The Real 'American Dilemma'
"By the rude bridge that arched the flood, / their flag to April's breeze unfurled, / here once the embattled farmers stood / and fired the shot heard 'round the world."
I was born and brought up in Massachusetts and know people there who feel a small, proprietary stir in their hearts when they hear these lines by Emerson on the Minutemen's resisting a big government on April 19, 1775. The date was a school holiday in my youth, and - contrary to recent claims in what we laughingly call the "news" media - Massachusetts Republicans led the celebrations: governors Christian Herter, John Volpe, Frank Sargeant, William Weld; senators Leverett Saltonstall and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
They were moderate Republicans, of a genus now extinct. Even Edward Brooke, the state's first black senator, was from the Party of Lincoln because Dems were mortgaged nationally to segregationists, something it took a repentant segregationist, Lyndon Johnson, to change.
Now Dems are mortgaged to corporate interests, and if it took a segregationist to flummox Jim Crow, maybe only a child of plutocracy like FDR can say of bankers, as he did in 1936, "They hate me - and I welcome their hatred." Barack Obama is no FDR, and his Dems are mortgaged to big Pharma and Wall Street. But the GOP is these interests' wholly owned subsidiary. Why don't our would-be Minutemen see this?
I took a crack at that question a few posts below this one, and Richard Parker, the Harvard economics historian and author of a great biography of John Kenneth Galbraith, responded this morning by writing me that the tsunami of anti-Democrat populism reflects a tremendous frustration wrapped in a typically American illusion.
Parker cites a Scott Brown voter, interviewed yesterday afternoon, who said he's passionately "for individual liberty" but wants "to get government's hands off Social Security and Medicare...." Like this voter, "a large segment of the population psychologically has personalized and privatized what is in fact public and thereby imagines government as the enemy of itself," Parker suggests.
As Massachusetts patriots, he adds, they have "an authentic hunger for liberty and democracy," coupled with "an almost Marxian recognition that ours is not in fact a democratic state, but rather the instrumental expression of powerful interests. Obama as a candidate awakened the dream that there might be more in this life, in this republic; Obama the president has let us watch once again as the dream is euthanized" by interests he dares not take on.
How can Obama take them on, when the Brown patriots have had no problem with special, powerful interests buying our Congressmen - as the Supreme Court seems about to let them do outright? Citizens in the cradle of the American Revolution may feel rage at being dispossessed, but, like sunshine patriots, they're finding it easier to blame government for letting the interests write the bills than to blame the interests for holding the politicians hostage, under campaign-finance premises they seldom challenge.
The consequence of letting the interests write the bills, as Rober Scheer argues in TruthDig, is that we have a health-care bill that prompted a federal prosecutor to write me this morning, "I knew health care was dead the other day when I was talking to a fellow liberal colleague whose husband is active in local Dem politics, and it became obvious to both of us that we didn't know what was in the current plan, couldn't articulate how it would work, and weren't sure if we'd be personally helped or hurt by it."
So, congratulations, Congressional Democrats. And congratulations, Mr. President, for letting them do what they've done. But most of all, congratulations to us "liberals" and progressives for not speaking a language of liberty that's grounded and potent enough, in an American civic-republican way, to reach embattled patriots with the news that they're shooting in the wrong direction.
Glad though am that there's a black man in the Oval Office, this, as Richard Parker notes, is the new "American Dilemma."
I read this quote: "to get government's hands off Social Security and Medicare...." differently. Perhaps people recognize that the federal government has been looting SS and medicare for years and that BOTH Republicans and Democrats talk constantly about "rethinking entitlements". This rethinking translates to letting the corporations and Wall Street get their hands on all the rest of this money.
These are NOT entitlements: I, as a working citizen, have been paying towards this my whole life, and I absolutely do not want the government to do anything that diminishes these. If the government is broke, stop having wars.
January 20, 2010 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate the word entitlement. You're right. Social Security and Medicare aren't entitlements. They're services for which the government charges you throughout your working life.
January 20, 2010 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!
January 20, 2010 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What youre saying is completely true. I agreee with you
children health
January 12, 2011 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
March 25, 2011 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 17, 2010 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
January 20, 2010 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I find tales of "keep the government out of my Medicare" amusing, I don't think they're representative. I think that people are largely aware that there are many government programs that they depend on. Voting Republican because you're mad about the corporate influence on Democrats is, as you say, a mistake but also as you say people are rightly confused about how the health care bill is going to effect them. They know that they'll have the same insurance tomorrow that they had today. Will the benefits be more generous? Will premiums go down? Or up? Will they go up faster than if the government does nothing or rise but rise more slowly? You'd need a financial adviser and a CBO economist to get answers.
A lot of these populists aren't voting Republican. They're just not turning out for Democrats and it's hard to blame them. Wall Street's bonus pool will be $150 billion this year. The TARP program looks like it will lose... about $200 billion. Talk to me about that. Talk to me about why those won't be allowed to happen. How can the taxpayer lose that badly while the bankers pay themselves a similar amount in a single year? If the banks have that much money for one year of bonuses, how can the Treasury not make a profit on the bailouts?
Why were banks forgiven their debts while people are made to suffer. If AIG owes Goldman Sachs $15 billion I have to pay for it. And if I owe JPMorgan Chase $7,000 I have to pay that too? If the problem is that our economy lacks demand because the consumer went into debt in order to keep living standards up while wages fell then why isn't just paying off people's cards the answer? Why is that a moral hazard while bailing out AIG wasn't?
I think you have to keep in mind that for a decade Americans churned out great productivity numbers by working their butts off and were not justly compensated. Then they were blamed for using credit to by the luxuries that their work should have but didn't afford them. Why do we work so hard so that a select few can have all the fun?
Democrats target and means test everything and it has to stop. Create more programs like Social Security where everybody benefits. That'll get people interested. Because right now they suspect that every time there's a fee or tax that it's just being confiscated from them in exchange for services to some one else -- maybe some one in economic distress but that could just as easily be a guy who works on Wall Street or lives on the street these days.
January 20, 2010 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Obama is zeroing in on the sacred "entitlements" of SS and Medicare. It's hard to believe he ran on a Democratic ticket because he's doing what the republicans have been trying to do for the last 30 years or more.
January 20, 2010 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually some estimates are that if expected paybacks continue, by next year, all but $42 billion of TARP will be paid back assuming Obama can be stopped from diverting the paybacks into some other boondoggle.
I suppose these paybacks from the banks should be considered a readjustment downward on the supposed huge deficits that GWB left us.
That means Obama will remain the King of all debt for the foreseeable future.
January 21, 2010 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may be me, but when I go to the civic-republican primer, I get no text just the title.
But I think a crux of the matter is that the basis of the progressive agenda is built on a collective responsibility and, thus, sacrifice by some for the good of all.
As the story about the liberal colleague and her husband, in the end their primary concern seemed to be do we personally benefit or lose, not will the country as a whole benefit.
Fred Moolten's latest blog covers this subject of sacrifice really well, and I think the problem is that the Democrats are trying to create reform where everyone wins (or at least spin it that way), and no one has to sacrifice. Real change will come with sacrifice for our neighbors. This is something that the Scott Brown patriots don't want to hear.
January 20, 2010 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned people have already sacrificed. A decade of economic stagnation while productivity was through the roof is a sacrifice. Isn't the goal here a rising standard of living for everyone? If our economy isn't delivering then the government has to.
January 20, 2010 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
In one sense I agree with you, but also if we are going to have a system where health care is a right and not a priviledge, then that system will mean the haves (and we're not just talking about the $250,000 and above) have to dip into their pockets to help the have nots.
I work in the nonprofit world, and I see a lot of people giving a lot of their money to charities that try to do their best to fill in the gaps in the health care system. A lot of these same people would balk if the government took even a portion of what they normally give to implement a universal system that isn't piecemealed and uncoordinated like what we have now. And it is difinitely underfunded. So we have to reach out to those not quite as generous with their charitable dollars.
January 20, 2010 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Isn't the goal here a rising standard of living for everyone?"
Since Reagan's election, there has been only one period of time where average wages actually rose, and that was towards the end of Clinton's first term [And, to preempt the inevitable response, yes, there was a bubble of sorts. But some of the wealth created by that bubble actually went to the working stiffs]. If people voted on their own economic well-being, and not on jingoistic notions of what it means to be a "real" American, the Republican Party would cease to exist after the next general election.
But the past can't be undone. We'll all need to pony up again if we want to turn this country around. What the Brown voters are doing is what every voter who has voted Republican in the last thirty years has done: expect the government to provide entitled white people with a free lunch.
January 20, 2010 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
On "civic republican primer," try this:
http://www.jimsleeper.com/?p=15
Good points here about the rhetoric of sacrifice, I think. But there has to be room in republic for appeals to citizens as people who are capable of transcending their narrow self-interest. That's what puzzles me: How to strike the balance between reminding people that they're better than self-dealing, self-marketing drones without making them feel guilty for acting pretty often like self-dealing, self-marketing drones.
January 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A difficult balancing act, indeed. And of which I believe Destor alludes to above, it is not necessarily a bad thing to be concerned with the well-being of one's self and one's family.
It is made all the more difficult by the fact that most of the time one has to do it in tiny bits, and usual via the television or some other visual medium.
Part of my hope for Obama, aside from any policies etc, was that he move the country toward a more sophisticated discourse on the issues that we face. Watching the "patriots" at their rallies only shows how far we have to go down the path.
January 20, 2010 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of insights: Eric Schneiderman in 'The Nation' suggests that the conservative tsunami for the last 30 years was accomplished because the conservatives moved the voters closer to them, rather than changing their positions or rhetoric to move toward the voters. He calls this transformational politics rather than transactional.
What the American electorate was being fed during the run for president, from an article by Corsi titled 'The Obama Nation' "Obama is a corrupt enraged, anti-American, drug-dealing, anti-Israel, pseudo-Christian, radical leftist, black-militant, plagerist, and liar, trained as a Muslim and mentored by a menagerie of Marxists, Communists, cryto-Communists and terrorists." Stuff like this sticks.
January 20, 2010 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the key. Democrats today speak far too much about "the country, the poor, the middle class and the minorities" in a tone the sounds to most people like they are expected to sacrifice for others while having a tough time themselves. This goes over like the proverbial lead balloon.
Fact is most people are interested in what and how something is going to effect them personally. They are not very interested in how it will help/hinder somebody else. Especially if that somebody else is different from them in any way.
And as I have been saying people think in very simplistic terms concerning how someting will effect them.
The republicans know this and use it very well. The current crop of democrats appear to be clueless.
C
January 20, 2010 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you say the patriots are shooting in the wrong direction,...it's actually worse than that. They are shooting in any direction. They are aimless and that is what scares people in Massechussets. They are afraid of getting shot by people firing wildly in to the dark.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been drinking their own bath water as the British spies used to say of propagandists who lose touch with which is the lie you are trying to sell to the target and which is the truth you are passionately attached to.
In Stephanopolous' book, All to Human, he struggles with the idea of following his liberal compass and doing what it takes to stay in power, and reflects on what his fellow liberals oft repeated, "You can't change the world if you're out of power". This is the age old maxim that idealists use to justify ditching their ideas and imitating those they criticize. It often leads to a more and more corrupt single minded lunge for power.
What we have seen in the past year with Obama shutting out Republicans from the process, cutting back room deals with Big Pharma, and hiding talks behind closed doors, rushing legislation through so fast that nobody has read it...is it any wonder the above story happens where two liberals say they favor the Healthcare bill but have no clue whats in it?
This whole process has been a lesson in political paranoia. The argument goes, we can't let the public in, because the GOP will Demagogue the bill, we can't go slow, because we may not have the super majority in 2011, We can't alienate all Pharmaceutical companies and Insurers, or they will team up and come after us, If we let them know our ultimate goal is single payer they will run for the hills.
David Axelrod stated that his campaign strategy for Obama was to focus on his unique personal narrative, rely on his communication skills, and don't try to come across as being on one side or the other of an issue. His bold plan was to use Obama's rhetorical skills to be on BOTH sides of every issue. It was a complete repudiation of Clinton's so called "third way". It was "every way".
As was noted above, the idea of transformational political movements that even Obama claimed to admire about the Reagan Revolution was that he introduces his plan in clear declarative sentences, and stands by them pass or fail in hopes that in time the public comes his way. What we have seen is a kind of desperation and a confusion about which part of the campaign rhetoric was real and which part was supposed to fool the poor schmucks in flyover country.
If Obama was a blank slate depending on the viewer that everyone projected on, after a year, the people now reflect that aimlessness and confusion about which way is up and are nervous and scared by it.
The markets have been and continue to be jittery, because we live in uncertainty. Even SS and Medicare (as they exist now) are predictable, but this past year as been directionless. Reagan offered direction and predictability, even if it was wrong. Clinton settled down and found direction in 1995. Obama has yet to find direction and may never find it. He failed to realize that if you lack a core direction in year one, someone else will force a direction on you. I think we need to ask ourselves if Obama had a core direction to begin with, because if he didn't have one before, he is being fitted for a new direction by someone else now.
The American people were told by Obama TARP would buy toxic mortgages, that changed drastically.
They were told the Stimulus would immediately go to shovel ready projects and create jobs, it did not go to clearly delineated shovel ready projects and did not create jobs and did not go immediately anywhere.
He trashed Bush's foreign policy, but has adopted much of Bush's policies.
And Health care? No one on the right or left is happy.
When the American people are treated like morons, as the left is doing today with their Wednesday morning quarterbacking, the people's first response is not going to be, hey maybe I am an imbecile. Their first thought is going to be, "Wait a minute, you work for me, and what have you been doing and what promises have you kept and why does it seem you don't know where you are going?".
Blaming Republican's is like missing a 3 foot putt and blaming someone else for making you nervous.
If you are wondering why the "patriots" are firing in "every direction" it is because that is the direction they were told to fire by David Axelrod's teleprompter....and now people are getting shot.
One dead in Massachusetts.
January 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Confucius say "Man who stand in middle of road get hit by traffic going both ways"
Absolutely correct. Or as a very wise lady once told me. "It is better to be real than right".
The Dems in congress need to more concerned about getting the ideas passed than whether they are the correct ideas or not.
C
January 20, 2010 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice comment. I don't agree with all the particulars as far as motives or motivation, but you have certainly provided pertinent context that the democratic party will never hear.
January 20, 2010 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
As was noted above, the idea of transformational political movements that even Obama claimed to admire about the Reagan Revolution was that he introduces his plan in clear declarative sentences, and stands by them pass or fail in hopes that in time the public comes his way.
This is exactly right. The problem, though, is that the Democratic leadership (Obama included) doesn't have anything "transformational" to offer (Obama talked nice about "change" during the campaign, but now that he's in office, where exactly is the substance?). Absent any real transformative ideas, the Democratic leadership has become obsessed with Clintonian "triangulation," which really is nothing more than taking Reaganistic ideas and softening them around the edges to make them more palatable (if not truly attractive) to leftward leaning voters. By taking this approach, the Democrats send an implicit message to the voters that the Republicans are really the party with the right vision for the country. The best the Democrats can do, then, is try to sand off the rough edges of Republican ideas. It's true, the Democrats can occasionally win elections by adopting the ideas of their opponents. It happens when the Democratic candidate is a better campaigner than the Republican candidate (a better speaker, more personable, etc.). And it happens when people get a little uncomfortable with some of the more extreme elements of Republican ideology or when the Republicans blunder or become corrupt. But the Clintonian strategy leaaves the Democrats always playing second fiddle to the Republicans. It got the Democrats the Presidency for two terms (against two very weak and unappealing Republican candidates), but it simultaneously lost them the rest of the government (Congress and the Supreme Court). The DLC, however, seems to think this Clintonian approach is the only strategy that can work because it has had a few modest (and mostly pyrrhic) victories. It may be true that lurching backwards toward 1960s liberalism would be even worse for the Democrats than the current triangulation approach . . . but if the Democrats really want power they need to give up both the old, tired leftist ideas and the newer, but also tired Clintonian approach and come up with something more appealing to voters than either of those and, most important, more appealing than Reaganism. The Right, of course, will claim that Reaganism can't be bettered. But the skepticism about, and disappointment with, the Republican approach to governing was very deep a year ago. There was great receptiveness to something new. But instead of doing the hard work to think through the problem and come up with a bold proposal that offered a completely new vision to the people, Obama decided to turn everything over to the congressional committees. At that point he lost the people. And in doing so, he may very well have lost the Democrats' one best chance to finally displace Reaganism.
January 21, 2010 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It may be true that lurching backwards toward 1960s liberalism would be even worse for the Democrats than the current triangulation approach . . . but if the Democrats really want power they need to give up both the old, tired leftist ideas and the newer, but also tired Clintonian approach and come up with something more appealing to voters than either of those and, most important, more appealing than Reaganism."
...plus talking in simple, declarative sentences-:)
There are a few things going on here. One, Reagan appealed to some basic, bumper sticker emotions and bromides: freedom, less government, no taxes, winning the cold war. They were buzz words and fit easily onto bumper stickers.
Most importantly, they involved government doing LESS, which is actually pretty easy to pull off, if not in fact, then in appearance. No one, not even progressives, LIKES to pay taxes. No one ever complains when one's tax bill is lower than it was last year. So the inertia was in Reagan's direction.
Similarly, everyone likes to be left alone to do what one wants. This is a promise that's also easy to deliver on. Do less. No one actually HAS more freedom (whatever that means), but who can tell anyway? Cut out some regulations here and there. Make a few public stands against unions, and the PR works with you.
Also, with an all-volunteer army, it's easy for a lazy public to cheer as someone else's boy goes off to war. No taxes are raised. We're never fighting on our soil. And if the enemy happens to implode on your watch, you get credit for it.
So, my point is, the Democrats are fighting an inertial force. They want to do SOMETHING, and their opponents inherently want to do NOTHING. This is an uneven match up. And getting the public to connect the dots--e.g., lower taxes means tuition increases, or cuts in firefighting budgets, or other consequences --is very, very hard from a communications standpoint.
Plus, it probably does require some self-sacrifice and sense of belonging to community. For one thing, when one's taxes go up, sometimes the increase benefits others more than oneself. This requires thinking and valuing something beyond self. Not easy to get people to do, especially when people feel vulnerable and more in need than ever of looking out for themselves because no one else (like the government) is going to.
Community, ah, that's an American value. Fits on a bumper sticker. Feels good and warm. Some form of communitarianism (not the word to use!) might be a way forward. Looking out for one another. Helping your neighbor and having your neighbor looking out for you.
January 21, 2010 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying Tintin. Reaganism is both simplistic and undemanding and that gives it some inherent advantages. But I think there are actually some bits of Reagan's rhetoric that the Democrats should just steal . . . and then build on. For instance, it's always struck me as silly that the Democrats don't just say loudly and unequivocally that they are for low taxes for everyone. Why would we not be for that? If we could do all the great things we want to do--educate people, give people affordable health care, build roads, clean up the environment--and do it all without collecting a single cent in tax money from anyone that's exactly what we'd do. We understand that taxes are a burden. And we definitely want to minimize that burden for everyone, rich, poor, and in-between. So, yes, we are against high taxes and we want to do everything we can to lower taxes for every American.
But . . . we also believe that there are certain things that a prosperous and generous country like our own should be able to ensure for all its citizens: education, health care, a chance to get a good job if one is willing to work. . . Americans have always had a can-do attitude, and when we put our minds to it we know we can do these good things for all our fellow citizens . . . and we can do them efficiently and at the lowest possible cost. That's what we Democrats stand for. We don't doubt America and it's ability to do good for all its citizens, to make life more secure, more prosperous, more enriched for all our people equally. We aren't like the cynics in the Republican party who speak badly about the great federal democracy built by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and all the founders and who doubt what this country and its people can do. NO . . . we believe in America and and we don't doubt what we Americans can accomplish when we all work together with a common purpose. . .
And so, as Democrats, we make a promise to the American people: We owe it to you to make your government as effective and as efficient as possible. We owe it to you to keep your taxes as low as possible and to ensure that each American pays only what he or she can afford. But at the same time, we owe it to you to make sure that our democracy fulfills the great promise our founders made when they wrote in the preamble to the Constitution that this government would make it possible for "we the people" to to form that more perfect union, to establish justice for all, to insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and, most important, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . . We Democrats believe in this promise. We believe all Americans believe in this promise. And as democrats we'll work to make that promise a reality for us all.
Or something to this ramble's effect . . .
January 21, 2010 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I agree with all of us. It does take someone to frame it correctly. 'Cause the first time you raise taxes, people are going to say, "See?" They just don't connect the dots between what they pay and what they get.
You made a valiant attempt, though. I like it!
January 22, 2010 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
tin tin i like it too
porno izle
February 12, 2011 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
What do you suppose the spoils are?
“The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. …… the system in which they have waxed fat, insolent and despotic through the exploitation of their countless wage-working slaves.” Debs
The Republican and Democratic parties, They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.” Debs
THE SPOILS
“the system in which they have waxed fat, insolent and despotic through the exploitation of their countless wage-working slaves.”
The Republican-Lites want to tax the middle class to support it’s programs.
The Republicans want to tax the middle class to support it’s programs.
The middle class seeks to be non affiliated with either party, calling themselves Independents
Independents are blocked at the primary because you must declare a party affiliation in order to vote for who will be the candidate.
Independents brought Brown to power. What other choice was there?
The Democrats got arrogant and pissed off the Independents who did not want to be viewed as spoils (wage-working slaves) to be taxed.
January 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim,
This is a wonderful post!
Anything I could add would only be gilding the lily.
January 20, 2010 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has a lot to do with being allowed to vote politicians who sell out to special interest out of office. If we could vote for the CEO of Goldman Sachs ... Liz Warren would be in for one hell of a pay raise. But the special interests seem to be untouchable; except by maybe putting new politicians in office. For some people it's kind of hard to recognize the subtle difference between being "mortgaged to" and being "a wholly owned subsidiary of".
IMO, it is not only OK to assign blame, be it for torture or crap policy (1992-present), it is necessary if things are going to get better. Otherwise, the same people just linger. Messing everything up. Forever. We don't "all" share responsibility for the democrats running down a blind alley that very well could end in a brick wall - whoever said "Let's run into this alley" holds that bag. Fire them.
It sure wasn't Reid or Pelosi who hatched the roll-over and play dead strategy.
January 20, 2010 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It sure wasn't Reid or Pelosi who hatched the roll-over and play dead strategy."
Last time I checked, Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader. Last time I checked, the Senate was where all the problems with passing this bill occurred. I agree he came through stronger towards the end of the process (even if we lost what are three or four now-critical months), but he still gave the R's time to demonize, obstruct and finally kill the bill. But now he's one of the good guys, who also got sandbagged by the ever-devious Obama?
Many commenters here vastly overestimate the power a president has to move a Congress that is opposed to his policies. And I'm guessing anywhere from 44-52 Senators were opposed to any healthcare reform that put the smallest of dents in the insurance companies' bottom lines. Hell, the only Senator that has come out repeatedly and strongly in favor of getting a bill passed is Bernie Sanders. That puts Sanders on Obama's side, capeesh?
The problems with our Demcoracy have been laid pretty bare; we do not have a legislature that will heed the people's will, even when that will is presented by a president who has received the largest share of the popular vote in 20 years. You can continue to blame Obama for all of our problems as a country, but it won't do any good. Until you understand the problem, you'll continue to fail in finding a solution.
January 20, 2010 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last time I checked, the White House was going direct with "moderate" caucus members; bypassing leadership completely. These meetings were then often followed up by media leaks from "knowledgable insiders" indicating the WH wouldn't be opposed to [X] (triggers, Cadillac tax, mandates, etc.).
That undercuts any whip effort either Pelosi or Reid want to conduct. How is Steny Hoyer going to lean on a blue dog if they wrangled concessions out the CIC himself? Rham is all but daring the leadership to challenge him. Shy of going to battle with the WH, there isn't much the congressional leadership can do. What, are they going to censure blue dogs for jumping the chain of command? How would *you* react if Pelosi and Reid came out with a joint statement demanding the WH stop interfering with their legislators? This place would blow. it's. top.
Obama is damn lucky Reid is loyal. Half of Vegas is in foreclosure and there are no Wall Street bankers in Nevada. Don't you think Reid's strongest self interest is to take some scalps? And don't you think Geithner's looks pretty? And don't you imagine after 10 years of the republicans using every legislative trick in the book against him, Reid isn't dying for payback? Maybe other Nevada residents have a different view(11 yrs there myself), but in my experience Harry Reid is one dirty fighting SOB. If the administration weren't giving a "we want to make sure EVERYBODY is on board" speech every weekend, and instead told Reid to smash the Republicans in the teeth, they would be kicked into the same cellar the democrats occupied for a decade quicker than lightning.
I don't see how Pelosi or Reid can do their jobs as you imply they should without directly challenging the administration. You've already seen Pelosi start to push back publicly a bit. It's getting to a point where they are forcing Reid into a corner where it is going to be him or Obama. Things might get dicy in democratville. If Reid has to run against Obama to win in 2010, the democrats are in sorry shape.
January 20, 2010 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comments. They raise as many questions as they answer, however. It seems to me that the Obama style of dealing with congress has two key components: preempt any flamboyant opposition behind closed doors, and to leave the heavy-lifting of writing the bills to Congress. Both seem to make a lot of sense to me on paper, at least. But the actions you accuse him of satisfy the first but not the second aspect of his legislative strategy as I've outlined it. I mean, if congress is writing the bills, shouldn't they know what the relevant members will support or oppose? And if Harry Reid wants tough legislation against Wall Street, do you really believe it is the administration that's preventing it? All of the opposition I've seen to the best aspects of these bills has come from Congress, not from the administration.
I suppose we won't know for awhile what has really went on behind the scenes in Washington (i.e., until the Woodward book comes out) in Obama's first year. But if what you say is true, than Emmanuel is not merely in over his head as congressional liaison (which is what I've come to conclude), but the primary reason for the health care clusterfuck. He should go for ineffectiveness, but if he's actually going rogue on the president and the congressional leadership, he needs to go, and go now.
January 20, 2010 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating insights here. But why is Obama doing it? What's Rham Emmanuel's role in all of this?
Why did Obama fire up the base during the campaign only to fuck them over in his first year in office? I don't get it.
January 20, 2010 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 21, 2010 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stopping By The Hood on a Revolutionary Evening
Whose people these are I think I know.
Their money is in the system though;
They will not see me cashing out
To watch their freedoms blown up like snow.
My little people must think it queer
To cash out with no vision near
Between the rock and frozen place
The blackest Tuesday of the year.
He gives his cable clowns a shake
To engender more off point debate.
The only other sound's the peep
Of easy wind for drowsey sheep.
The President's lovely, dark and deep.
And he had promises to keep,
And miles to go in dream-filled sleep,
And miles to go in dream-filled sleep.
January 20, 2010 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
K.I.S.S. It is what the GOP figured out long ago and have been thrashing Democratic ass with ever since. It is what the Democrats need to learn at long last from Republicans not their policy ideas (or what passes for policy ideas) as many pundits are advocating. Keep It Simple Stupid!!!
And they still could by enacting Medicare option available to anyone to buy into by budget reconciliation. It's simple. Unfilibusterable. It would work. It would be loved by the people. It would enshrine the Democratic party in the hearts of voters for half a century. After that they might have to come up with another idea if they want to stay in the sadle.
Why don't they ALL see this? The Republicans sure do. That's why they have been fighting this sooo damn hard. And it is just sitting there, the low hanging fruit, to be plucked. Just do it and everything else will flow from it.
But it seems maybe that is what our wonkey Democrats are really afraid of. Keeping it simple. They love to spin endlessly complex policy scenarios that go on for hours (Joe Biden) and thousands of pages with baroque details to impress everybody with their intricate thought processes so we all know how superior their well trained intelects are to those simple headed GOPers. And then those damned ungrateful voters get bored and vote for the dunderheaded Republicans. Who could have guessed?
Mr. President, Mr. & Ms. Senators and Congeresspersons. For just this onnce Keep It Simple!!! Shove Medicare for all through. Damn it WIN for once. Win this one and it's the keeper that will be your shining moment that will pay you back a thousand fold. Pretend you are Republicans and it's a tax break for the rich.
January 20, 2010 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And please note that the simplest part is that all that insurance industry regulation that seems so important now. With Medicare for all it doesn't matter because those private companies that don't give honest service will dry up and blow away.
January 20, 2010 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard Viguerie, the conservative poobah and fundraiser, once told a DM crowd that conservatives had an inherent advantage over liberals: They could fit their policy positions onto bumper stickers. Always stuck with me. Don't know if we can do it, but there is a kind of logic to it.
January 20, 2010 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that the current Medicare system would crumple under the weight of all those new bodies without significant overhaul itself. Nothing in this debate is simple or it would have already occured.
January 20, 2010 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure? IT infrastructure problems? If that's all, the three year delay seems sufficient to rectify the technical problems - and would create jobs as well. Corporations retool on a much more aggressive schedule (and medicare has already done much of the e-records and backbone work under HIPPA; the push is now to get providers e-filing into the system, most states are already on a deadline with this).
Currently Medicare covers the most expensive health care consumers in the market - old people through their convalescence and passing. Yet Medicare is able to deliver health services on average for less than private insurance (and they even take preexisting conditions). It seems to me that ANY pool augmenting the Medicare system would likely consume considerably less health services than the current medicare average. And the new consumers would be revenue producing as well, providing both premiums and payroll withholding. Why wouldn't we expect the whole system to go from notably less costly than private insurance to significantly less costly than private insurance?
I'm not endorsing the Medicare for all thing per se. I just don't see where this collapse is coming from. It would honestly be AWESOME for third party billing companies as a ton of new clinics moved into the system. That would seem to encourage most of the technological changes mandated in the House Bill at the service provider level without ever having to pass a law. I can see many health-care related industries benefiting from the move.
January 20, 2010 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, very good idea. And simple. And probably not at all as costly. And then, also, EVERYONE has a stake in fixing Medicare, even if they have to cough up a few bucks. Think of all those small businesses who would no longer have to hassle with finding and administering health insurance. Gone! What a relief!
This is the ticket.
Medicare For All. Love it.
January 21, 2010 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's over.
There will be no budget reconcilliation.
The last 8 months of horsetrading and arm twisting and sweetheart deals and all the drama for the house and Senate bills is in the trash can.
Last night, Obama said there will be no reconciliation and its back to "square one".
Pelosi today admitted that the house "does not have the votes" even if they wanted to accept the Senate bill.
It's dead.
If they want to have a bill that does anything about Healthcare, it must be a new bill created from the ground up. That means, they will have to achieve this by doing what they should have done one year ago today,...they should have approached the GOP and said let's negotiate.
A year ago, the Democrats had the upper hand in negotiations, they went for broke. They wanted it all. They believed they could go it alone, so they did. Now the Republican's will have more momentum in negotiations. What we will get is a Healthcare bill that looks more like the GOP plan than anything the left ever dreamed of.
If Obama and the Democrats had handled it different a year ago, they would have had a much more liberal bill and the benefit of claiming it was bipartisan.
That is the difference. Whatever we get will be bipartisan and the left has been telling us for years, bipartisanship is a good thing. Obama promised it.
Scott Brown's election has forced Obama to follow through on his promise.
January 21, 2010 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have to pity this President. His troubles have just started. His plans have failed at every turn. Martha Coakley is just the latest desaster. He looks forward to the next "Global Warming" desaster so he can do what?, Watch Rahm Emanual dance around the TV.
He keeps the peasants angry and businessmen working harder to do what they do best, succeed!
January 20, 2010 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the GOP is these interests' wholly owned subsidiary. Why don't our would-be Minutemen see this?
Well, people who voted for Brown apparently did so for a variety of reasons. But I suspect a not insignificant number of them are perfectly aware that the Republicans are servants of wealth and power, and are even less likely than Democrats to defend their interests. But they used the only tool at their disposal - electoral revolt - to send a desperately urgent message to Washington.
You know those original tea-partiers in colonial Massachusetts? A lot of them really liked tea! But when one has limited power in a rigged and highly centralized system, what options are available for sending a potent political message? Union strikers back in the day were sometimes known to riot and bust up the machines in the factory, even though they were the ones who were going to have to work double hard with the busted machines after the strike was over. Why did they do it? Well how else do the lowly send an electric jolt of fear up the spines of management?
I'm not that keen on reading doctrinal philosophical import into the ebbs and flows of politics. As a person who taught philosophy for many years, I think I can confidently hypothesize that most people's political "philosophies" turn out on examination to be logically incoherent mishmashes of emotionally reinforced slogans and highly contextualized and narrow intellectual impulses, responses that accompany a repertoire of acquired affective responses to a bewildering variety of situations in a complex world. In other words, there is little intellectual rhyme or reason to what people think and say in various circumstances. Muddling through this world is way more an art than a science.
People might say that they disagree with what some politician believes, and imagine that the politicians holds a large number of anathematized and deplored doctrines, but they really care a lot more about how a politician acts and behaves. They find certain kinds of behaviors and actions gratifying, satisfying or rewarding, and will cook up whatever kind of intellectual label they need for those actions, after the fact, in order to rationalize them within their jumbled-up stew of approved doctrines.
I know a whole bunch of Republicans who just a couple of years ago were ardent supporters of the prerogatives of concentrated presidential power, and defenders of social order and authority. Now they claim they are "libertarians" concerned with growing "fascism" or whatnot. On the other hand, I know many Democrats who were all about saving "the Republic" during the Bush years, and rescuing democracy from the clutches of Republican fascists. Now a number of them are more impressed with the need for strong leadership from the top, and don't get too worried about signing statements and the like.
My conclusion? Partisan identification is a religion in this country, and people experience the plight of their party as their own personal plight. The people in the party that is out of power feel powerless, and feel that their enemies are in control of their lives. So they are contextually inspired by the call of "liberty" and "liberation", and are drawn to anti-authoritarian gestures and symbols of revolt. When they are back in power, they will forget about most of this so-called libertarianism.
My suggestion for Obama and Co. is that they just do more concrete, easily explainable and readily grasped things that people find emotionally satisfying and instinctively appealing, and that serve the obvious material interests of ordinary Americans, and don't worry so much about the philosophy. Spend more time appealing to people's sentiments and material and emotional needs, and not so much time worrying (in public) about calibrating the policy wonkery just right to appeal to people's supposed philosophies.
Ray LaHood made a nice move recently when he responded to air traveler gripes about long waits on the tarmac by requiring planes to turn around and go back to the gate if the wait was too long. Was he defending liberty? Democracy? Law and order? Was it even the best policy? Who knows? Who cares? But I could imagine a lot of tired business travelers in their cars pointing to the radio and saying "Now that's what I'm talking about!"
If Barack Obama invited the head of Goldman Sachs to the White House, and then forced him to bend over on the White House lawn, so that the Prez could paddle his behind in front of the media cameras, he would earn more cred with the public for that one act than he would by passing months of made-in-Cambridge policy wonk legislative packages. If Obama told Americans that he was enacting a massive one time tax on Wall Street salaries exceeding a certain amount, and using the proceeds to help Americans pay down the credit card debt or make their next mortgage payment, he would hear a resounding national "You da man!"
Obama: just listen to people more. And then show them you are listening. Go back to that "politics from the bottom up" idea. Find out what people want done, and then do it.
And for Pete's sake, take care of your own! You were elected by a very broad national coalition in a resounding victory. Take care of those people first and hold them together. Stop worrying so much about how to move on to get neoconservatives to love you, or Republicans to love you, or everyone else who didn't vote for you to love you.
January 20, 2010 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan I really enjoy the way you put it.
So simple but true
January 21, 2010 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My suggestion for Obama and Co. is that they just do more concrete, easily explainable and readily grasped things that people find emotionally satisfying and instinctively appealing, and that serve the obvious material interests of ordinary Americans, and don't worry so much about the philosophy."
TT: Then this could not possibly include health care or anything really, really big. These are inherently hard to understand topics and they are boring in their detail. The only HC proposal that is easy to understand is Medicare For All. Everyone knows what Medicare is and, basically, how it works. They know what All means. And bottom line, they know that MFA means they'll never have to pay a premium again in their lives except, I guess, for supplemental.
But short of that, he can't follow your advice and tackle anything big. Turning planes around on the tarmac and cash for clunkers, both LaHood programs interestingly enough, are about as big as he could get.
Course, if he DID follow this more humble route, then you'd hear progressives complain that he was squandering the biggest opportunity for real, systemic change that we've seen in a generation, etc., etc.
To your larger point about people and what they believe or think they believe, I agree entirely. But I think you leave out the second, equally important, point: There is no "the people." "The people" are invoked by all sides to establish an imperative for following their policy prescriptions--The people want this. The people want that.--and polls are proffered as proof of this. So are elections. But the truth is, I think, that so many people voted for Scott Brown for so many different reasons--from his truck to Coakley's dour demeanor--that it is truly impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions, except the ones you WANT to draw.
So when I read down to "take care of your own," I'd ask, "Who IS Obama's 'own'"? Obama won because he put together a broad coalition (as you say) and had a smart strategy. Once you get past hope and change and drill down to specific issues and ways of approaching those issues, e.g., public option, single payer, exchanges, that broad coalition breaks up almost immediately.
And as soon as he makes a move in any one diretion, folks start feeling they were duped into voting for him and aren't being listened to. Progressives say, "But he was a trunk!" Independents say, "No, he was an ear!" Others say, "But really, he was a tail!" Obamacans say, "I didn't think he was going to take away my health care!" And on it goes.
Here's what I'd say. The truth is, Obama is approaching health care pretty much the way he said he would in the campaign.
Sure, some aspects are different or very different. But in the main, he wanted to expand coverage, cut pre-existing conditions, eliminate rescision and caps, reduce costs, and keep the plan budget neutral. Lots of things to juggle in that.
And that's what he's gone for and that's what this bill does, in the main. Progressives who are claiming that he double-crossed them because he was weak on the public option are living in their heads. He was never strong on ANY SPECIFIC feature, because he always believed there were many ways to reach his basic goals and staying loose on the features was going to help him negotiate. Whether that was a good idea or not, I can't say.
I'm pretty sure, though, he was not prepared for the blizzard of opposition he got from the right. Some, yes, even a lot. But not THIS much. And opposition from the left isn't helping any. It just creates the general impression that the bill stinks and Obama stinks. There's got to be a way to criticize without destroying the person or program you're criticizing, but rather improving it.
January 21, 2010 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't just win because he moved to the center, the center jumped on his train and highjacked it.
"The Obama campaign downplayed McCain's fundraising figures Thursday, noting that Obama has more than 1.7 million donors and that,
unlike Obama, McCain is getting help from federal lobbyists.
The Wall Street Journal quoted Obama fundraisers as saying the Illinois senator was struggling to win over Clinton's donors, and it suggested his move to the center on certain policy issues has turned off the liberal-leaning, small-dollar donors that have made his fundraising so successful.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/07/11/obama-camp-disputes-accounts-of-sagging-donations/
The Man Who Made Obama
November 3, 2009, 9:45 AM
Finally, as campaign manager of Obama for America in early 2007, Plouffe was charged with building an underdog campaign for president from virtually nothing — no money, one office, five staff members, and a few dreams from one's father.
He told them, We have to beat Clinton. She has the establishment support, she has this huge system of money-raisers, so we must create an alternative network.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/david-plouffe-0309-2#ixzz0dHv1uVIS
The grassroots, kept Obama in the race and as he was surpassing expectations.
Clinton was the hands on favorite, but the grassroots proved the pundits wrong.
Imagine the big money folks now recognizing this phenomena saying, “we must get on this train for fear we won’t have any control on the direction. Let us try to get some concessions from Obama first.”
Then Obama moved to the center as recommended by the big money donors, handlers, and corrupters.
AIG even contributing, and in return we saw how that paid off.
Without the grass roots effort supporting Obama, he’d have been a flash in the pan in the early primaries.
Clinton would have kept the big money donors in her camp except; the big money donors recognized the inertia of the Obama train.
Did Big money highjack the train, or did Obama sell out the grassroots?
January 21, 2010 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will premiums go down? Or up? Will they go up faster than if the government does nothing or rise but rise more slowly? You'd need a financial adviser and a CBO economist to get answers.
Divorce Attorney New York
February 14, 2011 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate the word entitlement. You're right. Social Security and Medicare aren't entitlements. They're services for which the government charges you throughout your working life.
cashusa
February 18, 2011 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned people have already sacrificed. A decade of economic stagnation while productivity was through the roof is a sacrifice.
Divorce Attorney NY
February 21, 2011 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to believe he ran on a Democratic ticket because he's doing what the republicans have been trying to do for the last 30 years or more.
New York Divorce Lawyers
February 22, 2011 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned people have already sacrificed. A decade of economic stagnation while productivity was through the roof is a sacrifice.
Front Pocket Wallet
February 23, 2011 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democratic ticket because he's doing what the republicans have been trying to do for the last 30 years or more.
desperate housewives online
February 24, 2011 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The TARP program looks like it will lose... about $200 billion. Talk to me about that. Talk to me about why those won't be allowed to happen. How can the taxpayer lose that badly
letter folding machine
February 25, 2011 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad though am that there's a black man in the Oval Office, this, as Richard Parker notes, is the new "American Dilemma."
clio practice management
February 27, 2011 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Massachusetts and know people there who feel a small, proprietary stir in their hearts when they hear these lines by Emerson on the Minutemen's resisting a big government on April 19, 1775. The date was a school holiday in my youth, and - contrary to recent 5s
March 4, 2011 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oval Office, this, as Richard Parker notes, is the new "American Dilemma.
phlebotomist salary
March 8, 2011 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
people there who feel a small, proprietary stir in their hearts when they hear these lines by Emerson on the Minutemen's resisting a big government on April 19, 1775.
casino en ligne
March 17, 2011 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
, proprietary stir in their hearts when they hear these lines by Emerson on the Minutemen's resisting a big government on April 19, 1775.
iPad Ständer
March 22, 2011 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admire the valuable information you offer in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here often. I am quite sure they will learn lots of new stuff here than anybody else!
60th Birthday Wishes
March 23, 2011 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am really impressed with this blog.It is easy to see that you are impassioned about your writing.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, iscsi design
March 24, 2011 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The clarity in your post is simply spectacular and i can assume you are an expert on this field. Well with your permission allow me to grab your rss feed to keep up to date with incoming post.
penny auctions
March 25, 2011 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Positive Discipline series by Jane Nelsen from the library. You will learn how to address situations like the one you describe.
Natural Dog Food
April 7, 2011 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting article. Content has been written in very nice manner. I enjoy reading this kind of stuff. Thanks for sharing good knowledge.
Sexy Bustiers
April 11, 2011 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting article. Content has been written in very nice manner. I enjoy reading this kind of stuff. Thanks for sharing good knowledge.
The Krup Law Group
April 15, 2011 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting article. Content has been written in very nice manner. I enjoy reading this kind of stuff. Thanks for sharing good knowledge.
birthday wishes
April 16, 2011 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You will learn how to address situations like the one you describe.
Houston SEO
April 19, 2011 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability system
April 27, 2011 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink