TPM’s list of undecided House reps.
….
Rep. Steven Lynch, one of the Democrats voting no, had a meeting with Obama. He claims that Obama said he might push for the Public Option next year. According to this poll, some of these tactics may be causing a backlash against Republicans.
….
The latest and dirtiest in the GOP attempts to derail HCR.
….
Assuming the bill is passed with reconciliation fixes, here is a list of social benefits which will take effect immediately upon passage.
….
A deal with Stupak may be in the works, which is probably bad news.
….
And Glen Greenwald argues that Rahm’s strategy of ignoring progressive demands because progressives would eventually fall into line has been vindicated, suggesting that this may become a windfall in political capital for Obama, but the final defeat of progressive Democrats. Unless of course we get a public option next year. But actually, if progressives ever want to be treated seriously, they’re going to have to kill something important to Obama. It’s become an inevitability.
….
This Republican is calling the HCR an extension of “the Great War of Yankee Aggression.” There’s a winner of a soundbite!
….
Addendum: There’s some indication that Republicans are starting to regret their strategy. This is from David Frum, speechwriter for Bush.
It‘s critical for everybody, and not just the President. It‘s critical for us on the Republican side, too. If this thing passes, there is going to be an accountability moment on the Republican side. We had a choice; do we negotiate and try to get some of our values in the bill? Or do we go for total defeat of the President and bet everything on that? I was one of those who said negotiate. That advice was rejected. We went for total defeat of the President. If he prevails, it is going to be a shutout of Republican views in one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed in the United States.
32 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 19, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Matt
Greenwald’s point is well taken and there is a grain of truth to it; however, he also skews the story to fit his argument, which annoys me just as much when progressives do it as when conservatives do it.
Specifically, if the progressives had completely caved to Rahm as Greenwald says, the House would be approving the Senate bill *without* any fixes passed through reconciliation. Those fixes, and all the hassles of reconciliation that go along with them, are happening specifically *because* of pressure from the progressives in the House. He also uses as an example, Feinstein’s amendment being dropped; however, that had nothing to do with Progressives caving to Rahm. It was dropped b/c the Parliamentarian ruled that it wasn’t something that could pass under reconciliation. It’ll probably come back later as a separate bill.
Now to be fair, his main point is about the public option which did get jettisoned. However, the story isn’t completely over yet and Reid is apparently going to be bringing it back as a separate bill (I’ll believe it when I see it).
Lastly, one can argue that the only reason that Progressives “caved” to Rahm and came around on the bill is specifically b/c Rahm and Obama have made such a complete mess of the whole thing that the only way to save the Democratic party at this point is to pass the bill. Sure the bill mostly sucks, but the possibility of not passing it at this point is even worse, and the time to make it better has long passed. It also shows just how hard it is to make any major structural fixes in this country when you have to go against the wishes of entrenched mega-corporations.
March 19, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Moonshadow
We sure have not made much progress have we? We’re still arguing over the same issues and have fallen further behind.
See this speech from waaaaay back . . . take note of who said it and pushed the reforms mentioned in it.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3757
March 19, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Matt
Here’s another good post about Greenwald’s point:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/19/847539/-On-Not-Clapping-Harder-for-Insurance-Reform
March 19, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, Greenwald says it’s not necessarily a bad decision the progressives made. This was a window for any possible reform, and it’s much easier to build on something than nothing. And if it fails the Democrats will lose big next November, which certainly doesn’t benefit progressives.
But single payer advocates were excluded from the discussion, largely by Obama and the leadership. They were promised a public option, and then they let Lieberman kill it without so much as a phone call of pressure. Rahm clearly takes the progressive vote for granted. Maybe they had to cave on health care, but really, they have to send a message. There has to be a price or they become completely superfluous. I’m not a big fan of cap and trade as a substitute for real regulation. Maybe they can sink that one.
March 19, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Bruce Ross
“Progressives” helped sink Arnold Schwarzenegger’s and Fabian Nunez’s health care bill in 2007-08. How’s that worked out since? Oh, yeah, California’s up to 25 percent uninsured.
Nice work by the forces of progress there.
March 19, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Eric Kirk
The mandatory coverage provisions without a public option are hard to sell to progressives Bruce, and I think the only reason they’re going for it on the national level is that they think it’ll be easier to build on it than it would have been in the state. Unfortunately neither that bill nor the present Senate bill do much to ensure affordability.
It does look like single payer is moving forward, and the main question I have is whether Jerry Brown, if he gets by Whitman, will veto it.
Also, I’m not sure what impact the Senate bill will have on a state based single payer plan. Supposedly it’s not supposed to heavily interfere with state public health systems.
March 19, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Anonymous
Mandated coverage is highway robbery on behalf of insurance companies. This will cost the Democrats.
March 19, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Eric Kirk
Here’s more on that guy with Parkinson’s.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/20/848107/-Parkinsons-Victim-Mocked-by-Teabaggers-Speaks-Out
March 20, 2010 at 2:22 am
Matt
Here’s an interesting take:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php
March 20, 2010 at 6:55 am
Dave Kirby
Was listening to the radio down in SFO a couple days ago. The host was talking about the bill. A guy called up to put forth the FOXista party line that the majority off americans don’t want the bill to pass. He went on to say that the public has looked at the bill and rejected it. The host replied that he doubted that anything like a majority had any idea what was actually in the bill and asked the caller what, in the bill, he objected to. Silence…he hemmed and hawed til it was apparent that this guy didn’t know anymore about the specifics than the vast majority of the public. In an interesting aside when people are polled on individual aspects of the reform they vote yes, sometimes overwhelmingly and yet say they don’t like the bill. Me thinks that, with the help of propagandists like beck and limbaugh the masses sometimes can be asses.
March 20, 2010 at 7:23 am
highboldtage
FDL Fact Sheet:
The truth about the health care bill
by Jane Hamsher
FireDogLake.com
3/19/10
The Firedoglake health care team has been covering the debate in congress since it began last year. The health care bill will come up for a vote in the House on Sunday, and as Nancy Pelosi works to wrangle votes, we’ve been running a detailed whip count on where every member of Congress stands, updated throughout the day.
We’ve also taken a detailed look at the bill, and have come up with 18 often stated myths about this health care reform bill.
Real health care reform is the thing we’ve fought for from the start. It is desperately needed. But this bill falls short on many levels, and hurts many people more than it helps them.
While details are limited, there is apparently a”Plan B” alternative that the White House was considering as recently as two weeks ago, which would evidently expand existing programs — Medicaid and SCHIP. It would cover half the people at a quarter of the price, but it would not force an unbearable financial burden to those who are already struggling to get by.
Congress may be too far down the road with this bill to change course. But before Democrats cast this vote which could turn “ban the mandate” into “gay marriage” for the GOP in 2010, they should consider the first rule of patient safety: first, do no harm.
Myth 1: This is a universal health care bill.
Fact: The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office:
Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million
Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24 million
Myth 2: Insurance companies hate this bill.
Fact: This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint vice president. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.
Myth 3: The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.
Fact: The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500/year that President Obama promised during his campaign.
Annual premiums in 2016: status quo / with bill:
Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800
Small group market, family: $19,300 / $19,200
Large Group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300
Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300
Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800
Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200
(The cost of premiums in the individual market goes up somewhat due to subsidies and mandates of better coverage. The CBO assumes that cost of individual policies goes down 7-10%, and that people will buy more generous policies.)
Myth 4: The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.
Fact: The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can’t afford to use.
A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.
Myth 5: This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.
Fact: Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can’t afford it. A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:
21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can’t afford it, including 12% of children
18% have health insurance but can’t afford to use it
Myth 6: This bill provides health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.
Fact: This bill will mandate that 31 million people who are currently uninsured purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.
Myth 7: You can keep the insurance you have if you like it.
Fact: The excise tax will result in employers switching to plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered services.
Older, less healthy employees with employer-based health care will be forced to pay much more in out-of-pocket expenses than they do now.
Myth 8: The “excise tax” will encourage employers to reduce the scope of health care benefits, and they will pass the savings on to employees in the form of higher wages.
Fact: There is insufficient evidence that employers pass savings from reduced benefits on to employees.
Myth 9: This bill employs nearly every cost control idea available to bring down costs.
Fact: This bill does not bring down costs and leaves out nearly every key cost control measure, including:
Public Option ($25-$110 billion)
Medicare buy-in
Drug re-importation ($19 billion)
Medicare drug price negotiation ($300 billion)
Shorter pathway to generic biologics ($71 billion)
Myth 10: The bill will require big companies like Wal-Mart to provide insurance for their employees.
Fact: The bill was written so that most Wal-Mart employees will qualify for subsidies, and taxpayers will pick up a large portion of the cost of their coverage.
Myth 11: The bill “bends the cost curve” on health care.
Fact: “Bends the cost curve” is a misleading and trivial claim, as the U.S. would still spend far more for care than other advanced countries.
In 2009, health care costs were 17.3% of GDP.
Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8% of GDP)
Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9% of GDP)
Myth 12: The bill will provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.
Fact: Access to the “high risk pool” is limited and the pool is underfunded. Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high-risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.
Myth 13: The bill prohibits dropping people in individual plans from coverage when they get sick.
Fact: The bill does not empower a regulatory body to keep people from being dropped when they’re sick. There are already many states that have laws on the books prohibiting people from being dropped when they’re sick, but without an enforcement mechanism, there is little to hold the insurance companies in check.
Myth 14: The bill ensures consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to challenge new insurance plan decisions.
Fact: The “internal appeals process” is in the hands of the insurance companies themselves, and the “external” one is up to each state.
Ensuring that consumers have access to “internal appeals” simply means the insurance companies have to review their own decisions. And it is the responsibility of each state to provide an “external appeals process,” as there is neither funding nor a regulatory mechanism for enforcement at the federal level.
Myth 15: This bill will stop insurance companies from hiking rates 30%-40% per year.
Fact: This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country.
Myth 16: When the bill passes, people will begin receiving benefits under this bill immediately.
Fact: Most provisions in this bill, such as an end to the ban on pre-existing conditions for adults, do not take effect until 2014.
Six months from the date of passage, children could not be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing conditions, though insurance companies could charge more to cover them. Children would also be allowed to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26. There will be an elimination of lifetime coverage limits, a high risk pool for those who have been uninsured for more than 6 months, and community health centers will start receiving money.
Myth 17: The bill creates a pathway for single payer.
Fact: Bernie Sanders’ provision in the Senate bill does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, so no, it doesn’t create a pathway for single payer.
Obama told Dennis Kucinich that the Ohio Representative’s amendment is similar to Bernie Sanders’ provision in the Senate bill, and creates a pathway to single payer. Since the waiver does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, it is nearly impossible to see how it gets around the ERISA laws that stand in the way of any practical state single payer system.
Myth 18: The bill will end medical bankruptcy and provide all Americans with peace of mind.
Fact: Most people with medical bankruptcies already have insurance, and out-of-pocket expenses will continue to be a burden on the middle class.
In 2009, 1.5 million Americans declared bankruptcy
Of those, 62% were medically related
Three-quarters of those had health insurance
The Obama bill leaves 24 million without insurance
The maximum yearly out-of-pocket limit for a family will be $11,900 (PDF) on top of premiums
A family with serious medical problems that last for a few years could easily be financially crushed by medical costs
Real health care reform is needed. But this bill falls short of that on many levels.
Documentation:
1. March 11, Letter from Doug Elmendorf to Harry Reid (PDF)
2. The AHIP Plan in Context, Igor Volsky; The Max Baucus WellPoint/Liz Fowler Plan, Marcy Wheeler
3. CBO Score, 11-30-2009
4. “Affordable” Health Care, Marcy Wheeler
5. Gruber Doesn’t Reveal That 21% of Massachusetts Residents Can’t Afford Health Care, Marcy Wheeler; Massachusetts Survey (PDF)
6. Health Care on the Road to Neo-Feudalism, Marcy Wheeler
7. CMS: Excise Tax on Insurance Will Make Your Insurane Coverage Worse and Cause Almost No Reduction in NHE, Jon Walker
8. Employer Health Costs Do Not Drive Wage Trends, Lawrence Mishel
9. CBO Estimates Show Public Plan With Higher Savings Rate, Congress Daily; Drug Importation Amendment Likely This Week, Politico; Medicare Part D IAF; AMonopoloy on Biologics Will Drain Health Care Resources, Lancet Student
10. MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty, Marcy Wheeler
11. Estimated Financial Effects of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,” as Proposed by the Senate Majority Leader on November 18, 2009, CMS (PDF)
12. ibid
13. ibid
14. ibid
15. Health insurance companies hang onto their antitrust exemption, Protect Consumer Justice.org
16. What passage of health care reform would mean for the average American, DC Examiner
17. How to get a State Single Payer Opt-Out as Part of Reconciliation, Jon Walker
March 20, 2010 at 8:14 am
Mitch
Glen Greenwald:
March 20, 2010 at 8:14 am
Mitch
That’s what happens when you forget your slash in html.
March 20, 2010 at 8:16 am
Mitch
So, just for the sake of clarity: the quote from Greenwald is only the first two sentences. (Eric? Fix?)
March 20, 2010 at 9:32 am
Andrew Bird
This is going to be a historic weekend in U.S. politics.
There is a single-payer bill in the state legislature, SB 810, authored by Mark Leno. Chesbro is a coauthor. While there are some initial upfront costs, in the long-term single-payer would cost California significantly less money. Single-payer pools what we already spend on health care into a single entity and cuts out the for-profit insurance companies. Administrative costs and waste are drastically reduced and the money we pay goes to delivering health care instead of Wellpoint’s stockholders.
March 20, 2010 at 9:41 am
huufc
13 Trilllion in debt 1.5 Trillion in defcit this year over 100 Trillion in entitlements in social security and medicare, all unpaid for.
Now congress is poised to create another entitlement.
How much longer can our society continue like this?
March 20, 2010 at 11:38 am
dave
I don’t have your email adress Kirk so that’s why I’m getting off thread here.
Would you, when you have time, stop by my blog and read today’s post? I’d like your opinion on it.
Thanks
March 20, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Joel Mielke
“it’s much easier to build on something than nothing.”
This is the sort of fatuous “talking-point” that renders so many public discussions useless. Ask a contractor if building upon a bad foundation “easier” than starting with nothing?
March 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm
highboldtage
The biggest problem with this Democratic bill is that basically it is a Republican bill that the Republicans are opposing.
If the Republicans had decided in 2005 to gift the insurance business instead of the pharmaceutical industry then we would have gotten something like this bill instead of medicare part d. Maybe Big Pharma was more generous to the Bush Administration that year.
The bill is a gift to Big Insurance, paid for by the taxpayers.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
March 20, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Steak 'n Eggs
If this bill was indeed “written” by the insurance industry, why aren’t they telling the Republicans to shutup, or is the whole fucking thing just a well-rehearsed act?
I mean you gotta admit, the drama hasn’t hurt cable tv advertisers.
March 20, 2010 at 5:13 pm
highboldtage
Yes the media is raking in the advertising dollars, for sure. Though there are many of us who detest the recent SC decision affirming corporate personhood the big media companies are looking forward to big corporate political advertising bucks.
In rare partial agreement with Steak and Eggs.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
March 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm
mresquan
From the AP,
Tea party protesters call Georgia’s John Lewis ‘nigger’
WASHINGTON — Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol , angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted “nigger” Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis , a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.
The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus , lawmakers said.
“They were shouting, sort of harassing,” Lewis said. “But, it’s okay, I’ve faced this before. It reminded me of the 60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean.”
Lewis said he was leaving the Cannon office building across from the Capitol when protesters shouted “Kill the bill, kill the bill,” Lewis said.
“I said ‘I’m for the bill, I support the bill, I’m voting for the bill’,” Lewis said.
A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying “Kill the bill, then the n-word.”
“It surprised me that people are so mean and we can’t engage in a civil dialogue and debate,” Lewis said.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver , D- Mo. , said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard “nigger.”
“It was a chorus,” Cleaver said. “In a way, I feel sorry for those people who are doing this nasty stuff – they’re being whipped up. I decided I wouldn’t be angry with any of them.”
Protestors also used a slur as they confronted Rep. Barney Frank , D- Mass. , an openly gay member of Congress . A writer for Huffington Post said the crowd called Frank a “faggot.”
Frank told the Boston Globe that the incident happened as he was walking from the Longworth office building to the Rayburn office building, both a short distance from the Capitol. Frank said the crowd consisted of a couple of hundred of people and that they referred to him as ‘homo.’
“I’m disappointed with the unwillingness to be civil,” Frank told the Globe. “I was, I guess, surprised by the rancor. What it means is obviously the health care bill is proxy for a lot of other sentiments, some of which are perfectly reasonable, but some of which are not.”
“People out there today, on the whole, were really hateful,” Frank said. “The leaders of this movement have a responsibility to speak out more.”
Thousands of demonstrators gathered outside the Capitol on Saturday as the House Democratic leadership worked to gather enough votes to enact a health care overhaul proposal that has become the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s domestic agenda. Most were affiliated with so-called tea party organizations that originally sprang up during last summer’s protests of the health care proposals.
Heated debate has surrounded what role race plays in the motivations of the tea party demonstrators. During protests last summer, demonstrators displayed a poster depicting Obama as an African witch doctor complete with headdress, above the words “OBAMACARE coming to a clinic near you.” Former President Jimmy Carter asserted in September that racism was a major factor behind the hostility that Obama’s proposals had faced.
The claim brought angry rebuttals from Republicans.
On Saturday, Frank, however, said he was sorry Republican leaders didn’t do more to disown the protesters.
Some Republicans “think they are benefiting from this rancor,” he said.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D- S.C. , said Saturday’s ugliness underscored for him that the health care overhaul isn’t the only motivation for many protesters.
“I heard people saying things today I’ve not heard since March 15th, 1960 , when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus,” Clyburn said. “This is incredible, shocking to me.”
He added, “A lot of us have said for a long time that none of this is about healthcare at all. It’s about extending a basic fundamental right to people who are less powerful.”
March 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Eric Kirk
He went on to say that the public has looked at the bill and rejected it. The host replied that he doubted that anything like a majority had any idea what was actually in the bill and asked the caller what, in the bill, he objected to. Silence…he hemmed and hawed til it was apparent that this guy didn’t know anymore about the specifics than the vast majority of the public. In an interesting aside when people are polled on individual aspects of the reform they vote yes, sometimes overwhelmingly and yet say they don’t like the bill. Me thinks that, with the help of propagandists like beck and limbaugh the masses sometimes can be asses.
I’ll post them later, but all the polls are showing that support for the bill has grown over the past few weeks, even the Republican Rasmussen which has been a constant outlier showing Obama at low approval ratings as he’s climbed in all the rest. It may be that they’ve been getting the message out about the benefits of the bill.
I think attacking the 11 year old kid has backfired big time.
March 20, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Eric Kirk
WASHINGTON — Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol , angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted “nigger” Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis , a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.
Lewis is kind of an odd character. He was a left winger in the 60s, and then he moved hard right and provided cover for Sen. Jesse Helms. Now apparently he’s inched back left again? Somewhere a biographer will sort it out for all of us.
March 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Eric Kirk
The biggest problem with this Democratic bill is that basically it is a Republican bill that the Republicans are opposing.
No it’s not. There’s no way the majority of Republicans would support subsidization for everyone making up to 88 thousand per year. There’s plenty in the bill that’s very progressive. It’s just not enough of what we need.
March 20, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Eric Kirk
Mitch – when I consider the difference between the solid right and the solid left, unfortunately the left does not understand politics. The Nader campaigns have accomplished nothing. I voted for him the first two times, and I’ll vote for him again, or someone else, if I want to cast a protest vote, which is sometimes productive. But the right has a better understanding of politics. They run people for school boards, city councils, and local offices en masse, and they’ve worked their way up over 30 years to dominance of the Republican Party, much to the chagrin of the party’s moderates. But we don’t do that. We don’t even primary the problem moderates/conservatives. Instead we spend large amounts of resources running Nader every four years, hoping he breaks 1 percent so we can call it a “victory.” It’s like two football teams playing – the first with a solid running game who can now score a touchdown every time, and the other spending all three downs, even four, throwing Hail Maries. The left has no strategy except to demand everything without having to convince most of the American people it’s right. In short, we, the left, don’t have single payer, or even a public option, because we suck at politics and expect to win the way the audience saves Tinkerbell in Peter Pan by just believing.
But if you believe the system is all run by shadowy serial villains who manage to blow up two buildings and shoot a hole in the Pentagon to generate a never-ending war and pass it off as a terror attack fooling every journalist on the planet from Amy Goodman to Carl Bernstein, then obviously you don’t want to invest the time, energy, and thought it requires to play the game of change which brought Europe many of the reforms decades ago which we can’t even approximate with our best opportunities. The center left currently running the country doesn’t have to listen to us. We’re inept. And the rest of the world pays for it.
March 21, 2010 at 6:50 am
Mitch
Eric,
I think Nader’s run against Gore was done with serious hope that he’d get enough of a percentage of the vote to get federal funding for future elections. I thought he’d succeed at that goal, because I still had a shred of faith left — now I just keep my passport handy.
I couldn’t agree more with you about the political failure of the left in this country. I do wonder, though, if some substantial credit can’t go to the attack machine on the right, which ensures that left wing candidates will get shot down (sometimes literally, usually figuratively) if they look like they might succeed.
I think a lot of credit also has to go to the right wing for capturing the Christianists, and convincing much of the country that Christianists are good.
And a lot of credit has to go to TV and radio, which IMO lend themselves more to right wing froth than rational discussion. (Remember Gore Vidal in Bob Roberts, looking completely befuddled as he played Gore losing to Bush 43, a decade or two before the fact?)
But the bottom line is none of this has prevented other countries from offering citizens more butter than guns. I don’t know why ours is so different.
March 21, 2010 at 8:03 am
Mitch
Hmmm. Thinking in the shower.
There was an item on common dreams the other day that points out how much heavier Senate representation is in rural states than in urban. That probably contributes to the US left’s problems, because rural is always more right-wing than urban.
As far as the conspiracy theorists go, OK. But let’s not forget that much of the right wing support is based on the belief that a white male deity insists that once sperm touches their egg, women are no longer allowed to control what happens in their body. Not to mention how concerned the deity is with who puts what sexual organ where.
And, if we can leave the left/right liberal/conservative labels behind for a moment, I think what you and I would like to see happen is just harder than its opposite. It’s easier for a pol to support the wealthy because they will keep the pol fat and happy — it’s not so easy for a pol to tell people that the decent thing to do is share. That goes double when the religious authorities (who supposedly represent a man/god who pissed off the authorities no end, served the poor, and overturned vendor tables at the temple) focus more on controlling women’s bodies than on providing care for the poor and sick.
March 21, 2010 at 9:31 am
Moonshadow
Mitch . . . to a degree I agree with you, however, I think Eric has it when he says . . . unfortunately the left does not understand politics.
This is so very true . . . going out and doing the visible street protest thing is what the left seems to live for. BUT . . . little will get accomplished (wrt: progressive left goals) unless a functioning and well laid foundation is built by doing all the unattractive grunt work (school boards, town councils, etc.) to build up experience, credibility, and connections, the left is always going to be playing catchup.
Street protests can be a part of things . . . but they’re a tiny part of what needs to be done and the progressives/left is so far behind it is going to take a miracle to advance out agenda.
Having said that . . . unless all sides learn to truly listen to one another we will go no where fast.
March 21, 2010 at 9:40 am
Mitch
Moonshadow,
And I agree with you, completely and without reservation.
March 21, 2010 at 9:56 am
Data
“…going out and doing the visible street protest thing is what the left seems to live for.”
And gross simplification is what most blog commenting clowns seem to live for. If the above comment were true, wouldn’t we have seen massive rallies against the war this weekend?
March 21, 2010 at 10:33 am
Moonshadow
there were large protests in some cities and in others not. SF was several thousand at best. A similar turnout in LA according to organizers, and in DC there was (according to ANSWER) a turnout of 10,000.
Not huge but definitely not small . . . as compared to the protests at the beginning of the Iraq war they are small and are likely indicative of activist fatigue or possibly boredom with what has become routine and passé. That is a large part of the problem . . . we use these ‘events’ to measure the strength of the movement when the reality is that they’re just all so much preaching to the choir.
The other problem is that all too many of these ‘events’ suffer from message creep where the signs and speakers are all pushing their own particular grievance rather than the topic at hand. Solidarity is all well and good but there needs to be a targeted message when one is staging these ‘events’.
That said . . . there is no substitute for good solid grassroots political activism in our communities. Acting locally means doing the unglamorous local work and eventually leveraging it into regional strengths . . . etc.