« What Do Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai Have In Common? | destor23's Blog | A Former Bush Adviser On The Blue Dogs »
Lecturing The Liberals
Sometimes we on the left need to be told to calm the heck down. We do get excited and when something really strikes a chord with us, we can get downright enthusiastic and even angry. Sometimes, we don't need to calm the heck down though. Sometimes, we're right. Sometimes, we don't win for having compromised and sometimes those who have told us to calm down need to come back and admit that we were right.
Joe Lieberman is a great example. We were criticized for even supporting a primary challenge against him in 2006. When the primary challenger, Ned Lamont, actually beat him Joe Lieberman ran as an independent and won his seat. Liberals who were criticized for supporting Lamont's challenge were then criticized for supporting the Democratic nominee during the general election. It was all about the war, said the critics, but if you look beyond Iraq, Joe Lieberman is a good Democrat, one of the best in fact. We were told we were tossing a good liberal out of the club over one issue and even if it was a major issue like the war, we were told what a bad idea that was.
Lamont's supporters responded that Lieberman wasn't really all that liberal. We knew, for example, that he was a social conservative. We knew this because of his anti-Clinton speech during the impeachment. We knew it because of his over-the-top concern over the content of movies and video games. We knew that the guy was no liberal and so we persisted. Lieberman won. And what did we get? He endorsed McCain in 2008. Another war thing, he said. Now he's pushing back on health reform. We can't afford it, he says. Why do it all at once? In 2006 it was "don't dump Lieberman and our chance at health reform and the rest of our agenda over the Iraq War." In 2009 here he is, getting in the way of the rest of our agenda.
Can we have an apology from our critics for that?
Lieberman, who was forgiven by the Democrats in 2006 and given the committee assignments he wanted also betrayed the civil libertarians on the left when he led the charge to gtrant immunity to the telecom companies -- something that then-Senator Obama went along with and another issue where folks on the left were told to simmer down and take it because, as odious as granting legal immunity to telecom companies who may have illegally betrayed their customer's secrets to the government might be, it wasn't worth turning it into a major electoral issue.
One thing I haven't seen is a good post mortem on the fall-out of giving legal immunity to the telecoms. I do know this -- we're still not aware of the extent of the domestic spying program and we don't even know if it's still ongoing. Obama has so far done nothing to lift the veil of secrecy around this and the issue doesn't even seem to be on his radar. A lot of people around TPM thought this was an important issue last year. We were told, not without reason, that we should eat the defeat on FISA because Obama would make things right later on. But here's what we go: the FISA law revamped to make the program retroactively legal and... well... nothing else. Seems like the time to have fought on that issue was back in 2008 when it wass being decided.
Now we're being told by some not to get all hung up on the public option for health care and there seems to be a good chance that we'll get a bill with something called a public option (maybe regional co-ops) that won't be anything like what the left envisions (a government program that you can choose instead of say, the Aetna your employer is offering) and we'll be told to eat it, at least more people will be covered.
It's not that I'm against compromise. It has its place, for sure. But the left needs to start extracting some gain for its compromises. On FISA what happened was that the program was retroactively legalized and it continues and nobody will ever be punished for it. A truer compromise would have been: companies get immunity, program is halted, full accounting is made to the public. A compromise is when everyone gets something.
On healthcare, the public option IS a compromise. It is square in the middle of our current system and single payer. It's just a choice.
Or maybe it's time to just end the practice of lecturing the liberals. The left wing of the party has just been right too many times.
Joe Lieberman is a great example. We were criticized for even supporting a primary challenge against him in 2006. When the primary challenger, Ned Lamont, actually beat him Joe Lieberman ran as an independent and won his seat. Liberals who were criticized for supporting Lamont's challenge were then criticized for supporting the Democratic nominee during the general election. It was all about the war, said the critics, but if you look beyond Iraq, Joe Lieberman is a good Democrat, one of the best in fact. We were told we were tossing a good liberal out of the club over one issue and even if it was a major issue like the war, we were told what a bad idea that was.
Lamont's supporters responded that Lieberman wasn't really all that liberal. We knew, for example, that he was a social conservative. We knew this because of his anti-Clinton speech during the impeachment. We knew it because of his over-the-top concern over the content of movies and video games. We knew that the guy was no liberal and so we persisted. Lieberman won. And what did we get? He endorsed McCain in 2008. Another war thing, he said. Now he's pushing back on health reform. We can't afford it, he says. Why do it all at once? In 2006 it was "don't dump Lieberman and our chance at health reform and the rest of our agenda over the Iraq War." In 2009 here he is, getting in the way of the rest of our agenda.
Can we have an apology from our critics for that?
Lieberman, who was forgiven by the Democrats in 2006 and given the committee assignments he wanted also betrayed the civil libertarians on the left when he led the charge to gtrant immunity to the telecom companies -- something that then-Senator Obama went along with and another issue where folks on the left were told to simmer down and take it because, as odious as granting legal immunity to telecom companies who may have illegally betrayed their customer's secrets to the government might be, it wasn't worth turning it into a major electoral issue.
One thing I haven't seen is a good post mortem on the fall-out of giving legal immunity to the telecoms. I do know this -- we're still not aware of the extent of the domestic spying program and we don't even know if it's still ongoing. Obama has so far done nothing to lift the veil of secrecy around this and the issue doesn't even seem to be on his radar. A lot of people around TPM thought this was an important issue last year. We were told, not without reason, that we should eat the defeat on FISA because Obama would make things right later on. But here's what we go: the FISA law revamped to make the program retroactively legal and... well... nothing else. Seems like the time to have fought on that issue was back in 2008 when it wass being decided.
Now we're being told by some not to get all hung up on the public option for health care and there seems to be a good chance that we'll get a bill with something called a public option (maybe regional co-ops) that won't be anything like what the left envisions (a government program that you can choose instead of say, the Aetna your employer is offering) and we'll be told to eat it, at least more people will be covered.
It's not that I'm against compromise. It has its place, for sure. But the left needs to start extracting some gain for its compromises. On FISA what happened was that the program was retroactively legalized and it continues and nobody will ever be punished for it. A truer compromise would have been: companies get immunity, program is halted, full accounting is made to the public. A compromise is when everyone gets something.
On healthcare, the public option IS a compromise. It is square in the middle of our current system and single payer. It's just a choice.
Or maybe it's time to just end the practice of lecturing the liberals. The left wing of the party has just been right too many times.
Advertisement
Testify brother...WOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
But it doesn't matter to the centrists if we on the left were right...with Clinton, and now Obama, one of theirs is in the Oval Office. They are gonna screw it up again and give us 8-10 more years of republican state sponsored domestic terrorism starting in 2012. They are doomed to repeat history because they have not learned...or at least figured out how to grown a spine.
August 24, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'll take credit for being right on all the issues you just mentioned, destor. Thanks! I vividly remember getting pounded to a pulp for speaking my mind in each and every case, especially on FISA, and I can name names. (I personally wasn't a huge fan of businessman Lamont, however, although I thoroughly despise Lieberman.)
I'm certainly not giving an inch on health care reform (not that I gave an inch on any previous issue). Does "Wait till Obama's elected and we have Democratic majorities in Congress" ring a bell? So it's time for the other side (and I don't mean Republicans) to stop choosing conformity over reform.
August 24, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know... did I really just spy a headline that said something like "Dem Memo: If the Republicans Could Do It With 50 Votes, Why Can't We?" They're just asking this question now? THAT'S why I didn't believe the people who told me to wait and see. We give them 2 houses and the White House and they just start wondering how to use them!
August 24, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
well put, Destor.
Nothing wrong with being louder when you're smarter.
By all means, crank up the volume.
August 24, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No we have been right all the time. hahaahah
I go to your blog, now it says I do not follow you.
I have been following you five years even though I have only been on the web for a year. What the hell is that all about?
Okay. I will now have to do a blog this week setting the record straight. Remember when Grandma Pelosi--the greatest single female leader in the history of this country--gave the speech three years ago about the legislation that would come down the pike in a hundred days?
Well, a hell of a lot has been handed down by the dems in only eight months, seven actually and some change.
Its like our party just ignores its victories when we should be shoving it up the ............of the opposition.
ha
We are better off now than we were nine months ago goddamnitall. (kind of blesses himself)
yes us liberals need lectures from time to time.
Good post Destor. ha
August 25, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Destor but this rant is a straw man straight from the Atwater school of debate. This whole "some say/believe such and such" was exploited by Bush countless times in order to frame the discussion by pitting virtue against an imaginary Other.
The draft Lamont movement was moderate and liberal in nature. Lieberman won by appealing to the GOP and bypassing his party's system. I daresay that Lieberman is now more powerful than ever because the boldness of drafting Lamont was not sufficient energy for victory.
What is the Telcom immunity backlash? That would be nice to know. I am convinced that the NSA is being protected due to the increasing power of datamining and information warfare. It is less about Telcoms than in maintaining a cordial relationship between telcoms and the NSA. This is not a good thing, but the national security apparatus has become the de facto power behind the throne, and is thus beyond left/right dualism and more about the police and nanny state cultivated by the fringe on both sides. The NSA's power butters both slices of bread.
And finally, I don't hear too much clamor that backs up the trial balloon regarding the public option. In fact, Baucus has recently made some supportive noise about the public option. This headway was made courtesy of backlash against Sibelius' intimations. I leave it to you whether or not you draw the same conclusion I do... The left was all too willing to cede the high ground on health care in order to blame the teabaggers and wimpy Democrats.
Here's my strawman: some on the left appear far too willing to abandon party and activism in order to engage in quixotic fancy... So while I agree that liberals are by and large correct, their enthusiasm often outweighs their wisdom.
Life is more than being correct... It is how you are correct and how you can persuade others of your correctness that matters.
August 25, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lecturing like . . .
. . . a dyed in the wool fence sitter who's rudder is locked hard to starboard ...
Which just goes to show ...
Never allow a Marine to man the helm of the Admiral's barge.
Now ... go find me a box of grid squares... Chop Chop.
~OGD~
August 25, 2009 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Destor.
I have a question for you and for others who will post comments here, which either may or may not add to this debate. One of the outcomes is likely that I'm going to be called a "wheezey old liberal" as I was day before yesterday. (I don't wheeze).
Who gets to draw the line about who's liberal and who isn't? There are plenty of volunteers (not you, I quickly add). Generally I'm drawing attention to those who do look at where they stand politically and think of themselves and everyone to the left of them as liberal. OR they turn liberal into a mild profanity, call themselves progressives or populists and club the merely liberal as wimps, wusses, or wheezers. Three Ws, how about that?
I gave money to Lamont and have had an extreme dislike for Lieberman dating back to the days when Holy Joe lectured Clinton from the senate floor. Does that make me a liberal?
I am willing to let Obama set his own strategy without fainting every time a talking head says he's failed already. Does that make me a wuss or merely a wheezer? For about 70 percent of the people who seem to wind up commenting it does make me a wuss. I can deal with that.
Good post, btw. You've never been one to require people to look at your portrait to decide whether or not they pass the liberal test, and that makes me very appreciative of what you say.
August 25, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me a liberal, and this is a very general description, is economically compassionate, gracious and reserved in matters of criminal law and judgment, and a civil libertarian 90% of the time. A liberal loves the individual's freedom to pursue happiness but knows that this freedom is nothing without a society that provides everyone with basic access to food, shelter, health care and education. We know that the tyranny of the economy is as bad as the tyranny of any government and we seek freedom from both and compassion for all.
August 25, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where would one find a liberals who fits this description?
Certainly not around TPM, because anything that falls outside of the orthodoxy of the Looking Glass Left is immediately pounced on and denounced as heresy, the offending "Centrists!" to be burned in effigy and denied their ACLU and/or union cards for life.
The way you describe this mythical political animal one would think all liberals would fit the description, yet so few do who aren't already solidly in the center.
August 25, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you'll find a lot of them around here, actually. Sometimes I think you're one who just goes about things differently. Honestly, is there any of what I said that you disagree with, because whenever you and I get down to issues we find ourselves not actually arguing.
August 25, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am just saying that many self-proclaimed liberals are anything but liberal when it comes to discussing issues. There is a lot of very repressive commentary that comes from those safely ensconced in their Ivory Towers where no dissenting opinions are allowed.
This is a tragedy of the left and right sides of the political spectrum.
Loud and incessant activism absent some larger strategic plan is part and parcel whey "progressives" have been unable to get anything done no matter how "liberal" they may appear at first glance.
August 25, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well part of the problem Jason is we have been ignored for so long while our leaders, on both sides, do the wrong things time after time after time after time. There comes a point when it is high time we were listened to...seeing how right we've been. You see 'repressive commentary' and I see people whose correct opinions/observations/recommendations have been ignored, ridiculed and written off and not wanting to 'take it' anymore. So please excuse us if we are now refusing to intellectually compromise when time after time the people asking us to compromise have been so consistently wrong.
August 25, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because the compromises designed by idiots did no good, doesn't mean that compromise is an ineffective tool for governing a bipolar country.
Also, when the leaders refuse to listen is up to the voters to take charge and vote them out. We have had such pathetic turnout for so long when it comes to the primary election that it is little wonder that nothing changes. What if every person who gave a shit enough to vote in every primary dragged two or three friends to do the same.
We all have them and it would make a difference almost immediately. There is always a sane voice in the primaries who can't get traction because no one but the incumbent's fans are sure to turnout and vote.
I guess my main point when it comes to assessing the "blame" for the way things are is that we have had it bad for decades. We have all had the opportunity to change things if we had gotten off our dead asses and done something. Now that we are finally starting to see some participation by former slackers in both parties, it is detrimental to assume those new to arrive have the same prejudiced views and are deaf to the same common sense ideas.
It will take a decade or more for our lethargy to shake out and for some sense of civic duty to return to this country. In the meantime, I think it is incumbent upon every "progressive" of whatever stripe to find a way to connect more effectively with the average American, which may require finding compromises that work to deliver the same ends using means that are more widely supported by the mostly silent (and scared to death) majority.
August 25, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that is fine, as someone on the far left I value an open mind. I am willing to listen then compromise and have again and again and again with. Time to try it our way and the only way that hasn't been tried is what the far left is calling for. Could it get any worse then it is now? I am tired of half measures and watered down compromises which are doomed for failure before they are ever implemented...like this health care reform clusterf-ck that is about to come to pass.
August 25, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I am not talking about ideas. I am talking about implementation.
Nothing that the "far left" espouses should be hard to sell, from a philosophical standpoint, it's just that their notion of compromise is much like the far right - Do it our way this time because your way is wrong. That isn't compromise by any definition I can find. It is flipping from one extreme to the other with the middle ground being eschewed by both camps.
The compromises made in the past were always to the detriment of the stated goals. A more effective progressive movement would make smarter, more innovative compromises to get the "other side" to work toward their chosen goals. The nonprofit sector is a perfect example. A lot of very progressive programs get support on the left and right as an effective way of addressing societal ills. We can build on that idea to attack all kinds of problems that remain.
We need to pursue a different type of politics if we actually want to accomplish something this time around.
August 25, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
Compromise is means, not an end.
And it is not always a good idea.
For instance, and yes this is an extreme and ugly example - a compromise between murdering a schoolbus full of children and leaving them alone could be raping every one of them.
I can't think of anyone who would argue that a compromise in that circumstance is the best outcome.
It's pretty clear that the current health financing system in the US is screwing a lot of people, many of them children, and some of the compromises so far proposed between left and right will screw children not yet born.
August 25, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. None of the compromises made to date derail the long-term strategy of re-engineering the US health care system to be sustainable and equatable.
It puts off an accounting for the public option, but I believe that will be handled by way of the Medicare reform discussion to come. Seems to me that the only way to make Medicare sustainable is to open it up to younger and healthier populations.
Again, since the is a lot of support for Medicare on the left and right, reforms of this nature would likely face minimal objections.
August 25, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, are there really no instances you can think of where compromise is bad? Of where compromise is merely a cover-word for saying one has given up/abandoned their principles/caved?
And trust me, in life and politics, I believe compromise is essential to moving forward without burning the whole thing down. But there are some places where you have to put your foot down.
August 26, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that compromise, as it has been practiced over the years, has not worked at all because there is rarely a common ground from which the compromise is approached. Each side stakes out ideological positions and all "compromise" spins out from that frame.
I think in the case of health care reform that the only compromise that makes sense are ones that allow us to start moving the ball down the field. As I pointed out below, I believe the moderates in both parties are doing a good job of crafting a consensus bill that will likely have broad support by the silent majority.
It won't be perfect and it won't be complete, but it will be a huge win that should allow for follow-ion victories to clean up anything that gets left on the cutting room floor.
August 26, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what the definition of insanity is Jason? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It seems the same 'idiots' (your term not mine and imho doesn't apply to you) are asking us to do the same thing again. I am tired of being a Charlie Brown trying to kick a football as Lucy pulls it away again. For example this health care debate is being dominated by people calling for compromise who want it to fail and compromising with them will doom it...and then they can say "See we told you it wouldn't work" when it was their fault it failed.
August 25, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some groups wanting reform to fail and it failing are two different things. The American people support reform in huge numbers, so I doubt anything the special interests do at this point will stop us from moving in the direction of a sane health care system that doesn't hamstring the country financially in the long run.
It will be an iterative process for most people though, despite their support of reform as a concept.
I see the legislation being crafted as a great first step toward the final system that will be implemented over the coming years. I actually see most of the compromises reached so far as leading to broad support once a final bill emerges and the democratic messaging can speak to what is actually in the bill vice what is being considered by multiple committees.
What you see as some process that is off the rails is something I see as having led to perhaps the most effective legislation crafted by Congress in quite some time. I don't think it addresses every problem, but it does seek to reign in the worst depredations by the private insurance industry while giving the 47 million uninsured someplace to go for the benefits that come with group coverage by way of a Freddie Mac type nonprofit coop.
I see the same goons howling from both fringes while the adults in the middle try to approach this from a process and systems standpoint. If you do X can you force Y to change in a certain fashion to gives rise to Z trends? Where you see business as usual, I see something that is beginning to approach a consensus view despite the objections from the "bases" of both parties.
America has always passed its most lasting and effective reforms as a series of bills that were implemented over a decade or more. It's too big of a ship to just turn it on a dime.
August 25, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for finding this. I didn't mean to stick it as a reply to OGD...sloppy cursor work and I was in a hurry.
August 25, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely on the Mark ... Destor . . .
And I am not surprised that the retort came up with the derisive . . .
Someone should seriously download a new tune in that iPod of their's... (I would have said turn the record over but I'm afraid I might be labeled an "ol' wheezer")
But Destor -- You have nailed down the general description of a liberal, even right down to the "civil libertarian 90% of the time."
Kudos to you.
~OGD~
August 26, 2009 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not put that in context instead if simply pulling a quote out of your tail feathers? I am hardly the first to point out the trend and could actually cite many of your own blogs urging the more excitable and intractable of your party to calm the hell down and focus on the facts.
Glass houses and stones come immediately to mind.
In your world, the only valid criticism in politics is that which is reserved for the right side, while the peccadilloes from the left are subject to fiercely protective stances that are totally out of proportion to the discussion most times.
You keep using the same old tactics that the right used to drive this country into the ground and call it progressive. Again, I would point out the irony, but it is clearly lost on a Old Warrior such as yourself.
August 26, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mister Bluster would do well . . .
. . . to stop his whining as if he's some poor pitiful picked on victim and get a towel for his tears.
There is no crying in baseball, nor politics...
~OGD~
August 27, 2009 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Classic ideologue reply: Stop crying when I make shit up and cast aspersions about things you never said. Quack off, duck.
August 27, 2009 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome comment. As usual, the duck is around to take a shit on common sense if it goes against his myopic world view.
August 25, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez ... Whaddaya know . . .
I used the word myopic in one of my recent comments and look who picked it up . . .
I have a feeling that that word will be repeated by Mister Bluster ad nauseum, such his recent usage of "Looking Glass Left."
Yikes!
~OFD~
August 26, 2009 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, look at that, the duck shows up to take something out of context and shit on a conversation that has nothing to do with him.
I am sure accusations of being a typical republican are next. It is the only card he has to play.
Old ducks with lame tricks.
August 26, 2009 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I just realized what you implied in your comment, that I am somehow plagiarizing the memes you drop around TPM like the incessant diarrhea of a scarred liberal psyche.
Nothing could be further from the truth as I rarely read anything you have to offer unless it is yes another ad hominem attack in trollish response to something I wrote. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the fringes of both parties are myopic.
I just give names to my fringe groups.
August 26, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wowzer . . .
For someone who doesn't read, as he says so eloquently, the "shit" he sure wastes a whole hell of lot time reading the "shit" and expending copious amounts of energy spewing those flames from that fiery tongue of his through his fingers to the keyboard in responses.
Flame on... Flame on ...
~OGD~
August 27, 2009 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wowzer, for someone who apparently doesn't care about what republicans have to say, you sure spend a lot of time chasing me around shitting all over my comments. Troll on, troll on.
August 27, 2009 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I said I didn't read anything you wrote that isn't in response to something I wrote because of the accusation of plagiarism.
Mostly, I respond because the shit you spew offers caricatures of my ideas instead of reasonable disagreement with what I actually said. That sort of partisan nonsense must be confronted every time it happens, as distasteful and juvenile as you make it most times.
I am guessing you don't speak to people like this in real life or you would be spending a lot of time with your jaw wired shut, so I can only conclude that anonymity makes you a much bigger asshole online than you actually are in person.
August 27, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes . . .
Still reading and commenting 'bout all that "shit" . . .
Let that tongue flame on . . .
~OGD~
August 28, 2009 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troll on.
August 28, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your entire comment is a strawman! The Atwater school of debate? Right, destor is a student of the Atwater school of debate.
Nice of you to give destor so much credit, Zipper, but please spare us your verbose and haughty hallucinations. Holy crap!
August 25, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Went to the anti-war rallies
Learned all Bob Dylan Hymns
But now I've grown old and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in !
So Love Me, love me, love me
I'm a Liberal
With apologies to Phil Ohcs
C
August 25, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
And don't forget these memorable lines from the same song:
"I'll send all the money you ask for, but don't ask me to come on along. So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal."
August 25, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really, really, want to thank the both of you for drawing a circle that leaves me out. It means I no longer have to consider anything you have to say.
August 25, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't understand your remark amike and I don't think you understand the context of the reference. The song in question is about 45 years old or so and refers to the duplicity of a certain kind of liberal hypocrite. Are you familiar with the song? If you were, I doubt you would count yourself among those who fit the profile Phil Ochs created in it. You can easily find the lyrics on the net and might even be able to find something on youtube with Phil singing the song.
August 25, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was characterizing discussions we've had here on TPM over the last few years. I could have searched and linked but nothing I'm saying will eb controversial to anyone who participates here so I think the "some say" formulation is fair and that I'm being accurate about what has been said.
I never said there was a telco immunity backlash I said that we on the left who were told to compromise on the issue never got anything for the compromise. 8 months into the Obama presidency and it doesn't even look like the practice has been curtailed even though a simple executive order could stop it.
As for healthcare, maybe you're right and I hope you are.
August 25, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That as @zipperups. Sorry, navigated badly!
August 25, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!!!!!, Destor.
When did someone that believes in economic and social justice become part of the liberal "fringe"? And why do we let ourselves be pushed into that class without push back? Especially when we are right most of the time.
Here is the latest on what a majority believes to be true about health care reform:
August 25, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've always believed that there was a simplistic libertarian, what's-in-it-for-me, I-only-care-about-how-this-effects-me-and-my-family thread that was woven into the American pysche. At times, I felt it was weakening and moving to the fringe, that over the course of time, people were at least looking from an enlightened self-interest pov at how social and economic justice did improve their lives.
But these days, watching how the discourse regarding health care has unfolded and how the general populace has egaged the issue, I fall into a deep funk. In so many ways, we are, as a whole, a nation of individuals standing on our porch with a shotgun, shouting "get off my dang property!"
August 25, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or shouting "Keep government out of my medicare!"
August 25, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a little bit frustrating that Democrats have so far faced an uphill fight in trying to convince people that there are ways of getting us all more and better health care for less money, if only we are willing to take on the bloated stakeholders in the existing inefficient system.
But I continue to have some hope that when Dems and the White House roll out their fall campaign following the recess and vacation season, the tide of the message war will finally turn.
August 25, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw elegant proof of the selfishness of your average American a few years back, and it will stay with me forever.
I was participating with a community group that builds wheelchair ramps for people at their homes. A bit of donated lumber, a bit of time, and suddenly leaving one's house is no longer a major event.
We were just finishing up the ramp (which while a bit large didn't look so different from a deck) when a neighbor finally noticed what we were up to.
The guy flipped out. "Do you have a permit for that?" "Do you have any idea what that will do to my property value?" Never mind that his neighbor's quality of life was going to improve drastically as a result, and that it really wasn't going to cost him an ounce of time, trouble, or money. I never did get back to that house, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the ramp was gone.
When it comes down to it, Americans are selfish - just like every other human. It takes a tragedy for us to put that aside for awhile and get along. As soon as the shock wears off, we're back to looking out for ourselves.
August 25, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
From a biological evolutionary pov, everything points to us being a social creature, rather than a solitary one. Although there is the instinct to survive, as with other living beings, our "selfishness" is by and large a product of language and our cultures. One reason I know I'm a liberal, a progressive, of the Left, is because I believe that at our core is compassion, that the hate and bile and ignorance we exhibit is something that we can maybe someday leave behind.
And maybe someday when we think of looking out for "ourselves," we do so thinking our "self" is everyone and everything. And then we're back to John Lennon singing "Imagine."
August 25, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't call them "myths". They are people's expectations. Which may be right or wrong.
August 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree ... Bill . . .
There can be no expectations if a person has little to no knowledge of a subject.
Those polls are people's perceptions of the issues.
And many of them, but not all, don't take the time to seriously consider working hard to find the answers. They let others do it for them. Couple that with an inability to separate emotion from the equation and it becomes even more scattered and less sensible for them to deal with it and come to an understanding.
And ... Your mileage undoubtedly varies . . .
~OGD~
August 26, 2009 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak for others, but I believe that with the changes being proposed by Congress and Obama, that my cost of healthcare will increase staying with my private option. I don't believe it's a "myth" I believe in. It's just my opinion.
August 26, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
So ... Let's see here . . .
Your opinion is based on a perception of what you think may happen and until it happens it's all an unprovable expectation and a figment of your own imagination.
Whether you realize it or not, that falls squarely in the realm of a being a myth... a dream. There's nothing there that's concrete that is based on reality or facts.
~OGD~
August 27, 2009 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, his opinion is as good as anyone else when it comes to this. Conservatives over-estimate the problems to come, liberals underestimate them, but that doesn't mean there won't be problems.
Your belief in the silver-bullet nature of the "public option" is about as fantastic as Bill's belief that it will wreck his existing health care. Neither opinion is based in fact, but are meant to maintain our partisan divide just the same.
August 27, 2009 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why won't my costs increase? What have you seen historically that would make you think that?
The fact is that the government is proposing new regulations on the insurance companies which undoubtedly will raise their costs of doing business. They will pass those costs on to me.
August 27, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they won't be allowed to pass that "cost" on as most of the new regulations simply disallow them the ability to make profit off denying care they already agreed to provide.
They are designed to stop the widespread fraud that happens in the board rooms of every health insurance giant in this country. Rather than costing them more money, this new legislation actually guarantees them millions of new clients provided they provide the mandated services with the agreed upon rules.
Why do you think the Looking Glass Left is so pissed off? This is a good first effort at reform that deserves a fair look when it comes out of conference committee as it is pretty moderate and pragmatic by the standards of many liberals.
August 27, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You bring up good points and it's an interesting debate. But the point here isn't to debate the issue. My point is that having a viewpoint is very different than saying that I believe in "myths".
August 27, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. I find it highly ironic that the far left now advocates the same tactics for those they disagree with that they despised from the far right all these years. In direct contrast to how the president would see our politics transform, ironically enough.
August 27, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we come full circle ... Bill . . .
As I said:
And to continue ...
And nowhere have I questioned nor stated that your opinion is not allowed to be expressed, nor that your opinion is not as good as anyone else's opinion when it comes to this, as Mister Bluster wishes to lead others to believe. That has never been at issue.
What I stated was this verbatim:
Now ... That doesn't make a person's opinion wrong, nor does it make it right. All of our opinions are based on perceptions of what we think may happen. That goes for me, Mister Bluster, and anyone else. Until something comes to pass it's all an unprovable expectation and a figment of each individual's imagination... a myth... a dream.
And ... Your mileage undoubtedly varies . . .
~OGD~
August 28, 2009 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may disagree with other's opinions, but I don't directly call them "myths". Using "myth" implies someone is talking about believing in Big Foot or the Lochness Monster.
Explain why they are wrong, rather than ridiculing or belittling them for being a "myth" believer.
August 28, 2009 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't waste your breath. This particular brand of "liberal" is not reachable by any means.
August 28, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, you have a point here. If there's stiffer regs on abusive practices, discrimination, etc, then insurers' costs - i.e. payment for medical expenses - goes up. If they want to keep skimming the same 40% of all premiums off for admin and profits, then insurance costs will go up as the extra expense is passed on. THat is, If insurers retain pricing power, which they will absent the public option, and if that pricing power is reinforced were an insurance mandate to be included.
Jason here has in mind the regulatory limits pertaining to the insurance exchanges that supposedly keep the insurers from skimming off more than 15% of premiums for admin and profit. If you believe that those limits will be respected you also believe we live in a fractional reserve banking system; ... and I have a bridge you want to buy...
August 27, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't believe anything of the sort and would again ask you to offer a link to a quote where I did.
The regulations will be wrapped around a defined benefit package that all insurers must offer as a minimum plan and they will not be allowed to opt-out of in order to cater to more exclusive clients. That being the case, the only way they can compete is on price and the nonprofit coops will be one of the biggest group plans in the country.
To compete on price, they will need to trim costs and executive comp and bonuses will certainly be one place they will do so. This will bring down prices across the board and allow the medical providers to actually change the way their revenue streams are structured when they aren't accounting for everyone gaming the system.
Again, see the Netherlands and Switzerland for an example of how this can work in practice.
August 27, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tried to respond to your rumpole related comment on the other thread. Wouldn't take (?!)- so doing it here: I humbly retract. I was too quick on the trigger. Think I'll take a break after this comment.
As for this point here, you're ASSUMING they will need to compete on price. I haven't seen a reasonable case for thinking that. That's why I assume they've got a great deal of pricing power. In most areas the markets are concentrated, and I don't see how outside insurers and start-up coops break into those concentrated markets. They have no provider network, and without some kind of mechanism (like piggy-backing on Medicare's network) lack the negotiating position to get competitive rates.
You and Moolten have a great deal of faith in the new regulatory framework's ability to bust these (quasi)-monopolies. I just don't see it.
And as for providers being incentivized to reform fee-structure, again, I just don't see it. Are provider monopolies broken up?
August 27, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the only way we have ever busted monopolies in the history of the country. Again, I will say that if the government is incapable of regulating health insurance they are certainly much more incapable of running it as that is a much tougher job.
August 27, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's possibly much more than just abusive practices, discrimination, etc.
They're talking about doing things like repealing the ERISA pre-emption, which will affect most people that work for big companies that self-insure.
We don't even know yet what will be the scope of the federal standards that the government plans to mandate. I've read nothing that makes me comfortable that this rules will just be limited to abusive practices and discrimination.
August 27, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, thanks. Didn't know that was in the package.
August 27, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me thinks . . .
Someone may have been reading someone like Arvid "Dick" Tilmar who is a partner at Diversified Insurance Services Inc. in the blogs at BizWeek here. Or maybe reading someone else who's piping the same info or heard it on Lou Dobbs at CNN.
If you wish to take the time, it may behoove you to check out the following:
See . . .
Starting at page 152 of •HR 3200
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
PART 2—SATISFACTION OF HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 321. SATISFACTION OF HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974.
See also:
Starting on page 49 •HR 3200
Subtitle F—Relation to Other Requirements; Miscellaneous
SEC. 151. RELATION TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
~OGD~
August 28, 2009 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Your link is hot, but the page won't load. I've tried looking around a bit, and can't make sense of the issue. Care to summarize, OGD?
August 28, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great entry! I feel exactly the same way. We Democrats seem so much like Charlie Brown and the Republicans are Lucy. We keep thinking if we continue to have a little faith in Lucy she is going to hold the ball for us and let us kick it.
We are constantly looking up at the sky after another swipe at the ball. I hate to say it, but I think we need to give Lucy a little kick on the next try. Not too hard...and we will quickly apologize.
August 25, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about how nauseating Lieberman's holier than thou attitude is and that he essentially stabbed Obama in the back during the election, even when Obama initially supported him against Lamont.
"We knew this because of his anti-Clinton speech during the impeachment." I have to take exception to this statement because a lot of Clinton supporters condemned his behavior and regardless of what Lieberman said he voted against all impeachment counts.
I think it's interesting that a lot of the Lieberman controversy centers around his Iraq position. Undoubtedly he was one of the most vocal cheerleaders and chickenhawks, but he wasn't the only 'liberal' or 'supposedly liberal' Democrat to vote for the resolution to go to war.
In the Senate alone, more Democrats (29) voted for the war than against (21). Indeed, someone like Zell Miller doesn't count at all and conservative Dems could be expected to vote this way, but how does that explain Clinton, Kerry, Kohl, Dodd, Biden, Daschle, Reed, Harkin, Schumer and a few others:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Looking at that vote, one of the defining votes of our time in my mind, a lot of the liberals got it wrong. Some got it plain wrong, some were duped by the intelligence, and some cynically voted for political reasons, but all got it totally wrong.
It was smart and right to oppose the war in Iraq, but not all liberals opposed it. The opposition also included moderate realists like Chafee, Bush 41, Scowcroft, Baker etc. and Buchanan, Paul and member of the GOPs '1930s isolationist wing.'
On a side note, I think Bob Graham has the distinction of being the only senator to vote for the first Persian Gulf War and against the 2003 invasion. This is another argument all together, but I'd say that the Democrats were wrong when they all opposed the '91 Gulf War except for a few such as Graham, Gore & Robb.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00002
August 25, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Garry,
You're right to point out and it shouldn't be forgotten that a lot of liberals took leave of their senses and voted for the 2003 authorization (and then comically claimed that they were just giving away the authority, not the war!)
Lieberman's support went beyond that, though. As some Democrats tried to undo their mistakes or at least make them right, Lieberman refused.
As for 1999 -- yeah a lot of people condemned the blow job but what Lieberman did... phew... it was beyond the pale.
August 25, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the problem with that, ahem, "blowjob" is that it provided priceless capital to Republicans in the form of soundbite justifications: "Even Democrats are appalled by Clinton's behavior."
Sure, Lieberman didn't actually vote to impeach Clinton, but the damage, in the form of the whole stupid impeachment crisis, had already been done.
August 25, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to play devil's advocate here, why should we feel comfortable criticizing Obama now, when that could give fodder to the right (an argument that has been made by some Obama supporters), but it wasn't OK to criticize Clinton then (because it gave fodder to the right)?
I'm no fan of Lieberman, but I thought the blowjob was incredibly stupid and opened Clinton up to the possibility of blackmail (although, like Lieberman, I never supported impeachment). Sure, one could argue that if our mores were to change, then no one would be able to hypothetically blackmail Clinton with the blowjob, but if hopes and wishes were loaves and fishes, no one would have to starve. Again, I'm not a supporter of the Ken Starr fiasco, etc., but I feel no shame at criticizing Clinton for doing something stupid.
August 25, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good points.
August 25, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point, and I simultaneously agree with you and still think that what Lieberman did was something more than just criticizing Clinton.
I think Clinton deserved to be criticized because it was an epicly stupid thing to have done (and I don't even know if "epicly" is even a word, but whatever). However, Lieberman wasn't criticizing him for the colossal stupidity and lack of judgment (fair game) but for the morality of the behavior. And he gave strength and ammunition to the Christianistas, for lack of a better label, as a result. A liberal Jew is on the same side as rightwing Republicans. Maybe those rightwing Republicans aren't so whacky after all, right?
I'm not sure if this clarifies my point or not.
August 25, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need a liberal media to enable our message to get through the whie noise being created by the present conservative communications oligarcy. We need to see the countless stories of people being kicked while they are down by insurance companies who turn their backs and walk away with the money they've received without paying for the services for which they took that money? These stories are not hard to find. It's just hard to get them on the news because no one thinks they are news anymore.
Post coming!
August 25, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd post.
Nice to read you, destor. : )
August 25, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh, sure, riight. What happened to getting it right when it came to evaluating the Iraq war vote? Edwards--got it wrong. Clinton--got it wrong. Biden--got it wrong. Murtha--got it wrong. Hoyer--got it wrong. The list goes on...
Practical politics reared its head with the nomination to be the Democratic Party candidate for president and there were a few of the loud voices on TPM hollering and yelling about Clinton and Edwards. I recall that quite well. Excuses about the support for that "damned war" were all over the place.
Where was the vaunted punishment for that vote? It wasn't to be found for too many "liberals" and too many "progressives" and too many on the "left" that have loud voices and a soothing writing tongue here at TPM. Is the character of our candidates here on the left simply dictated by what will bring in the most votes? Actions don't matter?
Character for sale? So when I read this drivel about the left getting it right, I react with skepticism. War doesn't matter to the left. Did I get that right?
Uh-huh. Okay. And that's the reason Obama is president--the voices on the left and even the leaders in the party--gasp--got it wrong.
August 25, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there was some punishment for the Iraq war votes -- the Democratic nominee was, in the end, the guy who got it right and didn't vote for authorization. MJ Rosenberg wrote convincingly here that Clinton's Iraq war vote cost her the nomination.
Oddly enough, Obama must not feel the same wya you do about the vote since he made Clinton his Secretary of State and Biden his veep.
August 25, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to admit the irony though. Deep down Lieberman really thinks he was doing the right thing and heroically standing up against evil. No matter that his views were ridiculous, they were principled and well intentioned (if you could call them that).
Whereas Clinton, Kerry and others in perhaps the most important Senate votes in their lifetime let their decisions be influenced to a great extent by politically posturing.
Lieberman meant well, even if he was wrong. Clinton, Kerry & others said 'oh well,' and were also wrong.
Lieberman continues to hold that he was right regardless of all evidence to the contrary, and is really obnoxious about it, so I guess that sets him apart a bit.
August 25, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
True enough. We have to be careful with the ones we claim as our own and you're really right to point that out. And then people will tell you to stop being such a loudmouthed liberal...
August 25, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Garry, I don't know about Kerry or Clinton, but IMHO, I don't think Lieberman felt he was doing the right thing deep down inside.
I think his reasons are far less righteous than you think they are.
But I respect your opinion.
August 25, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The left wing of the party has just been right too many times."
Define left wing, my friend. Clintonites or others? Clintonites have already lost their power positions in the party--although some are still hanging on by a thread by switching to loudly supporting Obama.
I understand the attraction of being "right". Having the best policy white paper simply isn't enough; one has to convince others of the "rightness". If we have democratic values, we have to somehow get around to accepting that. Once that acceptance occurs, then I think we include practicalities in our position. If this doesn't happen, then we just have arrogant folks convinced that their position is "right" and completely unable to convince enough others.
BTW, I didn't like Clinton being Secretary of State but I trusted Obama to make the right decision. I want the party leadership turned over to the Obama age group and out of the hands of boomers--and I'm a boomer. My age group is too damned divisive.
August 25, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This "convincing of others" is crux of the matter. If all parties involved were principled in their endeavors in the marketplace of ideas (i.e. sincerely attempted to speak to truth), much of the political messes we deal with could be reasonably dealt with. Unfortunately, the politicians, cable news pundits, bloggers, PR firms, etc have no problem spewing falsehoods and lies to achieve their ends, whether it is to be re-elected, tv rating, the end of health care reform, etc etc.
There are times when I know the politician I'm supporting is blantly pandering to a particular constituency, and brush it aside because to lose them is to lose the race to someone particularly awful, or to lose a policy fight that needs to be won. But such it is, having to convince people in a marketplace of ideas that has been corrupted (and at some level, always has been so) and toxic. But at what point do we become what strive against when we convince someone to go the "right" way under false pretenses, because they "can't handle the truth" (or however one wants to view them).
August 25, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The left wing of the party is NOT the left wing of the party. The "left wing of the party" is what the republicans call those that disagree with their agenda (e.g., most of the country).
August 25, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if we had the choice to elect people who were right about things, wouldn't that be great? Instead we get to pick between people who were wrong about things and refuse to admit it (right wingers), and people who were wrong about things and apologize for it (so-called centrists).
Here's a good example:
August 25, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primary election is where you get to pick someone new rather than the lesser of two evils.
I hate to see this continuing lament, especially at a political junkie site. If we aren't smart enough to vote in the primaries and bring some friends along for the ride how in the hell will we ever get turnout above a pathetic average of 16%.
We deserve what we get, quite frankly, until we demand and vote for more. We have let the same assholes ruin this country for decades because we are too lazy to turn out twice a year every two years like clockwork.
August 26, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd comment, Destor, but that... person... makes me crazy.
=(
August 25, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll add my thanks, destor. You see this kind of lecturing tone all over the TPM comment threads.
I'll flesh out one dynamic that's ignored by the lecturers: Both in and out of power, the Republicans have been utterly unwilling to compromise. When they were in power, they therefore succeeded in shifting public policy to the hard right -- massive tax cuts to the wealthy, corporate giveaways, removal of meaningful regulatory oversight, draconian restrictions on civil liberties, and on and on. And, both in and out of power, the Democrats have been all too willing to compromise with the non-compromisers. It happened with Clinton and the Republican Congress, it happened with the Democratic minority from 2000-2006, it happened with the new Democratic Congressional majorities starting in 2006, and it continues to happen even with solid control of both Houses of Congress, a 60-vote majority in the Senate, and a President from the Democratic Party. Time and time again, the opening bargaining position from the Democratic side has already been one of compromise.
The results have been predictable. And they continue to be. We move twenty steps to the right, then maybe three steps to the left, then another thirty steps to the right, and so on. There's no evidence that the serious structural reforms needed to set this country to rights are in the offing. And it's not as if we have time to burn.
August 25, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink