relying more and more these days, is support from the general public; this has given the president a semblence of democratic legitimacy, even though properly speaking the president is not an official elected via democratic means. One could take that the fact that the president relies (i don't specifically mean Obama, though i cannot place an exact date) rallying the public for his agenda to mean he is becoming more democratic as an institution, and yet one could also argue that the executive is mearly using the public's support as a political tool even though he does not really relly on it as Congress would. I would agree more with the latter than the former, given, once again, that the president as the executive institution is a rather autonomous body that does not necessarily need to respond to the public; many of the people inside of it are appointments and not voted in by the public, as is the president himself. So accountability as would exist for Congress does not quite exist for the executive.

Now to draw this to a conclusion: I have shown that support from the public has been growing weaker in terms of it being a powerful political dynamo as opposed to resources provided by particular sectors. Not only does the executive rely more on these resources rather than support from the public (as evidenced by the fact that Bush had no problem continuing his presidency whilst being unpopular, even though i'm not saying it is without its consequences) but in terms of coherency it would seem that the lobbying is far more efficient as specifying what a policy should look like. I have forgotten to mention that lobbying is not an inherently bad thing, however the problem with it stems from the fact that, as opposed to the formal system of voting that provides equal value to all votes, lobbying is clearly tilted in favour of those with more resources and time of leasure.

I think it is important for you to specify what you mean when you mention someone's political capital, because if you're noticing right now, Obama's political capital in terms of public support is diminishing yet this does not mean that his support from particular resources diminishes as well, indeed, the problem that i'm bringing up here is what happens when both kinds of political capital run contrary to one another. Now, back to the rest of your post:

You mention the GOP and the crazies, and i am aware that similar things have happened in the past; i recall reading an article mentioning the history of GOP support for fringe groups when it is out of power. However, what i am intersted in is in you making a meticulous argument as to why what is going on now is different or more of the same. I say this because i've also read arguments saying that what is going on now is different. It has some merit if you consider that not only do we now have a black president, which is something quite nouvelle, a recession, a collapse of the financial system, numerous wars, and culture war issues such as gay rights and abortion. Some have even said that what we're witnessing is following the footsteps of fascism. I'd like to know what you think of this, but i'd like for you to chip in whilst arguing for the point of view you favour.

Next, you mentioned the two party system and change from within...i am stumped since i don't know why you mentioned that. We were mostly discussing liberal movements and groups and the irrelevancy of the GOP at this point in time, not the two party system itself, so i do not know why you brought it up as if i were speaking of trying to change that system, even though i don't like it. Furthermore, you seem to be thinking that power only exists within the formal political structure, that is, within political parties. Now, i don't know if there more means of achieving power or how many there are, but i think it would be better, if you do in fact believe this, that you justify this belief. That is, that you justify adaption to the two party system as if it were the only means of execising power. Also, weren't you a socialist? It was my understanding (according to Immanuel Wallerstein) socialism and nationalism are to some degree anti sistemic movements, so it is a bit surprising to see a socialist defending the idea of working within the system more so than working to change the system.

A small comment on term limits, don't know why you brough it up, but i'm not so sure it's a good idea, i will however agree to abolishing the Senate. Within that same vein of thought, in terms of formal political structure, you mention how it is the nature of capitalism and entrenched interest, but are you willing to say, even though Western Europe is also capitalist, that entrenched interest are as powerful as those in the US?

As for the article (though i'm not sure if you're referring to me), it never calls these groups traitors or stupid (though i would), it simply says that they have a problem, a sistemic problem, that is, their existence depends on how entrenched they are into the political system itself. They are, afterall, means of electing officials, so their relevance depends to some degree on how close they are allowed to get to said officials, it is basically the same problem you find on mainstream journalism; without close connections to Washington they become irrelevant, yet this proximity makes them practically incapable of pointing out facts and escaping the Washington narrative.

Lastly, since you seem to speak of political practicalities, you should consider that allowing the GOP to win again might just be what the doctor ordered. Not only should the dems be punished if they fail, but more GOP disasters much like Bush would only further drive the GOP into irrelevancy, as well as more suffering for the American public might (i emphasize might) be able to dispell political apathy.

What benefits you in the long term, is not necessarily what benefits the Democrats.

[Kuya]

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).

You are right, i was pretty stupid to believe that middle ground fallacy much like Plow. It was such a stupid platitude that is only used by people who don't actually know the specifics of what is going on, yet they have the nerve to enter into a discussion and spit their worhtless comments about. Much like some bozo in the israel/palestine thread talking about how both sides need to get along as if they actually researched the issue.

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.

I think you are aware that one political tactic, a rather common one, is where they constantly spout lies and do the most insane things possible to the point of making the other side have to address every single point but since they can't possibly keep up with the degree in which the lies are produced, the narrative gets drowned out with these lies. Part of the issue is the legitimacy that is attributed to them when one takes them seriously enough to answer them, this is more relevant for the media. This happens on a smaller scale to. Have you ever seen a poster fill his post with the most inane nonsense possible and to such a magnitude that you're practically paralized due to the sheer size of it? It's like you don't know where to begin or how to coherently argue against it because it is just plain nonsense, not to mention you lose your cool because you are too annoyed. It's kind of like that.

Interesting that you mention Sotomayor... though her pick was great in terms of making political institutions more properly represent the public (women have a different way of thinking and hence if half of the population is female, then they will be better served by an equal representation in all political institutions, or so the theory goes), in terms of her being liberal enough to offset the conservative court... well she was a major dissapointment. She also didn't matter very much because she was replacing an already liberal judge in the first place, so it was a great rhetorical victory i suppose, perhaps some tangible gains, even if one needs to stretch things to make them tangible.

Your last comment bothers me... you, simultanously, mention how what we have now is better than a worse alternative and yet you also say that we're getting small gains... The first argument always leads to complacency, and the latter well is less complacent, but it is complacent because it is rhetorical rather than actually proving that small gains leading to an ultimate goal are being made (see post #1153). The problem with what you're saying here is that it is intangible, it is rhetorical, it is hypothetical. We don't have McCain to compare, we have Bush, but not McCain, and the idea that you should judge success based on one of the worst presidents ever is intellectually laking. It is certainly an objective fact that Obama was better than McCain and Obama is better than Bush, but these are only facts, trying to use them for an argument is reaching. Next, small gains... again argue how these small gains aren't simply gained from patch work legislation that does not actually accomplish their set goals. You have not done this.

For example, how can you compare the creation of the Constituion by the founding fathers, which was work of compromise that had a set goal and was reached via a meticulous degree of planning to what we have now? For starters, we don't have politicians who are simply representing the interest of certain groups discussing in an intellectual manner the best way to achieve a compromise yet still obtain the desired outcome, we may have part of that, but we also have heavily organized and very influential lobbying systems, that do not work via their representatives. It has been argued by Theodore Lowi that it is this exact system that completely guts effective governance as long term plans cannot be made as legislation focuses on satisfying competing interests in the present, without proper consideration for future consequences. These small gains that you speak of aren't small gains aimed at a future goal obtained via compromises, they are the product of powerful interests trying to maintain said interests, who only have the here and now, rather than long term consequences as their consideration.

You seem to view this as a scorebored of plus and minuses, where something good equals a plus and something bad equals a minus, yet this way of seeing things does not consider that some things are vital, and far more important than others, and if they aren't problems that are solved than we have substantial systemic problems. That is, future consequences. The financial system has not been fixed, and there will be future problems of even bigger proportions, this is a systemic flaw and one that will lead to subtantial consequences, it is an unacceptable failure, and can't be offset by granting more gay rights or free lollipops. The issue of not prosecuting the various forms of rampant lawlessness means, quite explicitely, that these things will hapen again in the future and the envelop will be pushed even further until there is a line they cannot cross, thus far, we've proven that they haven't reached that line (i'm referring to wiretapping, rejection of habeas corpus, extreme rendition, heavy secrecy).

Let me try a metaphor, say we're on a boat, and the boat has a huge leak, but we're also dirty and we need a bath. We solved one problem, we have soap now. But the ship is sinking. We can't say that we've even because we have one bad thing and one good thing, one bad thing is clearly greater than the other issue, and it constitutes the very collapse of the vessel we're in. This is what i'm referring to with the financial crisis and the complete disregard of the rule of law.

[Beckwin]

Political capital is certainly tied [to] donor money

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")

Kuya, I already (much more succinctly) expressed the same definition as you just did for political capital.

Anyhow, I mentioned all that stuff about our political structure and capitalism because it is directly related to the article: pursuing exact interests versus electoral unity. if you want to at least just stop the bleeding/prevent more lacerations, our system forces unity in elections just to stop the other guys from getting in power again. It's different from a parliamentary system where the Executive can be heavily undermined and even thrown out by the legislature. And if you want any of your agenda to have a chance of receiving attention/progress, you need the guy marginally closer to you to be in office. Again, let's be realistic: John McCain would not even be entertaining the thought of a public option, or cap and trade, or appointing Sotomayor (all of which are very mild, watered-down progressive/liberal ideas).

You say that outlook implies complacency, but I disagree. It implies utilitarian considerations. You see, the things that progressives want- universal healthcare, drastic changes in environmental policy, a huge withdrawal of forces abroad (not just in respect to I&A, but a huge military reduction in general), full LGBT rights, much expanded regulations on markets/industry even up to no longer considering corporations as persons, etc.... would require a revolution in order to see it all in say, an 8 year period of time. So taking a utilitarian look at the situation allows you to see what you can get and how to get it beyond the current futility of political revolution. It doesn't mean giving up; it means biding your time and fighting for every scrap of progress without risking massive setbacks.

And again, I must stress that the views of a progressive/leftist are not necessarily the views of the average Democrat voter. So again, there's an impetus for political unity because schism just means a net loss and losing ground when the GOP gets in power. Work from within to positively effect change and try to broaden awareness and support for your causes among the very generally "liberal" constituency.

Now the capitalism part.... simply put, Western Europe is less capitalist than we are, and their political systems are generally less subject to as strong of moneyed interest. Parliamentary systems support many parties in a way that even small victories aren't totally washed aside- a progressive party could win some seats with their own support and funding, introduce some legislation, and be a part of the dialogue in the legislature.

You mention the GOP and the crazies, and i am aware that similar things have happened in the past; i recall reading an article mentioning the history of GOP support for fringe groups when it is out of power. However, what i am intersted in is in you making a meticulous argument as to why what is going on now is different or more of the same. I say this because i've also read arguments saying that what is going on now is different. It has some merit if you consider that not only do we now have a black president, which is something quite nouvelle, a recession, a collapse of the financial system, numerous wars, and culture war issues such as gay rights and abortion. Some have even said that what we're witnessing is following the footsteps of fascism. I'd like to know what you think of this, but i'd like for you to chip in whilst arguing for the point of view you favour.

there's potential for this time to be different, but not very likely. about as much potential as switching from Carter to Reagan. so potentially we could see some fairly significant changes, but nothing close to a radical restructuring of how politics works in America nor a massive reform of our brand of capitalism. comments on fascism are laughable, unless you consider FDR a fascist... which is laughable still. The view I favor? I guess getting as much as we can out of a successful Obama administration- get the difficult-to-change things (like a public option, possibly ERA/some sort of LGBT legislation, passable SCOTUS appointments) and hope that the GOP is pushed in a more liberal direction in order to be relevant again.

I know there's still more to respond to, but I need to take a break now. I'll see if I can get around to more if I have free time today.

[eunhye]

http://cagle.com/working/090903/chappatte.gif

teehee

[guartz]

I think I smell bias, beckwin. I'll leave it at that.

[Beckwin]

towards what? liking the democrats more than the republicans? never tried to deny that.

[guartz]

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds - LiveScience- msnbc.com

[Beckwin]

cute guartz, but I've had no problem addressing facts and acting accordingly.

now go prepare a diatribe about how owning the product of someone else's labor is the pinnacle of freedom.

[Lee]

If you haven't realized by now, Beckwin is sort of the equivalent of let's say Leif (since he's the most well-known conservative on these boards I believe). The thing that is funny though, is people fail to see that Leif is much less biased than Beckwin, since Beck is completely in accordance to the radical left. I can't say the same for Leif regarding the right. Since this board is sort of left-leaning they really can't see how radical Beckwin is, or maybe they can but it doesn't affect them as much as a right-winger would?

Look at his signature for instance, "Workers of the world unite!"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers..._world,_unite!. Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if he gushes at the thought of a global communist revolution. (inb4 lol pulling the "commie!" card)

The point is, pointing out bias in a radical is like saying "the sky is blue". This should be expected.

[Olo401]

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds - LiveScience- msnbc.com

I could have told you that and I didn't finish college. All you have to know about brain activity is learned by looking at some of these fucking dipshits who come to town hall meetings and shout over elderly people, handicapped people or bilingual clergymen trying to ask questions of their representatives.

Or we can just look at your brainless posts..

[Olo401]

....people fail to see that Leif is much less biased than Beckwin....

...because reality and truth has a radical left bias, and Leif uses neither.

[Skjie]

I would hardly say either of them are radicals. America doesn't make radicals anymore. From a global perspective, the difference between the Democrats and Republicans are hardly a hair away on the left/right spectrum.

[Olo401]

I would hardly say either of them are radicals. America doesn't make radicals anymore. From a global perspective, the difference between the elected Democrats and Republicans are hardly a hair away on the left/right spectrum.

Fixed, although even that isn't very true anymore because the Republican Party's elected officials that are still in office are almost all from its base, and that base is so far to the Reactionary/Authoritarian Right that it can barely be called conservative anymore. And their only game left is to shout down everything that's not their doing. Until they and their supporters have something reality based to contribute, they should be ignored and/or vote out of office until they stop being spoiled brats.

One of the more visible results of the health care debate is that you can actually see which elected Democrats are progressives (yellow dogs) and which ones are the true Eisenhower-style fiscal conservative crossovers (blue dogs). That's the short distance on the ideological scale that you're seeing.

[Beckwin]

If you haven't realized by now, Beckwin is sort of the equivalent of let's say Leif (since he's the most well-known conservative on these boards I believe). The thing that is funny though, is people fail to see that Leif is much less biased than Beckwin, since Beck is completely in accordance to the radical left. I can't say the same for Leif regarding the right. Since this board is sort of left-leaning they really can't see how radical Beckwin is, or maybe they can but it doesn't affect them as much as a right-winger would?

Look at his signature for instance, "Workers of the world unite!"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world,_unite!. Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if he gushes at the thought of a global communist revolution. (inb4 lol pulling the "commie!" card)

The point is, pointing out bias in a radical is like saying "the sky is blue". This should be expected.

I'm completely in accordance with the radical left even though I support working within the current structure to change it rather than a typical marxist revolutionary doctrine?

Ok Lee, you're basically the equivalent of Leif on this forum in that you don't know what the fuck.

But yes, I do agree with a lot of communist/socialist theory. And if you weren't an ill-informed American, you wouldn't be so allergic to those terms. Leif pretty much mimics Hannity while there's no cable pundit who really matches my views.

[guartz]

I could have told you that and I didn't finish college. All you have to know about brain activity is learned by looking at some of these fucking dipshits who come to town hall meetings and shout over elderly people, handicapped people or bilingual clergymen trying to ask questions of their representatives.

Or we can just look at your brainless posts..

Well the way it ties in to the conversation beckwin and kuya were having, is that supporting political structure makes reasonable discussion impossible. It just propagates what kuya described as the "political tactics". I figured it be obvious, so just because you don't understand something Olo401, doesn't make it brainless.

[guartz]

But yes, I do agree with a lot of communist/socialist theory. And if you weren't an ill-informed American, you wouldn't be so allergic to those terms.

Hi. Ex-soviet here. I'm allergic to the term.

[Sirrus_Asura]

cute guartz, but I've had no problem addressing facts and acting accordingly.

now go prepare a diatribe about how owning the product of someone else's labor is the pinnacle of freedom.

Lol. Get the Fuck Out.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Leif pretty much mimics Hannity while there's no cable pundit who really matches my views.

Shit, quite the accomplishment. Momma must be so proud.

[Rhinox]

Hey Sirrus, How's guartz ass taste?