The Progressive Block

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 12:45


Instead of 60 votes in the Senate, what progressives need is Democratic control of both branches of Congress, control of the White House, and a progressive block of at least 13 Senators and 45 House members that will vote against Democratic legislation unless their demands are met. What we need is our own version of the Blue Dogs and Evan Bayh's "conservodem" Senate group that is large enough, and staunch enough, to be able to block Democratic legislation by joining with Republicans.

Explanation in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: The Progressive Block
When Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, they argued to progressive activists that, in order to pass the type of legislation we wanted, we needed to take back the majority in the Senate. So, in 2006, progressive activists worked their butts off and helped deliver Democrats a Senate majority.

After Senate Democrats had the majority, they argued to progressive activists that, in order to pass the type of legislation we wanted, they told they needed not just the majority, but also 60 votes in the Senate and control of the White House. So, in 2008, progressive activists worked their butts off and helped deliver not only the White House, but also sixty votes in the Senate (once al Franken is seated, of course).

Now that Democrats have wide majorities in both branches of Congress, not to mention control of the White House, we are still being told that our agenda is not politically possible. However, what is really happening is that a block of conservative Democrats are regularly joining with Republicans to weaken, or block entirely, many of the pillars of the progressive legislative agenda:

  1. Stimulus: A group of nearly twenty Senators, most of them Democrats, successfully watered down an already too small stimulus was watered down by $96 billion.

  2. Health Care: After the budget passed, and allowed for the 50-vote process on reconciliation, we are now being told by Kent Conrad that there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass a public option. Since that time, bad news for the public option has rained down, including former Democratic Senator Majority Leader and one-time nominee for HHS Secretary Tom Dsachle telling Democrats to drop the public option.

  3. Climate Change. The already weakened Waxman-Markey climate change bill is currently being help up and further weakened by a block of 50 House Democrats led by Collin Peterson. The bill already has lower renewable targets than China and most of the 50 states, not to mention removes the EPA's authority to regulate carbon. However, that isn't good enough for Peterson, so expect much of the same to happen once this bill finally passes the House and reaches the Senate.

  4. Employee Free Choice Act: Six Senators, all of whom are now Democrats, flipped their position on the Employee Free Choice Act. Originally, at the start of Congress, and once Al Franken was seated, there were enough votes to pass EFCA. No more--not even in a 60-vote Senate.

  5. Cramdown: Twelve Democratic Senators, and all Republicans, voted against the foreclosure bankruptcy reform known as cramdown. This measure would have allowed bankruptcy judges to reduce the price of mortgages for people in bankruptcy, thus allowing hundreds of thousands to keep their home. It was ostensibly supported by the Obama administration.
Time and time again, conservative Democrats representing between 10% and 25% of their chamber's Democratic caucus have formed a block, joined with Republicans, and successfully weakened, severely threatened, or entirely blocked key elements of the progressive legislative agenda. They were successful in every case despite the ostensible, public support for that agenda by the Obama administration.

All of this is enough to make one think that it simply wasn't true that Democrats needed 60-votes in the Senate and control of the White House in order to pass progressive legislation. It turns out that Matt Stoller's arguments on the 60-vote myth were correct.

Instead of 60 votes in the Senate, what progressives need is Democratic control of both branches of Congress, control of the White House, and a progressive block of at least 13 Senators and 45 House members that will vote against Democratic legislation unless their demands are met. What we need is our own version of the Blue Dogs and Evan Bayh's "conservodem" Senate group that is large enough, and staunch enough, to be able to block Democratic legislation by joining with Republicans.

We need this group to draw hard lines in the sand for the two biggest legislative priorities of 2009: health care and climate change. The group needs to make it clear that, if their demands are not met, then no climate change or health care legislation of any sort will be passed. Demands like:

  1. Health care: A public health insurance option that is immediately available to all Americans.

  2. Climate change: Restoring the EPA's ability to regulate carbon and renewable energy targets that surpass those put in place by China..
The models for the progressive block are the Blue Dogs, the Senate "conservodems," and also the Afghanistan-IMF supplemental fight. In that fight, a progressive block of 32 House Democrats help up the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership for two weeks, forcing them to whip votes hard and make some concessions. With 13 more votes, there was a good chance they could have succeeded in severely denting the neoliberal "Washington consensus," and forcing real reform at the IMF. While the fight was not ultimately successful, it forced the White House to deal with the Progressive Caucus more than any other legislative fight in 2009.

Such a progressive block is already in place in the House for health care. In that chamber and on that issue, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated there are not enough votes to pass health care reform without a public option. We need to form a corresponding health care block in the Senate, and corresponding blocks in both chambers on climate change legislation.

Once these blocks are in place, the White House and Democratic leadership will be forced to either whip conservative Democrats to fall in line with the demands of the Progressive Block, or to convince an equal number of Republicans to support compromise legislation. Either way, we will put an end to the dynamic of the White House and Democratic leadership offering muted public support for progressive legislation, while conservative Democrats threaten, weaken and block that legislation. They will either have to come out in public for more moderate legislation, or start working hard for progressive legislation.

We need a Progressive Block, not 60 votes in the Senate. For the next few months, progressive legislative efforts should be directed at putting that Block into place.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Excellent Strategy (4.00 / 3)
This is an excellent strategy for the short term coupled with the longer electoral strategy you've outlined of voting out conservative Republicans and replacing them with moderate/progressive Democrats and voting out conservative/moderate Democrats and replacing them with progressive Democrats. At this point, all of these strategies seem possible with some concerted effort.

We also need to somehow stop the Fox News Right-wing/Republican propaganda network and the hate-talk radio empire. Could we sue them for slander or racketeering? They seem to be beyond shame. Their close ties with the business elite and religious Right makes it hard to undercut them using economic boycotts, strikes, etc. It sure would be helpful to have a few more people on the inside (like David Brock) to blow the whistle on their disingenuous propagandizing.

Anyway, back to this short-term strategy: fantastic! How close do you think we are to forming a solid obstructive progressive block?


There will always be a conservative Democratic bloc (4.00 / 1)
At least within the two-party system.  (Outside of the two-party system, instead of a Blue Dog Democratic faction controlling things, you'd have a separate Blue Dog-like party performing the same function.)  When 20-25% of Democratic voters are conservative Democrats, there is always going to be a wing within the party for that constituency.

So, part of one possible solution is to find conservative Democrats who value party loyalty more than ideology.  To get there, it helps if you have like-minded progressives.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
conservative Democrats who value (0.00 / 0)
If those Blue Dogs don't give a hoot about Americans or America, I would guarantee you that they most certainly don't give a hoot about or value loyalty.  

[ Parent ]
I think they do value America (0.00 / 0)
They just have a different definition of "America".

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
And it has to be real. (4.00 / 7)
That means it takes down health care reform unless there is a real public option.

Progressives talk tough, but never act.  Unless we are willing to force a loss on Obama, as the conseradems are, no one will pay attention.

The Progressive Caucus in the House is our best hope.


How does Darcy Burner fit into your analysis? (4.00 / 2)
I could not agree more. What is your assessment of having Darcy Burner staff the Progressive Caucus? Does that increase the likelihood that it behaves more like the Blue Dogs in terms of discipline?


Darcy is working on strategies for progs (4.00 / 1)
And while I don't know exactly what she has developed, I bet it is pretty close to this.

[ Parent ]
This is the first real (4.00 / 2)
strategy I have seen for any real change.

Dkos (Markos) may oppose it, as will those who are tied only to a projection they place on Barack Obama.

But until we do it, we just will lose and lose and lose.

The Democratic Party was not reclaimed, was it?

The only other strategy is a third party that cuases Dem candidate losses.  I prefer yours.  


That's exactly the fight...for the Democratic Party itself (4.00 / 2)
and example of this ocurred just this week with the DNC dinner and the debacle of the DOMA brief.

Activists are being used to win elections for candidates and in return activists( like me!) expect a good faith effort to achieve that which the Democratic Party has stood for as evidenced by the Party platform and speeches every 4 years( for seemingly decades) during Convention time.....no more excuses, no more moving the goalpost.....to Mr and Ms. Democratic candidate now elected official thanks to activists like me: Were you just taking to fill dead air or to get thousands to man phone banks? Did you ever have any intention of living up to a tenet of the the Democratic Party in the realm of health care? You used the apparatus of the Democratic Party to get elected.... you need to know NOW that apparatus can be used for someone that appreciates it and actually believes in not saying one thing and doing another.


[ Parent ]
Agreed. Markos is the new hitler (0.00 / 0)
and also an evil Satan.  

He killed my Father!!!


[ Parent ]
Silly comment. (4.00 / 3)
I had a real point.  It had to do with the elevation of the Democratic Party over any specific policy.

You just show ignorance.  

One day you may grow up.


[ Parent ]
Negotiations (4.00 / 1)
I'd be a horrible negotiator.  My instincts are probably all wrong and I'd cave too easily, too worried about losing it all.

So you are probably right on this.

However, the idea scares the crap out of me.  It seems to confuse how to force not doing something with doing something.  It is much easier to block legislation you are against then legislation you want to improve.

How sure are we that the Blue Dogs want to pass health care or climate legislation in any form at all?  Wouldn't they be just as happy going home claiming the damn hippies tried to take over the process?

Every generation we have an opportunity to improve health care and every generation we blow it.  Sometimes the right sinks the ship, like during the Clinton years.  But sometimes the left sinks the ship, like during the Nixon years.  The 70's liberals were sure they'd get another chance at something better.  They were wrong.

I know this isn't very helpful, but the bottom line is I agree if it actually works and disagree if it just prevents anything from happening.  This is high risk, high reward.


No strategy is a guarantee (4.00 / 5)
But this is the best one I can come up with.

Eveyr straategy has risks, and so does this one. However, nothing else has proven successful so far.


[ Parent ]
That's the problem (0.00 / 0)
This group would be great at stopping things that a center right group wanted to get done.

But what leverage would it have it it wanted to PASS something?  

On health care, I really think we are right back where we were in '94.  At this point I think NOTHING would be better than the proposal floating around the Senate.   To that extent, though, this group would be useful.  


[ Parent ]
Nothing (0.00 / 0)
I'll stop repeating myself after this, but NOTHING would be much, much, much worse than even the shittiest plans we've seen in recent days.


[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure (4.00 / 3)
If everyone is required to buy health insurance -- that is, give our money to our opponents -- but the health insurance industry does not have to cover everyone (there are still loopholes for them to drop coverage for sick people) and there is no public plan that can provide an effective alternative, then such a plan would be terrible. It would not actually provide healthcare to those who need it and it would cost more than our current system. This would be much worse than what we now have. Moreover, such a plan would demonstrate to the American people that the government IS the enemy and ought to be whittled away, just like the Right-wing Republicans say. If such a plan was actually passed by House and Senate, I would work encourage Obama to veto it.

[ Parent ]
What do the Blue Dogs care about? (0.00 / 0)
If you draw the line in the sand on health care and climate legislation, then there have to be other areas where progressives don't draw the line in the sand and are willing to give in.  Real political compromise shouldn't be about meeting halfway on the numbers, it should be about picking which issues you win and which issues you lose.  To be blunt, it should be about who gets sold out in order to win gains on those two key issues.  I'd be willing to kill EFCA for a decade if it would win a strong public option for health care and some serious anti-global warming policies with teeth, for example.

Unfortunately, it seems like the Blue Dogs priorities of being (or appearing to be) deficit hawks and agriculture-oriented are clashing mightily with health care and climate change.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
I think there are a number of issues (0.00 / 0)
with very broad appeal that Blue Dogs will always feel pressure to do something about. Things like healthcare, free education, etc. And they'll especially feel that pressure if a Red/Green Bloc of progressive Dems uses their bully pulpit to raise awareness of an issue nationwide.

That's my sense of it...


[ Parent ]
There's another possible outcome (4.00 / 1)
There is merit in considering this type of hardball and there are many times when I have thought to myself something like this is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve progressive legislation.  

But, to play the Devil's Advocate here, I would suggest that this is not quite right:

Once these blocks are in place, the White House and Democratic leadership will be forced to either whip conservative Democrats to fall in line with the demands of the Progressive Block, or to convince an equal number of Republicans to support compromise legislation.

It is also possible that even incremental progress will be abandoned in favor of preserving the status quo or worse.  For the above to be true, we have to assume that deep down those who are currently impeding progressive change on these two issues and that are watering down sensible proposals really want something done about health care and climate and, further, that if the choice is what they view as hard left/progressive policy or nothing at all, they will choose progressive policy.  They may choose nothing at all.  After all, that is kind of what they are doing now.

The calculation: does the risk/reward of this hardball strategy merit the risk of no change at all?

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


The hope is (4.00 / 2)
The hope is that the Obama administration really wants change in those areas, and that they are more on the Prog side of things than the Blue Dog side.

They have to get bills passed in those two areas--otherwise, it is a political disaster for them. So, if they are on our side rather than the Blue Dog side, they will throw their full weight against the Blue Dogs to pass a bill.

That is the hope, anyway.


[ Parent ]
Yes! (4.00 / 4)
But focus is critical.

This strategy could work as Chris has described it for health care because in this particular case Progressives have nothing to lose. We can play hardball because there is no point in health care "reform" without a public option.

To vote for health care reform without a public option is just a smoke screen, it is just deceiving the public and delaying true reform. So we have nothing to lose.

Progressives can not afford to play this way with every issue dear to our hearts. But if we are smart, and if we are successful with one or two very important issues, the block that Chris proposes could end up a lasting feature of our politics.


We have nothing to lose (4.00 / 5)
As you note, that is exactly the key to this strategy.

Progs tend to be from safe seats, and also represent districts that need real reform the most. So, we have nothing to lose by forcing real reform or nothing.

The idea is that the Obama administration has a lot to lose if they don't pass bills in these two areas, so they will be focused to negotiate with, and whip for, progs in order to get what they want.

But i also helsp that Obama was elected to make real change. So, this strategy is arguably in his interest, as well.


[ Parent ]
We have little to lose (0.00 / 0)
otherwise.  If the Dem Party is just the softer and gentler corporate party, then progressives will never really have an impact and keeping the far right out of power is served just as well by electing Lincoln, Specter and Nelsen.    

[ Parent ]
No point? (0.00 / 0)
Just tell that to someone who can't get insurance today because of a prior condition.

Better to wait until they are dead to pass something better.


[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
I do not believe that legislation requiring insurance companies to cover people regardless of prior conditions would be effective.

Without a public option, it's a sham.


[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, I was being sarcastic.  (Though perhaps you noticed, hard to tell.)

I do not believe that legislation requiring insurance companies to cover people regardless of prior conditions would be effective.

Just because you don't think laws work??  The next time regulations come up in congress I'll pass along the fact they are worthless.

I'm 100% in favor of a public option, but even the worst of what is being offered is far more than a sham.


[ Parent ]
Already a compromise (0.00 / 0)
The public option is already a compromise.  The original position is single payer with the compromise as public option.  The smartest move would have been to pitch single payer and compromise to public option rather than giving ground at the start.

We have less ground to give thanour opponents.  Baucus/Grassley make a weird two-headed team.  The minority on this committe has unusual power.  I think that has worked against us as Baucus is inclined to the conservadem position anyway and bipartisanship pushes him righr from a bad start.


[ Parent ]
Holy fucking disaster (4.00 / 4)
It looks like the "reform" that will pass will have:

1) Individual mandates and possibly employer mandates
2) No public option
3) A tax on benefits

So, the insurance companies have a shitty product that kills people, and congress decides to "fix" it by writing a law that requires that everyone buy the shitty product and to tax employers that by the shitty product on behalf of their employees. Please explain how this makes sense.

Imagine, for a moment that in the 1970s, congress had held hearings on the Ford Pinto. Ford comes to testify and freely admit that the Pinto, at the drop of a hat, turns into a giant exploding fireball visible from space, but they're gonna keep making them the same way, cause hey, profits. Congress expresses outrage, then passes a law requiring all Americans buy a Ford Pinto and then adds a Pinto tax to put the cherry on top of that shit sundae.

What the fuck is wrong with these people? If I had a rubber hose...

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


To summarize (4.00 / 4)
the current health care proposal:

It is going to force people to buy expensive insurance that they don't want.

How's that for a political winner!


[ Parent ]
and (4.00 / 4)
then maybe tax them for the benefits they won't be able to use.

A winner all the way around.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?


[ Parent ]
True, but (0.00 / 0)
Even the shitty proposal has regulated delivery requirements, community rating, prevents denial of service (do to pre-existing conditions, for example), financing for those in poverty and so on.

Shitty compared to single payer.  Shitty compared to a public plan.  Shitty compared to what the CBO analyzed.  But much, much better than what we have today.

If the choice is the shitty plan or try again in 20 years, we would be a absolute fools to not pass the shitty plan.

So I agree with Chris in the sense that I want to fight strongly for every improvement we can get.  But if push comes to shove, I'll take the shitty plan.


[ Parent ]
Do you really believe (4.00 / 2)
any form of regulation can prevent insurance companies from dumping sick people?

I don't. Their job is too maximize profits, not ensure health care. And they'll find ways to do it.

This thing is a charade if the profit motive is not squashed.

Can it happen here?


[ Parent ]
Mostly yes, if it is illegal (0.00 / 0)
I agree that the public option would guarantee this right far more strongly, but yes, if it is illegal to drop people for pre-existing conditions I think the companies will in general not do it.

Yes, they'll find loopholes and there will be many counter examples where they come up with other excuses like late payments, but the bulk of the protection will be there.

So, pulling numbers out of you-know-where, on a score of 1 to 10:

What we have now: 2
Shitty plan: 5
Public option: 8
Single payer: 10

I'd rather have +6 or +8, but +3 sure is better than +0.  While the numbers are obviously meaningless, I hope they make my point.


[ Parent ]
My numbers (4.00 / 2)
Current system: 2
Shitty plan: 1.5 - 2.5 depending on how it works out
Public Option: 6
Single payer: 10

To me, the fact that the new, shitty plan will cost a lot more  than our current shitty plan undercuts most of the value of community rating, weak denial-of-service prohibitions for pre-existing conditions), financing for poor people, etc.

That much of this additional cost will go to pay our opponents (those insurance companies who are currently preventing us from having a good system) means that we may just make them that much stronger and ensure that we never get a good system. To me, this is worse than our current situation.


[ Parent ]
Now you are talking, Chris (0.00 / 0)
This is probably the best strategic idea for progressives since the last election. There are enough progressives in the House and Senate to form this bloc. So what is needed is some leadership to put it together in a cohesive fashion: propose legislation as a bloc, vote on legislation as a bloc. We can then backstop them with a progressive grassroots network that can help with calls & e-mails, funding, and other activism. Wonder who will step up to the leadership in either house.

Especially true for climate change (4.00 / 3)
That the current draft of legislation removes the authority of the EPA to regulate carbon means that it is worse than useless.  At present, that power is the only real threat to the coal industry.  Trading it away for the thin gruel of a cap-and-trade with free giveaways and low renewable targets is counterproductive.  We absolutely need to get the Progressive caucus in the House to draw the line on this issue.

Another bad bill (0.00 / 0)
I agree. The proposed bill is worse than the current situation.

[ Parent ]
Worse then useless (0.00 / 0)
Yeah. Legislation that could reduce CO2 20 percent below 1990 levels and give the world a fighting chance at not having to spend trillions adapting is totally worse than uselss.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
I hear ya. (4.00 / 1)
I guess what some of us fear is not that the current bill could pass and strip the EPA of their authority to regulate carbon, but rather that Peterson, and then the Senate, would further water it down, while keeping the EPA-neutering provisions intact. The result would be worse than what we have now.

I have to say, though, that if I had to choose, I'd rather have the current version of Waxman-Markey than cross my fingers and trust to the EPA. Anybody who thinks the EPA would be the answer to all our problems should Google "New Source Review."


[ Parent ]
Who can we lobby in the Senate to form this block? (4.00 / 2)
Sanders
Franken
Sherrod Brown
Boxer?
Harkin? (caved on health care yesterday)
Dodd? (beholden to mortgage companies?)
Kennedy (too sick)
Whitehouse
Levin?
Kerry
Lautenberg ?

I'm really having trouble coming up with non-weenie progressive Democratic Senators. I can't come up with 13. What a depressing exercise I just started.

John McCain won't insure children


this is what i can't figure either (0.00 / 0)
it was pretty strange to come here and read Chris's post, because it is extremely close to something i had been thinking about posting just last night.

but what i couldn't come up with was the Senate component. if 13 is the minimum number we need to block legislation, i just don't see how we get there. 3 or 4, maybe.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


[ Parent ]
Why 13 and 45? (0.00 / 0)
I realize that it would still be difficult to put together, but wouldn't 11 Senators and 40 Representatives, voting with the Republicans, do the trick?

I'd guess that anything even close to that might catch everyone else off guard enough to make a pretty solid first impression, hopefully on a preliminary test vote.

You have to start somewhere, don't you?


[ Parent ]
You need a cushion (4.00 / 1)
There's always a chance that some Republicans won't vote with the rest of their party on every single issue.  The wider your margin, the less likely you are to be relying on one vote who can be easily bribed.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't count on Boxer (0.00 / 0)
She has a history of talking a better game than Feinstein, then caving. But she is up for re-election, so it ought to be possible to make her a little miserable.

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
Public Option not good enough (4.00 / 1)
Single-payer or else! You can negotiate from there. Ask for more that you expect to get. Be fucking outrageous! Be Audacious! If you don't do theses things all you get are crumbs.

If nothing gets passed, then nothing gets passed and the people that blocked you can find other employment cuz they ain't getting re-elected by me or people like me.  


If nothing gets pass (4.00 / 1)
We wait for another 20 years to go though this dance all over again.  Great idea.

[ Parent ]
The Blue Dogs were always a third party (4.00 / 6)
And sometimes they sided with the Dems and sometimes with the Republicans.  So this would essentially be a fourth party who would sometimes vote with the anti-corporate small gov't Republicans.  It would be a Green Labor Party who would not be loyal flunkies.  Kind of like coalitions in Germany.

Right now all we have is Kabuki Theater.  There is more loyalty to each other in the Senate than to the people.  And more loyalty to a failed economic system than the U.S.

Meanwhile a lot of people are dying here, in Afghanistan, in Peru, Congo all for the corporate global elite who have no loyalty to America.  So the time is now.  They can't wait two more years.

Read Kevin Baker's piece in Harper's called "Barack Hoover Obama".  We need to elect people with conviction and a willingness to fight for what is right.  Now we only have "aged satraps from vast and windy places" like Baucus and Conrad, says Baker.  


We don't have 13 yet (4.00 / 3)
So until we do, I'd advocate an alternative strategy - fuck with the legislative priorities of every Blue Dog holding this up, make their lives a misery and prevent them from giving their constituents what they want until they agree to allow movement on healthcare.

So if Landrieu votes against a public option, a hold gets put on Louisiana reconstruction. If Akaka joins the obstructionists, hold up a vote on Hawaiian nationhood. This won't work for all of them - guys like Carper are basically just corporate hacks and their priorities are rarely unique to them - but it would make a start.

The response would be apoplexy, but if whoever was acting as our Coburn didn't flinch, they'd start to calculate what they would and would not give up.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


I am pessimistic (0.00 / 0)
About progressive will to do such things.  I tend to blame a lack of ruthlessness on the left as one reason why we end up complaining so much.

Understand that this is a tactic that pretty much treats people as objects.  It's the political equivalent of carpet-bombing a city during a war to force a foreign government into submission.  The thing that I have suggested in the past is using US troops as bargaining chips to the point of explicitly advocating denying funding for things like body armor to make a point.  I think that screwing New Orleans to put pressure on Landrieu is another reasonable tactic, but it won't work unless it causes actual suffering that makes people complain.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
A return to Huey Long (0.00 / 0)
No thanks.

I like democracy. Not partisan dictatorship.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
Sure (4.00 / 2)
this would be nice. But organizing something like this would be extremely hard and we'd have to make sure the demands made sense and could be archived.

I still think getting legislative supermajorites is important as part of a strategy but we've also got to focus on building some kind of bloc to increase progressive power within those majorities.

Right now though we've got Bernie Sanders and pretty much no one else in the Senate. A few people on a few issues. But not close to 13 reliable votes.

I would argue that focusing on getting a block like that in the House would be a better goal to focus on. The House is institutionally a more progressive place, the leadership is far more progressive and less interested in bipartisanship and we have more strong progressives to start out with.

The supplemental fight was a opening test of that block and showed that if we work hard it could get organized. McGovern is already working to gather support to force the administration to put in place a timetable, any timetable to end the war in Afghanistan. That could be another fight. Let's keep our goals modest so we can make a real impact.

-No more war funding without a timetable for Afghanistan.

89 House Democrats said in 2007 they'd vote against any war funding for Iraq without a timetable. I think 29 have already voted against the latest supplemental. 85 representatives have co-sponsored McGovern's H.R. 2404 which would force the administration to set a timetable. This is basic stuff. We have a large potential bloc. All we need is for them to block stuff unless it meets that simple demand.

-No healthcare reform without a public option that starts on day one and is open to anyone.

Very simple. Very popular. The option of a public plan is the most popular part of healthcare reform. Over a third of all Senators are publicly in favor of a public plan, the White House is in favor of a public plan, nearly half the house is in favor of a public plan. And that's just public statements. 72 representatives have co-sponsored single payer. The CPC says a majority of it's members will vote against a plan without a public option. We probably already have a progressive block on the public option big enough but we've got to make sure it holds and maybe demands some specific details (bargaining power).

-No climate change legislation without a RES at least as strong as China's.

Obama campaigned on 25 by 25 (which is what China has). The argument that we can't do it but China can is weak and easy to pick apart. UCS says it would create nearly 300,000 jobs so that's easy to argue as well. It's one of the most effective short term climate polices that we can fight for. Progressives are less unified on climate issues. This is something we could start organizing on and demanding. It's a minimum of what we should be doing. But it's a achievable start for the bill.

-No regulatory reform with Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Protection Agency

This is another battle that will be coming up. I think fighting for inclusion of Warren's Consumer Protection Agency would be a good line to draw. I'm not a regulatory wonk but Elizabeth Warren is brilliant and the Chamber and banks other big conservative groups seem to hate the idea. It could be the next big test of if the banks own Congress.

If we focus on the existent but unorganized progressive power in the House and organize it behind common sense, important ideas that we can win on we could make a big difference. Getting some Senators on board would be nice too but the House is a much bigger opportunity.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


Good Points (4.00 / 1)
Only the house is needed.

The strategy here is to force decent reform by threatening to block popular legislation if it doesn't meet progressive criteria.

It doesn't take two houses to block legislation. The Senate has been proving that for years. Okay decades. Maybe centuries.

Anyway, why shouldn't the "people's chamber" try the same trick from the other side?


[ Parent ]
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
The Senate has been using it's leverage to block progress singlehandedly since it started. It's time the people's house sticks up for the people and gets a backbone.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox