Tweet
Can Jane Hamsher or Howard Dean be wrong on the substance of policy issues? Of course!!! I don’t think they often are, but recently there have been many progressives who have thought so. These were reasonable disagreements and everyone was within their full right to think Dean or Hamsher might not have gotten the balance right on any particular issue.
So, why can’t they be wrong?
Because even if you disagree with them, they’re doing you a huge favor. If you’re a strong progressive and you think Howard Dean has gone out too far left in health care reform or Jane Hamsher has attacked President Obama too hard from the left -then, fantastic, you are now officially a moderate!
And more importantly, so is Obama.
Why is this so important? I’m not sure you particularly want to be moderate, and I’m certainly not sure you are one. But that’s not the point. The point is that the mainstream media loves people who they can call "moderates." If Joe Lieberman is somewhere between Obama and Cheney, no matter how far to the right he is, he gets to be called a moderate. Why? Because there’s someone to the right of him.
Now, you have someone to the left of you. Congratulations, you made it! You’re now part of the cool crowd in DC, the only people that the establishment media care about or give any credence to – moderates.
I get thrown into the Hamsher category because I believe in attacking hard from the left. Some have started to call this the Uygur Doctrine, which, of course, I love. The reality is I’m a political moderate who until about a month ago believed we should stay longer in Afghanistan and that single payer was not the way to go. But it’s not my positions that matter as much as my attitude. We have to, have to, have to attack Obama form the left. If we don’t, he is seen as the far left and the whole spectrum shifts even further right than it already is.
If Obama is seen as the middle that helps him. So, even if you think Jane is crazy to team up with Grover Norquist and her attacks have no merit (you would be wrong on that by the way), you have to send her a thank you note for making Obama look centrist. Rahm might not be happy about their target, but he has to be happy with how the politics of it plays out for the president.
But much more importantly, this isn’t about Obama. This is about moving the spectrum. If there is no real and credible left-wing that fights back, then the entire political landscape gets pushed down to the right. This has huge policy implications, as we just saw in the health care fight.
Besides which, what do we have to lose? We lost the public option. We’re going to lose on climate change (nearly a foregone conclusion at this point). Financial reform is terribly watered down and getting weaker by the minute. The war in Afghanistan has already been escalated, twice. Do I need to go on? This is what you get when there is no credible threat from the left.
Worst case scenario, Dean and Hamsher lose (I understand their tactics are entirely different, and in some ways I hate to lump them in together, but I do because they are among the few making real noise on the left), and they move the spectrum left and make other progressives look moderate. Best case scenario, they win! Dare we dream?
I know what some of you are thinking – that’s not the worst case scenario. The worst case is somehow their attacks on Obama help Republicans win. But if you buy into that, then you have to pack your bags and go home. That means you are never willing to forcefully challenge Obama out of the fear that it might somehow hurt him. While I’m sure he appreciates that, I can guarantee you that he will thank you by completely ignoring you (and your policy priorities). Asking politely is obviously not getting the job done.
Real political pressure by definition involves the possibility of real political pain. If you’re not willing to go that far, then in my humble opinion you are too risk averse to have any consequential role to play in current day politics. Politics is about power, if you don’t ever wield it, then you’re not really in the game.
187 Comments
Great post Cenk and exactly right. My parents taught me to never make a threat I wasn’t prepared to follow through on, because no one would take me seriously. For example, never say “I’m gonna kill you”, because the person you’re threatening knows you won’t follow through.
Progressives have been hamstrung by endlessly making threats and stating positions that they never follow through on. One capitulation after another means that those you are trying to influence will never bother to listen to you. As soon as progressives (either on Capitol Hill or in the voting booth) take a stand and stick to it, even if they risk failure, they will gain credibility the next time and the time after that… Only then, will progressives wield any political power.
I’m not sure that’s the best reason not to say “I’m going to kill you” to someone.
LOL, I didn’t claim that it was, but it is a useful illustration for my point nonetheless ; )
My mom was once doing some volunteer work along with a mother and her teenage son. At some point, the frustrated mother turned to her son and said, “I’m gonna kill you.”. My mom was shocked. Like you, she thought that was an awful thing to say. So she turned to the woman and simply said, “No you’re not”. The woman’s jaw dropped. I would imagine she didn’t appreciate Mom chastising her, but she did have to concede the point. Good for Mom ; )
My perspective is somewhat the opposite, i.e., they don’t bluff enough and don’t do it very well. They bluff but won’t carry it to the wire. They get morally intimidate and reveal the fact that they were bluffing way to soon.
For example, the minute that the mainstream press started bemoaning the suffering caused by killing an admittedly lame healthcare bill, most progressive House members capitulated and agreed that it would be wrong to kill the bill, in spite of their signed promises to do otherwise. They admitted that they were bluffing. Meanwhile the crafty so-called “centrists” said things like, “I’m not so sure I can vote for a bill that expands government involvement and this version certainly does that.” So, the Democratic leadership pandered to them. And one of them, Joe Lieberman, finally said “I won’t vote for cloture on a filibuster of any bill that has a public option.”
IMHO, Joe and his Republican friends are bluffing; I don’t think that they could hold out for weeks on end being televised every day holding up the passage of that bill. The point is that their bluff will never be called, because the left blinked first.
I’m not sure how your view is opposite of mine. Either way, progressives fail to pose a credible threat so they are ignored.
Imagine if there had been one progressive Senator, just one, that threatened to withhold their vote for cloture unless there was a public option or unless reproductive health care was protected. Either Nelson/Lieberman would have had to back down or Reid would have had no choice but to use reconciliation. Instead we got nothing. Another embarrassing fold when we had a strong hand to play.
And all that heroic senator would have had to do is delay his capitulation until the last minute and then voted for cloture rather than against it, showing that he was bluffing all along. But he/she might have saved the bill from being gutted.
Exactly.
Imagine if there had been one progressive Senator, just one, that threatened to withhold their vote for cloture unless there was a public option or unless reproductive health care was protected
Call me crazy, but I dream of the day when this HCR bill gets
back to the Senate floor one Senator stands up and looks another
in the eye and says as the Senator from Minn. I must object.
No more outraged tirades that end with a lot of foaming at the mouth and masses gotta rise up and then … The outraged left is not very good at turning outrage into action. So I’ve got a plan, the Full Court Press:
http://www.antemedius.com/content/full-court-press-435-democratic-congressional-primaries
It entails filing in 435 congressional Democratic primaries in 2012, and as many as we can in 2010. Not necessarily running to win, but filing. The power is in the spread, death by 435 cuts. A Full Court Press candidate must support:
o WPA-style jobs program
o Medicare for all the uninsured
o Repeal Hyde Amendment and its ilk
o U.S. out of Afghanistan
71 of today’s Democratic incumbents faced no primary challenge last year, about a third of the House delegation. They hate primary challenges, it interferes with the divine right of incumbents.
I have given up on the traditional habit of targeting the worst. All that does is revitalizes the same old corrupt party with just enough new blood to keep doing what they’ve been doing. I believe in collective responsibility.
When the Stupak amendment passed, and Obama didn’t call for his defeat, Obama became a Stupak Democrat. When House members voted for a bill that included Stupak, they all became Stupak Democrats. If Pelosi wants to avoid that tag, then she has to go after him, not point to her own lily-clean hands.
Excellent post, Cenk.
As I concluded in my diary yesterday, Old Fault Lines, New Alliances, and the Lessons of Failure, people like you and Jane are willing to do what it takes to break this broken system, while:
Jane’s detractors are either among those whom Jane is scaring and/or are among those who’re afraid of using effective methods to achieve results on behalf of the progressive agenda and have therefore chosen to side with the insiders, with the establishment, with the DC/K Street crowd.
Its not any longer solely a right /left paradigm thats hamstrung us. Its INSIDER vs. OUTSIDER. Now that said, even among the INSIDERS their are insiders but as a general basis for understanding our situation society politically right now is divided along the INSIDER and OUTSIDER basis. Progressives are OUTSIDERS. The Corporatists of both parties are the INNER CIRCLE of the INSIDERS. I don’t think the Obama people really care all that much if they lose Congress as long as the Corporatists wings still rule. In fact my guess is they’d be alright with this and call it Bi-Partisanship. Bi-Partisanship is really just peace among the Corporatist wings. This is why he so desperately wanted GOP Corporatists on board his so called reforms. He failed in that only because their Corp. wing wants its power back and if it has to go against him in the short to win it will do that.
This all may be true, but as for progressives and strategy, I think we need to be more careful than just thinking insider/outsider. Take a look at what I wrote yesterday in Old Fault Lines, New Alliances, and the Lessons of Failure.
I agree with your description of the current political alignments. People who describe themselves today as liberal or conservative each have a set of beliefs that would be rejected by liberals and conservatives 40 years ago. Same is true about Democrats and Republicans, particularly Republicans.
The defining issues today depend on whether one supports policies that favor corporations, globalization, free trade, and the use of war as a means to promote a corporate agenda, or whether one supports individuals, human rights, and protection of the global environment and endangered species. Yesteryear’s liberals and conservatives could fit into either of these groups because the important issues of concern today are very different.
I see Obama as a rock solid corporatist with little interest, if not outright hostility, in supporting policies that favor individuals, human rights, and protection of the global environment and endangered species. He’s made it 100% clear that, despite their support getting him elected, liberal and progressive views are not welcome in his administration, thereby alienating them. At the same time, his efforts to build a bipartisan governing coalition of pro-corporatist Democrats and Republicans has failed because 100% of the Republicans refuse to support any non-military proposal he makes, regardless.
I see racism as the primary cause of Republican intransigence, along with believing his campaign rhetoric, and I don’t believe the situation will change. His hoped-for governing coalition won’t come together and his legitimately pissed-off base of liberals and progressives won’t support him because, contrary to his campaign rhetoric which they fell for just like Republicans, they now realize he’s a corporatist. Therefore, he can kiss a possible second term goodbye and he has no one to blame for his disingenuous campaign oratory and strategic miscalculation but himself.
Karma can be a bitch sometimes, cain’t it.
i’ll believe you when the single payer advocates who were banned or bullied from fdl are welcomed back. if this is about moving the spectrum and not staking claim to the legitimate edge of the spectrum (and i so hope and pray it is), then people who’ve been making a slightly left argument (about healthcare policy or about the politics of healthcare policy pre-compromise) will be welcomed backed.
I know a Republican and a self described Libertarian that think that single payer would be preferable to the current corporate giveaways. Sort of like moving the centerline in a different way.
that doesn’t surprise me. it’s a relatively easy case to make — with people who are willing to listen and have an open and honest debate. lots of people who don’t consider themselves progressives fit that description.
And a few self-described liberals are as closed-minded as they come. No one here of course.
I’m a single payer advocate and no one banned me. No one ever bullies me into doing something I don’t want to do or not doing something I want to do because either I ignore them, or I take their head off, which I’m very good at because I was a trial lawyer for 30 years.
Oh, and I don’t take criticism personally, even if it’s delivered in a personal way, because that kind of criticism says more about the accuser than the accused.
Plus, I don’t bruise easily.
I also have a sense of humor and don’t mind admitting I’m wrong. No one needs to remind me that I don’t know everything.
Having said that, I’ll admit that discussions got a bit heated, confrontational, and personal, but that can happen when good people disagree and each person passionately believes they’re right. Forgiveness is a good idea when that happens because life isn’t worth living without passion, life ain’t simple, good people won’t always agree, and life ain’t worth shit without relationship.
i wasn’t banned either. but others were and others left voluntarily. indeed i’ve almost left myself several times because the bullying and meanness was so very way out of hand. the only reason i haven’t is many years of getting to know and like people here (and i have a stubborn streak — but it’s not without limits).
would love to see a new years eve jubilee of a mutual restart. sorta like a debt forgiveness.
Nobody has ever been banned for a political opinion, as I think is pretty clear from this and other threads. But people do get banned for disrupting the comments after repeated warnings. They’ll be welcomed back when they can express themselves in a fashion that is respectful of other people’s opinions.
Very true, you’ve never banned me!
jane, i saw what sisterkenny was banned for (before the comment was deleted).
i’m pretty sure it was nothing near the level of the kinds of things you’ve said to single payer advocates, including me.
that’s why i’m calling for a mutual slate wiping, jubilee, or whatever you want to call it. new year’s would be a perfect time if you are willing to consider such a thing.
What about cleaning up your side of the street? What about quitting the smearing of Jane as AGAINST single payer and banning commenters who do not agree?
Unlike you, Jane knew last June that single payer was DOA.
If we had won on the public option, you might have had some room to argue that Jane gave away too much. Given how things turned out, she was right. You were wrong.
Have you read a history of the Weimar Republic or the fight in the US against slavery? Well educated liberals find any excuse to bail on the really tough work of forming political coalitions.
You bring a lot in terms of knowledge of the issues, but you do not understand how important it is to develop arguments and positions that are ACCESSIBLE.
Please list the rivals Jane has. Who is better to lead progressives and liberals? Who is accessible to people such as you and me? Who has standing? Cable news actually wants Jane’s opinion on stuff.
IMO all the good you do with your excellent policy knowledge, you undo by weakening the thin bonds that hold this community together.
I’m afraid that I have to agree with selise. Sometimes the Lake here is narrowly partisan – a thin slice of the left, coalescing around issues and then hardening – and that hurts.
I’m a single payer advocate myself, and think that the US will stand judged of letting corporatism steal its heart of compassion while many of us slept. So why condemn those who opt to support the most inclusive policy concerning health care?
Well I’m a single-payer advocate as well, but I guess I was also one of those Obamabots during the primaries and the first few months of the Administration. I’ve never felt bullied. I haven’t always agreed with everyone but I’ve learned to have enough respect for many people here that I don’t take it personally when my ideas are attacked. I never thought Obama was some liberal messiah, but I considered him the lesser-evil of the “legitimate” candidates, so I’m not too shocked by how he’s turned out (even if I’m a bit disappointed). And though I’m a single-payer advocate, I was willing to accept compromise as a step toward single-payer (which is no longer the case with the bills being reconciled in congress now).
I have felt that attacks on people who had more patience with Obama were unfair, but I never took it too personally. Maybe that’s just my personality.
unless you’ve read every thread, you may not be aware of what i’m referring to. please forgive me for not providing links which i think would be counter to my call for leaving all that behind and attempting a new start with old friends welcomed back.
I like that idea.
thanks.
I’d say the overwhelming majority readers here and other Liberals blogs are single-payer advocates. The debate is how to achieve it.
Not sure why some are feeling vilified for being supporters of single-payer then. Forest for the trees and all that…
Seconded.
huffpoop moderates and bans those of us that don’t agree to the sellouts of the left and bluedogs even more! One of their censors even emailed me for disparaging Conoliar Rice and Colin Powell for lying us into war with false mushroom clouds stating that they were 2 of amurikas most beloved politicians. morons.
I like what Jane is doing but do not know how you can say she is attacking from the hard left at this point. She is attacking from the hard left and the hard right at the same time.
How is she attacking from the right? She has said, several times, she was not in contact with Norquist, they merely signed the same letter.
I can’t see the truth in what you’re saying.
She most certainly is not attacking from the hard right. That’s what Norquist is there for.
Jane is running the left side of this pincer movement. It doesn’t mean she endorses every thing Norquist has ever said. It just means they agree that Rahm Emmanuel is a slimy corruption and want to see him out of power. They see it from two different angles, and are much more likely to be effective if they work together ON THIS ONE ISSUE.
I don’t get what is so hard for people to understand about this.
Excellent post, Cenk. One question. I consider Obama a neoliberal Does that fit into the “moderate” category?
Another link to neoliberalism.
Thank you for bringing this up.
Yesterday I wrote about Ed Kilgore pointing out that there is an ideological distinction without a difference between
A) the “the so-called Clintonian, ‘New Democrat’ movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as ‘the Third Way,’ which often defended the use of private means for public ends,” and
B) the “conservative ‘privatization’ strategy, which simply devolves public responsibilities to private entities without much in the way of regulation.”
Indeed, this ideological distinction is so much without a difference that I’ve taken to using the term “neoliberal” interchangeably for both and to not seeing any difference between them in practice, at least in my thinking about them.
Need to think more about the term and its meaning.
knoxville, i strongly recommend to you a 2007 paper, The Logic of the Health Care Debate, (glenn smith, who posts here, is one of the authors) which is primarily about the conservative, neoliberal and progressive modes of thought with focus on neoliberal and it’s dangers. here’s a bit from it i’ve previously posted (my bold):
Thank you! Helps a lot.
You can call it neo-liberalism, but it is the same thing as neo-conservatism. You need to add that that neo-libs and neo-cons need False Flag Ops, (such as the underwear bomber) and wars of conquest and massive corporate and government propaganda agencies.
It is all about treason, giving up our government and democracy to the multi-national corporations. Nobody is a greater traitor to America than Mika Brezinski’s regular guest, neo-pig Richard Haas.
In his heyday little Billy Kristol said it didn’t matter whether people called him a neoconservative or neoliberal. They both lead to the same hell.
Nitpicky point, but since this is such an important issue and we want Everyone to read it,
Jane Hamsher has attacked President Obama too hard
formfrom the left -Just doing my little bit for the cause. *g*
Nice argument.
Going back in recent history the country, because of lefty protesters posing as ineffective hippies, moved the centerline so far over that the Nixon policies of the day, suggested by a Democrat today, would create a firestorm from the right. While some might, and have, argued that the protesters accomplished nothing because they didn’t get what they asked for that misses the point. If the dialog is narrowly defined in terms of what corporations need to make money then there is no room for latitude. The wider the range of values on the left the farther team Obama can travel without looking like he is abandoning his favored position in the middle.
Some how all of the lefty economic policies of Nixon like price controls to protect the middle class have been completely forgotten. The middle is where we all agree it is.
Note: I never voted for Nixon and generally did not approve of what he did. Nixon’s policies are a metaphor.
Nixon’s domestic policies would be called “leftist” today. He could not run on them. Kos would sqawk.
Great article, Cenk.
BTW:
That “spectrum” is ofen called the “Overton Window.” But you probably knew that already.
wigwam, in addition to the overton window, i think even more jay rosen’s description of the sphere of legitimate debate and sphere of deviance is on target:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2009/01/12/atomization.html
Good point. Thanks for remembering that.
Bravo. and Thank You!
It’s all about the “Overton Window” isn’t it? If we push hard from the left consistently and in large numbers we can have some effect.
There is an awful lot of mis-information in the blogosphere about the Jane/Norquist connection. I have tried to correct this at “The Plum Line” but to no avail. While defending her I became the target, weird but true.
Three points:
(1) Jane Hamsher and Howard Dean are not in the same camp. So trying to buttress Jane Hamsher’s crumbling bona fides with Howard Dean’s is kinda disingenuous.
(2) Pushing Obama from the left, and hard, is a great idea. It’s like FDR said: “I agree. Now make me do it.”
(3) Unless she’s backed off her latest stunt, Jane Hamsher isn’t simply pushing Obama from the left. She’s gone “Larry Johnson” and made a laughingstock of herself. Kinda hard to push effectively from any direction when nobody takes you seriously.
Maybe we read this post differently. My interpretation is that Hamsher and Dean are affecting politics in a similar fashion. So, I don’t see anything disingenuous.
And, really, you can laugh at Jane, but that doesn’t mean much.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, LynnDee, but saying nobody takes Jane seriously is a stretch. A bunch of us do, and your hyperbolic statement to the contrary comes across – to me, at least – like the old conservative trick of saying something forcefully and often enough that people start believing it, despite its inherent falseness.
You mean like the “Obama is a corporate whore and anyone who supports him is a mindless Obamatron” theme that’s dominated here for about 2 years now? (sure, there was little let-up leading up to the general election, but otherwise that’s true)
For that to take hold, which it has here and some other Liberal blogs, an almost complete ignoring of the nearly daily bits of very positive developments from the Obama Admin has to happen, which it has this entire time.
It’s been funny to be called a “troll” and better yet, “a paid troll” as I make consistent, detailed, and well-thought arguments why I feel Obama is not a DLC/Clinton/neoLiberal. Especially since I’ve been a regular reader here and eventually commenter from almost the beginning, and long before most of those who now dominate these threads with these themes.
It’s helpful to look in mirror from time to time, ya know?
No, I mean Important, Real World, Our-Sons-and-Daughters-are-Dying-Because-of-Them claims, like, “We have to fight the terrorists over there so they won’t attack us over here.”
That’s much different than political squabbles within the larger lefty family.
As many here have said, bonkers – and even as Cenk’s post imples – it’s waaaaaaay better to have Obama at the top than anybody the other side might trot(sky) out. But you totally nail what is unnerving people, myself included – and I worked very hard to get Obama elected…
We didn’t work as hard as we did for “bits.” We worked for wholesale change, and we’re not seeing it. That might be okay if we felt it was even being pushed for, but it’s clearly not, and that’s why we have to scream louder – and “lefter” – as this post so eloquently explains.
TheMalcontent.com
You can draw an imaginary line wherever you want for when it’s okay for Groupthink to kick in, but I’d suggest bad strategy decisions now could quickly lead to a return of “Important, Real World, Our-Sons-and-Daughters-are-Dying-Because-of-Them” decisions being made by Repubs. I’ve been disagreeing on strategy that’s really popular here, and for a long time have disagreed when the prevailing thought here about the accomplishments of the Obama Admin. It’s not an unimportant “political squabble” in my opinion.
Ha…I even came back here to attempt an edit to my comment about the “bits” bit, since I thought someone might say just what you said, but was too late. My point was that there’s great stuff happening almost every day, and couple that realization with the amazingly positive big changes, and I think there would be much more support for what’s happening, and there would much more focused “activism” and organizing which in turn would be much more effective. Instead, the seeds of doubt about Obama were being sewn around many Liberal circles long before he was even in office, and the predictable result of confusion, disillusionment, and people turning on each are following.
So, some things beyond “bits” for me are Lilly Ledbetter (how many years was that languishing?) and his first three days of reversing most of the Shrub signing statements. Credit card bill made minor changes…got it, yet it was the most sweeping checks placed on the industry in 40 years according to a NYT article I read. Stimulus was/is much less than what I wanted, yet it is one of the larger public expenditures in America’s history, and no Repub votes. Safety nets to GM and other car companies. Was this a good thing? Seems to be working, and had no Repub support. I’ve organized around single-payer my entire adult life, and this healthcare stuff is the best foot in the door we’ve ever had in that time. Where’s the discussion about what to do next around here? Whatever gets signed, it’s some of the biggest changes in healthcare in decades. There are many more, and this all happening with many Dems trying to stop it also! Obama’s been in office for less than a year. This is incredible to me.
Oh, and whoopsie-daisy, just another little “bit” from the Obama Admin that’ll be mostly ignored while there’s many posts and thousands of comments today saying the exact things that have been said for months and months every single day about how shitty Obama is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/obama-moves-to-curb-feder_n_406725.html
To each their own…
I kind of agree. I don’t think we should try to guess at Obama’s motivations, I think that is a pointless exercise. Calling names doesn’t help, and we are almost certainly wrong when we guess at motivations.
I really disagree with the corporate give-aways, which I think are a horrible policy and cause tremendous damage to society. I do not think that it is Obama’s intention to cause that damage. I think he is following the track of the ordinary president in accepting the reality he faces instead of really going all out to change it. That doesn’t make him a whore, or even a bad person. It does mean he is not the president I wanted.
Thanks for that. I hear ya. I’m still trusting him though, and don’t think he really could’ve done much more in this, just his first (less than a) year. Remember how difficult it was and all the hits he took just to get the Stimulus through, which most here agree was not nearly enough? He’s signed many bills already without a single Repub vote and several Dems dissenting. Even this milquetoast healthcare “reform” is barely going to make it. Obama didn’t create this environment.
So I think he has done quitea bit in less than a year, and history shows most Presidents, even FDR and LBJ didn’t start getting to the really meaty stuff until 2-3 years in, so I say chins up. people!
I agree. Jane seems to be pushing from everywhere and all at once too!
It’s time. The issue is that important. How could she just be a spectator?!
She knows what she’s doing.
At the risk of nitpicking on your larger points, this comparison:
and:
…is somewhat specious, given the facts of the situation.
Larry Johnson was an ideologically (and possibly racially) driven disinformation agent who has now been successfully rehabbed into a media pet after ‘Whiteygate’.
While I agree with your general assessment of him (and have no use for Grover Norquist whatsoever) I don’t see a valid comparison between Mr. Johnson and Ms. Hamsher pertaining to their approach and activities.
Regarding:
1) Jane Hamsher and Howard Dean are not in the same camp. So trying to buttress Jane Hamsher’s crumbling bona fides with Howard Dean’s is kinda disingenuous.
(2) Pushing Obama from the left, and hard, is a great idea. It’s like FDR said: “I agree. Now make me do it.”
(3) Unless she’s backed off her latest stunt, Jane Hamsher isn’t simply pushing Obama from the left. She’s gone “Larry Johnson” and made a laughingstock of herself. Kinda hard to push effectively from any direction when nobody takes you seriously.
Not sure what you mean. Jane Hamsher comes off as very polished and principled with her criticisms of the “health deal.” So does Howard Dean. I don’t see a big schism in their position and I think they are both doing a great service and standing by their/our principles. Can’t say that about members of congress of course…they’re like a bunch of used car salespeople.
You know what I love about this article? I feel validated and confirmed. Several years ago, I went to a firepup meet up down in Southern California. During our lunch, I realized that my views are more moderate than the rest of the folks. I tend to stay away from radical thoughts in most areas, although not all. That understanding didn’t make me want to move away from the Lake. Far from it. I don’t learn from people who think exactly the same way I do. I need to hear new and different ideas. I like it here. Thanks, Cenk. Nice job.
Hi demi. Keep it goin’. ;->
Me ‘n Popeye. I yam what I yam.
It’s all relative, isn’t it? Compared to a lot of people, I am radically progressive in my political and social thinking. I AM an aries, ya know. But, I’m just not as radical as some.
How are ya, baby? (Saw Jane’s shout out to ya. Cool.)
i’m too old to blush. heh. *glow*
& then pickin’ on poor hapless marcos.
wuz that a dream?
saved a link so i could remember what the jibberish i was tossing into the winds last night eeeyigheee. i’ll blame the near-full moon. *g*
Good policy is good politics. FDL writers focused intently on the policy aspects of health care, and on the politics only as a means to reaching for good policy. I don’t understand politics all that well, but I know good policy and the difference between good policy and garbage. I don’t think health care is a left/right issue, and I certainly believe that financial reform isn’t left/right. I think that explains a good bit of our readership. When we make calls, we are able to explain our reasons for supporting good policy. I hope that works in the long run.
I’m old. My parents were staunch Republicans. They would not recognize, nor would they support, what that party has become. These days, I think it would be easier to persuade them than when I tried way back when…
I thought Dean was for the passage of this bill?
Dean says he’s for passing this bill because Obama, Reid, and Emperor Liberman didn’t want to produce anything better.
And every time he has said it, he’s said that it isn’t reform at all.
I don’t think it is real reform either but it expands coverage to tens of millions of people and bends the cost curve.
- pardon – doesn’t some part of this cogitational busywork depend on what the current form(s) of the bill might contain? Ya’ think?
His position changed rather quickly after the option to lower the age for Medicare was stripped out by the president.
Reid stripped it out because Lieberman wouldn’t support the bill if it was left in.
Why do you hate the President so much?
Because if the president told Lieberman that he either vote for cloture or lose his gavel and any other perks his position gives him, Lieberman would do what it takes to keep the limelight and the sense of being a mover and a shaker. Instead, he told Reid to give Lieberman what he wants.
Wow you are assuming a lot based on nothing.
Joke Line thinks we are idiots. The “public option” (symbolic of the fringe left) has been dismissed more times than I can count. Even now they write it out of the frame every way they can. They forget that it’s still in the House bill. They forget about the conference. They forget about a simple 50 vote (plus Biden) for passage.
Why do they work so hard to ignore us silly people?
the public option in competition with private insurance is the neoliberal, not progressive policy position — please see my comment @21 (and especially the link) about the dangers of advocating neoliberal policy. it moves the public towards conservatives, not progressives.
OK, but my point, exactly, was that the “public option” is used by the press and most pols as a symbol for the extreme left position. I think I said that. Whatever the reality of taking that position, it is used as the hippie punching bag. Si?
yes.
and imo it was our mistake (the pre-compromise) that let that happen. maybe the VA model should have been the hippie punching bag and single payer the compromise.
Joke Klein finishes his rant (my bold):
Yeah, the real controlling power in DC stems from people like Dick Durbin who tried to pass a mortgage relief program for homeowners in the throes of bankruptcy and foreclosure.
Cognitive dissonance alert: Simply ignore Durbin’s comment about why the bill went down in flames:
In the end, the sillier left-village practitioners are stoking the same populist exaggeration — the idea that Washington is controlled by crooks and sellouts — that conservative strategists like Bill Kristol believe will bring the Republicans back to power. The perversity of this is beyond comprehension.
Kline has such a way about him, doesn’t he? We are silly, we are perverse!
Interesting how he is drawing the same parallel that others here are quick to jump at about Jane and that Sesame Street guy… Grover something…
Look, I consider myself a progressive, but I’m not under your definition.
I’m a libra, I tend to see both sides of the issue.
But, I’ve noticed so much rancor, why?
Life is one helluva compromise.
Didn’t the Stones sing “You can’t always get won’t you want”?
I think there is a point beyond which people cannot, and should not, compromise. That doesn’t mean there should be rancor, but certainly you can agree to disagree.
Great Post! Cenk
Obama and Rahm are doing what worked in 1990′s, they are taking the NEOLIBERAL approach to politics.
However, Bush and his clan, wiped out the middle ground of politics in the USA. Bush did not care about being moderate, he govern from his base.
When Bush tried to come back to the middle, the GOP BASE went crazy, thus the TEA PARTY MOVEMENT.
Obama and Rahm are currently in no man land. Obama is on a path to representing no one. Who do Blue Dogs represent in this political climate? Corporations. Running as the SENATOR who represents AETNA may not work in 2010.
The internet, and cable news, is making the middle a dangerous place to govern the USA.
The old MSM and New Papers are becoming dinosaurs. The MSM and New Papers use to be able to keep the LEFT out of the GAME. For example, the MSM is trying to call HCR progressive, this is not going to work. It was a time when the MSM define something it was believe. Not now
No more, the left is finally getting on the field, and this is going to change the whole matrix of governing the USA.
A lot of Dems are worried that if we complain too much or push too hard from the left we will lose the majority and move back to Republican majorities. I’m not particularly worried about that right now but I read that a lot on other blogs. They would just as soon we sit down and shut up and appreciate what little ground we’ve gained.
What ground would that be? We might have the majority but we are passing the minority legislation. We haven’t gained any ground and we aren’t going to until and unless we get a grip on the corporate whores who have everyone by the balls.
This of course, is the true condition of the progressives in congress. Well, that and all the money they get from certain corporations. It is the corporations that know how to play 3D chess. Each buys out a select group of congressmen, including progressives, in a swimmingly effective strategy to push their individual agendas forward. For instance, Jay Rock is bought out by the telecoms and the military industrial complex. So . . . even though he talks a good game on HCR, he will torpedo us on issues of the 4th amendment and the war machine. That wouldn’t be horrible, except that he also caves in the manner Cenk describes on the other liberal issues. We need to construct a liberal block in congress that will vote consistently for lefty issues and we need to support them with money and volunteer efforts. But right now, the block liberal agenda in congress is a pretty bare cabinet.
imo jane’s idea for a progressive block was brilliant.
Essential
uh yep. Walter Reuther said the same over 50 years ago:
If you’re not big enough to lose, you’re not big enough to win.
The big secret about american politics and it will not be a secret much longer is that the USA is a conservative nation.
The only thing conservative about the USA has been the MSM and NEW PAPERS that cater to the Corporate Elite.
You don’t find many conservatives in an unemployment line.
To maintain the status quo in the USA requires people to believe in a dream, once they wake up and see the nightmare the Game will be over.
that’s an excellent point. as far as i can tell, the public is far further to the left than the public debate. see for example, Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6.
another example may be on climate change — i’ve seen more conservatives supporting a carbon tax (something that james hansen has been advocating coupled with a 100% dividend) than dem party activists who seem to favor the cap and trade neoliberal policy.
I agree the center needs to move back to the left. I would be considered a very radical lefty by today’s standards, but in the 1940′s I would probably be center or center-left.
I really think we need to at least legitimize full-blown communists and left-wing anarchists. I think their views go too far, but they serve as a ballast for our horribly skewed political spectrum. Let’s face it, their right-wing counterparts have their views aired ad nauseum in all media across the country.
Well said! Excellent post, Cenk!
@Knoxville: Why do Jane’s defenders insist on employing psycho-babble to defend her? If her detractors are wrong, prove it. I, for one, am not scared of her or her methods. I think they’re puerile. To pretend that the difference between Obama’s critics on the left and those on the extreme right is “messaging” is to malign the left. The teabaggers aren’t a large populist movement that represents the anger felt by a growing number of Americans. They’re a small, vocal group of idiots whose rage is easily manipulated by their corporate organizers.
@Selise: I’m glad Lambert was booted from FDL. He’s an obnoxious jag-off who was comparing Obama to the Nazis a year before the teabaggers. Single payer advocates would do their cause wonders if they stopped allying themselves with such emo fucknauts.
Psycho-babble? I’m going to need you to point to examples of my use of “psycho-babble.”
By which you mean that you can’t or don’t want to see the obvious.
As I’ve written to BarbinMD at dkos:
Ignorance is bliss, but it’s impotence, too.
Ignorance is a choice.
And I quote,
Instead of addressing her detractors in general or me in particular, you claim we are scared, blind to the Truth (thank god you’re around!), ignorant, impotent. Psychologizing is fun, but it carries no argumentative weight.
I’ll have to leave everyone who reads these threads to decide if what you are indicating constitutes “psycho-babble” or psychologizing and decide whether or not it carries any argumentative weight.
The argument is solid and psycho-babble free.
You might want to try reading the many posts by Jane and Cenk (including the one you’re writing comments to right now) and thinking about what they’re saying.
Wake up, or, as Cenk put it, “pack your bags and go home.”
Way to change the subject! My comments were in response to you and your “analysis” of Jane’s detractors.
As for this article, it is ridiculous. By Cenk’s logic, Jane should be advocating for an armed, Bolshevist revolution. Just think of how far left that would push the Overton window! We’d have single payer tomorrow!
In response to dmd76 @ 47
Why on earth should you be? Are you a member of congress? Can campaign against you?
;-> heh
can someone clue me in to what Jane has supposedly done to make herself a laughing stock? I’ve been out of touch the past few weeks. I have tremendous respect for Jane and can’t imagine there’s anything legitimate there, but I’d like to know what folks are referring to.
here y’go for starters
Oh, I totally missed that. Good for Jane. What’s wrong with using a right-wing gasbag to help further a good cause? As abhorrent as I find the political philosophy of these right-wingers, there actually is a little common ground. I see no problem with using that to confront a corrupt duchebag like Rahm.
yup.
And the Bircher?
thanks Cenk – have been chewing on this for days and unable to put it in to words for myself
Lemme add this: I agree with whoever it was that I recently heard say that Obama, ideologically speaking, is an idealist but that he governs as a pragmatist. Many of us, including me, wish he would port a little more of that idealism into his governance.
Obviously he’s been very successful as a politician and I can’t say that he’s wrong — or more accurately, I can’t say that I know him to be wrong.
What I would say is this: The reason to push our elected officials hard is not so much to persuade them of our point of view but to CHANGE THE CALCULUS. We don’t need to persuade Obama that it’s okay or a good idea to be less pragmatic and more idealistic in his governance. We need only to push whatever decision he does make (however he arrives at it) to the left.
Unfortunately, by making herself into a Larry Johnson-style fruitcake, Jane Hamsher does nothing to change the calculus.
Why do Jane’s detractors so often resort to name calling?
It’s all they’ve got.
No one on the “correct” side here ever calls names?
they’ve got no arrows in their quiver. and teabags don’t fly very far as a weapon of choice.
She’s a troll. Either that or she is really dense. She’s actually better behaved in this thread than she has been in other threads.
as to Obama governing like a a pragmatist…he seems more like a concessionary politician who doesn’t have strong principles on hardly anything he was elected for. He was given mandates to “change” things in Washington, yet the latest deal-making openly in the senate and a lot more behind closed doors makes him appear like a big city politician, not like the leader of the so called free world. I would venture to say he seems too weak to have sacrificed so much so early on in his presidency. Some will say a big fraud.
I’m moving so far left, due to the political state of affairs today, that I’m considering paying the $75 to become a card-carrying socialist. I believe in criticizing Obama mercilessly. He’s not a true liberal or progressive. He has dropped the ball in dozens of ways over the last year and giving him “more time” at this point is delusional.
Alas, it has reached the point where, “attacking Obama hard from the left” is just another way of reminding him of the huge gap between his campaign promises and the policies he pursues as president.
And the alliances we need to forge are with broad swaths of Main Street.
We are not winning that battle. The teabaggers are. Yesterday over at HuffPo there was a story about Fox News. Over the past year, they have drubbed MSNBC in the cable news department. They have the top ten news slots.
O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck garner two to three times the audiences that Schultz, Olbermann and Maddow do.
Remember when progressives helped to create the Dean campaign? And millions of liberals and progressives went door to door for Obama. The Obama who campaigned, not the Obama now in office.
That mass movement needs to be tapped by progressives. Somehow.
are you going to call murdoch to whine? i just… can’t. sorry.
Oh. Oh,dear. I just called the offices of senators Dodd, Leahy, and Klobuchar because they sent me fund-raising emails, and I told them I thought the healthcare bill was a complete disaster without a Public Option and protection for women’s reproductive rights, that Reid, Nelson, Leiberman and Emmanuel were to blame (d’oh! I forgot Baucus) for this, and I’d give no money to incumbent Democratic candidates without a change of leadership.
I guess I don’t get my moderate card.
That’s funny- I just wrote to those “progressive” Senators who have been hitting me up for money, and asked how they could have voted for this trash. And then I un-subscribed from their lists.
I wonder how many people have unsubscribed, or marked their mailings as spam since the Senate vote?
I unsubscribed to all of the Senators that were hitting me up for money after the Senate vote.
Jane has a fresh cross-post up: “Kucinich to Investigate Fannie/Freddie Bailout”
If I’m not mistaken, Hamsher wants to “Kill the Bill.” If that happens, is that victory? What strategy would be pursued after that? Unfortunately, it took this long to even get to where the bill is now. How long would it take to get to something Hamsher and Dean would like?
In the meantime, what do you tell those people who would benefit from the bill in its current form? Wait for Jane and Howard to convince enough Senators to get a good bill passed?
I support single-payer but would not settle for nothing until we can get that.
And, name-calling people as “inconsequential” who support getting some help to people who desperately need it is pretty low.
You are presenting this as if the Senate bill is the only possible choice (and the Senate bill is the one Jane’s has called to “kill.”)
There is a bill presented by the House of Representatives.
As far as the Senate Bill, the only people who will actually benefit are the Insurance companies.
But thank you for playing.
This isn’t a game.
If you think it benefits no one but insurance companies you are sadly misinformed. See Krugman:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/numerical-notes-on-health-care-reform/
I’ll see your Krugman and raise you my stack of Jon Walker
Yes, I agree with Jon Walker’s points. Krugman’s point was that many people will benefit from this bill, not just the insurance companies. Walker and Krugman are simply doing a form of benefit cost anaylsis and arriving at different conclusions. But, to say that no one benefits from the Senate bill but the insurance companies is clearly wrong, which was my original point.
So, you must be a poker player in your spare time? Still don’t see the analogy to this discussion. I’m a chess player myself. Less luck involved, although still enough to make it more than strictly analysis.
Very Good!! Your full house beats his pair.
Even though the poker analogy escapes me, I nonetheless find your comment quite amusing. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
You seem to be new here so to assume that I’m not already aware of Krugman’s cave shows your new-ness
Just for his first part on subsidies, do you really think that the subsidies will keep pace at all with the rising costs as the insurance companies jack up the rates? And they will jack up rates as nothing in the Senate bill will slow them down. Plus the percentages provided that the individual or family will have to pay out of pocket means that many of the folks who can least afford to pay insurance will be forced to pay for insurance that they can’t afford to use.
And I know it’s not a game. But you might explain that to all the folks who have been shouting loudly about how wonderful things will be with this piece of shit Senate Bill
OK, sorry to doubt your awareness. But, given that, I still think that to say it benefits no one but insurance companies is mistaken, thus the Krugman link. A lot of people who need help will benefit.
For how long will they be helped? The subsidies will start being cut back within a year of passage of this bill (if the Senate bill is taken as a whole). You know this will happen as it has happened too many times in the past. The insurance companies will be jacking their rates as there are no cost controls of any sort to stop them.
You say you’ve read and understood and agree with Jon Walker’s posts. You seem to have missed a few of them though if you truly do believe the Senate Bill benefits anyone but the few.
The problem is not the President or Jane Harman from FDL. It is not the left or the right (idiots). The problem is CORPORATIONS (not the small type). The ones that control us, tell us how to react, entice us to buy.
The food monopoly (see Food, Inc. movie), the banking industry, the wall street industry, the military complex industry, etc.
Buy your food items that are local and in season (vary your diet). Bank locally that don’t have big ties. Buy products that minimize in shipping raw goods overseas to be shipped back for us to consume. Stop investing in stock that doesn’t save our planet. Pressure the people who want less military money going overseas. Fight the battles at home (better schools and more teachers, better jobs and pay for people who do things in America).
As stated, the left/progressive/liberals need to think about how they conduct their lives and how their lives affect the way this country is run. Reduce those CC to maybe 1 and pay with cash. Build a garden in your back yard for get together with friends to build a co-op park. It is you, not the President or Jane who will help America get better.
I have no problem with attacks on Obama from the left and see the benefit to him as many point out.
The issue is the way in which these attacks are constructed. They are designed (it seems) to provide the right with ammunition that can be used to attack not just Obama, but all progressive ideals.
That seems incredibly dangerous and mirrors the emergence of PUMAs and their late stage tendency to make all of the same points that Fox News and Rush were making.
The point: at the end of the day, you treat your enemies one way and friends with which you disagree another way.
Jane’s huge mistake is that she is talking about these two groups using the exact same posture and words, and it is helping those who are our REAL enemies.
There are many ways to voice disagreement. Just choose one of the others. Why give the right ammunition.
That’s why I am so fired up.
Go Jane Go! good use of bipartisanship to hold our elected public officials accountable! whatever it takes to be effective.
I’m throwing the bulshit flag on Cenk here. Sounds like a complex apologia for the scorched earth-type of politics that Jane’s been engaging in. “Making Obama look moderate” is only an insignificant side effect of Hamsher’s attacks. What we should worry about is how such vitriolic attacks from the Left demotivate progressives and enshrine the false narrative that Obama = Bush and that Kucinich and the like are the only politicians deserving of our allegiance. That is a recipe for another 8 year of Hell. It’s clear that Jane has a visceral dislike for Obama that goes far beyond any supposed policy disagreements or “attacking from the Left.” She won’t be happy until, along with here Far Right friends, she has contributed to the downfall of this administration.
What is demotivating progressives is having everything they worked for in 2008 flushed down the toilet by Obama.
That is not Ralph Nader’s fault.
That is not George W. Bush’s fault.
That is not Jane Hamsher’s fault.
America is a center-left nation and our political system does not reflect that.
“What is demotivating progressives is having everything they worked for in 2008 flushed down the toilet by Obama.”
And I wonder where you got that impression. See what I mean…
Jane ain’t but they are here.
News flash: Howard Dean grudgingly supports the bill now, and I suspect will give enthusiastic backing in the end:
The bill is understandably offensive to progressives because it forces people to buy insurance from the rapacious insurance companies. But you ignore the fact that the new regulation framework is quite strong. The exchange puts insurance companies in a box, change is coming.
“…change is coming.”
In my lifetime?
yes, but you make an excellent point. Change for something as massive as civil rights, poverty or health care DOES take one or two generations to realize.
The people who fought for Civil Rights mostly earned them for their children.
Ted Kennedy saw only incremental change on health care in his lifetime, but he didn’t give up.
This bill is a giant step towards guaranteeing health care, and expanding the government role in doing so.
http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archives/2009/12/23/4410713.html
Pragmatism. The new church of the savvy. Or, alternatively, a means of imposing the sphere of deviance.
Absolutely spot-on, Cenk. This is like the environmental movement during the Reagan/Watt years. The administration tried to frame the Sierra Club as a bunch of radicals when in reality they were simply playing by the rules in Washington. Along comes Dave Foreman to found Earth First! He shows us what radical environmentalism really looks like and the Sierra Club finds itself closer to the middle.
Go Jane!
Why casually dismiss Jane’s stated reasons for doing what she’s doing? Why question her motives? Even a blind pig will find an acorn occasionally, and Norquist finally got something right. I think a very difficult thing for many people to wrap their heads around is this: Conservatives are not our enemies. They are fellow citizens, which we must do some business with if we are not to be eternally tearing at each other while the powers-that-be keep going to the bank. People will have to decide what is more important-staying ideologically pure, or pushing the agenda.
Kudos to you, Jane.
And you, Selise.
howdy RonD! long time no chat…
btw i completely agree:
amen. imo our real enemies are things like injustice and unnecessary suffering.
That’s it right there Ron. We have to band together and I applaud Jane too for doing so. It’s about US – not left/right.
Good. So this does mean the end to the incessant ripping on Obama for attempting to build coalitions with Repubs and others that has dominated here the last couple of years? “We” wouldn’t want to be hypocritical or anything like that, right?
Ok, it’s a great doctrine, it has sound logic. But actively teaming up with Grover-the-goon Norquist is unconscionable. Doing anything to cast Grover in a positive light is very bad for Democrats, Moderates, Progressives, Liberals, whatever we call ourselves.
Well now, Tomvox1, tell me exactly how many of Bush’s policies Pres. Obama has revoked? Rendition? Continuing war? Wiretapping? State Secrets doctrine? Wall Street and the banksters? Your turn.
Reality bites, and you get angry because people think and dare to question? Must be nice to see the world through such blindingly true blue specs -
Eloquent!
My turn:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/
Not to mention Sotomayor, Lillie Ledbetter, saving the auto industry and all those union jobs, etc.
Your argument is about process and how we get there and how fast, as well as not paying attention to what kind of small-L Liberal Obama was as a candidate and thus being shocked & disappointed now. Saying Obama = Bush is simple sophistry, however. So I get angry because folks like you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Nothing wrong with being a moderate. O-boy and Rahm are doing just fine.
Agree with your first statement, disagree with the second. While acknowledging that my hopes and expectations may have been unrealistic, to go through that whirlwind ride that saw the defeat of McCain and Palin, and the gaining of 60 votes in the Senate, and then see the lame triangulated crap that has come out of the Administration has convinced many that this administration is more of the same you can believe in.
Jane is the outrider on this.
Things will get so bad, we’ll team up with anyone just to get something passed that is decent. Not today, not tomorrow, but soon anyone who isn’t a lobbyist, a politician, or a banker will be desperate for a voice. jane and Grover are hinting at the times to come — when you are cold and starving, ideology isn’t such a huge stumbling block.
Really? Jane’s a lefty?
OK, then…
* Clears throat *
LEFTY, LEFTY, NYAA-NA-NA-NYAAH-NYAH!
Ah, so that’s what if feels like to be a moderate….
If you say you are going to throw a grenade then you must throw it. If you don’t you have no cajones or credibility.
You also gotta have a grenade.
The Myth of Centrism:
Dr. George Lakoff explains in his book “The Political Mind” why the Left-Center-Right spectrum framing is false–it’s a trap and hurts the goals of progressives.
Yes, there are left and right political ideologies, where some people hold conservative views, some have liberal/progessive views, and some hold a combination of both (Lakoff refers to as “biconceptual”).
As Dr. Lakoff points out, the left-CENTER-right spectrum is a false paradigm for political views. Left or Right, yes. Center, no. People can hold a mix of left and right views across non-overlapping areas of life, but there isn’t a “middle” view that splits the difference for each individual issue.
It’s appropriate to look at one’s political views on an issue-by-issue basis. Some people are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Why try to average out a person’s positions and label that person as centrist? Isn’t that silly? What’s the point of doing that?
Lakoff writes:
Imagine you have a serving tray with 3 cold drinks and 3 hot drinks on it. Now someone asks you about the beverages on your tray. Wouldn’t it be silly to describe the tray as having drinks that are lukewarm?
- Tom
Lakoff goes a long way to explaining why politicans are, as a general rule are not very centrist.
Upon consideration though, it might actually be possible that Lakoff, in describing the beliefs of people missed the kind of “person” that actually is in the middle, the corporation. A corporation has no thoughts and is designed to have not conscience that extends beyond profit. As a very powerful legal entity that is essentially never at risk of jail time, the corporation pays those that solve its problems. The problems are nearly always about maximizing profits. As the true centrist pushes politicians toward maximizing corporate profits they begin to more closely represent their constituency. The money in politics is in the compromising middle that willingly trades political posturing for lobbyist favors.
One other little nitpick related to Lieberman. When the article was written Lieberman had a handful of progressive views, since then he picked up his views and moved to the new right edge of the middle.
No matter the venue….all I read these days is how the blue dog democrats have ruined the health care bill. Nary a word about the en masse voting of the republicans. Sure…we all know they’re evil…so it’s easier just to ignore their ignorance….but is a strategy that involves allowing them back into power by blasting the democrats…. a good idea…or is it…ignorant?
In response to bonkers at 123:
I hear you, I just disagree. True health care reform – THAT would be an “amazingly positive big” change, and the Adminstration’s failure to fight for it, hard, is already costing them on other “big” issues, as Cenk points out. We were never going to get single payer on this go-around, but by not even giving it a seat at the table, a place in the debate, Obama totally ignored his oft-stated dedication to giving EVERYONE a voice.
If you’re going to negotiate with those you’re trying to regulate – PhRMA, Insurance, Hospitals – don’t you at least owe it the integrity of the debate to get countervailing ideas that might inform your negotiating strategy? To many of us, the fact that a guy this smart simply shut that door is difficult to comprehend – and this being America and all, we figure we should call him on it.
You may be happy with what’s happened with health care, and that doesn’t make you a bad person. I am not happy, however, and your insinuation that voicing my discontent somehow hastens the return of stupidity to the White House has no underpinning.
Doing good every day is not enough if you don’t resolve to do even better on the big issues. Obama picked this issue and proceeded to sell out on the vast majority of it. We who are unhappy about that can and should be vocal about it. If we’re drowning out those of you who are okay with it, maybe that says something important about your numbers?
For me, it’s been about balance. Yes, I’m upset about some things, especially Afghan escalation, but all the positive movement on other issues is enough to make me trust Obama’s motives so far, unlike so many around here. Keep in mind, I’ve been having this exact same debate here long before he was even President, so I think there’s a lot of people with pre-conceived opinions about him, and short of marching into the Senate and slapping Joe Lieberme in the face, Obama won’t be able to please them.
LBJ and FDR had roughly 68 solid Dem votes and several Repubs that would vote with them given enough incentive. Obama has 58 Dems and at least 10 of those are the Infiltrator Dems who I’m not convinced would even go along with reconciliation, so I don’t understand why so many Liberals have a hard time understanding this calculus. As a long-time single-payer organizer, I don’t agree that Obama could’ve marched in and started with single-payer and things would be different now. In fact, I think it would be worse given how the MegaMedia would dishonestly control that debate.
I actively campaigned against Bill Clinton 1992, yet I still gave him the benefit of the doubt for about 2 years, especially with all the healthcare talk that was going on then. It wasn’t until he blew any movement on that front and many others that I eventually concluded my hunch about him was correct.
Obama’s has already done much, much more than Clinton did in the Liberal direction, and he keeps saying he’s just getting warmed up. So far, I believe him based on his actions. If another year goes by and the doomsayers about Social Security privatization and other issues prove correct, I’ll be right there with you, but so far I’m happy with the progress given the incredible cesspool Obama walked into.
Plus, the last Dkos poll I saw had Obama with a pretty big jump after the Senate vote, and some other polls I saw showed the same, so I wasn’t really worried about y’all drowning anyone out. I just feel it can only help to have more of the energy and money from these parts directed in smarter directions that would be more effective in getting us to single-payer. Speaking of which, consider how much time is spent on these various blog wars, and then consider if just 50% of that same time and energy was spent on building upon the single-payer momentum, and developing plans for taking it to the next steps, just like what happened with Social Security and Medicare which were improved over time. Instead, there’s all this stuff about getting Rahm fired, coalitions with nutjobs (in the truest sense), and my blog can beat up your blog. I feel the balance is way off, and keep suggesting that we should be more focused on some core issues like single-payer.
So, you know any good groups out in front of the single-payer organizing? I know PNHP is great for info and some organizing, but is there anyone taking the lead on public forums, door-to-door, phone banking and so on? This is what really needs to ramp up next in my opinion.
Don’t have a grenade, heh, but I want everyone to know that I forgive them and myself for doing or saying anything that disrespected or hurt anyone’s feelings here at the lake. This is a special place inhabited by thoughtful and kind fellow travelers. I visited here often in the early days until life’s inevitable travails took me away for several years.
When I returned last summer, I felt like I had finally found my way back to my family and my home. I love this place and all of you for enriching my life beyond measure.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Great piece Cenk! Love it when you say “hard left”
Those criticizing the hard left the most are the always the same ones benefiting from the strengths of the hard Left.
Reminds me of the joke about the guys complaining about speeders, because their mom and sister are out working the streets.
Why does
you hatethe President lie so much?That’s better
Why are you guys so paranoid?
Are you still beating your wife?
False.
Positions and attitude, or willingness to fight for those positions, both matter. But attitude without positions is like a car with a drunk driver.
The “fault line” between those who favor killing this Senate bill and those favor keeping it is of little importance compared to the far more important fault line between those who favor positions that are actually progressive on health care, such as single payer, and those who do not, such as Health Care for America Now, Moveon, and the like. The public “option” is not and never was a viable alternative here.
Let’s not get distracted from what matters. In the future, let’s favor organizations like Healthcare-NOW and Progressive Democrats of America.
In response to dmd76 @ 47
Thanks for the link, dmd76. Here’s what it says there:
“Welcome, anybody who our stalker and banned troll, dmd76, has sent here”.
Now please stop stalking the decent people here. Also, stop lying if you can.
Sincerely,
egr
You know what else it says there? That the Obama campaign was similar to the Gleischaltung. Stop being a shill for those worthless hacks. And stop misusing the word “stalker”.
There you go again…
You intentionally misrepresent how “Gleichschaltung” is used there (correntewire.com). My search on the word found that three of the four references were made during Bushitler’s Reign of tError, and the fourth was a quote from a “comment from somebody at Atrios who twitched out on a particular word”. If merely quoting or using the word means what you allege it means, then you are guilty as well by that definition. You really know how to do a number on yourself, troll.
As for “shilling”, I merely quoted from your link, neither vouching for its accuracy or its inaccuracy. But now, due to your comments, I lean strongly toward its accuracy.
egr
Wow, shill, you’re using the “it’s just a word” defense? Pray tell, in what context is it OK to compare anything the Obama campaign did to the “process by which the Nazi regime successively established a system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce”? Where I’m from, words have meanings and “Gleichschaltung” has a very particular meaning. Here are a lot more examples (Lambert’s fond of a particular misspelling of the word).
For the record, all that “Bushitler” idiocy is just as bad. Bush is a piece of shit, one of the worst presidents in our history, but he is no Hitler. Facile comparisons belittle the profound evil of the Nazis.
In short, anda a cagar pelotudo.
> Wow, shill, you’re using the “it’s just a word” defense?
Wow, stalking troll, you’re still using the “words mean only what I say they mean” defense?
Let’s perform a thought experiment, shall we my old Red Queen? Did the Nazis spring into being fully formed? Or did the Nazis of 1934 “evolve” into the Nazis of 1942? Given the only answer — “they evolved” — then there must be at least some range of possible meanings for that word. So much for your status as Final Arbiter of Words.
> Facile comparisons belittle the profound evil of the Nazis.
But now consider Hitler and the Nazi impulse, or nature, as it were. I see that same impulse in George Bush, and all Republicans and authoritarians and totalitarians. You may disagree, but in my opinion, there is no qualitative difference between the profound evil of a man who kills one million people and the profound evil of one who kills 50 million. As a Red Queen, surely you will exclaim “Off with both their heads!”
I hope you have learned something from this thought experiment.
In short, volate su culo al sur.
egr
p.s. And please stop lying about the context of what words appear on correntewire.com. You seem obsessed with them, but remember — “Yes you can change!”
Wow, there so much wrong here. First of all, if you are going to insult me in Spanish, at least use a real insult. “Fly your(formal) ass south” is not an insult anywhere. Secondly, you showed up after I did. Who’s stalking whom? (Maybe I’m arguing with one of Lambert’s sock puppets. I know he uses one over at Balloon Juice.) Thirdly, anyone can follow my links and see that the context is exactly what I am claiming. If I understand your claim correctly, you are arguing that someone (Lambert Strether of correntewire) who refers to “Gleichschaltung” in the context of Obama’s “consolidation of power” isn’t referring to the Nazi consolidation of power, but is using that word to refer to some non-Nazi, non-offensive “Gleichschaltung”. Even Lambert wasn’t that thick-headed. Good luck with that, shill.
I just contacted the CA State Dem party and I told this operative over there of my decision to become an independent because of the administration’s (Obama’s) corporate driven policies. The woman wrote back that what we have now is better than the alternative and told me to stick around. So this is the apathetic, resigned way of thinking. To heck with these people.
What really sickens me are the automatic pilot emails from Leahy, and Schumer…revving up Dems to the final lap… and finish line for this abominal legislation..Fortunately, I unsubscribed from these corporate puppets and the Organizing for America wingnuts. But it took a few tries to get their foaming at the mouth, enthusiastic, cheerleading diatribes out of my box.
Yeah, Jane could have done something like that, Cenk, had she signed a letter with a radical. Sadly, she chose to legitimate a rightwing hater.
And wtf. You are a moderate who is adopting leftwing ideas to bash Obama? Well, why? Obama is your boy. Neoliberalism is the apogee of moderation.
Also, Lakoff was wrong. Economics is what counts because economics is what it all comes down to. You either fundamentally believe we’re in it together or you fundamentally believe we are islands who fight over the scraps. That’s the left and the right in a nutshell.
What you’re saying actually confirms Lakoff’s point that centrism is a myth, so I don’t know why you think he’s wrong. Or are you arguing that people cannot hold a mix of views, like being fiscally conservative and socially liberal?
- Tom
President Obama and Rahm Emanuel knew last spring that the left was going to go after him, they didn’t make a deal with the insurance industry and then thank about the fallout that would ensue. They knew what was going to happen from the get go, they knew selling out the American people was going to have consequences, they could have decided to do the right thing from the very beginning. We may never know why they made the decision that they did but what we do know is they perpetrated a fraud against their own people, single-payer, public option and extension of Medicare was all part of the game, they knew what this bill is going to do to the people of this country, they didn’t give a shit then and they don’t give a shit now.Dr.dean is one of a handful of people that is telling the American people the truth. Likely as not in the end they will be shouted down, right now there is only a handful of people in our government looking out after us and it’s not Congress and its not the White House.
How can we call people “progressives” who are in favor of government MANDATING AND EXPANDING THE SAME BROKEN SYSTEM OF PRIVATE SECTOR HEALTHCARE? They may want to call themselves “progressives”, but they are really RE-gressives, not PRO-gressives.
I also don’t see how the 60%+ who support a public option are being called the “left”. I think everybody has been watching too much TV.
“Because even if you disagree with them, they’re doing you a huge favor. If you’re a strong progressive and you think Howard Dean has gone out too far left in health care reform or Jane Hamsher has attacked President Obama too hard from the left -then, fantastic, you are now officially a moderate!”
Only if you think the moderate character of a position is determined by the positioning of individuals about issues, instead of believing that a moderate response is scaled to the magnitude of the problem, irrespective of the posturing of the pols. Take climate change for a topic where the evidence is clearly established in a formal manner: is it moderate to come very short of the carbon emissions reduction needed according to the scientific assessment in order to avoid catastrophic climate change?
Agreed
Cenk, great article. I was lurking, like I usually do, daily, and found your piece.
I believe that it takes all of us doing what we do to create change.
If you’re a strong progressive and you think Howard Dean has gone out too far left in health care reform or Jane Hamsher has attacked President Obama too hard from the left -then, fantastic, you are now officially a moderate!
Lol.
I admire what Jane is accomplishing. And it’s been appalling to read the personal vitrol aimed at her
personally.strategy.intellect.Ocean 1
…Jane Hamsher’s crumbling bona fides with Howard Dean’s is kinda disingenuous.
I stopped reading Kos because of this, not so veiled, name calling. We have another woman stepping out and, mostly, men telling her she is not credible. And anyone who would defined her position as disingenuous. Yuckkk. Again? Really? I do not believe gender is not a part of the reaction, I’m just saying.
I must of missed a class in political science because I hadn’t heard of the “Overton Window” until I began reading about it here at FDL. Back during my Queer political days we called implementing the “Overton Window” activism.
I can’t write code for $hit.