South Knox Bubba has performed an invaluable service by summing up the health care proposals of all the Democratic candidates for the White House (Max has a similar post up). What I found particularly interesting was Bubba’s take on Kucinich’s plan: Bubba curtly dismissed it as politically impossible (the insurance companies and people “making $100k” would never allow single-payer) while admitting that “Kucinich’s plan seems to be the only one radical enough to break out of the status quo and maybe bring about meaningful reform.”
This sums up the problem with the Democrats, I think: they know what the right plan is, but they think they can’t fight for it because doing so isn’t politically safe.
I understand the impulse to play it safe. But I also believe it’s a losing impulse. The Democrats are facing a press which – on a national level – adores President Bush and will never report a negative about him. And they hate Democrats with a passion. President Bush’s campaign is run by Karl Rove, who isn’t a dummy and won’t make mistakes that hand the victory to Democrats. And when it comes to fundraising, the Republicans have advantages the Democrats can never match.
Ignore the polls showing that Bush is running even with an unnamed democratic opponent. (Remember how many Democrat partisans were looking at polls and predicting big Democratic wins in 2002?) Those polls are meaningless, because the Rove smear machine and the SCLM haven’t had their turns smashing the image of “unnamed democratic opponent.” If Bush is only running even with Unnamed – an opponent with no negatives – he’ll utterly cream someone like Kerry or Gephardt, once the negatives are piled on.
If the status remains quo, Bush has already won 2004.
There are only two ways Democrats can win: Bush could lose the election, for instance by appearing clueless and uncaring about the economy. But that’s how Bush Senior lost; I doubt Rove will allow the same mistake to be made twice. No matter how bad the economy is in 2004, Bush will be made to appear aware and concerned.
The second way Democrats can win is by not allowing status to remain quo. But that would require taking chances; it would require supporting positions that aren’t politically safe.
Personally, I think single-payer health care would be a good fight for Democrats to get into. It’s a fact-based issue that Democrats can win on the merits; no other health care plan can get the job done. It’s an issue that casts Democrats on the side of ordinary Americans and casts Republicans on the side of big insurance and big HMOs. For the vast, vast majority of Americans – the Americans who earn closer to $30,000 than $120,000 a year – it would be a clear gain to the pocketbook. It would work, and – unlike the health plans put forward by every Democrat except Kucinich – it doesn’t sound like a lot of weasel-worded mumbo-jumbo.
And if we fight for it, and don’t win? Well, then, we live to fight another day. At least a health care plan that could actually work will have been put on the table.
If not health care, then something else. My point is that Democrats have to act more like George W. Bush. That means taking risks; that means supporting some policy positions that the smart money in smoke-filled rooms say won’t fly politically. (Remember 1999, when everyone was saying that Bush’s tax cut was a ridiculous position to take, and he’d have to take a more moderate stance?)
Playing it safe is what the Democrats did in 2002. They took no positions that weren’t poll-tested and SCLM press-approved; they didn’t take political chances.
Why are Democrats so eager to repeat the strategy that got them creamed in 2002?
Playing it safe makes sense if you’ve got an even playing field. The Democrats don’t have an even playing field. The money, the media, and even the electoral college are all biased against the Democrats. In that situation, playing it safe is an almost guaranteed loss.
My prediction is that the Democrats will end up running Kerry or Gephardt, either of whom will run a safe, predictable campaign. They’ll do everything the smart money in the smoke-filled rooms suggest; they’ll support a health care initiative that’s confusing and can’t possibly work, and spend hours debating the minutia while the partisan blogs cheer every minutely-analyzed word and the American public dozes off.
And the press will hate whichever one it is, and run barely-rewritten RNC press releases smearing them, just as they did with Gore. And the public will not be energized, just as it wasn’t with Gore. And the Democrats will be outspent. And they will lose.
But thank goodness they didn’t take a chance on supporting a health care policy that could actually work. That would be a political disaster.
(Postscript: Emma at Notes on the Atrocities is discussing something similar today (permalinks bloggered), although she’s a lot less pessimistic than I am.)
Note: Due to this post being published as Alas was switching commenting software, the original comments to this post have been “stranded.” They can still be read here. However, please leave any new comments in the new comment system (link below).
” They took no positions that weren’t poll-tested and SCLM press-approved”
No, not really. What they did do was ignore the area that Bush was campaigning on. They had lots of reasons for doing so. They were genuinly split on the issue of the Iraq resolution. They had been caught by surprise by Rove’s willingness to use the war in such a blatant fashion. They were slow to realize that, for a variety of reasons, politics were not going to stop at the water’s edge, no matter what they did. They were forced to run in states that Bush carried in 2000, or that leaned Repub even in normal times. The Dems problem was that they were running the wrong election.
By even talking about national health care, the Dems have already changed the playing field. To most people, the notion that everyone would be covered is a radical one, and no matter what the plan to do it, talking about it shifts the debate to the left. The Dems may lose in 2004, but I don’t think the debate over health care will be the reason why.
I like the new look, BTW.
If leading Democrats had guts they would also attack Bush on his alleged strong point, national security. Even without the damning details that the national media obscure that show how disasterous and counterproductive Bush foreign and military policy actually is, people polled in North Carolina (while supporting the past war over 70 percent) rejected by small majorities the idea of something similar being appropriate in Syria or Iraq.
This isn’t Madison, Wisconsin, the Bay Area, Austin, or Vermont we are talking about here, this is Dixie. All it will take is a little sunlight and the actual record of Democrats who have done plenty to support both the American military machine in general (too often too much of the wrong stuff involving questionable new weapons systems at inflated prices that yield few dividends in terms of workers employed but many in terms of corporate pork ) and have also shown more consistent support for actual military personnel and their families than the Republicans have.
The Bush strategy is, create fear in the American mind of a military danger, create the impression that Republicans alone support the military, and that they have what it takes to best employ it, whereas Democrats are both incompetant to manage the military and have no respect for them or desire to face the dangers of the world. If Democrats concede these “points” to their rivals then Bush has surely won already, for what does it matter what tax policies or levels of school funding or even whether I have a job or not, if some foreign devil is aobut to blow me and my neighborhood up?
But all this Republican mythology is based on blatant distortion and outright lies. If Democrats can merely make moderate, reasonable criticisms of Bush policy, but stand firmly by these positions, then I think a whole lot of hidden fear and resentment against the high-handed and blatently one-sided ruling party will surface at the polls, and even with a judicious layer of dirty tricks deployed to secure the election, all but the most blatent tampering would be overwhelmed by this suprise vote, which the Republicans will be mostly blinded against anticipating by the willing suspension of disbelief that their belief that they are justified and right requires.
But only if Democrats indicate they will stand for no nonsense and will handle foreign affairs both differently from Republicans and responsibly. If they indicate they are “me toos” on policies Republicans own, which they have done too often, or they seem to bear out Republican charges they will fail to address real problems or weaken American defenses, they will be sunk. Democrats need to get Americans to define defense in terms of what keeps us really safe, not in terms of how many guns we have and how many soliders of ours there are shooting them off at the moment.
It helps immensely that due to Democrat’s long term deeper committment to working class people of all races, there are many prominant Democratic genuine veterans in Congress and statehouses. It amazes me how much the military has allowed its “champions” to be chickenhawks, but there is some logic to it. Flag-waving and attacking those who did not serve has been a hallowed privilege of the right wing forever, so someone who did not serve him or herself has had either to build a really solid consitituency capable of bucking this current if they wanted to express left-wing ideas–or cravenly and obsequiously give the generals and contractors whatever they like, and buy their support in this way. If you are a sleazy political weasel trying to climb the ladder without putting yourself to inconvenience or risk, the thing to do is be a Republican and “support” the duty of other people to obey people like you and protect you from the moral consequences of your own actions, while you fantasize about lurid and imaginary vices you are bravely defending the public against so they have no time to pay attention to your banal ones.
But sometimes I hope, rather darkly, that things have gotten so bad with Bush’s unilateralist madness, that the generals and admirals themselves are starting to wonder. It gives them, their subordinates right down to fresh recruits, and their contractors a thrill to see orders for planes, ships, tanks, and bizzare missiles double or triple–but a cold wind should blow up their spines to think they might actually come to need them all, and find them inadequate, if Napoleon Bonehead’s glorious conquests go on any longer. The military has its officers study the campaigns of Hitler’s armies; I fear they are being taught to draw the wrong lessons for they think they are studying an efficient and disciplined body they admire much for these qualities. But perhaps in the modern context many of them remember the other side of the equation–they lost the war, and their country was utterly conquered despite all their organizational and technical excellence and good morale to boot, because they signed on to a career of taking on the whole world and turning it against them.
So maybe if Election 2004 goes to the wire and it’s the service absentee votes that decide it–it will go left not right. If and only if Democrats are firmly for a moderate and sane foreign policy, and hold Bush accountable for his failures and blunders, and his betrayals of the military itself. But if they can say this and mean it, then all the dirty tricks in the world won’t matter if the legal authority of a questionably installed Commander in Chief expires. Their oath is to the Constitution not to the President.
I just looked at your post, Kevin, and I have to say your explanation of Democratic weakness seems sadly accurate–and lame, because any Democrat who emerged from the month of September 2001 with the idea that Bush would let politics stop at the shoreline was either stupid, corrupt, or frightened out of his wits. Bush has got nothing whatsoever to sell the majority but war and empire; Democrats have to start saying no to that and yes to constructive relations with the world.
Overseas Bush has indeed been a uniter not a divider–the world is lining up against us. If Democrats can stand with the world and against him, he may prove to be a uniter of the level of opposition it takes to unseat him. I think a genuine majority government may be at hand, if the better Democrats have the courage to seize the opportunity.
And I do mean courage. How many right-wing senators planes went down last November?
It’s a shame you lost all the old comments. The new format is nice, though.
Thanks for leaving comments, folks.
John, the old comments aren’t lost. I’ll be putting up links to them shortly.
Sorry, but I find your position morally untenable…you are basically taking an issue as an abstraction without regard to what can happen to real people in the meantime….ie, ‘we are gonna lose, so we might as well push for something even if it won’t make a difference.’ Who, exactly, is this supposed to help?
I agree with you that we’ll probably lose, but you don’t ever set out to purposely lose by pushing a loser agenda just to make some half-assed point. Further, the winner sets the agenda and the winner(in the case of chimpco) controls the media. If a candidate loses by a large margin, it will only further diminish the hope of SP in this country, not promote it.
The goal shouldn’t be to push an idea that is untenable, the goal should be to get as many people insured as soon as possible. That is the only morally defensable argument. Every person that could be helped but isn’t because of people demanding the whole pie they ain’t ever gonna get is a victim.
Before the last election, I fought tooth and nail with greenies who derided Gore’s health care plan. “ralphie’s gonna give you single payer”, they’d say. Beyond the obvious that ralphie wasn’t gonna give anybody anything, everyone that wasted their vote by throwing the election to chimpco in effect potentially eliminated what may have been helpful to millions of people. Real people-not abstractions.
Single payer will not pass in this country for the foreseeable future. You can keep arguing for it in election after election and it still will not pass. Even if a candidate pushing it on our side wins(a huge unlikelihood), it will not pass.
The question is, would it be better to run on a more acceptable platform that is conducive to winning and have a sliver of hope for extended coverage, or sabotage a run for something that won’t pass in the first place? I wouldn’t want on my conscience that there are probably millions of people that could be covered today but they ain’t because I fell for some green bs.
Yes, it’s all true. I see the light. I should sign onto Gephardt’s plan immediately… which will not only slap the most meagre of band-aids on a huge problem but will do nothing to protect those of us who still have okay healthcare but pay more and more for it every year. I should hitch my wagon to a party that expends the majority of its efforts to sopping Big Insurance and the HMOs and if they happen to, incidentally, offer some minor help to some nobody like me in the process, well, whoopee. But I shouldn’t expect too much. Just a slightly puffier pair of kneepads at twice the price will do. Thank You, oh, Thank You.
Yes, it’s truly fulfilling to be part of a party that expends so much energy whining that a program that works all over the world can simply never, never, never, work here. Ever. If one iota of the zeal the party expends shoring up the crappy status quo and slamming anyone who questions it could be spent actually admitting that the status quo stinks and needs a good shaking, seeking long-term gain instead of salves that don’t last, maybe it would be a party worth joining. But what the hell, I long soooo to be in with the “in crowd,” even if they are intellectually lazy, morally bankrupt, unimaginative, bullying twits, so I’ll be signing up for Gephardt’s campaign tomorrow. Thank You, jdw. I couldn’t’ve seen the light without you. (smooch.)
“Yes, it’s truly fulfilling to be part of a party that expends so much energy whining that a program that works all over the world can simply never, never, never, work here. Ever.”
I didn’t say that it couldn’t work, just that it is politically undoable at this time. As you so correctly note, it works elsewhere.(And just how well it works is debated endlessly in blogland but I think it’s beyond debate that it does help a greater proportion of people)Maybe at some point we’ll have a winnable debate about SP, when the have-nots exceed the haves, or a catastrophic collapse of the system, or when pigs fly.
It has nothing to do with sopping parties. If you watched the debate last week, you saw that Kucinich(my congresscritter) is pushing SP…vote for him. The trouble is, he’ll be home long before primary season ends.
So, that lets unfortunate reality intrude…for people like you that are seeing an ever-increasing bite in their premiums…for people like my wife and I that only after 7 years of growing our very small business to the point of affording the premiums, only to find that I’ve been rejected by two insurance companies so far.
The fact is that maybe, maybe if Gore woulda prevailed we’d have lots and lots of people insured today that weren’t two years ago. It probably would not have included me, but then I’ve never known the world to revolve around my axis.
Even before the parties became the corporate toadies they are today, progress was the result of long battles in the most favorable climates to insure passage. Social Security- an idea that was pushed by Thomas Paine in the 1700’s- wasn’t passed until almost 200 years later, after a devestating depression.(and with a Democratic majority) Medicare took 30 years to pass. So while it’s good to have this issue in debate, I’d rather see something accomplished in the meantime that can help more people instead of none.
Silly me.
**”The fact is that maybe, maybe if Gore woulda prevailed we’d have lots and lots of people insured today that weren’t two years ago. It probably would not have included me, but then I’ve never known the world to revolve around my axis.”**
Having seen what happened under Clinton, and having watched Gore in the debates –to say nothing of seeing what’s happened to our supposee “boom” in the last three years– I cannot agree.
I doubt that Gore had the will or the means, especially with what would still, had there been no Green in sight in 2000, been a narrowly divided House and Senate, to push for anything that would have done squat for the healthcare crisis in this country. Because any plan along those lines would not have touched its main problem: HMOs and Pharmaceuticals.
**”It probably would not have included me, but then I’ve never known the world to revolve around my axis.”**
I will never understand this attitude if I live to be 1000. We, the rank-and-file voters, the people with the least power in this equation, are expected to sacrifice our own health and safety, our own security, on the off-chance that the next time the market goes into another horrific convulsion, we won’t be expelled out its rear. We are expected to sit quietly while the people running the Democratic Party ignore the fact that –hello !!– if your goal is to ultimately stamp out poverty, one of the best things you can do is to push programs that STOP CREATING MORE POOR PEOPLE !!!
(I’m being generous here, frankly, and pretending that someone like Daschle or Gephardt gives a crap about the poor. Just for the sake of the argument.)
Meanwhile, the people running at the top are unwilling to go out on a limb: They, who have many many times what you and I have, will not risk a thing: Not their money, not their job security, not their status, not their material comfort, not a damn thing. They will not even risk their necks in a debate against a half-wit like Shrub. (Shakes head.) Any sacrifices made come from us, not them. Small wonder millions of Americans don’t vote. Who the hell wants to hear for the four millionth time that sacrifice is the exclusive province of those with the least to put on the block ?
**”Even before the parties became the corporate toadies they are today, progress was the result of long battles in the most favorable climates to insure passage. Social Security- an idea that was pushed by Thomas Paine in the 1700’s- wasn’t passed until almost 200 years later, after a devestating depression.(and with a Democratic majority) Medicare took 30 years to pass. So while it’s good to have this issue in debate, I’d rather see something accomplished in the meantime that can help more people instead of none.”**
Well, we have a Health Plan for the poor here in Oregon. Unfortunately, it was built on the back of a market boom that is gone now. Since little long-term planning took place that would have banked away funds for the inevitable day that the boom ended, and since –to reiterate– it was done without help from other states, and since it did not require much of anything from the corporations that determine who gets coverage/drugs/care and who doesn’t… it’s probably history.
And the Oregon Democratic Party, which had a million reasons last year why Single-payer could not work in this state, thus justifying the lip-service they paid to a Measure that would have implemented it, had then and have now no ideas of their own. The Governer prattles about “responsibility” and goes bowling with the Republicans and acts as if this is policy. It’s not. It is a rather localized taste of what the nation could have expected from a Gore victory, as far as I’m concerned.
What you see as long-termed planning, jdw, I see as worse than nothing. A supposed leader of a supposed opposition party should not timidly offer a tepid, inoffensive plan designed to worry and challenge no one right out of the gate. He/she should do what Reps do: Offer the ultimate ideal and later, only later, address the notion of compromise. Republicans have this down to a science. They either offer an extreme plan right out front and later allow their “opposition” to cut away half of it (often not even the worst half, but something). Or they cloak extreme ideas in the language of moderation. Democrats knew how to do this once upon a time. But at least at the Presidential level, they have forgotten how.
This is why I’m not coming back to the fold any time soon. Thanks for the actual dialogue, though, instead of yet more bashing. It’s a pleasant break from the usual.
JTW, my point wasn’t winning single-payer health care or not (although gaining it would be nice). Single-payer health care was only an example.
My point was that being craven and safe is a winning strategy only for those with a winning position. The Democrats have, in almost every way, a losing position. If they follow your advice, I believe they will lose in 2004, and lose badly.
Would taking a couragous stance guarantee single-payer health care? No (although it would bring it about decades sooner than refusing to stand for it). But taking a couragous stance – if not on single-payer health care, than on something – would give the Democrats some chance of winning the election. Being the cowards, playing it safe, almost guarantees a loss in 2004.
The Dems do have one chance, if they play it safe, and that’s what Jake refers to – maybe if the Dems do nothing, act like the cowards they naturally are, and take no stands, maybe the Bush people will screw things up so badly that they’ll lose despite the Democrats. It’s possible. But for the last three years, the Democrats have underestimated Bush again and again, and gotten their ass kicked again and again. My guess is that’s what’ll happen in 2004, too, if the Democrats do nothing but play it safe and pray Bush screws up.
First, I’d like to think we’re all on the same page, insofar as we’d all like to see SP. And I think we’re all in agreement that we’re angry the Dems have rolled time and time again since the selection. I think we can at least meet on that common ground, and I think that we can also agree that health care- the huge problem that it is- is only only a part of the many things that are wrong with this country at this point. Can we at least agree with this? We can argue about why the dems lost in 2002, but I also think we could agree that the political battle set up by Rove insured this loss…now, instead of at least being able to rally to try to defeat chimpco we are as divided as we were in 1968.
All I am saying is that an incremental approach is the only approach worth taking at this point. I feel this is because it’s doable(or most likey to be doable). If you honestly believe that we can nationalize health care, then we don’t have much to argue about…I am wrong and you are right, and I’ll be gratefully wrong….but if it takes 20 years, or 30 years, or is never done and million lose everything in the meantime…well, you may have won a battle but the cost is pretty damn high, imo.
I think that incremental approaches are most realistic, because the fight will be a moral one that could be a political winner. This is because opponents could be placed in the very uncomfortable position of not being willing to help the most vulnerable in society. (albeit on a limited basis)If we can’t even frame that argument successfully, then there isn’t much point in trying to convince Americans that Everyone could be covered…is there?
If we could get the youngest, and those approaching retirement covered it will provide a moral club for expansion of coverage to anyone. Americans are resistent to change, cautious. If they see that coverage has been successfully increased and it ain’t ‘rationed’ or ‘big gvt’ and their fears aren’t realized, why not expand it?
When you think about it, by just getting our feet successfully in the door, the moral imperative grows even stronger….for once we see that a 14 yo is covered, or a 57 yo is covered, then why should a 45 yo loose everything they own due to an accident of birth(ie the time they were born)?
The goopers don’t win all of their positions by being most extreme and then bargaining down. They have to run to the middle, also…witness the charade of ‘compassionate conservatives’ and ‘thousand points of light’- type crap. They can win now because they have both Houses, the Oval Office, the Courts and the media….just as the Dems had advantages at certain points in time in our history. We are living in a conservative society at an apex of conservative power, and I think that arguing for an undoable policy is just wrong headed. If we run an opponent that is for SP when they lose, we don’t get to bargain down to the Gephardt plan…we get n-o-t-h-i-n-g.
“***The goopers don’t win all of their positions by being most extreme and then bargaining down. They have to run to the middle, also…”***
I think you’re making my point here for me. Reps RUN as moderates, but are reactionaries. They cloak REACTIONARY policies in a fascade of moderation, and send their hired guns at FOX, et al out to make sure that any tepid “reform” Democrats might push for has a hard time being perceived in the same way.
It’s a shame that the Democrats don’t have the House, the Senate, the media, etc. That being said, they are still a huge organization with an incredible amount of resources at hand. That so many of their energies are expended repeatedly on things that don’t work is the problem. If the Democrats were a football team with this kind of record, MacAuliffe and the DLC would’ve been shown the door a good, long time ago. Unless one believes that generatiing money and prestige is more important than winning elections and making long term changes that enhance the country. In that case, MacAuliffe is the best the party has ever had. :p
***”witness the charade of ‘compassionate conservatives’ and ‘thousand points of light’- type crap. They can win now because they have both Houses, the Oval Office, the Courts and the media….”***
See above. Neither of these phrases are policies. They are pleasant-sounding catchphrases used to market wretchedly right-wing policies. Hell, Democrats don’t even have a catchphrase good or otherwise, unless you count, “Fuck Greens,” or “Anybody but Bush In 2004.”
***”just as the Dems had advantages at certain points in time in our history. We are living in a conservative society at an apex of conservative power, and I think that arguing for an undoable policy is just wrong headed. If we run an opponent that is for SP when they lose, we don’t get to bargain down to the Gephardt plan…we get n-o-t-h-i-n-g.”***
The answer to a raging fire is not a gallon of gasoline. And the answer to an apex of conservatism is not shamefacedly, obsequiosly, offering more conservatism to throw on top.
And BTW, 200 hundred years is a long time to wait for anything. The hereditary illness I’ve got could make me very, very sick and very, very poor in 2 years or in 20, but that it will at some point is not in question. I don’t have 200 years to watch Gephardt and his pals timidly shoving a dollar here and there at the healthcare crisis while pocketing millions of dollars from those who were instrumental in creating and perpetuating it. I’ll wager scores of other people don’t, either.
You seem to be one of the types that can discern no difference between the parties, and there isn’t a damn thing I can do to change your mind.
“The answer to a raging fire is not a gallon of gasoline. And the answer to an apex of conservatism is not shamefacedly, obsequiosly, offering more conservatism to throw on top.”
And that’s what the democratic party is doing right now? C’mon, spell it all out…give examples. I watched a dem debate last week that offered views from far left to centrist…I didn’t see a single candidate offering Conservative views.
Before the last election, the greenies said, ‘no matter if the goopers win. In fact, it’ll only hasten a swing back left.’ Well, I’d say where is this big leftward swing that was predicted? How come America isn’t getting on the Kucinich bandwagon? If every Dem candidate dropped out of the race today and endorsed Kucinich, would this ‘bold’ move make the race winnable for us? I think not….
“I think you’re making my point here for me. Reps RUN as moderates, but are reactionaries. They cloak REACTIONARY policies in a fascade of moderation, and send their hired guns at FOX, et al out to make sure that any tepid “reform” Democrats might push for has a hard time being perceived in the same way.”
Well, what’s your answer to this? Run people with policies that won’t win in the face of a hositle media, and by extension, a hostile voting public? The democrats have institutional barriers that make it impossible for them to do what the gop can. We can’t enforce the type of interparty discipline the way they can, and I don’t think we’d want to. We have an ethos in Liberalism that is centered in perception of greater gvt involvement in the face of a public that clearly doesn’t want it. Give the public a choice between less gvt and more gvt, and they’ll invariably choose less. So, how does jive with Liberal philosophy?
“It’s a shame that the Democrats don’t have the House, the Senate, the media, etc. That being said, they are still a huge organization with an incredible amount of resources at hand. That so many of their energies are expended repeatedly on things that don’t work is the problem. If the Democrats were a football team with this kind of record, MacAuliffe and the DLC would’ve been shown the door a good, long time ago. Unless one believes that generatiing money and prestige is more important than winning elections and making long term changes that enhance the country. In that case, MacAuliffe is the best the party has ever had. :p”
Well, what’s the ‘record’ of the dlc and the DNC? We had a two-term POTUS for the first time since Truman. Yes, we lost Congress in ’94 largly because the Democrats stupidly tried to foist HCR before Welfare reform. They bravely increased taxes, and got their butts kicked on that issue. They made small gains back towards capturing the house. Gore received more votes then any Dem in history, despite his lame ‘poll tested’ campaign and in the face of overwhelming media slant. And now your answer is to ‘bold’ them into oblivion? Go ahead, make their day.
Sorry, I have no desire for the dems to concede this election by being ‘bold’ to the point of unelectibility just so that we can burn down the forest to save it. We’ll have to agree to disagree…
Regards,
One could argue if a leftist candidate loses it will push the dems rightwards, but if a centrist candidate loses they tend to get pushed leftwards, the first next election anyway.
Humphrey led to McGovern led to Carter. Carter’s loss led to Mondale. Mondale led to Dukakis which led to Clinton but another, more certain, rule is every GOP win pushes the country rightwards.
And Gore’s loss will likely give us a slightly more liberal candidate now.
What was my point now again?
Oh, yes, “what do we have to lose” is not necessarily correct even if you think there’s no chance of winning. Chances of winning in ’08 should be good, so a liberal candidate then is desirable.
(I think ‘i mostly agree wiyhyo here, actually. But it was something not brouhght up.)
**”Well, what’s the ‘record’ of the dlc and the DNC? We had a two-term POTUS for the first time since Truman.”**
…from a guy who thirty years ago would have been a Republican with his nasty belief system, and who couldn’t keep it in his pants. Rah.
***”Yes, we lost Congress in ’94 largly because the Democrats stupidly tried to foist HCR before Welfare reform. They bravely increased taxes, and got their butts kicked on that issue. They made small gains back towards capturing the house.”***
Which got us… what, exactly ? Oh, right. More corporate hegemony, more self-righteous delusional crowing about the ability of the damn free market to fix everything, more corruption, more pitiful band-aids on various enviromental woes, more of a lousy foreign policy, more doing nothing while social problems continued to fester. Please, don’t even get me started on “welfare reform.”
***”Gore received more votes then any Dem in history, despite his lame ‘poll tested’ campaign and in the face of overwhelming media slant.”***
And in the face of Shrub’s takeover, he and his party folded like a wet piece of paper. Appearing to be good sports turned out to be more important than “fighting for you,” or me, or anyone, aparently.
***”And now your answer is to ‘bold’ them into oblivion? Go ahead, make their day.”***
You are the person who just got done claiming that signifigant change takes time. Do you think that more “Republican Lite” schemes are going to plant those seeds ? Ridiculous. The way to change the way society views itself is by offering them something new, not by “me too”-ing until you’re blue in the face. Note, please, what “me too”-ing got the Dems last time out.
**”Sorry, I have no desire for the dems to concede this election by being ‘bold’ to the point of unelectibility just so that we can burn down the forest to save it. We’ll have to agree to disagree..”***
Which brings us back to Amp’s point. He appears to believe that if the party faithful annoint someone like Lieberman, it will be timidity to the point of unelectability that will be the problem. Not the opposite, as you do. I’m in Amp’s corner.
“…from a guy who thirty years ago would have been a Republican with his nasty belief system, and who couldn’t keep it in his pants. Rah.”
Read some history. For some ungodly reason, the left seems to be under the illusion that waaaay back when(somewhere) there was this golden age of liberalism, but now it’s all broke under the yoke of corporate hegemony(oh, how my little Liberal knees are supposed to jerk when ever the ‘h’ word gets thrown out!)
Bunk. Bash BC all you want…who’s yer hero? FDR? He put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Truman? He threatened to draft striking union members, dropped the bomb on innocent civilians, was hardly a progressive. Kennedy? Seems that we now know he didn’t keep it in his pants, either. Johnson? Oh, how the leftyleft loves to bash Johnson!(hell, everyone hates Johnson). Haha…we could use a little Johnson these days…he figured out how to get Brown and Root money into democratic coffers, and we sure could use the cash. Carter? If this was the high water mark of Liberism, leftism or progressivism then I’d say the country got buyer’s remorse and didn’t renew their subscriptions to that magazine. Tell me about the great Liberal progressivism of the pre-Civil Rights act era. The time when states could regulate sale of birth control, when abortion was illegal, when you didn’t dare ‘come out’, when cars spewed lead into the air and the Cuyahoga river started on fire…yup, those was the days. Such a bitch we’ve only got crumbs since then.
The fact is that change takes time, and it’s cyclical and we are a very conservative country. The answer has never been more lefty-lefts, or demanding ideological purity, or ‘running left’… the answer is to have more democrats of all stripes. All of the major legislation in this country could not have been passed by just a handful of congresscritters from the most liberal congressional districts in the country.
And it ain’t enuf to cry the blues about how ‘corporate’ the democratic party has become…usually, I find that’s just a scapegoat for erstwhile democrats not willing to carry their part of the load. Last election, 50 million people voted for Gore. If each of those people ponied up just $10 a year to the DNC( less then a frigging pizza, or to the nadirite a couple double mochamocha lattes), that would amount to half a BILLION a year…they could tell corporate America to go take a hike and we could all be pure and our little anti-corporate knees would quake no longer. But no, it’s easier to cry in their lattes….and spend their money on Pearl Jam tickets or Utne Reader tote bags.
Further, you want SP? All ya gotta do is get them same 50 million to take a little march on Washington, maybe camp out a little there. Stay a few days and kick up a little dust. You’d see SP pass quicker then you’d ever believe.
Nice litany there, j. Maybe you’d like to follow through and tell me just what terrific legacy Clinton’s left us, to help us deal with his pecadillos as we’ve learned to deal with FDR’s or LBJ’s. Better yet, don’t bother. I have to go break out my Chopra tapes, my Deva shirt, and my healing crystal. We’re all into that sort of thing, you know…
You’re more fun to talk to when you’re not inhabitted by that talk radio gremlin, j. Later.
J., it does seem that you’ve switched from being interested in dialog to being interested in insults and cheap stereotyping (BTW, Utne Reader tote bags? I thought the Utne Reader loved Clinton.). You’re much more boring when you’re trying to be funny at my expense. :-p
I would judge the “record” of the DLC by the legacy they leave in terms of policy. Having a two-term presidency isn’t an accomplishment; it’s what you do with those two terms that count. And despite their flaws (which, as you point out, are very real), both LBJ and FDR left much more substantial legacies behind than Clinton did.
As for Al Gore, winning “the most votes” is a reflection of two things: how close the race was (close races bring out more voters), and that the country’s population is continually growing. If Gore had run a more successful campaign, he would have been further ahead of Bush and, paradoxically, probably would have therefore received fewer votes overall. (I meantion this not just to contradict you, but because I think it’s kind of a funny paradox.)
By the way, I always find this sort of thing ironic (yet annoying) coming from Democrats:
And it ain’t enuf to cry the blues about how ‘corporate’ the democratic party has become…usually, I find that’s just a scapegoat for erstwhile democrats not willing to carry their part of the load. Last election, 50 million people voted for Gore. If each of those people ponied up just $10 a year to the DNC( less then a frigging pizza, or to the nadirite a couple double mochamocha lattes), that would amount to half a BILLION a year…they could tell corporate America to go take a hike and we could all be pure and our little anti-corporate knees would quake no longer. But no, it’s easier to cry in their lattes….and spend their money on Pearl Jam tickets or Utne Reader tote bags.
My commune (yes, I live in a commune – very stereotypical of me, I know) donated money (way over $10) to a whole bunch of Democrats in 2002 (and in retrospect, boy was that money down the drain). I also personally donated many hours – we’re talking travelling-out-of-town-to-campaign-fulltime hours – volunteering for a Democrat’s campaign.
Despite all that, however, I still have to deal with condesending Democrats coming to my site to complain that I don’t look up from my latte often enough to help the Democratic party. Frankly, J., I suspect I’ve done more to help the Dems than you have – so maybe you should stop making stupid assumptions about what I do or don’t do.
“Nice litany there, j. Maybe you’d like to follow through and tell me just what terrific legacy Clinton’s left us, to help us deal with his pecadillos as we’ve learned to deal with FDR’s or LBJ’s.”
And maybe you’d like to address my point that we’ve never been a particularly Liberal society, and these constant pleas and handwringing for the Democratic party to stop becoming ‘republican lite’ etc are just a lot of hokum.
But I’ll take the bait and give ya a few accomplishments, but knowing liberals you’ll focus on what didn’t get done…the glass is always half full…or better yet, to quote our hero LBJ, “A Liberal is never so happy as when he’s unhappy.”
Let’s start with 1993:
January 22 Abolished Restrictions on Medical Research and the Right to Choose
As his first executive actions, President Clinton revoked the Gag Rule, which prohibited abortion counseling in clinics that receive federal funding to serve low-income patients. He also revoked restrictions on a woman’s legal right to privately funded abortion services in military hospitals, restrictions on the import of RU-486, and restrictions on the award of international family planning grants (the “Mexico City Policy”). The President also lifted the moratorium on federal funding for research involving fetal tissue, allowing progress on research into treatments for Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and leukemia. (Executive Memoranda, 1/22/93)
February 5 Family and Medical Leave Act
The Family & Medical Leave Act — the first piece of legislation the President signed into law — has enabled millions of workers to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave to care for a new baby or ailing family member without jeopardizing their job. The previous administration vetoed the bill twice. (PL 103-3, signed 2/5/93)
April 1 Childhood Immunizations
The President launched a major childhood immunization effort to increase the number of children who were being immunized. Since 1993, childhood immunization rates have reached all-time highs, with 90 percent or more of America’s toddlers receiving critical vaccines for children by age 2. Vaccination levels are nearly the same for preschool children of all racial and ethnic groups, narrowing a gap estimated to be as wide as 26 percentage points a generation ago.
May 20 Motor Voter Registration Signed
The Clinton Administration made it easier for millions of Americans to register to vote by allowing registration at the same time they get a driver’s license. The Motor Voter law led to the registration of more than 28 million new voters, more registered voters than the passage of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 years. (PL 103-31, signed 5/20/93).
August 10 Clinton-Gore Deficit Reduction Plan Enacted
Passed without a single Republican vote, the Clinton-Gore Administration’s economic plan established fiscal discipline by slashing the deficit in half — the largest deficit reduction plan in history — while making important investments in our economic future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. This legislation also extended the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by three years. Fiscal discipline established by the Clinton-Gore Administration has turned the largest deficits in our country’s history into the largest surplus. (PL 103-66, signed 8/10/93)
Earned Income Tax Credit Expansion/Working Family Tax Cut
President Clinton succeeded in passing an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, giving a tax cut to 15 million of the hardest-pressed American workers. In 1999, the EITC lifted 4.1 million people out of poverty — nearly double the number lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993. (PL 103-66, signed 8/10/93).
September 21 AmeriCorps Community Service Initiative Enacted
AmeriCorps allows individuals to serve communities across the country while earning money for college or skills training programs. Since its inception, 150,000 volunteers have participated in AmeriCorps; that means that more people have enrolled in this Clinton Administration initiative in its first five years than did in the Peace Corps’ first 20 years. (PL 103-82, signed 9/21/93)
November 30 Brady Act Signed
After seven years of debate under previous administrations, the President signed legislation requiring a background check before the purchase of a handgun and establishing a National Instant Check System. Since its enactment, the Brady Law has helped to prevent a total of more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. Since 1992, the gun-related crime rate has declined by 40 percent. (PL 103-159, signed 11/30/93)
Of course, health care failed…but they were the first Democrats that even gave it a whirl in many a moon. And it’s not uncommon for us to try and fail for years.
“I would judge the “record” of the DLC by the legacy they leave in terms of policy. Having a two-term presidency isn’t an accomplishment; it’s what you do with those two terms that count. And despite their flaws (which, as you point out, are very real), both LBJ and FDR left much more substantial legacies behind than Clinton did.”
Agreed. But both LBJ and FDR had sustantial Democratic majorities, and in FDR’s time we were coming off a devestating depression. It’s hard for us to judge today the desperation of the people in that time. But to my bigger point that all of our Presidents did very un-Liberal things…it ain’t like there’s a golden age when all was great for us Liberals. It can also be argued that Johnson’t Great Society programs did more to hurt Liberalism in terms of people’s faith in gvt to help solve problems then it helped…Again we find a president whose record is a mixed bag, at the least.
“for Al Gore, winning “the most votes” is a reflection of two things: how close the race was (close races bring out more voters), and that the country’s population is continually growing. If Gore had run a more successful campaign, he would have been further ahead of Bush and, paradoxically, probably would have therefore received fewer votes overall. (I meantion this not just to contradict you, but because I think it’s kind of a funny paradox.)”
I see your point, and it’s true that just given population growth you’d expect more votes. In some regards, I’d agree he ran a poor campaign, but he musta done something right to come back from being down apx 20 points a year before the election. And you could critique Gore’s run from the right or left. You could make the claim that Gore wasn’t bold enough or that he was too bold. But voters as a whole did perceive Gore as being to the left of them and the Democratic party as a whole.
Well, there you go, j. The neoliberal agenda won Clinton the White House: A pro-choice vote here, a band-aid on the dilemna of working women there, a feeble bit of coverage for kids, a little deficit hawkishness on the backs of the poor. The path is clear: All you need is another neo-liberal slick-talker in the driver’s seat and the White House is yours. Enjoy.
Oh, and, j, if you want to see just what Americans are doing to try and promote SP, in lieu of a march on Washington (for now), try typing the phrase “Healthcare For All” into your search engine and spend a half hour or so reading the results. Oregon’s site even has a news group you can subscribe to that’ll send clippings and updates, which might provide valuable fodder even if you live out of state. Certainly some of the horror stories told there by real live human beings about the consequences of our feeble, cut-and-patch system would be a boon to any candidate looking for an issue to run with and hit the Repubs hard with. But I long ago gave up on whomever gets the nod having half a brain or half a heart. It’s still compelling reading, though.
Amy…in true fashion you denigrate the accomplishments by minimizing them….sooo predictable. Ok with me.
Just out of curiosity, who Do you like?
(Shrug.) I could live with Kucinich, I suppose. But as Jim Hightower has pointed out, the problem with the Democratic Party is bigger than its frontrunners: It’s the people running the Democratic Party itself that seem hell-bent on running it into the ground. Hell, I’d like to see Hightower run. I’d like to see Barbara Ehrenrich or Barbara Lee run, as long as I’m dreaming out loud.
And I don’t confuse damage control with “accomplishment” or a true legacy, as you seem to do. Say what you will about LBJ and FDR, they created or built on objectives and programs whose purpose was to enhance life for all Americans. I think Clinton smudged some rouge on a few of them when they were already dying and then helped the Repubs to shut off the oxygen from the vast majority of them. He had good people like Reich and Edelman-Wright working for him, yet the agendas that such people pushed for before their tenure with Clinton were mostly undermined by him, not advanced.
And to add to what Amp said, could we please ditch the dumbass generalizations about what one’s political opponents drink, wear, subscribe to, etc etc ? Unless you want to talk about Starbucks or fair-trade, I think my morning coffee drink has fuck-all to do with this discussion. Unless you want to talk about postal rates or the output of a particular commentator, I think my magazine subscriptions have fuck-all to do with it as well. Honestly, I see this sort of high-schoolish crap on the likes of World Socialist Web and Indymedia all the time. It stinks. It adds nothing to what can be at times excellent and thoughtful commentary. It does nothing but throw the judgment of the commentator into question. Besides, as Amp pointed out, you could just as easily lob your particular little lifestyle potshots at any number of Gore voters with the same accuracy level as you get lobbing them at Greens… if not more so.
Ok, I’ll lay off the Utne reader stuff…hell, got a copy on my coffee table right now.
But you’ve really not addressed any sustanative points beyond general dissatisfaction with the Democratic party and general dismissiveness of it’s accomplishments.
“Shrug.) I could live with Kucinich, I suppose.”
I’m surprised. Did you know that early in his career he’s been accused of some pretty serious race baiting? That he changed his anti-choice stand the day he announced? Now don’t get me wrong, DK is my Congresscritter and I worked on his 2000 campaign, and of course had the requiste Dennis! signs in my yard last year. And I’ll vote for him in the primary when he’s gonna be faced with some pretty stiff opposition due to his war stance.
“But as Jim Hightower has pointed out, the problem with the Democratic Party is bigger than its frontrunners: It’s the people running the Democratic Party itself that seem hell-bent on running it into the ground.”
Jim Hightower makes a living bitching..that’s what he does. He adds nothing to advancement of anything beyond bitching to people that are inclined to agree with his doom and gloom. I’ve tried reading his rantings, but in the end it’s pretty gutless stuff. Ya see, it’s so safe to just carp and bitch about everything. You don’t have to take responsibility for the warts of anyone that you vote for. It’s safe, and there’s an audience for it, and there’s no need to take into account little pragmaticisms like actually getting elected. Lots of harping and no answers.
I wish you well, Amy. But I’m afraid that you won’t be happy in the foreseeable future. By the time we get the chimp and his successor out of the Oval Office, we’ll be faced with a country in serious need of fixing but with huge deficits that will make any new huge social programs untenable. We’ll be fed up with 8-12 years of gooper rule and chomping at the bitt demanding all the things us liberals love but ain’t gonna get. Be well, and sorry for the latte crack.
**”I’m surprised. Did you know that early in his career he’s been accused of some pretty serious race baiting? That he changed his anti-choice stand the day he announced? Now don’t get me wrong, DK is my Congresscritter and I worked on his 2000 campaign, and of course had the requiste Dennis! signs in my yard last year. And I’ll vote for him in the primary when he’s gonna be faced with some pretty stiff opposition due to his war stance.”**
Why are you suprised. Despite the sniggering of people like Alterman, I don’t think Greens are obsessed with electing saints. I don’t even believe in saints. I do think that Kucinich, flaws and all, has a convincing air of giving a shit, which is a damn sight more than other candidates do. Dean has a bit of that Clinton-esque faux-“pain feeling” about him, and he has some charisma. But that’s the problem. Clinton’s turned out not to be real, and I have a feeling that Dean isn’t for real, either.
**”Jim Hightower makes a living bitching..that’s what he does. He adds nothing to advancement of anything beyond bitching to people that are inclined to agree with his doom and gloom. I’ve tried reading his rantings, but in the end it’s pretty gutless stuff. Ya see, it’s so safe to just carp and bitch about everything. You don’t have to take responsibility for the warts of anyone that you vote for. It’s safe, and there’s an audience for it, and there’s no need to take into account little pragmaticisms like actually getting elected. Lots of harping and no answers.”**
Ummm… (Amp, I’m sorry.) there is no polite way for me to say this:
You are either confusing Hightower with someone else or you are full of shit. Actually, the piece he published after the distasterous mid-terms had substantial, concrete ideas as to what the Democratic leadership could do to revitalize the party and win back the American public. You can dismiss it if you want, since he suggests things that virtually no other Democrat (and Hightower, despite his utter lack of interest in Green-baiting, is a Democrat) would touch: Such as pushing for a curtailing of the payroll tax. (Surely one of the most regressive taxes we’ve go, if not THE most regressive.) Such as giving up on building plush new Washington D.C. digs for fat cats in favor of mobilizing grassroots voters, and… (drumroll) looking to seek a majority in the only *real* majority there is in this country:
NON-VOTERS.
Yes, these things would take time.
So what ?
Anything worth doing takes time.
I don’t believe you’ve read more than a smidgeon, if that, of what Hightower has to say. I believe your problem with him is that you, like most Democrats, suffer from such drastically lowered expectations that you do not want to be shocked, you don’t want to be challenged, you don’t want anything new and untested to come down the plank. If this attitude is going to bring us a victory, it will be a victory largely on paper, and fleeting. Much like we had under Clinton. Blecch. You want to throw good time and money after bad, go for it.
**”I wish you well, Amy. But I’m afraid that you won’t be happy in the foreseeable future. By the time we get the chimp and his successor out of the Oval Office, we’ll be faced with a country in serious need of fixing but with huge deficits that will make any new huge social programs untenable. We’ll be fed up with 8-12 years of gooper rule and chomping at the bit demanding all the things us liberals love but ain’t gonna get. Be well, and sorry for the latte crack.”**
That you think we had much of anything else before reminds me again what a dead end this conversation was right from the get-go. Likewise that you think Democrats could not, under any circumstances, immobilize Bush’s agenda much as Repubs immobalized Clinton (assuming they could gain back a majority in the House and Senate even without the White House)… Likewise that a surplus meant anything when banking it was more important to neolibs than putting it to good use… Likewise that if Bush is out of office, the multitudes of conservatives behind him will still be the same “government in exile” that they were before. Challenging Bush isn’t enough. They have to be challenged, too, and the media oligarchy that makes their supremacy possible needs to be dealt with. Which Dems have not and will not do… Etc, Etc…
Sorry to have wasted everyone’s time.
I wonder what would happen if someone started rounding up blogsphere debates like this one (about what the Democrats should or should not do/go after in the 2004 election), put them on a website, and shipped hard copies to all the Democratic canidates. I know for a fact that Dean, or at least someone in the Dean office, monitors various blogs, but do they read the comments?
[shrug] An interesting idea, although I haven’t the foggiest idea how to get it done. Any ideas?
I live in New Jersey, where the majority of the people are democrats- I’m pesonaly not one of them. The big talk in my area is one of an arrogent and uneducated topic. People feel that Bush isn’t going to win this time around, becuase of his decision to “attack Iraq”. Without any knowledge, these people have the gall to say, this is why he’s not gonna win?! When this subject comes up, I get so aggitated, all I say is ” Are you willing to die for the country that you don’t even support?” These are the people that complain about taxes and the economy, when most of them won’t even lift a finger to do anything about it. In the end, Bush will prevail, and continue to lead our country in a way that this country has never been led before.
The democratic party say they have a feel for what the people want.-They might, but republicans have the means to make it happen-, ther’re not just talk. When you personaly see things changing for the better because of the republican party?, you know who has a better handle on things.
Bush is not going to win. Governor Howard Dean, Dr. of Vermont is going to be the winner and the next President by a landslide vote. Dr. Howard Dean is proud to represent the Political Left. He likes helping the people. He stands for the Modest, Moderate and Middle income constituents of the Political Left which is a stand for Democratic government of the people, for the people, and by the people; instead of Autocratic government of the Aristocrats, for the Aristocrats, and by the Aristocrats. Dr. Howard Dean is proactive in his representation of the Political Left without apology. Dr. Howard Dean gets my support because when given the opportunity as the President of the United States, and leader of the Democratic Party, he will reform the Democratic Party to make it once more the party of the Political Left, the party of the people, for the people, and by the people. The record of Dr. Howard Dean’s past political behavior does not indicate that he could or would do otherwise
PROTECTING “YOUR” OWN CONSTITUENCY IS “NOT”
WRONG, A SIN OR EVIL; BUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES PROTECTING “HIS” OWN
CONSTITUENCY “IS” WRONG, A SIN AND EVIL, BECAUSE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS SUPPOSE TO
REPRESENT “ALL” CONSTITUENCIES OF “ALL” THE PEOPLE
OF THE UNITED STATES. THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT ALLOWED TO JUST REPRESENT
ONLY “HIS” OWN CONSTITUENCY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
REST OF THE CONSTITUENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES.
BUT, THIS IS WHAT PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH HAS
DONE. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH REPRESENTS “HIS”
OWN CONSTITUENCY, SACRIFICING THE REST OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!
VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!!!!!! VOTE DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!
Pingback: CalPundit