I’m not panicking yet about the outcome of the health care debate, but I think we’ve all learned quite a bit about the Democratic Party in the last seven months that we might not have known, or might only have surmised, during the Bush Era.
I think we all expect and can understand that politicians are foremost concerned with their own reelection prospects. And, so, it isn’t any special surprise that there are Democrats who hail from conservative states and districts who are going to buck the Democratic agenda on controversial issues from time to time. For example, we’re lucky to have pro-choice senators from North Dakota because abortion is a highly contentious issue in that state. If they go soft on issues like parental notification or abortion coverage in a public option, I don’t think that is anything we shouldn’t have expected, even if we disagree with their positions wholeheartedly. Politicians normally have a keen sense of which votes will put their career in true jeopardy, and we should not be shocked when they duck those types of votes.
What is surprising, is that there has emerged a kind of ideological opposition to even the lukewarm kind of health care reform that Obama ran on as a candidate for office from a significant bloc of Democrats in both the House and the Senate. It seems to me that the fact that the people had ample opportunity to size up Obama’s health care proposals in both the primaries and the general election, and that they strongly preferred Obama over his competitors, should relieve most Democrats of their anxiety over whether supporting his plans will cost them at the ballot box.
Now, I know that despite Obama’s strong showing nationally that he did very poorly in states like Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee. I can understand why Democratic politicians from those states might feel that there is little to no mandate for Obama’s health care reforms in their districts. But what we’re seeing goes far beyond any instinct for self-preservation. We’re seeing evidence that a lot of so-called Democrats are actually more concerned about corporate profits than they are in making sure that every American has health care coverage.
Even this isn’t so terribly surprising in the sense that we knew that we had a lot of pro-corporate Democrats in the party. This is basically a legacy of the Democratic Leadership Council and the influence of the Clinton administration. But, even with the DLC’s love of free trade and its pro-growth bias, they have historically given more than mere lip-service on the issue of the medically uninsured. Health care coverage has been as issue that has united Democrats of all ideological stripes.
We knew that a heavy pro-corporate tilt existed in the Democratic caucus. That’s why single-payer was never on the table and that’s why no one other than Dennis Kucinich even bothered to pretend that it might get anywhere in Congress when they were running for the Democratic nomination. That was a concession to political reality that was made right up front. Obama has said repeatedly that single-payer would be the best system if we were starting from scratch, but he never would have won the nomination or the endorsements of the majority of his colleagues if he had run on introducing a single-payer system in this country.
Yet, I don’t remember any elected Democrats coming out against the watered down health care proposals of Obama or Clinton or Edwards during the primaries. But, now, with a health care bill under consideration in Congress, we see these ‘centrist’ Democrats coming out of the woodwork to oppose even a public option. What this shows is that a lot of Democrats have been running a fraud on the members of the party. They want us to support them and work for their election because the Republicans are worse, but when the testing time comes, they are not with us.
It’s funny that it’s not enough to have sixty senators and 255 members of the House, because the only possible solution is to elect more Democrats. We might be able to make a small amount of progress by primarying out a few bad actors, but that’s difficult to do and only plays around the margins. We can probably manage our problems in the House, but the U.S. Senate is hopelessly conservative. The only answer is to elect another five or six Democratic senators and hope we can overwhelm these ‘centrists.’
Until the next election, we and ever how many of our friends, families, co-workers, and neighbors need to call the existing bunch (Republican and Democrat) and tell them exactly what we want on specific legislation.
If 100,000 people or more called Kent Conrad’s office and said that they read his “the votes are not there” as Conrad’s determination to push his co-ops even to the point of filibustering a Democratic bill, if we called and said that was unacceptable, do you think he would persist in this folly although his folks in North Dakota might be swayed by his rhetoric.
There are a couple of failures here in the progressive movement. The first is failing to reach out now that the spell of Bush/Cheney is broken and bring more people into supporting progressive policies on a legislative agenda basis. The second is failing to insist that members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus walk the talk and hang tough, tougher than any other caucus.
Jane Hamsher and nyceve and slinkerwink at Dkos are pushing a Whip the Vote telephone campaign to Congress. If you are not participating in it, please start. There are no guarantees but the personal cost of making phones calls is not high either. But the mass impact of lots of people doing it can move Congress. And use your personal networks as best you can to bring more folks into making phone calls.
Also, the Whip the Vote bunch are tracking Congressional schedules during the recess to provide folks with information about when and how they can personally contact their Congresscritters while they are home (and to hold them accountable to their story that they are going to talk to their constituents about healthcare).
Occasionally we political nerds and DFHs need to step out of the paralysis of analysis and actually mobilize people.
I believe that this is that time.
Seems like a suckers game to me. I don’t remember progressive being nearly as active as they have in the last couple of years, phoning, giving money, etc. and what do they have to show for it?
The Dems are taking progressives for a ride.
They just don’t share your goals.
Some progressives have gotten so cynical they have difficulty getting up the courage to go out an persuade people.
What have the defeatists got to show for their “realism”?
One Congressman and an amendment in a healthcare bill that they claim will not pass and is too weak, but for which effort they will not lift a finger.
In this political climate, defeatism is the real suckers game.
Seems like I’ve heard that hope argument before . . . just support me a little bit longer and eventually I’ll start throwing you bones but right now I have to side with your enemies . . . it’s just the practical thing to do.
And I believe I have a reason to be pessimistic. I’m all for compromise to attain an ultimate goal (or get as close to the goal as possible) but surely you believe there is also the possibility that one can give away the store? That compromise becomes counterproductive at some point?
And yes. I freely admit I’ve been defeated. Progressives have been defeated. The Democratic party, now led by Obama, is a conservative party. They are basically the Republicans of 30 years ago.
You can say all is lost and I should be happy with a conservative Democratic party because that’s the best I can expect and “Yes, we can”, but I refuse to go along with that.
So, maybe I am in the minority and am a crazy radical leftist (but the vast majority of people agree with me on socialized health care so I can’t be that crazy).
In any case, playing along with these guys is not getting liberals anywhere. Liberals are falling for a sucker’s argument: this is the best you can expect now support me while I give away the store to your enemies.
And you are going to do what about it?
If liberals withheld their support for anything but basic socialized medicine that would be a better use of time.
Instead of meekly assenting without getting much imput it’s time to bring the hammer.
Why do the conservative Dems always get heard, and policies always changed for their concerns, and yet liberals have very little input and are told they can’t complain and simply have to accept the best deal that’s possible.
Well, let’s show them what’s possible and isn’t possible. If liberals stood together and refused to support anything but basic health care justice then what’s possible would change.
But the Democrats are a beaten down lot and they are used to getting kicked in the head and then jumping up again to please their master so I don’t think they have the courage to stand up and say no to the President.
It’s time to not back the deals. It’s time to stand up for real health care reform and that means opposing the President when he is going to give away the store.
that’s what the members of the progressive caucus …approx 1/3 of the dem caucus as a whole…is attempting to do: Liberals gag over health deal
whether or not the will of 80 progressives, and 3/4 of the population, will be as effective as that of 7 blue dogs remains to be seen. but at least they’ve taken a strong stand…for now.
But what exactly are YOU going to do?
Nothing. I’ve got no power and simply complaining does no good. This is all an exercise of Obama working with the real power brokers (the Blue Dogs) and now the liberals will blow off a little steam.
But ultimately it is just steam. And it does feel good to blow off steam. Because it’s maddening to see the public support basic socialized health care and huge and historic Democratic majorities and then to see the compromise commpromised on. There will never be fundamental change under this dynamic.
And that’s why the powers that be (Obama, the health care and insurance industries, and the Blue Dogs and GOP) will let us liberals blow off steam ineffectively WHINING and then ultimately the liberals will vote for it. That’s why liberals have no power. They will vote for whatever monstrosity is put before them because Obama is smoothing things over (I hear your pain–but this is all we can achieve–stick with me and there’s pie in the sky in the future).
And if liberals don’t vote for it Obama will turn his fire on them.
Calling politicians or demanding that the Blue Dogs be punished are great. But it’s more important that liberals (let’s assume 30%) stick together and learn to throw their weight around. that’s the only way they will ever get power.
That means voting no. That means telling the president “no more giving away the store to the insurance companies”.
It really wouldn’t be that hard to knock out most of the turncoat Dems in their next primaries. They’ve gone against the will of most Americans and the only explanation for that is that they are corrupt. They think it’s OK to trade their votes and their rhetoric for corporate money.
Which makes for some pretty powerful primary campaign attacks. The problem is that we keep hearing how we need more Democrats, so we don’t want to endanger the incumbents with somebody “too liberal”. The “more Democrats” meme has proven a delusion for the most part. Time to take some risks for what we believe in, not some meaningless letter after some opportunist’s name.
All good ideas, but next to useless unless those calls have a big stick behind them. These turncoats already know what people want and need. They don’t give a damn. They believe the bribes they take from their corporate royalty will buy them re-election. Individual phone calls won’t change their mind. Organized public activism pledged to knocking out any Dem who blocks real healthcare reform might. It would also get some media time and become a real pressure point. IOW, forget the “D” after their name and organize for or against them solely on their actions.
…and i will tell you why.
CANDIDATES LIE TO GET YOUR MONEY.
candidates like Chris Carney, who promised the moon to progressives and then turned around after being elected and admitting that he was full of shit. Same with Jerry McInerny (probably spelling his name wrong) and i believe herseth too.
Tarheel Dem is correct: we need to organize people. and what jane and NYCeve are doing is exactly that.
You expected better out of Herseth? In South Dakota?
you’re proving my point.
“you expected better out of herseth” translates to “you’re surprised she’s misrepresented her positions to win election”.
and that’s my point: it’s not about electing more democrats, since you can’t always tell if someone’s just telling you what you want to hear so you’ll give ’em money and vote for them. Politicians talk a good game. Electing more democrats is no guarantee they will be good democrats, especially when Joe Lobbyist shows up with a bag of hundred dollar bills
so while i’ve learned to expect the worst from people like herseth (and even so-called “good democrats” like Chaka fattah who hasn’t lifted a finger for health care reform ), i’ve also learned that they respond to persistent pressure from large organized groups.
which, as tarheel dem mentioned, is the philosophy driving the FDL citizen whip.
Herseth has always been a closeted – well, maybe not so closeted – republican. She’s constantly voting for the corporate interest and for her reelection hopes. SD is a conservative state, but everyone I know here wants a strong public option. She’s a self-serving loser and will never get my vote again, but the damage is already done.
Yep. Good call on it being an ideological shift. Democrats are just not that into socialized health care like they have historically been–and the allure of gobs of money given to them by industry has certainly squelched any tiny bit of ideological belief they may have had in socialized health care.
But I disagree that electing more Dems will make an appreciable difference. Your 5 more Senators might pass another bill–but they will still be on the same ideological plane and will not be making the ideological case for socialized health care. In fact, their goal will be to provide just enough to the plebes so they stop their complaining and we get back to making money again off of America’s sick which will only make the problem worse. The problem is the ideological shift and how this shift benefits one industry at the expense of our economy and justice for the American people. That has to change. Someone needs to make the case that America needs socialized health care and is willing to fight for it (besides Kucinich).
And it wasn’t “practical” that the Democrats caved in on this issue from the beginning (I remember Hillary lecturing Obama about negotiating tactics and how he needed to pretend to demand more–that little exchange encapsulates the party right there and it ain’t pretty–one side wanting to pretend to really stand for something while the other was ready to cave in before the negotiations even began). Practical is standing up for ideological arguments and MAKING THE CASE! The Democrats have been running away from making the case and that’s why we have this jumbled rhetoric and half-ass measures and while our “reform” of health care will simply be a huge welfare program for the industry just like Medicare reform was a huge give away to the pharma industry. These guys are sluts and there is simply no trusting them when they say, for “practical” reasons, they have to ignore the vast majority of Americans that want socialized health care and instead listen to their biggest fat cat donors (they would love to help you but their hands are tied, see . . . ).
Democrats need to make the case to the American people again. Kucinich is right. It’s better to simply make the argument and let the inevitable barrage of attacks fall off of him like water on a duck’s back. So what if he doesn’t win the short term battle. Yeah, yeah, he’s CRAZY, to make the argument that the American people want socialized health care and it’s the right thing to do. But, even if he isn’t able to defeat the huge amount of money the industry is throwing at Dems to buy them off, he’s made the argument, laid the groundwork, and will fight on in the future. That’s how one makes progress. Dems have to fight for social justice and there is no more basic issue that who among our citizens have access to health care. Evidently insurance and health care industry profits are more important to the Democratic party.
Time to start over. The Democratic party is lost.
Once again they’ve raised the white flag and ran from the battle field like the cowards they are. Not before dropping huge bags of money so the enemy can get even richer. And I’m starting to wonder what side they were on in the first place.
And we’re supposed to buy this line that it’s inevitable and the Democrats just had to cave? Psshaw. I’m done with them (in truth I’ve been done with them for a while but I like breaking up with them).
Only a sucker would put faith in the Democrats.
And I thought Obama was saving all his political capital on this issue??????
Suckers.
“Centrist Democrat” is an oxymoron, a manufactured delusion designed to divert from the reality that these so-called Democrats are simply corrupt participants in a corrupt system. They vote for the money instead of their constituents. What, exactly, is a “centrist Democrat” in the center of? When did bribe-taking become moderation? Seriously. If you’re going to use the term, explain the geography.
I can’t believe you still think more Democrats is some kind of solution. How much evidence does it take to give it up? More elected Democrats does not move us to the left on the core issues. If we want what was once the mainstream agenda of the Democratic Party to become relevant again we need to get our asses off the Democrat couch and start building a real leftist movement that uses all the aggression, venom, and anger we see used so effectively by Fox News and its clients. When the “far left” in this country is defined as supporting a public option in an anemic healtcare plan that will still leave us with the shittiest system in the developed world, we have no right to expect a decent government or a decent country. And that expectation at the moment, is right on target.
I don’t think that’s even possible – what states are going to provide five or six Senators that are more liberal than the folks that they’re replacing?
At this point I think we might have a better chance of getting a Constitutional Amendment passed that neuters the Senate into an elected House of Lords than having another five or six more liberals hit the Senate floor and have it make a difference.
I really see the possibility of a 3 party system within the next ten years: the nutjobs (Republican fringe); a Blue Dog corporatist/defecting Republican party; and the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
And the working coalition in government will consist of which two of the three?
When Wall St. is at issue, the Repubs and Centrists.
When choice and other social issues are at play, the Centrists and Dems.
Booman, we centrists aren’t going anywhere. Just because there are 60 Democrats in the Senate now, doesn’t mean there are 60 liberals in the Senate. Reid knows that centrists Democrats control the agenda, and Pelosi knows the Blue Dogs are a real force to be reckoned with. There is a fine line to be gotten here. You want health care passed, you got to go through the Blue Dogs and the Baucus’ of the world to get what you want.
The liberals aren’t going to brush them aside, and hope they go away. The balance of power has shifted.
My thumbnail analysis before the election – Wall Street controlled 80% of the Republican Party and 40% of the Democrats, giving the Corporate Party a nice safe majority.
Now we’ve got corporate Democrats being called out. When they were in the ineffective minority they could claim to be for things – which is where I think the ‘unified Democratic stance on health care’ came from.
This has existed for quite some time. The crushing of unions and the lack of left-wing organized power outside the party has made it easier for the moneymen to buy control. I don’t think it’s as easy to say “it’s just the DLC” because capital has long had a lot of friends in high places.
I think the Progressive Caucus might be able to get something done this time, they are flexing muscle. I think that Obama’s waiting for things to get into conference before really pulling out the stops. I think we will get a decent public option bill this year. I hope it stays after Obama’s gone.