When Will They Ever Learn?

by: Mike Lux

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 14:00


I just returned from a long trip out West, and will be writing more about that tomorrow AM

With the dizzying twists and turns of these last several days on health care, we still don't know where things will lay once the dust settles after what promises to be a very high drama ending before the August recess. We shouldn't be giving up hope that a good bill can be achieved, because the drama has not played itself out yet, and the August recess period itself - with the question of whether strong health reform proponents or astrodurf defenders of the status quo will win the passion and organizing battle - will be crucial in deciding this bill's fate. But one thing is absolutely clear from what has happened over the last week: fundamental change has not come to Washington, D.C.

Big business lobbyists, in this case from the health insurance industry, still have more power than the President. The media establishment, for all their lost audience and credibility, still have the ability to drive a negative conventional wisdom story about how change is impossible. And Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, out of a combination of caution and the fear of these aforementioned lobbyists, still don't have the ability to deliver transformational change. The kind of change Barack Obama based his campaign around is, so far, nowhere to be seen.

This inability to change Washington is all the more remarkable given the events of the past few years. George W. Bush simultaneously expanded Presidential power, and destroyed the Republican Party brand. Democrats won sweeping historical victories two elections in a row. Voters proved they were more open to bigger historical change than anyone would have predicted just a few years ago, electing an African-American son of an immigrant with an African-Muslim name, a candidate who beat the strongly favored establishment candidate of his party by running a campaign calling for big change. The economy collapsed in a more dramatic fashion than in any way in American history except for the Great Depression.

You would have thought that with all that dramatic change and upheaval going on in such a short time, that Democrats would have been able to be bigger and bolder in their thinking. But they seem to be stuck in the business-as-usual ways of doing things. The strangest thing is that, for all the boldness of at least some of Obama's proposals such as health care reform, the day to day legislative tactics seem to reinforce the business-as-usual thinking on Capitol Hill: the apparent unwillingness to twist arms of the Blue Dogs in the House, the empowering of the uber-cautious Max Baucus in the Senate.

Could we still get the kind of big change Obama promised? Anything is possible. Both FDR and Lincoln moved to the left and accomplished their best and biggest changes later in the Presidencies, and the pace of change picked up in the mid-1960s after JFK had struggled early in the decade. And more big events could certainly shake things up. But, while I am normally more of an optimist than many people about what is possible, I fear the worst if health care reform becomes whittled down to nothing very substantial, or even fails entirely. If there is an iron law in politics, it is this: winning makes you more powerful and confident, and losing makes you weaker.

If the insurance industry wins on health care reform by beating Obama soundly on bigger, more transformative change, it will strengthen and embolden every other big special interest. The energy companies on climate change, the big banks on financial reform, and every other special interest lobbyist Obama has said he would tame will be laughing at the failure of bigger health reform, secure in their knowledge that nothing has changed in Washington, D.C. And as the economy sputters along and nothing has really changed that would help regular people, conservative Republicans will be laughing their way to the next election. There is still time to turn the ship in a new direction, but right now it is looking more and more like we're heading straight into a big iceberg.

There's an old folk song made popular by Peter, Paul, and Mary called "When Will They Ever Learn?" Right now, that feels like the operative question for today's Democratic Party.

Mike Lux :: When Will They Ever Learn?

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

Word (4.00 / 4)
Add to this that if we don't deliver something that actually improves people's lives, and things keep getting worse, there will be serious backlash. The GOP may be in complete disarray, but they know how to harnass anger.

On the other hand, if we get a win and it works, that legitimizes the idea of reform, and opens the door for more significant change in the face of future needs. We don't have to do it all now, but we have to do something significant, and it has to be uncompromising enough to actually work as a policy.

So I worry. We're headed towards insiginificant policies so loaded with provisos and cut-outs as to be a caricature of red-tape and bureaucratic dysfunction. The Dems and Obama are being far too risk-averse and uncertain here. The status-quo is clearly unsustainable, and yet...

Me | My Work | Future Majority


No, not remarkable (4.00 / 3)
The lack of change is quite unremarkable, given the predictable (and promised) unwillingness of Obama to take on corporate power.  

Glenn Greenwald Linked to Matt Taibbi (4.00 / 5)
in his blog today. It's well worth a read. Here's an excerpt:
"...But these Democrats aren't even pretending to give a shit, not really. I mean, they're not even willing to give up their vacations.
This whole business, it was a litmus test for whether or not we even have a functioning government. Here we had a political majority in congress and a popular president armed with oodles of political capital and backed by the overwhelming sentiment of perhaps 150 million Americans, and this government could not bring itself to offend ten thousand insurance men in order to pass a bill that addresses an urgent emergency. What's left? Third-party politics?"
http://trueslant.com/matttaibb...
After calling, sending emails, writing letters to the newspaper, and contributing to these yahoos, hopelessness and anger are about the only two emotions that remain.

The real question is when will the people get control of government? (4.00 / 2)
Welcome back, Mike. Hopefully Chris and Natasha will resurface some time soon. Ian and David did a spectacular job. Hope they will be posting regularly at Open Left.

While you were away, there was a replay of the destruction of health care reform by the private insurance industry. Max Baucus has got to go down in history as the most arrogant influence peddling politician who has done the most damage to the American people and the progressive cause.

What is extraordinary is the way the insurance industry and its media partners have manipulated reportage and even interpretation of where public opinion stands.

The majority of American people are in favor of single payer, or failing that, a public option.

But these masterful manipulators of public opinion have now found the means to create the false impression that the American people, or at least some segments thereof, are opposed to the public option.

What this says to me is that government in America is simply not controlled by the people.

What it also says to me is that it is next to hopeless to try to work within this system. MoveOn and a host of organizations have been collecting millions of signatures in favor of the public option and delivering them to Congressional decision-makers.

But they make virtually no difference because these influence peddling politicians are assured all the money they need from the health insurance industry to win re-election regardless of what how they vote.

Maybe we might pick off one or two and replace them with progressives, but working inside the system in this one-by-one incremental fashion is not going to enable the voters to get control of government anytime soon.

We just have go outside the system and re-invent our democracy so that the voters are in charge, not special interests and influence peddling legislators.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.


Baucus hasn't won yet (0.00 / 0)
The big flaws in the House bill are a bigger concern to me than the Baucus bill right now. The Baucus bill is not going to be the final bill out of the Senate.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Flawed process, flawed bills (4.00 / 2)
I admire your optimism and diligence in scrutinizing the in's and out's of the process.

What I find aggravating beyond belief is that we, the people, who know that we want a single payer system, have to watch these rogue legislators discussing things that we have already said we do not want.

Now it would be natural for our elected representatives to debate various options that we, the people, are debating ourselves and about which we have not come to a consensus.

But to watch these rogues discuss things that we, the people, have never said we wanted, do not want, and would be injured by, is simply a nightmare.

We know very well that behind the chairs of our influence peddling representatives stand their financial backers from the private insurance industry telling them what to do to protect and inflate their profit margins.

But instead of hoping against hope that something beneficial to the American people is going to come out of this corrupted process, we aren't we organizing to change the system so we can throw the rascals out and replace them with representatives who will enact OUR priorities into law?

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.


[ Parent ]
I agree with that. (0.00 / 0)
It's definitely not over.

[ Parent ]
how would going outside the system (4.00 / 3)
get us the health care policy changes we need? I don't get it.

I caucused for the guy who said the system is rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington. What we're seeing on health care proves this is true.

But we can't bypass Congress and change health care. The best strategy for us is the one people like Jane Hamsher are working on--securing a progressive bloc to vote down a bad health care bill, if necessary.

Obama will not go to the mat for us, but he will go to the mat to avoid having failed to get a bill through Congress. If a large number of House progressives refuse to get rolled on a bad bill, Obama may start twisting more arms to get a good bill passed. He knows this issue is make or break for his presidency.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
Time after time (0.00 / 0)
we, the people, have to go into full alert mode to try but usually fail to get legislation that benefits us and meets our needs.

If it's not health care, it's the bailout, or the unending wars being conducted in our name, etc, etc.

I agree that the work that is being done by Jane Hamsher is terrific and that it could possibly work. But our elected representatives are supposed to protect us, the people, against predators like the private health insurance industry.

But instead of protect us, they are in cahoots with them and drafting legislation which protects them and harms us.  

I think we should pull out all the stops to work within the system to get what we need. But it looks like the current system is so rigged against the people that it is impervious to our attempts to work within it. We are just outgunned and outmanned by the financial behemoths that have figured out how to control our government by bribing our elected officials. It's that simple.

At some point, we have to come to the conclusion that we have to change the system, which is what I developed the Interactive Voter Choice System to do.

It empowers voters to get in the driver's seat of our political system without changing any laws, rules or regulations, though once voters get control of electoral and legislative processes they will have course want to change many of them.

My point is that we have to think outside the box if we want to get out the box in which we have been trapped by the status quo.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.


[ Parent ]
Remove politicians (4.00 / 1)
from the decision-making process altogether! I'm curious what you think of Participatory Budgeting.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.

[ Parent ]
Participatory Budgeting (0.00 / 0)
is definitely the way to go in terms of empowering citizens and voters to get control of essential governmental decisions.

I highly recommend that Open Left readers have a look at your Participatory Budgeting link.

I think you are absolutely right when you infer that self-serving and influence peddling politicians are the root cause of our inability to manage taxpayer dollars and make sure that they are not diverted to private as opposed to public purposes.

I was amazed the other day to learn that $23.7 trillion has been ponied up by the Obama administration, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury to bail out insolvent banks and financial institutions with virtually no strings attached. While most of this money has yet to be spent, its expenditure has been authorized by the Fed the Treasury department and other federal agencies to bail out insolvent banks.

Congress was not even consulted, much less the American people, who have opposed the bailouts since the beginning.

But unaccountable federal agencies have kept on giving more and more money to insolvent institutions that should not have been allowed to remain in business as presently organized. Those not shut down immediately should have been broken up into manageable pieces, re-capitalized and sold back to the private sector.

Once U.S. voters get in control of government via the The Interactive Voter Choice System, they will be able to use participatory budgeting at all levels of government to push money-dominated special interests and influence peddling lawmakers out of the picture.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.



[ Parent ]
In a phrase - voting blocs; however you will have to wait for an election cycle or two for dramatic results (4.00 / 1)
The formation of voting blocs whose raison d'être  will be a set of policy options, acceptable to the bloc. These voting blocs need to be big enough to outnumber an incumbents' supporters during both primaries and general elections.

The Bordier invention provides a mechanism to form such voting blocs. However, even if fully operational today, it would probably have little effect on immediate issues. The blocs have to have significant numbers before whatever deadlines exist for committing to primary candidateship.

Nancy anticipates using voting blocs to pressure incumbents before they're up for re-election. Doubtless that will work for some, but not for others. Remember Tauzin? After helping foist Medicare Part D on us, in its current form, he didn't even wait to finish out his term. Why wait when your huge raise (I've read reports about a $2 million dollar bonus) awaits you? This was an exceptional case, but it still illustrates the fact that for some, the only antidote is to be primaried or defeated in general election.

If waiting for an election cycle or two seems unreasonable, consider: professional lobbyists view their careers as multi-election cycle affairs, and you can be sure that corrupt Congress critters - half of whom go into lobbying after their 'public service' - are also thinking beyond the issues of this quarter.

Some patience is required, but what alternative do we have? Spend the rest of the civic-oriented part of our lives putting out fires? "Shouting louder" to tin-eared 'representatives' who couldn't care less? Even if somebody can't get decent healthcare this year, won't they and their loved ones be needing it 2, 4, and 6 years hence?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
I Don't Have Much Faith, at this Point (4.00 / 3)
I just sent in my pointless email through the White House website, which probably will never be read, asking Obama to get off his butt and show up at a Remote Area Medical event in LA August 11-18, 2009. Perhaps you have more pull? Here's the URL, from a story by Paul Rosenberg here at Open Left recently:

http://ramusa.org/

It strikes me that a cost-based argument for health care is a disaster, as people have noted but Obama refuses to acknowledge. An argument based on real people who line up to get free health care they cannot otherwise afford, that argument is difficult to refute. It makes Republicans and the corporate lobbyists and Congressional lackeys look like Scrooge to deny affordable health care. Showing up at these events would force the media to focus on health care as a basic human right, not some abstract argument about money.

Yet where is Obama at events like RAM? Crickets. He'd rather do a speech somewhere, get a slight press mention.

Instead he should be out wherever health care is being limited or denied. He should hammer home that 22,000 people a year die because of lack of health care. He should force the media to follow him around and show real people and the real consequences from a lack of health care and/or affordable health care.

Obama could even make it fun and invite the three health care CEOs who told Congress they would continue to do recission, deny care to boost their profits, he could publicly invite those jerks to show up in LA, or wherever these types of events happen. Rub their nose in the problem. Maybe someone will ask these CEOs about recission, about how much they make as they deny critical care people paid insurance to be covered.

When I see Obama out with real people, not behind a podium, then I'll believe reasonable health care might happen.


these last steps are the hardest (4.00 / 1)
We shouldn't be giving up hope that a good bill can be achieved, because the drama has not played itself out yet...

drama shmama. an actually good bill - meaning one that would deliver health care to American citizens - is not going to happen. at all. the Great Debate now is over political appearance. Obama and the Democratic leadership do not want to seem to have failed. and since the judges of the contest are the media, who have zero interest in actual policy, they've got a good shot at winning.

foot in the door bla bla bla. Social Security was a foot in the door. Medicare was a foot in the door. if we could not do this now, we won't do it at all.

the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, the medical industry, etc, don't have to "beat Obama soundly" to win. they have already won. they are going to get a huge market that by law must purchase their products. they're twirling their mustaches and grinding their teeth for show.

this is not an "if this goes on..." situation anymore. it did go on. it went. here we are.

if you've been out West, then here's an instructive example. people blame Prop 13 and Howard Jarvis & co for breaking California, and it's true that the downhill slide started around then. but who really bears the blame are the mostly Democratic establishment politicians who kept trying to make it work, kept patching things and cobbling up deals, kept saying "something is better than nothing" - and never did what actually needed to be done, stand up and reject an unjust and unsustainable structure.

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


I haven't thrown in the towel yet (4.00 / 3)
If the House progressives vote down a bad health care bill, then Obama will not be able to claim victory. He will have to start twisting more arms to get a good bill written.

The battle is not over unless the Progressive Caucus caves on this. An individual mandate to buy insurance without a public option would be worse than the status quo (and more expensive).

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
Yes. A bad bill is worse (4.00 / 1)
than the status quo.


[ Parent ]
but who is defining "bad"? (4.00 / 1)
we've got the FDL folks working their tails off trying to push to retain the Potemkin puppet show "public option" that is set up to fail. that's our success - if we manage to retain a mere shadow of what is needed.

there is no bill with a prayer of passage coming out of any committee in the House or the Senate that contains an actually as-it-is-used-in-English "robust" public plan (that word apparently means something else altogether in DC, the way that "on day one" means "sometime in Obama's 2nd term"). or to use a broader criterion, is adequate to the challenge of reshaping the way that Americans get, and don't get, health care. they make some things better, absolutely. but what we'll get compared to what we need is just sad.

we can't lobby for something that doesn't exist. i know there are single-payer bills, and they may even be allowed to the floor for a vote somehow. where they will be soundly defeated.

am i wrong anywhere here? i'd like to be.

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


[ Parent ]
A good bill is still possible. (4.00 / 1)
I think having a strong public option would give the insurance industry serious competition, and combining that with some tough regulations would do a lot. This is still a possibility, if a slim one.

[ Parent ]
They will learn when (4.00 / 3)
they fight as if people's lives depended on them winning issues, because they do.

It is a class war.  Washington is broken.  Obama won on "bipartisanship," but it is impossible to govern that way so long as the Rs are right wing extremists.

To win, Obama must go populist in a very visible way.  I see hints of it lately.

Obama is the better person for President, but John Edwards was right about the nature of our enemies:

1. If you sit at the table with them, they'll eat your lunch.

2.  They will give their power away when we take it away.

Those two principles seem true at this time.  Obama needs to explain this in ways regular folks understand.  

He can do this.    


It is up to the American people to come to that realization (0.00 / 0)
1. If you sit at the table with them, they'll eat your lunch.

2.  They will give their power away when we take it away.

about how the system works regarding lobbyists and the corporate dominance in political life.

I think a sizable majority of the public are already at this point, the problem is turning out to be dragging Obama to this realization: the public signalled "Change" in 2006 and 2008, but I also think that Obama believes that "CHANGE" meant the end of 'partisan' politics,  to a post partisan world, with real efforts targeted at going for 'bi-partisanship' to solve problems.

Effort expended on behalf of 'bipartisanship' will not result in "Real CHANGE people can believe in", if nothing besides 'tone'( even that hasn't seen much of a difference) changes.

Guaranteed future historians will see that way as well.

What's to measure?

How much change in policy has there been in economic matters re:Wall St.?

Pretty much none from Paulson's tenure.

DOMA?
DADT?
Stimulus big enough? To really help states?
Give aways on cap and trade?

Change?

I need a magnifying glass to see any movement


[ Parent ]
Charters (0.00 / 0)
Let's begin to undo the damage done when the Supremes made Corporations persons.  It's time to revoke all their Charters for failure to adhere to the rules.  We are now a corporate state and they can dictate the direction and rules of our society by buying our Representatives.  

Obama let it slide (0.00 / 0)
Whatever "bully pulpit" power Obama had to start with, he frittered it away on "bipartisanship" instead of "doing the right thing for the American people" and he lost all strength in "staying above the fray."

I still do not hear him asking "What is the right thing for the American people?" and then answering the question. His talks are too vague, diffuse, and couched in a singsong overly low key tone. "No drama" Obama needs some drama.

Poor Obama. He has no Frances Perkins to clarify the progressive policies/programs that needed fighting for, and then making him fight for them. Instead he has "election strategist" Rahm Emmanuel and Wall Streeters like Larry Sommers. Ugh!


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox