Change I No Longer Believe In
We were probably wrong to believe that he was a revolutionary candidate. But after 8 years of Bush who could blame us?
Obama ran as a centrist candidate with a radical message. His Healthcare plan even then was not what most Progressives would have agreed with. Single-Payer it definitely wasn't. His economic plan was a wishy-washy amalgam of clean energy/regulating Wall Street/Re-negotiating NAFTA. After the debacle of the subprime mortgage meltdon, a proper economic plan would have involved a revamping of the system, a requirement to institute stringent regulations and an elimination of a "too big to fail" status. But again Progressives bought it because the alternative was too dreadly to even contemplate and they campaigned for the Land of Lincolner.
Now after over 6 months in power, after the novelty has worn off, after months of "Yes We Can!" should have become "Yes Let's Do It!", we all realize that the person that we supported is really a centrist who plays a Progressive on TV.
Barack Obama is a middle-of-the-road, serial compromiser President. He will probably remain that way for the remainder of his term unless he is forced to become something else. And so since he's been in power, he's enacted middle-of-the-road compromising policies:
1- Bailout of the banks when the banking system as it was shaped with its reward for speculation was the cause of the crisis
2-A continuation of the US presence in afghanistan that is less and less justifiable.
3-Indefinite detention of some Guantanamo prisoners
4-Bagram as the new Guantanamo
4-Israel can do no wrong even if in speeches there is some scolding
5-Now, a poorly presented, badly worded and overall incoherent healthcare policy that keeps the basic problem in place: the profit motive.
Nobody should have to make a profit from the illness of others. Healthcare is not a product like Nike tee-shirts or Snickers chocolate bars and sick people are not mere consumers. This is precisely why most industrialized nations have single-payer systems or some highly regulated private system (Switzerland for instance). There is a recognition of the fact that every citizen is entitled to decent heathcare irrespective of their financial worth. There is also a recognition of the fact that we cannot pretend to be "buying a healthcare product" when we are in the dizzying, worried, anxious, scared state most people are in when they walk into a hospital. The profit motive is the elephant in the room of the healthcare debate. But Senate and congressional Democrats, many of the ones (like Henry Waxman) who believe in single-payer, say they don't have the votes to pass single-payer so they took it off the table. They're not even sure they have the votes to pass a bill with the Public Option. "Then get the votes!", one is almost tempted to shout. What happened to fighting for what is right? Who said "Change we can believe in" was easy? Why vote for officials who only settle for the possible and never dare to even entertain a belief in what at first glance appears impossible? What happened to the America that saw a shining Republic through the barrel of an 18th century English cannon? what happened to the courage that saw the Voting Rights Acts through the racist eyes of a Ku Klux Klan hood? What about the 40-hour work week? universal suffrage? None of these things seemed possible at first. The congressmen, senators and citizens of those days didn't have the votes either. But they fought for the votes. They lobbied. They bargained. They argued. They petitioned. Many died. What happened to that spirit?
"Yes We Can!" wasn't just a campaign slogan.
Let's see. He's the first President in history where people bring machine guns to his rallies to use on him. They wear T-shirts about using his blood as plant fertilizer.They hold up signs saying they want to kill his wife and children.They make televisions and radio shows wanting to kill him or throw him out of office and the Secret Service does nothing.People wonder why didn't he do something about DADT or FISA?Look at how people want to kill him for health care and lowering the price of new cars.He can't win for losing.People are going to get single health care, he didn't give it away. He used it as a fake bargaining chip so he can rubber stamp his whole agenda through. He offered them something they should have taken.The even said that he could give them the bill they wanted and they will still reject it.They just kissed bipartisanship good-by.
August 22, 2009 5:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Let's see. He's the first President in history where people bring machine guns to his rallies to use on him. They wear T-shirts about using his blood as plant fertilizer."
I really do not think this makes him a great President. I think these responses were going to be out there even if he actually did something progressive...and that might have actually energized the passion of the progressive base and changed the nature of the political discourse
August 22, 2009 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somewhere I get the feeling that he might be somewhat repulsed by your depiction of him as a helpless victim, maybe from reading both his books.
August 22, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who can blame....? The people who voted for Hillary in the primary. She fought for health care reform in the Eighties -- she lost but she fought for it.
Much of the younger generation grew up with the ReThuglicans droning in their ears just how terrible the Clintons were. Exposed to this as background when they were too young to sort it out, when it came time for them to vote the younger generation had no idea where their animosity to Hillary had come from.
August 22, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Much of the younger generation grew up with the ReThuglicans droning in their ears just how terrible the Clintons were. Exposed to this as background when they were too young to sort it out, when it came time for them to vote the younger generation had no idea where their animosity to Hillary had come from."
Nice try, but you're full of shit on this one. I'm 47, so I didn't need the "ReThuglicans droning in my ears" about the Clintons, because I watched them fight to pass NAFTA, institute MFNS with China, and repeal Glass-Steagall. Hillary lost because she had already had a chance to make a difference, and she failed. By the way, Hillary also voted for a little thing called the Iraq War (maybe you've heard of it?)
"Who can blame....? The people who voted for Hillary in the primary. She fought for health care reform in the Eighties -- she lost but she fought for it."
So, you'd rather fight and lose, than play nice and win? And you wonder why no one takes the PUMAs and the "angry left" seriously?
August 22, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agitation for independence began in 1763. The Declaration of Independence, 1776, the Treaty of Paris, 1873, the Constitution of the United States ratified 1789. I do the math at I get 26 years for that one.
Roosevelt refused to try to pass an anti-lynching law in 1935 because he was afraid it would cost him re-election. In 1948 a civil rights plank had to be introduced from the floor at the Democratic Convention because the southern segregationists had control of the platform committee. The Southern Democrats bolted the party, Harry Truman won the election with less than a majority of the popular vote. Strom Thurmond (later Republican Strom Thurmond) took 39 electoral votes, more than McGovern won in 1972. Leap ahead to 1964. The poll tax is eliminated by the 24th amendment, which was largely used by Southern States to keep blacks from voting.
Stay in 1964 but fine tune the vision. The southerners filibuster the Civil Rights Act for 57 days, before the Republicans help break the filibuster and pass the Civil Rights Act. I'll skip the court challenges to it, with your permission.
Again I do the math--29 years from the date when F.D.R. refused to back an anti-lynching law for goodness' sake.
So your two of your examples each took over a quarter of a century. Women's suffrage? Excuse me from giving a time-line for that, but trust me that it took over longer than the life expectancy of Americans living at the time the idea was demanded at Seneca Falls in 1848.
People moan and grown because the President hasn't achieved his stated objectives in a half year in office. How soon would the ancestors of these people have walked away from the Patriot Cause (by the way, John Adams said that 1/3 of the nation favored the patriots, 1/3 the tories, and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone--talk about an uphill battle).
How soon would the ancestors of those walking away from Obama now have walked away from the women and men at Seneca Falls, or from Hubert Humphrey when he got the civil rights plank inserted in the party platform only to see it go nowhere for more than a decade? Sorry, Hubie, you blew it.
People of no endurance have always been around...
Tom Paine wrote this less than six months into the American Revolution.
http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/crisis/c-01.htm
August 22, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done and well needed. The rec's on this poorly conceived piece lead me to believe this is not an honest plea.
August 22, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks amike, beautiful summation.
August 22, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks amike, beautiful summation.
August 22, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Mike, they started talking universal healthcare before I was born and I am old! I don't blame Obama but he is one of them. It's the Blue Cross Dog Party. It's the Max and Ben and Joe and Evan and Diane and Kent party. I am no longer a member of that party. They do not represent me.
You talk as though the party is actually working for change. It is not! It is totally complicit with the right. It supports war. It supports unchecked financial power.
Working for the Democratic Party is not working for progressive issues. It's supporting interests that are trying to crush you and me. Well, maybe not you, but me for sure.
The party is not working. Most important of all, it is not working to be a check on the far right. When it is not intimidated, it's complicit.
And Mike, Obama isn't Jesus, but it is time for John the Baptist...
August 22, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're Old? I qualified for medicare/social security three years ago, and they check to see if I can find my own office two out of three times.
But I'm not as old as the women of Seneca Falls were when women were given the vote. I'm not even as old as Susan B. Anthony was when she was arrested for voting illegally.
Maybe Barack is John The Baptist. IF so, who is Salome? I want to keep her fully dressed so his head doesn't wind up on a platter.
Off to freshman convocation in full academic regalia, under a tent in 80 plus temperature with 90 plus humidity. Talk about behavior harmful to one's health.
August 22, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how the wheezing cheerleader for Obama amike compares our roly-poly President's non-campaign for healthcare reform with the civil rights movement.
amike conveniently "forgets" that real leaders like Martin Luther King laid down their lives for civil rights, while the preppie con-man Barack Obama never even got his hair mussed for anybody except himself.
Thanks for yet another pompous and dishonest post, "Professor" amike!
August 22, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, those Community Organizers. They never help anybody. C'mon Ruta. You don't have to go too far back to see how you went a step too far with your demonizing. I agree, he's got a bad case of preppie, he actually has done some of the hard work, once, for a little while anyway.
August 23, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind, Gregor I'm used to it. IF there's a master of personal invective in this universe its Ridgepole.
August 24, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
aMike,
I think you either missed my larger point or you simply chose to ignore it.
I wasn't saying "getting the votes" meant litteraly that they would get 60 senate votes in the next few weeks and pass Single-Payer universal healthcare. I was pleading for a fight. I was hoping that Obama and these congressional and senate leaders will really go out there and defend a proper reform of the healthcare system. And if they got it done in this term, then great. The country will be forever grateful. Otherwise we would at least praise them for having fought for real change.
All those social gains I listed took time. Nobody is arguing that. But there were incremental changes made by each generation. This president came to us as a "Change Candidate" and has so far shown himself to be no more than a Status Quo Lite President. I was hoping that he would move this particular issue forward slightly. But without the Public Option he's dilly-dallying on, he's basically worsening an already broken healthcare system as Bob Herbert recognized in the NY Times this week.
August 22, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Dems had any courage, and it seems there are a hundred good ones in the House, they would take up the banner of Universal healthcare and get it done. They would be heroes to the common man. They are mesmerized by the noisemakers, and fail to realize that, while everyone is watching out for the gunslingers, their paychecks are getting hammered by insurance costs that charge a lot and deliver a little. It's criminal what it being done to the American people. It's shameful we are doing it to ourselves. I'm with amike. I'm going to support Barack Obama, but I'm also going to raise my voice and say, "Deliver the change I believe in!" This game has a few more innings. I'm not closing the door on him ... yet, and I'm certainly not closing the door on my pursuit of Universal healthcare. We should put patients first, not profits.
August 22, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, here's a little Public Option allegory. You ever heard of the Fenrir Wolf and the chain called gleipner? the norse gods had a wolf that kept growing until it was uncontrollable. They decided to chain it, but it broke all the chains that they could fashion. Finally some dwarvish smiths created a thin 'sliver' of a chain, gleipner, that had the magical property of getting stronger the more you strained on the leash. The problem was getting the wolf to accept having gleipner put around his neck, since he suspected something fishy was going on. He demanded that one of the gods put a hand in his mouth as a guarantee of good faith. Given the expected outcome, no god stepped up until Tyr - the god of Justice - finally did so. The chain went on, the wolf restrained, and everyone rejoiced but Tyr. That's why, oddly, Justice is one-handed (left-handed, haha) in the iconography. I hope I don't have to spell out the parallel with HC reform...
The lesson everyone learned from 1994 was you don't challenge an industry the size of 1/6 of the economy on head-on. The industry is holding their fire so far. Why? Because they think they can get away with a huge windfall here. And they just might. Unless someone, who, I don't know, puts their hand in the wolf's mouth, and then raises the other hand voting for the public option. If by some miracle, a strong PO comes out of conference committee in the final bill, it's going to be all-out war with the industry. I don't know who'll get sacrificed, maybe Obama, maybe some centrist. But someone is going to have to care more about this one vote than he or she cares about his or her next term. I'm not too optimistic, but I'm kind of heartened when I hear that Obama is prepared to sacrifice his second term for this reform. I just hope he realizes the reform isn't worth it without the PO.
btw. thank you for managing my thread so nicely yesterday after I took off... great comments.
August 22, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be careful with the Norse allegory, Obey. Fenrir and Jorgumandr were birthed due to an unholy collusion between God and mundane. They represent appetites that must be contained. One day, according to the Norse, they break their bonds and the battle destroys the universe.
August 22, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha! See, I even checked to make sure YOU weren't around before posting this. Just knew there'd be a hole in my story somewhere...
August 22, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will need to be a sacrifice to achieve a public option. I agree. When guys carry loaded weapons to town halls, it's no great psychic feat to say there will be blood. I will blame each and every one of them too. I will refuse to limit my resentment to the trigger man. FOX, some GOP, and any other gun nut who thinks open-carry to a town hall is a good idea. That's not about self-defense. It's about intimidation. Open-carry to a political event is the mark of a blithering idiot.
But that's not what you mean. It could be a career ender to support the public option. I think, however, that this is lack of faith. I think people can make their career with advocating for the public option. If it survives and does well, heroes will be made. I know this is premature, but we need another lion in the Senate. Before she went global, I was looking forward to having Hillary there to push this through. Now, it seems there is no one to fill the void Ted left. Frankly, next month is when we will know whether we get it or not. We have to stay strong. I'm putting my hopes into Howard Dean. he may not be in the Senate, but he has his own bully pulpit and he uses it so well.
August 22, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Gregor, I hope Howard steps up to the plate. We should all encourage him to do so.
He could be our own Tommy Douglas.
August 22, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Kennedy's absence is such a loss. That's the essence of the trust issue on the left - the Senate has no one negotiating FOR the progressives, whose judgment one can have faith in. Others still trust Obama implicitly on what counts as a good package. I have trouble doing that now. I trust Dean, and Pelosi, and that's about it at this point. He's been great in every appearance I've caught.
But as for consequences, I disagree. Someone is going to pay. Even if the package passes, things will get worse before they get better (e.g. inevitably slow and flawed implementation) at least until 2012. Everyone knows that, which makes the vote hard...
August 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's trial by fire for those all of them. Hopefully they will become hardened steel.
August 22, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey,
If putting 6 lobbyists per Congressman; a million dollars a day; putting out "Death Panel," "rationing," and "government-takeover" talking points; are examples of the insurance industry holding their fire, what are you thinking they would do if they wanted to let loose -- actually SHOOT somebody?
August 22, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? of course they'd shoot someone... if it did any good (they kill people for a living, fer crissakes). But it tends to generate bad press. Much rather a 200 million ad campaign, and what wouldn't the cash strapped media say, straight-faced, for that kind of revenue. You seriously think this is tough opposition? And I'm not thinking of the insurance industry in particular. It's insurance, pharma, providers, instrument manufacturers, etc...
August 22, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
To follow the twisted logic, "who's stupid enough to have a gun that's NOT loaded?" It also follows, "Who brings a gun if they don't think they might use it?"
What I'm waiting to see is some citizen/whacko attempt to disarm these folks and getting shot. The shitstorm that will create will completely eclipse healthcare reform. These gunslingers are the ultimate distraction.
August 23, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I missed your point I apologize. I do that sometimes, but never intentionally. Hopefully most of the people who see me comment will agree with that assessment. The only way I could answer point by point would be to write a as long as yours, and I came close to that anyhow.
Let me just respond to two observations in your reply to my reply and hopefully we'll leave this conversation accepting the integrity of the other person's position if not agreeing with it.
first Your statement I was pleading for a fight. I think that's fine, I have no problems with that at all. My contention is that he is fighting, just as hard as he can. Several places elsewhere on TPM I've provided links to his actual words, both at town halls and in phone conferences from the whitehouse. Obey will testify, I think, that Obama speeking in his own words doesnt' sound much like Bob Herbert. I try to tell people as often as I can not to let the village elders think for them. Most of the information Bob Herbert has is available to you too...easily available. Listen for yourself and don't let talking heads or talking pens make up your mind for you. Don't let me make up your mind for you either.
The second has to do with "incremental change". The word "incremental" has developed a bad odor around here, and I'm glad you don't use it that way--recognizing that there were incremental changes on the way to all the social progress you name.
Here's the thing (I don my historians hat now)--we see in hindsight those changes as incremental progress toward social justice. At the time the changes were introduced those who advocated MORE justice looked on those changes as losses . One very quick exmple. Those advocating equality for women through universal suffrage achieved a small step toward gender equality when women got the right to hold property in their own names. We see this as a step towards equality generally. The advocates of equality saw this as nothing but a sop--and, in fact, a lure to get them to work in the factories of Lowell and Lawrence.
Hence, my argument is that if a bill doesn't get passed which suits us all--say there is no single payer, say there is a weak public option or no public option at all, no matter what the bill contains it will be considered a failure by those who wanted more. Maybe fifty years from now, society will see it as an incremental step, as well see the right to sign a contract an incremental step for a woman.
August 22, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
aMike,
I guess we will simply agree to disagree on this one.
I don't think Obama is fighting. If he is fighting, he certainly has a funny way of showing it. The Democrats gave away the farm even before they sat at the table to negotiate. When your starting point is a compromise (The Public Option), how do expect to get anything of value? Had he started by demanding Single-Payer, everybody would have balked. Then the Public Option would have been his compromise and all parties would have felt like they won something.
On the issue of what is viewed as incremental gains, you're probably right. But again it's a matter of perspective. I depends on what one views as the end goal in this whole healthcare debate. I will simply reiterate my original point and leave it at that. The profit motive is the problem and if we are trying to get to a society where the health insurance industry is 0% of the economy,giving them more customers by requiring that all citizens purchase healthcare, then doing a backroom deal with the pharmaceutal companies and then taking out any government options is nothing but a setback.
August 22, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreeing to disagree is fine. There's be times to agree to agree, I'm sure. I just repeat my plea to read his own words, and then when you feel called to do so, slam him with them.
August 24, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I find this whole line of argument disingenuous. Are you seriously implying that oh, let's say health care, just became an issue with Obama's presidency? That the arc of history began on Jan 20, 2009?
Roosevelt specifically refused to do something about lynching. Using this questionable analysis methodology, as best I can tell that would roughly make him the equivalent of Ronald Regan on progressive health issues. Now by my math, Regan was President in 1980. So that means a conservative estimate of 29 years fighting for this shit - including the Clinton debacle. But actually, the fight for a just health delivery system goes back much further that that. At what point does the weight of accumulated failures past increase the expectations on a presidency that has promised to achieve where others have failed?
It would be one thing to say (for example) "OK, he's not addressing the aftermath of the Bush detainee policy quickly enough". But that simply isn't the case. Actually, he's gone even farther than Bush and proposed to keep people "indefinitely" with no legal recourse if he makes the unilateral decision they are too scary to be released. You can't simply erase specific negative/non-helpful administration decisions by calling on the arc of history.
It is also important that in ALL examples you highlight, what ultimately brought change was not partisan loyalty but an uprising of the people issuing a clear demand for justice and accepting no less. Do you truly propose that during the civil rights movement that the final catalyst for change was people sitting quietly and supporting the president no matter what? If I recall, it took MLK marching on Washington and the assassination of Kennedy and countless other acts of "agitation". And if the history books are correct, the progression from "agitating" for independence to a constitution likewise did not occur because citizens sat quietly waiting for the arc of history to bring them desired change.
In light of the implicit purpose of your comment, I find your use of Payne's quote to be a horrible disservice to the intent of that writer. Do you really believe that Thomas Payne would advocate abandoning any fight for core principles out of political allegiance to a national leader? Or propose stifling legitimate criticism of a President's actions? It seems to me that Payne would be yelling with us that a compromise isn't good enough - not sitting on the sidelines talking about political super-spy-nija-magics-chess-vs-checkers-poker-master bullshit.
August 22, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
OF course I stand by everything I said. But then you knew I would, didn't you? I'll match my understanding of Payne to yours, in spades, any day of the week, but you also knew I'd say that as well. The point I made, or try to make is that people expect Obama to accomplish in half a year what took crusaders decades to accomplish. I suppose I could go over and defend him at The Red State or cross swords with Jonah Goldberg. I would do that If I had any energy left after trying to defend him from critics on the ever-so-pure left. Bah! but I'm ranting. I return to my first comment. I stand by what I said.
August 22, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Paine, of course. I knew that. Never cut and paste when you can make errors at the keyboard that are your own.
August 22, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care reform timeline (NYT).
August 22, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEM needs to see this! Ha!
August 23, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
That passage has been very much on my mind, of late.
August 22, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another in a continuous stream of fauxgressive astroturf. This is boilerplate concern trolling that has popped up in various lefty blogs since Obama took his oath of office. It still displays a lack of awareness regarding the US as it is, as it was, and (worst of all) how it could be.
The problem with our representative government is lack of civic participation. President Obama and candidate Obama have made the necessity of civic duty the core of his ethos. This is not an accident. Without civics, his Presidency is doomed. You are helping the doom by engaging in this facile and insipid "washing of hands."
Obama's election was a potentially restorative act. We have a President that can and will respond to activism. Where was this during any Presidency since Nixon? That is a 36 year gap. 36 years of political dominance of our system by astroturf moral majority flak. We have managed to tilt the pendulum slightly in our direction and then preemptively cry failure when the President doesn't don the Ceasarian purple and dictate the progressive agenda.
Therefore, I don't believe you are a legitimate liberal. Even if you have liberal sympathies, you are a coward. You scapegoat Obama with a litany of conventional memes spoonfed by corporate media and wash your hands of any responsibility in democracy.
I am growing sick of TPM. This place is becoming a hive of villainy. Between the armchair dictators and the perpetually betrayed, this former tavern has become a victims' sewing circle. Amike writes an eloquent and knowledgeable response, and the conversation is lowered instead of raised. What garbage. What contemptible garbage.
This nation is collapsing due to ignorance and apathy. Both are in peacock display in this blog.
August 22, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aww Zipp, I don't think it's that bad. You know, we the people forget, we always forget, that no matter how 'perpetually betrayed,' we are, that there was a time in our history that was even worse.
What made for change was that despite that, despite being outspent, outgunned, and powerless, we always found a place deep inside to stand up and put ourselves out there to do the right thing and get the job done.
I knew during the bloodbath that was the primaries, that too many put too much hope in one man, and that I'd likely be defending him. Why? Because we forget, we always forget.
That is one reason I value AMikes contributions and yours so much, you remind us that change isn't that easy, it will, indeed take more than electing one man, it will take arrests and marches, and backbone, and blood, sweat, and tears... in short, courage.
Until we, the people, remember, (and I believe that we will, as we always have), this type of despair will be common, I don't think it's concern trolling, so much but rather, the bottom we all hit before we pick ourselves up and roll up our sleeves.
That is the change that I believe in.
August 22, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
August 22, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby recommend this comment with all my heart.
August 22, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that's the biggest rec in the whole dang cafe, like evah! Thanks.
=D
August 22, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment below.
August 22, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope you are right, Bwak. The level of disinformation that has swelled the pipes since August has led me to distrust the internet. There is too much unverifiable x value statements. I feel that the health industry is engaging in 4th generation warfare, and pieces like this serve as counter-intelligence. It appeals to our apathy and discourages perspective. Worst of all, it speaks of Obama as a cult of personality... Which is plainly untrue. Deep down, there is the enthymeme of "why bother?" that encourages the disaffected to waste their energy in quixotic third parties and pearl-clutching.
Can I take blogs like this at face value? I am not sure. The spate of hen-pecking (no offense) this month is just a little too opportunistic.
August 22, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel that the health industry is engaging in 4th generation warfare, and pieces like this serve as counter-intelligence. It appeals to our apathy and discourages perspective.
Yup, we take our eyes off the ball and are self-defeating when we allow ourselves to entertain these notions. Talk about compromising before you get to the table! We're leaving the field of battle before we've exhausted our ammo. This ain't anywhere near over and we need to keep moving. To be more specific and direct, I still believe Change is coming and we will get more then we think we can.
August 23, 2009 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel that the health industry is engaging in 4th generation warfare, and pieces like this serve as counter-intelligence. It appeals to our apathy and discourages perspective.
Yup, we take our eyes off the ball and are self-defeating when we allow ourselves to entertain these notions. Talk about compromising before you get to the table! We're leaving the field of battle before we've exhausted our ammo. This ain't anywhere near over and we need to keep moving. To be more specific and direct, I still believe Change is coming and we will get more then we think we can.
August 23, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Bwak, as usual you see the big picture and present it in such a way that it cannot be denied.
Courage is the word of the day. Just as I treasure all of what you say, I'll treasure the Sandburg poem and read it again and again.
I read the Chicago poems years ago, when I was young and things were good, and I suppose this one was just another in a series of wonderfully interesting pieces.
Now it says everything. Thank you.
August 22, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow Ramona, that really humbles me, because I admire the way you always seem to cut to the heart of things. I try to emulate you.
I quote Sandburg quite a bit. He is far and away my favorite, his love of the common people and downtrodden comes through loud and clear. Keep in mind Mr. Sandburg was a (gasp) socialist(!!!) although I prefer to think of him as a humanist.
August 22, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bwak. You remain my favorite chicken and I'm unanimous in that.
August 22, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, were you a sargent in the service? I really appreciate the dressing down you just gave. A post today asks, and I'm paraphrasing, "Obama,where's the steel backbone?" You ask that of us! It is where we should be looking for backbone. Thanks, Zip. I always appreciate your input and I do now unreservedly.
You scapegoat Obama with a litany of conventional memes spoonfed by corporate media and wash your hands of any responsibility in democracy. You are a brilliant wordsmith. Keep coming back to TPM. You're needed here.
August 22, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am currently an active duty Corporal, due to pick up Sergeant in October. I am currently attending NCO academy, so I am a little more brusque than usual. But I would like to stand this blogger at attention and explain politely that we only as strong as our weakest link... And the weakest link in the liberal movement are those who threaten to retreat instead of regroup.
August 22, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Zip. And thanks for serving.
August 22, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey zip if you have a minute I would love to know your thoughts on Obey's blog on private contractors
August 22, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations and thanks for service well done, Zip. My nephew is in the air force. He served in Iraq as a close air support whatever they call them attached to the army. He'll be moving to Fort Campbell shortly to take up that role again, but this time as an officer, having jumped through the required hoops. His buds were at his wedding last summer and a nicer bunch of guys one could never hope to meet.
August 22, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you got the Seargetn thing down! Thank you for your service. I'm not sure we should be in Iraq, but since we are, I would prefer good men like you represent us. I do not feel Blackwater represents us in any way, shape or form, except for the fact we are paying them, and we are paying them much more then they are worth.
August 23, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sargeant...there, got it!
August 23, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Proudly seconded,
"The problem with our representative government is lack of civic participation. President Obama and candidate Obama have made the necessity of civic duty the core of his ethos. This is not an accident. Without civics, his Presidency is doomed. You are helping the doom by engaging in this facile and insipid "washing of hands.""
An entire country pulling together is change I can believe in. We won't get there overnight nor will we ever get there if "political" infighting continues. Let's roll up our sleeves accomplish what we might and tomorrow is another day.
As many of you know I use musical metaphors, Dylan may not have had the problems we as a country are facing today in mind when he wrote this but I think it's perfect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn3iybtxNZw
August 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw Jonnie, I am glad you changed your avatar- I confess the other one was a little too zombie for me.
August 22, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a mouthful! I second your emotion!
Time to cut loose and go do something constructive.
August 22, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then how did Bush accomplish so much with far less civic involvement than we are seeing today? There clearly must be more to it than the formula you propose. I think singular purpose and will to use the power of the people to achieve objectives is also a very big piece of the puzzle.
We gave him (and the congressional democrats) the levers of power. In the republican form of government we use in America, it is now their job to accomplish what they were elected to do. Neither you nor I can do it for them.
I think it is totally valid to express dismay at how the lead-pugilist has decided to engage the fight. Sure, an 11th round knockout is exciting, but most fight fans would be correct to criticize a boxer for leading with their chin. Especially when the chin ultimately belongs to us, not Obama.
August 22, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question of how Bush was able to govern is a thorny one. He achieved power through nefarious means with the 5-4 imprimatur of a one-shot SCOTUS decision that overrode states' rights. Bush and Cheney intimidated Congress through carefully crafted disinformation and K Street funding. The media conglomerates where wholly owned subsidiaries of tue Bush agenda. Bush was, for all intents and purposes, a tyrant. Only Social Security and Katrina proved as stumbling blocks during a period where everything else he desired, he achieved.
Was there civic involvement? Yes. Some left agitation that bore fruit in 2006... But mainly right flak in the form of dittohead astroturf that assented to the Bush agenda in a manner that shut down opposition voices as anti-American.
We have managed to push back. But transforming the debate into pugilism is a reductive metaphor. Pugilism is dual, one versus the other, with cheering throngs merely supportng one side over the other. That is not democracy-- that is bread and circuses. Entertainment.
President Obama is herding cats. The right wing has an establshed architecture of money, flak, and media that organizes easily because the message is fully articulated. It is limbic. It appeals to the national mythology of empire. It is comfortable. In spite of its failure, it still appeals because its failures can be successfully hung on liberals as the pinko enemy of halcyon America.
You can criticize Obama. But criticism should be constructive and informed. Obama must work within the pre-existing framework of post-Bush government. The constant threats in the blogosphere of abandoning the administration is equivalent to surrender. We must force Obama to do what is right and best and prepare to be disappointed for years... But never go gently into the good night. Otherwise, he will continue this course and we will descend into the abyss. And a nuclear-armed police state without a compassionate counterweight is most certainly the Great Beast.
When disappointed, fight harder. When ambushed. Push through.
"We're surrounded. That simplifies things." - Chesty Puller
August 22, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not change the framework? One of the benefits of starting a new a party would be that we could lose the fossils and their entrenched committee chairmanships.
Max Baucus isn't going away. He's going to be the stumbling block on the Finance committee till he is as old as Senator Byrd.
Start over!
Seriously, how many of these folks are worth having in office at all? Couldn't we do as well with random selection?
Americans loathe both parties. Seriously if we had a REAL leader I can't think of a better time to start a new party.
However unrealistic I am, it is even more unrealistic to think you are going to get change from the current Congress. That is totally hopeless.
August 22, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see a truly viable third party pull itself above the fringe. I guess it would only work if they refused to become a part of an established caucus in legislature - and demand that the two party duopoly controlling the legislative process expand to integrate multiple parties in terms of committees, rule making, etc.
If it were to happen, I'd always envisioned it as growing out of the ashes of the GOP. Interesting to think of it springing from a progressive left weary of corporatist-leaning democratic policy.
August 22, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, every new national party, without exception, was started by fossils from an old party. Of course there's always a first time.
August 22, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
They must have had better fossils.
This really is a nightmare. You go to bed with Obama and wake up with Max Baucus. I don't know when progressives are going to figure that out. We have institutional ossification.
August 22, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it sort of significant that we DON'T have a direct democracy? By nature it is a reductive political environment. Otherwise the inevitable "bread and circuses", inherent with the demonstrated ability for reaction to stir masses, would create chaos instead of orderly government. We are SUPPOSED to elect our representatives and cheer them on in battle for what we all rallied around in sending them off to Washington. That's how the system is designed.
Honestly, aside from making heartfelt assertions of dismay/approval in various forms, what exactly does the average citizen bring to the table? In that regard, doesn't "DAMMIT President Obama - Get Some spine!!!" sitting at the top of reader opinion at TPM (a widely quoted niche blog that WITH OUT A DOUBT political insiders keep an eye on) do as much or more than wandering around in the streets outside a townhall hoping for a moment on camera to voice a desire for more aggressive advocacy by administration policy makers for the plan Obama campaigned on? (Of course, the two activities are by no means mutually exclusive)
But if you don't think today's environment is a brutal battle where there are two monolithic groups aligned against each other - one of which has expressed and demonstrated exclusive intent to smash any attempt at policy the other proposes - you have your head in the sand. We made our choices. For anyone who isn't directly involved in the legislative process - the only tool remaining is pressure. I tend to be pretty supportive of any attempt to bring pressure for things I agree with; and critical of those who complain about other people expressing their frustrations. If there were a series of "Obama just kicked ass and took names" occurrences being highlighted, THAT would be the proper way to respond to those who say Obama is sucking. As it is, those are in short supply and in their place a rash of comments that boil down to "STFU" in styles ranging from crass to erudite.
August 22, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipperrupus,
well, that was more than a mouthful of drivel. where do I start?
1-" I don't believe you are a legitimate liberal. Even if you have liberal sympathies, you are a coward."
I never said I was one. I identified myself as a progressive. There is a significant difference. And the simple fact of posting a few words here does not mean I am not active in civil society or in worthwhile causes. You know, it is perfectly possible to both lament and act at the same time. And throwing around words like "coward" does not advance your argument. At best, it highlights its weakness.
2-"You distrust the Internet"?
The Internet is just the pipe, dude. It is nothing to be distrusted unless you want to return to the stone age. Now if you distrust some news sources, then fair enough. My post was not fully sourced. I give you that. Then again, that's why it is a post on TPM and not an investigative piece for the NYT Magazine. Everything I mentionned however can be and has been corroborated by many investigative pieces in mainstream media outlets. I'll let you do the research in your non-Internet universe.
3-"You scapegoat Obama with a litany of conventional memes spoonfed by corporate media and wash your hands of any responsibility in democracy."
I did not scapegoat Obama. I merely wrote a lament. Again, as far as washing my hands off democracy, well as in (1) above, one can lament and be active in areas that advance the cause being lamented. I am not gonna list my personal involvements in civic activities here. That is childish one-upmanship. But needless to say you have no basis for any of your accusations.
4-"(...) It still displays a lack of awareness regarding the US as it is, as it was, and (worst of all) how it could be"
This is a generic sentence that could have been lifted from anywhere to attack any argument. Change is complex and takes time. I acknowledged that in a previous comment. Wishing for change is not ignoring "facts on the ground". It is accepting that those facts do not have to be permanent facts. The Health Insurance industry is 1/6th of the economy. That doesn't mean one can hope for a time when it is 0% of the econmy. I think this mindset is precisely what stands in the way of any change.
August 22, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain to me the significant differences between a progressive and a liberal?
August 22, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jonnienohands,
In lieu of definitions, I will just give you examples:
I identify my views more with say what has been called "Old Labour" in Britain vs the Tony Blair flavor which could be characterized as Liberal in the US. And just to provide another example, in Canada they have the New Democratic Party (NDP) which is viewed as the party of Progressives vs. the Liberal Party of Canada which is the party of the centre or centre-left or right depending on the leadership.
Perhaps a Progressive Party is needed in this country.
August 22, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jonnienohands,
In lieu of definitions, I will just give you examples:
I identify my views more with say what has been called "Old Labour" in Britain vs the Tony Blair flavor which could be characterized as Liberal in the US. And just to provide another example, in Canada they have the New Democratic Party (NDP) which is viewed as the party of Progressives vs. the Liberal Party of Canada which is the party of the centre or centre-left or right depending on the leadership.
Perhaps a Progressive Party is needed in this country.
August 22, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid you're terribly mistaken or I am. It seems to me that you have the two terms reversed. In my view, progressive was a term used by liberals after the Viet Nam era. The warmongers had sullied the liberal brand to a point that it actually had a stench to it. Personally progressive never suited me, liberal from cradle to grave, that's me. I was proud of the stench, we were right about the war. The comparable equal to Old Labour is the same, they are lib's in my mind.
From left to center; liberal, progressive, moderate, it all depends on how much of the liberal agenda you choose to claim.
August 22, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
A liberal passed Social Security, Medicare, wage and hours legislation, worker protections, environmental protections, and the Civil Rights Act. A progressive believes change is possible in theory.
August 22, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
August 22, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very Kind Zip. Maybe kinder than I deserve. But you hit upon what I really do try to do. I stick to stuff about which I know something, give my sources, and compliment those who take what I say seriously, whether they agree with me or not.
I'm as verbally competitive as the next testosterone laden male--I try to get awy from the keyboard when that gets the better of my judgment, but occasionally I hang around too long.
Again, thanks.
August 22, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! Say it.
August 22, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
well that comment makes no sense this far down the thread. Anyway this blog blows for the reasons given by Zipperupus.
August 22, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd and appreciated. The above quote should be our battle cry. With your permission, I would like to include it on my website.
August 22, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're a lot more likely to see a productive, progressive Obama term if we stay on him when he strays from his principles or abandons them entirely.
Not having any other electoral options makes us much more prone to seeing Obama through rose colored glasses.
So does cartoonish and scary behavior by gun nuts and others we instinctively oppose.
Obama and his strategists know that progressives/liberals have little recourse if they are betrayed.
But being frustrated with Obama and his emerging policies doesn't have to mean retreating. Quite the contrary, it just means we have to fight much harder, and not just apologize for him in the decreasing comfort of our own homes.
As Obama and his advisors assess the playing field and the players, they seem to believe that the primary goal of the game is to stay in power.
This means making sure that huge corporate dollars don't go to the Republican party, by any means necessary.
What do you think is more important to Obama and Rahm, reforming health care in a meaningful way, or making sure they don't face a gigantic fund-raising disadvantage in 2010 and 2012?
What do you think is more important to Obama and Rahm, reforming the financial industry in a meaningful way, or making sure they don't face a gigantic fund-raising disadvantage in 2010 and 2012?
Progressive/Liberals are considered bit players in the game at this point. Defending Obama when he doesn't deserve it only strengthens the hand of the inter-connected money interests.
If Obama could point to widespread discontent in his base, it would allow or force him to keep more of his campaign promises, in order to strengthen his re-election bid in 2012.
We need to make him keep his campaign principles, even if that's not in his personality.
And if you disagree, please draw a line that you won't cross for him, because he just might assume we'll rationalize away future broken promises.
August 22, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happen to think we have a serious issue with congress where too many of our congresspersons just don't have the kind of education or background to address many of the issues and are easily mislead into making flawed decisions. These people are politicians. They are in no way disposed to the kind of thinking required of some very complex questions. The sad part is we have tons of highly educated congressional staffers in various disciplines advising congress but their advisements go unheeded all the time.
Congress makes decisions based upon taking and holding political power and not based upon practical, fact based ideas.
This is a really stupid system. It perfectly reflects our politicians who, with the utmost reliability and precision, reach all the wrong conclusions for all the wrong reasons. In practical terms, most are unqualified to evaluate and make decisions about most of the things that come before them. All the hearings that go on all the time are little more than crash courses for the benefit of congress. This is asinine.
August 22, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink