Why bipartisanship can't work right now: the other axis

by: Darcy Burner

Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 18:56


There has been a lot of talk lately about bipartisanship, particularly with respect to the healthcare bill. Paul Krugman in the New York Times recently described how bipartisanship is impossible because moderate Republicans have been driven out of the Republican party. I'd like to take the analysis a step further.

When we talk about the political spectrum, we usually talk about it as though it is a line with a left and a right, like this:
But that's inadequate to describe a lot of the political dynamics that are playing out. There's another axis perpendicular to the first that's become very important recently, which I have been referring to in conversations as the cause-effect axis:
Bipartisanship at the federal level is impossible in any meaningful way right now because there are almost no elected Republicans in the upper right quadrant.

(More below the fold.)

Darcy Burner :: Why bipartisanship can't work right now: the other axis
To use this analysis, rather than placing people along the left-right axis we place them somewhere in one of the four quadrants of the diagram. For instance:
Now, we can argue about the specifics of where people are, but the gist is there.

For instance, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is reasonably far to the left, but very very focused on outcomes and cause-effect relationships. She's a pragmatist.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is about as far left as you can go, and very focused on ideals and principles - not so much on outcomes.

Our current President seems to be a bit left of middle on the left-to-right axis, but pretty focused on outcomes and cause-effect. That's a distinct contrast with former President Bush, who apparently didn't care about outcomes in the slightest.

You get the idea.

So why is this relevant?

First, it's important to realize that traditional bipartisanship can only happen above the line. With almost nobody in the upper right hand quadrant, that makes bipartisanship impossible - not because the Democrats aren't trying, but because there's nobody to partner with.

Second, on the left we need to recognize that there's value in the folks both above and below the line. Below the line is where we speak truth to power; above the line is where we move policy. It would be distinctly helpful if people in each of those two quadrants stopped taking potshots at their fellow travellers. (Or, at the very least, understand why they're approaching the problem differently than you are, and why that might be useful, before you start taking potshots.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why bipartisanship can't work right now: the other axis | 64 comments
I'll be back on later tonight to engage in the comment conversation (4.00 / 4)
At the moment I have a baseball game I promised to attend...
Isn't there a third axis? (4.00 / 3)
Darcy, thanks for being here.

Some questions for after the game.

1. Isn't there a third axis? Bought and unbought?

2. Why do you believe that speaking truth to power doesn't move policy? I've heard it said that power concedes nothing without a demand. Shouldn't the demand be for policy change? Examples: Abolition, women's suffrage.

3. When you talk about potshots, what policy arena are you talking about? Without context, it's hard to know how to respond.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

Couldn't agree with more Perfect (0.00 / 0)
2. Why do you believe that speaking truth to power doesn't move policy? I've heard it said that power concedes nothing without a demand. Shouldn't the demand be for policy change? Examples: Abolition, women's suffrage.
 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Good points all (4.00 / 2)
1. Yes, there is certainly another dimension, and bought vs. unbought is a reasonable abstraction of it.

2. Speaking truth to power is important, but figuring out how to get 218 votes in the House to move the ball down the field today is also important. There is an unfortunate tendency (nicely demonstrated below in the comment thread) of people on one side of that spectrum to deride people on the other side, as though (a) challenging power and changing frames didn't matter (it does) or (b) figuring out nitty gritty tactics to advance the cause as far as we can today didn't matter (it does).

3. Happens all the time, across many policy areas.

The most obvious and immediate example is healthcare, where many single payer advocates simply refuse to discuss the necessity of finding a way to get 218 votes in the House and 50 votes in the Senate, instead preferring to tar anyone looking at legislative strategy as a sellout. At the same time, the folks looking at legislative strategy have mostly failed to leverage the opportunity to reframe the debate through the single payer advocates.

But it also happened on Iraq, for instance, where I watched as candidates were attacked for not saying "all troops out now" - when there were, in fact, no teleporters available and the candidates were advocating for removing troops at the fastest safe speed...  

[ Parent ]
I thought that was it (4.00 / 1)
I had a long response, but I'll "shorter" it.

Policy merits, if any, of the public option aside:

Based on the track record, the regulars -- from the Obama on down to the A list -- would rather have single payer advocates outside the tent p*ssing in, than inside the tent p*ssing out.

* * *

They made that choice, so that's what's happening.

I can imagine, and many have posted, that there are some very obvious and concrete things the public option folks can do, if they want that situation to change, either this time, or the next time when the public option FAIL needs to be fixed:

1. Whip for the Kucinich amendment to permit single payer experiments in the states;

2. Figure out a way to leverage existing and effective single payer advocacy institutions, like PNHP;

3. Stop the blackout of single payer information. FDL, which has a so-called "Health Care News" column by an HCAN staffer, is a particularly egregious example of a PR wire described as news.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Typo (0.00 / 0)
It's "Health Care News" that's the "egregious example," not FDL as such.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
*** crickets *** (?) (0.00 / 0)
Too bad...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Darcy, I don't think that's at all an accurate description of single-payer advocacy (4.00 / 3)
Single-payer advocates are being painted as dreamworld "purists," in large part because they've been excluded from a discussion that should have included them early and often.

The A-list blogs and big activist groups (such as MoveOn) went all-in on "public option" and largely shunned single-payer related activism. "Mostly failed to leverage," as you put it.

And candidate/President Obama promised an "open and transparent" process that "considered all options." Absolutely nothing of the kind transpired (though a secret deal with Big Pharma did). Where was the outcry from progressives about this duplicity and lack of transparency? Well, it's not like people's lives are at stake, or anything....

In light of that, those who advocate for single-payer became much like the early bloggers, trying to "crash the gate."

That does not mean we're doctrinaire or unrealistic. We are doing our best to be heard (including the brave souls who got arrested for getting the words "single-payer" uttered in Max Baucus's oh-so-inclusive hearings).

At a minimum, helping/allowing single-payer advocates to be heard should strengthen whatever compromise plan might come out of Congress. You seem to acknowledge that.

But I think you're doing us a disservice to surmise that we're fools who don't understand Washington "sausage-making."

We're demanding leadership for policy that works, and we're struggling to be heard in part because progressive advocacy leaders have so tightly embraced the lackluster compromise that is our elected Democrats' default position.

There was never a substantial forum -- neither the ones that Obama and Baucus had promised, nor in the top sites of the left-blogosphere -- where the pros and cons of different approaches were discussed. It was just "public option" sis-boom-bah, and barely any discussion even now about how to make the "public option" (if any) actually "robust," "strong," etc.

Marginalizing and demeaning those who wanted better, and who could have been powerful allies in meaningful compromise reform -- if that's all we can get with this climate of change and with a silver-tongued Democrat in the White House -- was never, IMHO, a great plan. YMMV.

[ Parent ]
I think you are on to something (4.00 / 2)
but I don't buy the left-right part of your spectrum.  

I suspect a better way of putting it would be whether you believe government has a responsibility to protect everyone versus whether you think government has a responsibility to protect the deserving only.  When people attack government (I'm leaving out principled libertarians here), what they are usually attacking is the use of government to provide for certain people. (Admittedly, much of what the government does to protect the "deserving" is less noticeable, although that's probably because we take it for granted.)

On the other hand, I think most progressive are in favor of personal responsibility (but again for all - not just for the undeserving.) We just don't believe that the government protections (enjoyed by some) interfere with personal responsibility for others.  

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

Very important part of your post IMO (4.00 / 2)
Second, on the left we need to recognize that there's value in the folks both above and below the line. Below the line is where we speak truth to power; above the line is where we move policy. It would be distinctly helpful if people in each of those two quadrants stopped taking potshots at their fellow travellers. (Or, at the very least, understand why they're approaching the problem differently than you are, and why that might be useful, before you start taking potshots.)

Although I think that people below the line move ideas to a position of above the line where they can become policy.

In Our Government, The Only Party Is The Corporate Party. (4.00 / 3)
This is all very theoretical.  But in our country, it doesn't matter whether someone is Democratic or Republican, because both parties are run by the corporations.  Or maybe it is more accurate to say that the politicians in both parties sell their votes to the corporations, who pay them bribes to do as instructed.

Look closely at the Republican official position on healthcare (let's force Americans to buy health insurance so businesses don't have to), and the Democratic official position on healthcare reflected in the Baucus plan and in Obama's recent speech (let's force Americans to buy health insurance so the government doesn't have to pay for their healthcare care) and you tell me any significant difference in the two positions.

Both parties are united in their commitment that no matter what else happens, the health insurance industry, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and the hospitals should be free to charge Americans as much as they want, and any American who cannot afford to pay should be allowed to die for lack of health care.

The Democratic proposal was greeted by the insurance industry immediately beginning to advertise "new" kinds of policies to be sold to the citizens to be compelled.  If those new policies have exorbitant monthly premiums and, it turns out, pay for a tiny fraction of the actual costs for any serious health problem, who cares?  Neither Democrats nor Republicans will do anything, or have proposed anything, to address the central problem, which is that most people cannot afford healthcare in this country.

The idea of a Medicare for All program was to allow everyone to buy into a non-profit medical system, before they turn 65.  The Democrats rejected single-payer and Medicare for All, and instead discussed an undefined "public option," which many people now support.  But if you read Obama's actual speech, the only "public option" would be delayed for 4 years, and would only be available to people who have no insurance, which he predicts would be less than 5% of the population.  For most of us, there is no help, no relief, no assistance, no price controls, no mandatory coverage.  

If we look at the U.S. War against Iraq, we see the same thing.  Bush and Cheney were overt in starting the war so the oil corporations cold steal the oil.  But most of the Democrats refused to oppose it, instead doing things like saying "Let Bush decide," which is a violation of the Constitution which only authorizes Congress to declare wars.  No real difference between the two parties on that either.  That war is beneficial to the oil corporations and the defense industry.

So I think the real difference in public politics in our country is that there is no political party which represents the people, or advocates for the people.  Both parties are just advocating for corporate control, meaning fascism.  And the motivation of the politicians is not theoretical, it is greed:  they want the money.

This is adding a bought vs unbought dimension (0.00 / 0)
Except you've described a number of great reasons to track this dimension.
[ Parent ]
Discerning what outcomes President Obama is actually interested in (4.00 / 2)
Has been incredibly hard, I find. Do you have any insight into what specific goals actually matter to him -- i.e., what drives his "pragmatic" actions?

Also, can he said to be at the extreme end of "pragmatism" when he promulgates a political strategy founded on a bipartisanship that, as you note, simply doesn't exist?

Finally, do you mean "pragmatism" as in highly efficient at achieving the best possible outcomes (adjusted, perhaps, for a centrist orientation), or a preference for low-conflict dealings and compromise?

Thanks to you and Open Left for providing a forum to ask you about this topic!

BTW, I really enjoyed your chutzpah on the campaign trail and donated to your efforts.

Pragmatism is not the same as being correct :-) (4.00 / 2)
It's an orientation towards a particular type of analysis and action; that orientation doesn't guarantee accuracy of one's analysis.

And yes - I mean pragmatism as aiming to be highly efficient at achieving the best possible outcomes. It's a dimension independent of left/right/centrist leanings. I know and respect some very pragmatic very progressive people, such as Congressman Raul Grijalva.

And thanks...!

[ Parent ]
The problem is... (0.00 / 0)
... how do movements like women's suffrage and abolition fit onto that spectrum?

What's the pragmatic response on slavery? Padded cuffs?

(A frame I fit health care reform into, I might add.)

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
You continue to mix one axis with the other (0.00 / 0)
One axis is about what values you hold, the other about what approach you take to problem-solving.

The pragmatic approach to ending slavery is to figure out an electoral strategy to elect a President who will do so, or figure out a legislative strategy for doing so in Congress. Being focused on outcomes is about how you approach the problem, not about what outcome you're trying to achieve.

And women in this country got the right to vote because the public protests started to change public opinion -- and then women like Alice Paul implemented legislative strategy to make it happen.

Was Alice Paul a sellout because she disagreed on the strategy Elizabeth Cady Stanton had chosen? Or did the two efforts complement each other?

We will be stronger as a movement when we recognize that different approaches can be complementary in solving the problems we are trying to solve, rather than simply painting people with different approaches as either idiots or sellouts.

The model I described in the post is merely one possible tool for understanding that the differences might be on approach rather than principle.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (0.00 / 0)
There are two axes (leaving aside bought and unbought): One is (the Lakoff-like) social/individual axis, surely not at issue here. The other one is pragmatic/purist -- so if I confuse, it's not axes, but poles on one axis, yes?

* * *

I also think that approaches and principles inform each other. You give the example of the pragmatic approach on slavery -- elect a new President. But that approach was commensurate to the scale of the issue -- and the scale of the issue is determined by what should be done ("purism") not by what can be done ("pragmatism"). The "padded cuffs" approach would not have been.

IMNSHO, the Dems approach to health care is equivalent to a "pragmatic" approach of "padded cuffs" as an incremental approach to the slavery question; utterly incommensurate to the scale of the problem.

I will note also that ideas like: (a) the bills on offer are bailouts for the insurance companies that (b) will force millions to buy junk insurance and (c) cannot be shown by evidence of past success to save either lives or money are all pragmatic objections, exactly as you define the term: "Very very focused on outcomes and cause-effect relationships." Indeed, "a bad bill is worse than no bill" is also a pragmatic argument, again as you define it.

In fact, one reason that single payer advocates are so relentless is that they see bad outcomes -- concerns that public option folks are likely to address with process answers like "we'll fix that in reconciliation," which is not exactly a confidence builder.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Intrinsic in the premise of the axes is that (4.00 / 1)
The people at the top are more sensible than the people at the bottom. "Pragmatist" is a compliment -- it denotes rationality. "Purist" is derogatory -- it denotes being unrealistic and obsessive.

Also, how is Obama at the head of the class for the creation of good outcomes? This is based on...?

[ Parent ]
And as far as "sellout"... (0.00 / 0)
Just saying. And FDL, institutionally, doesn't go in for single payer advocacy.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Cumulative defection (4.00 / 5)
A very simple way of measuring the possibility of bipartisanship is to add the total deviation for Republicans from 0 and Democrats from 100 on crucial votes as measured by Progressive Punch this session.  The Senate seems to be the stalling point (and has fewer numbers to add).  It also has been a bit more bipatisan on some votes than the House (Stimulus for one).

The total deviation for 40 Republicans on crucial votes is 185.38 meaning that "on average" 2 Republicans defect on close votes.

The total deviation for 59 Democrats is 1,410.44.  On average, 14 Democrats defect.  There is a whole lot more "bipartisanship" (or defection) from Democrats than from Republicans.  Ben Nelson defects almost as much (70%)as nuch as the three most moderate Republicans (Snowe, Collins, Voinovich) combined (75%).

Fifteen Senate Republicans have yet to defect; one Democrat (Al Franken) fits that category.  One.  And he has not been here for most of the term.

Sure the vote on some mom and apple pie issues shows more "consensus" but it is essentially meaningless.  If there is such a thing as bipartisanship it mostly consists of the conservadems.  The Maine Ladies talk a good game but stick with the conservatives 72.92% of the time (they have identical scores) when it counts.

Very good point, David! (0.00 / 0)
Seeing this issue rated in numbers, in a way that is verifiable, helps us to understand how dire the problem of the disloyalty of Dem Senators has become. No surprise now that the Dems don't get much done, despite a nominal 60 vote majority in the Senate. This is meaningless when on average 14 Dems defect, reducing the "aye" fraction to a mere 46 votes. Obviously, this makes it hard to even reach a simple majority! Someone should show that to the voters, even if it reduces the chances of some Dem Senators to get reelected.

Regarding this, the public option has more than average support in the Senate. But with all those traitors (voting with the enemy 72,9% of the time is treason, imho) , it will be almost impossible to pass it the "normal" way. Reconcilation or the nuclear option is the only viable way. What a mess!

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
WRONG. 0 Degrees is FAR RIGHT, 180 is (4.00 / 1)
No Private Property Whack-A-Doddle Lefty - of which there are 27 in Seattle and Boston heading 465 different political organizations.

90 degrees is THE MIDDLE.

The definition of 'bipartisan', since Tip O'Neil starting to selling out to Ronnie Raygun, has been about 15 degrees off Far Right goosesteppers.  

'Bipartisan' is fantasy, a leftover lie of the post WWII American hegemony when there were some kind of o.k. republicans ... although those kinds of all right republicans did allow taft hartley, AND allowed nixon / mccarthy to rise.

over 80% of america is probably around 135 degrees off of FAR RIGHT, they just don't know it, and they don't know cuz the phony 'leaders' of the Democratic Party, the pathetic ass sell outs, political incompetents, and mix of both couldn't sell water to thirsty men.

ask 1,000,000 Americans selected at random - do YOU want:

1. your neighbor's minister, guru, priest, pastor, rabbi, shaman ... in YOUR doctor's office?

2. your neighbor's minister, guru, priest, pastor, rabbi, shaman ... in YOUR kid's classroom?

3. your neighbor's minister, guru, priest, pastor, rabbi, shaman ... at YOUR vacation?

4. people who get the most money getting it due to their birth, or their smarts?

5. people who get the most money getting it due to their connections, or their abilities?

6. a world where 90% of us are supposed to be doormats, bootlickers, asskissers, back scrathers, and asswipes to the top 2%?

barack, as far as I'm concerned, so far is just another clinton ivy sell out, too tuned into the northeast elite. pragmatist my ass. he wants to be in charge cuz it is better than being a peeee-on, NOT to be a leader. barack is too worried about not being invited back to the vineyard.  We'll never hear from him, as FDR said - "I welcome their hatred", and he ain't gonna accomplish shit till he's ready to fight.

rmm.



It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

So who are the purist centrists? (0.00 / 0)
That is, who is centrist relative to left-right/liberal-conservative, but also purist?  It seems that almost everyone who is sufficiently far left or right would be judged a purist by most evaluators, and most centrists would be judged pragmatic.  And given how "bipartisan" and "pragmatic" have been used over the last year, they both seem to imply what is essentially a centrist outlook -- not just a willingness to work with the other side (since everyone is willing to work with the other side if the other side is willing to adopt their position!) but a willingness to take a position partway towards the other side -- ie, a centrist position.  

I suppose the harder case is someone like Ted Kennedy, who was considered a far-left pragmatist; but again, insofar as he made substantive compromises, those compromises seemed to move him center-ward.  If there were nice pragmatic decisions the far left (or right) could make that would further their ideals without compromising them, who wouldn't do that?  More to the point, who doesn't?

There are purist centrists (0.00 / 0)
A whole bunch of them seem to work in the media covering DC these days. They're obsessed with centrism as virtuous in its own right, independent of whether it accomplishes anything.

And no, there are people who are far left or far right who are pragmatic. Raul Grijalva or Jan Schakowsky on the left, for instance. They have very clear ideals, but focus day-to-day on how to make meaningful legislative progress in an environment in which that's possible.

Bipartisanship or centrism are on a completely different axis than pragmatism/purism for a reason. You can be a centrist focused on outcomes - or a centrist who doesn't care about outcomes. You can be a progressive who cares about outcomes or doesn't; you can be a conservative who cares about outcomes or doesn't. And each of those pairings leads to very different approaches to governing.

[ Parent ]
But the scales are not fixed, either (0.00 / 0)
This metaphor won't be clear, but if the scales are in space, it's like space itself is being stretched -- it's easier to move from left to right, than from right to left, for example. And the stretching is dynamic as well. The axes exist in a dynamic context.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
But would any purist agree to that name? (0.00 / 0)
I know you're probably long gone here, but for the record:

It seems like a scale, whether two-dimensional or one-, is only useful if there is some degree of agreement about who falls where.  The left-right spectrum is a useful spectrum because both sides more or less agree on who is where.  A good-bad spectrum, for instance, is less useful as a scale because everyone claims they are on the good side, and the opposition is on the bad side.  You can of course make your own ranking, but no one that you put on the bad side is going to agree.  

Similarly, the purist/pragmatist spectrum is mostly a praise/blame spectrum, that almost no one that you put on the "purist" side would agree with.  My original question was not so much, "what centrists would you put on the purist side?", but rather, "what centrists would put themselves on the purist side?"  I assumed that you would put anyone you personally found to be narrow-minded and ideological on the purists side -- and certainly (alleged) centrists-for-centrism's-sake might qualify -- but to be useful as an organizing system (in the way that left/right is, or the social+economic two-dimensional scales are), you can't have one of the dimensions essentially functioning as a good/bad dimension, where everyone wants to put themselves on the good side.  You may of course be right about who you judge as a "purist," but if no one believes themselves to be a purist, the scale, as a scale, isn't going to catch on.  It's most just a left/right + blame/praise scale, with the latter being little better than a good/bad dimension.

[ Parent ]
This conversation is so up in the sky (4.00 / 2)
that I don't even know where to begin. All these political coordinates are purely abstractions that, in my opinion detract from reality. To start, the notion of left and right in this country has been so skewed that it doesn't make sense at all anymore.  The right has hijacked the center and the left isn't really a left, but more of a useful appendage of the established spectrum of debate.

The political tendencies in this country, both left and right, are so severely constricted and constrained by illusory parameters of debate that its like its almost rigged to produce an outcome satisfactory to elite interests.

The function of the electoral left in this country is just to present a facade of opposing sides that, in the end, just yields policy that digs us deeper into this trap.

I don't mean to sound conspiratorial or anything, but to assign some element of pragmatism to political decisions is a slap in the face of human agency. I'm drawing on some existentialist influences for this one and I think it's entirely relevant to this political problem.

I  completely get the intention of this post and I agree with the futility of bipartisanship in our political environment--but I think trying to assign planar  values to political ideas is just falling into the rhetorical trap that characterizes policy making in the modern era...

You get to choose... (4.00 / 1)
...whether you find abstractions useful or not.

I find this particular set of abstractions useful, so I thought I'd share them.

And you're welcome to be cynical about politics and politicians; certainly there's been plenty of cause given.

But I'll also tell you that my experience is that there are more people than you probably think in elected office who are genuinely trying to do the right thing, and recognizing that makes it far more likely you'll be in a position to do something to help them move policy in the right direction.

[ Parent ]
This would be a good starting point for a long conversation (4.00 / 2)
over coffee or beer, because we need to bat around the most useful second axis. I think this one needs work, because like most current analyses, it doesn't quite come to grips with the fact that most Americans support a social safety net that Republican propagandists would call "socialist." Both parties, regardless of left-right distribution organize around social issues, serve major contributors and marginalize - as Obama did - the mainstream desires of voters who want sensible programs like Medicare for All.

But your axis is useful too, so maybe we need three dimensions.

I do agree with one of the posters upstream on bought v. unbought, and it's becoming acceptable to mention, as Glenn Greenwald does, that the President's policies seem largely designed to deprive the GOP of it's usual sources of cash for 2012.

But whatever the second axis, it would be most useful to have one that explains how to help the otherwise ignored people who work hard and play by the rules, or put another way, the people who are most vulnerable, and have the most to lose as privateers continue to run amuck.

... and here's another axis: opportunist v principled.  

I like the premise Darcy, however I have to agree that (4.00 / 1)
money distorts the graph to the point of noncorrelation. I would suggest 2 better axes are "correlation of votes with campaign contributors' positions" and "correlation of votes with constituents' positions (based on issue poling)" If they vote strongly with contributors, then it's clearly pointless since they'll follow the money and not principles. If they vote with constituents, then it's a matter of how D or R their constituents are, and how persuadable their constituents are to media messages and marketing.

With regard to health care - why not pass a bill with a strong public option that would be a national mandate for 10 years (enough to build the national infrastructure) and then give states the option of leaving it after 10 years. Once people have 10 years of a public option, they won't want to give it up so that will put all the Republicans in each state in the position of having to take away a popular program that will piss off half their constituents for purity's sake. If a state is so right wing that they actually want to eliminate it after 10 years, so be it. It will only massively increase the pressure to kick the Republicans out by the angry masses. Imagine what would happen if Republicans voted to end Medicare or Social Security in a state. I think there would be an uprising to throw them out.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

Bought and Unbought about sums it up. (4.00 / 2)
All the rest is smoke and mirrors to demonize or annoint the bought and paid for position of the corporations and their ruling elites.

Medicare for all, just like getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and ending the war on drugs, is pragmatic; but it won't fly up there because the so called pragmatic centrists in DC don't have a lobbyists paying them to do it.

Rationales and excuses are a dime a dozen.  Bottom line is that the Dems have the WH, Congress and the Senate, and they still can't won't deliver squat.  I'm tired of Bill Clinton's charm and Obama's dazzle.   This purist would like to see some good old, FDR Democratic outcomes, which absolutely don't include NAFTA, wars on welfare queens, and a double standard of criminal and economic justice for haves and have mores vs. the poor working slob.

Democrats are in trouble in 2010/2012 because those "centrist pragmatist" failed to deliver the CHANGE they promised.  People are sick and tired of both parties and have loyalties to neither.  What they want is good old pragmatic results in favor of the middle class for a change, and they just aren't getting it.



They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

I agree with the commenters who said (4.00 / 2)
1. That bought vs. unbought (corporatist vs. anti-corporatist) is a far more meaningful metric than either of these.

2. It's extremely hard to ascertain what precisely Obama is even allegedly "pragmatic" about, given how his tactics have so far ranged from feckless to disastrous.

The premise that Obama is pragmatic (i.e. that his fetish of "bipartisanship" was ever a good strategy) contradicts the premise that bipartisanship can't work.

This leads to what I've always believed and still believe:

3. Given how the Reps and the banks were on the ropes, and the mandate for Change Obama had, the most pragmatic policy offensive would have been the most aggressively principled. In that position I would've sought in effect a quasi-revolution, simultaneously from above and from the grssroots, crushing the corrupt system in between. Would this have worked? We'll never know, I guess, but it couldn't have been less practical than what O has tried to do, if his goal ever was real Change (which I don't believe it was; maybe that's what was really meant by "pragmatic", how to betray every promise).

4. One quibble with the left-right axis. While seeking the safety net is broadly true for real leftists (as opposed to sellouts and liars), it's absurd flattery to give the right credit for caring about "personal responsibility", when they really care only about releasing the rich from ALL responsibility, personal or otherwise. (I'm talking about the corporatist policies the Reps and establishment Dems always seek, not the rhetoric.)
As for the non-rich, you can still be a right-winger in good standing and absolve yourself of all responsibility as long as you stick up for the rich, even if you're broke and live in a box.

http://attempter.wordpress.com

Well, it's a better explanation in the case of healthcare reform. (4.00 / 1)
Darcy Burner's model has some value, but it's obvious that "pursit vs. pragmatist" isn't the decisive distinction when it comes to the public option. Pragmatists support the p.o. because they see it's the only reasonable way to ensure afordable premiums. Purists prefer single payer, but if they can't get this passed they will support p.o. as the second best plan. And all those who oppose a public option bill have been proven to be bought of by the insurance companies. Yup, Burner's model has some value for deepen the bunderstanding of inner party fights in many cases, but not here. What we see now is the fight of corporatists against liberals who put the interests of the people in the first place.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Our Lewis Carroll politics (4.00 / 2)
The impractical "purists" are the ones who support the plan that would actually reduce costs.

The level-headed "pragmatists" are the ones who see a plan that even Chris suspects will be "watered down," and which Obama only intermittently supports and expects fewer than 5% of Americans to get, as "the only reasonable way to ensure affordable premiums."

[ Parent ]
Well, but there are different levels of pragmatism. (0.00 / 0)
I guess the difference comes from some of them being better informed, and maybe less pessimistic than others.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Are you saying that the well-informed (0.00 / 0)
Have high expectations for "public option" to bring meaningful change? And if so, how so?
[ Parent ]
But of course! (4.00 / 1)
The well informed, those who know more about economy, and how it works in practice, are aware that regulation alone will never succeed in driving premiums down, because the private insurers will always find ways to circumvent the rules. It's the same as with taxes, you simply can't close all loopholes. So, the only reasonable way to ensure real, healthy competition is to create a new competitor who will offer his plan at a price that is only determined by costs. And that competitor has to be big enough to ensure sustainable operation. This can be only the public option! Not even co-ops fit the definition, because they are too small too guarantee sustainable operations. Examples at the state level prove this.

Now, there may be other pragmatists who think that regulation is good enough to drive costs down, or who think co-ops are a reasonable alternative. This only shows that they are less well informed about economics, about how businesses in the US evade regulation, and don't know the fact that co-ops have already been tried, and they failed. But those Congressman can be reached and convinced with good arguments and compelling evidence.

Annd then, there is of course the group which will oppose the p.o., no matter what. It's those who have sold out to big business, like Senator Baucus. And imho that's the more important fight, between those corrupt corporatists and those who put the people's interest in their first place.  

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
Do you have reason to believe that the... (0.00 / 0)
... public option plan, if one, will be allowed to freely compete with private insurance, as opposed to being the dumping ground for the poorest uninsured and the "uninsurable"?

As I understand it, the P.O. plans in Congress do not allow one to choose a public plan if your employer provides insurance. And President Obama expects less than 5% of Americans to be on the public plan (if one) -- quite likely because not many Americans will have the opportunity to access it. (And that's putting aside whatever ways, besides size and income of participants, the public plan is likely to be hobbled as legitimate competition.)

Seems to me you're ascribing the benefits of a "strong" public plan to the almost-certainly weak plan coming out of Congress. I don't blame you. There are a lot of people invested in selling that conflation to us all.

[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 1)
This has been another shameless plagiarism of the popular series "simple answers to simple questions". Hat tip to Atrios!

No, seriously, vastleft, just like you, I don't have a working crystall ball, and I can't see how things may turn out. I can only hope for the best. Right now, the pendulum seems to swing in "our" direction, so it may be that ammendments will be added that change the scope of the p.o.. Or may be not. All I can say is that public pressure on the majority in Congress, which hasn't decided on their stance yet, will influence the outcome. So, how much progressives in the US do now to move the lawmakers into their direction is one of the "X-factors" in this fight.

However, whatever may come out of this, it's friendly of you not to blame me. Would be a bit unfair, anyhow. After all, my influence by adding my two eurocent here and there still amounts to a value almost indistinguishable from zero!
:D

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

[ Parent ]
I just don't see where the leverage comes from (0.00 / 0)
Ardent public-option advocate Chris Bowers seems to have (sensibly, I'd say) lowered his expectations for the rigorousness of the P.O., if one, and all the activist whipping is to support "a" or "the" public option, without regard to its nature and scope.

There seems to be absolutely no substantive advocacy anywhere to confirm/assure that the plan (if one) is "strong," "robust," etc.

I just can't see any way that hoping for the best about this is anything but the most idle kind of hope.

Yes, the pendulum should be swinging in "our direction," but the oh-so-pragmatic, pleasingly un-pure centrists are holding the line at the minimum (some kinda public plan), and not letting or helping it swing through to the kind of reform that is really needed.

[ Parent ]
Nobody said it's gonna be easy. But surrendering is not an option. (4.00 / 1)
You seem to be a bit pessimistic yourself, vastleft. Don't let that overwhelm you! Those who give up fighting have already lost.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
You've got me wrong, Gray (4.00 / 1)
To accept weak policy and misguided advocacy as sufficient is, IMHO, a better example of giving up.

I'm pessimistic and outnumbered. But I'm not overwhelmed. And I'm going to keep calling 'em as I sees 'em.

To quote Chris Floyd:

Even if you break through somehow, momentarily, and hold up a fragment of the truth, most people have no context for dealing with it. It's like a bolt from the blue, they can't process the information. And so the sea of lies closes over us again, and again, and again.

But I don't know what else we can do, except to keep on telling as much of the truth as we can find, to anyone who will listen: reclaiming reality, fragment by fragment, one person at a time.

It's an endless task -- maybe a hopeless task -- but the alternative is a surrender to the worst elements in our society -- and in ourselves.


[ Parent ]
Lemme answer with a quote from a movie I love: (4.00 / 1)
You know, so much of the time we're just lost. We say, "Please, God, tell us what is right; tell us what is true." And there is no justice: the rich win, the poor are powerless. We become tired of hearing people lie. And after a time, we become dead... a little dead. We think of ourselves as victims... and we become victims. We become... we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs. We doubt our institutions. And we doubt the law. But today you are the law. You ARE the law. Not some book... not the lawyers... not the, a marble statue... or the trappings of the court. See those are just symbols of our desire to be just. They are... they are, in fact, a prayer: a fervent and a frightened prayer. In my religion, they say, "Act as if ye had faith... and faith will be given to you." IF... if we are to have faith in justice, we need only to believe in ourselves. And ACT with justice. See, I believe there is justice in our hearts.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
And I do! (0.00 / 0)
I act as if Open Left, a site that has been extraordinarily unfriendly to me (slanderous might not be too strong a word), is a place where my convictions might be heard and respected.

I post on a blog that, as Lambert puts it, "nobody reads and everybody hates," speaking truth to power, including the stultifying powers-that-be in my "own" party.

I have persevered through credible personal threats, and in awareness of how serious the threats are to those who challenge the hopey-changey orthodoxy.

What makes you think I'm a quitter?

[ Parent ]
Aw, come on, vastleft... (4.00 / 1)
..if you think OpenLeft commenters are behaving slanderous, have you ever tried to have a "discussion" at DKos? If you leave the mainstream line there for only one inch, you will be "rewarded" with the most vitriolic insults imaginable! In comparison, OpenLeft is one of the most civil places in the liberal blogosphere. However, if this is still too close to the knuckle for you, there's still the NYT comment threads as an alternative. Even though you can't have a real debate there because of the horrible delays resulting from the moderation...

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
I agree, Open Left commenters are generally terrific (0.00 / 0)
I'm referring to Mr. Sirota terming me a "deranged hate stalker" because a couple of the maybe four blog posts I'd written about him to that point were critical of him (and because I shared with him a video of Carl Bernstein that blew his blaming Hillary Clinton for NAFTA out of the water). I've also been knocked around a bit by Paul Rosenberg and Chris Bowers, but that's not really my point.

I'm pretty thick-skinned, so much so that I've even tried to push real liberal politics at Democratic Underground. And, yes, I've taken my lumps at DK, too!

[ Parent ]
Well, that's typical of Sirota. He's much more thin skinned than you. (0.00 / 0)
Not the first time he reacts on criticism with such an outburst. Just ignore that, he's still basically a good guy, suffering from bad temper sometimes. And every now and then, Paul can be really acic, too, even though in a more classy way than David. Which reminds me, I'm no angel, either. Well, we're all only human.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Good chatting with you, Gray (4.00 / 1)
I'm hoping Darcy will show up soon. Maybe that game went into extra-innings. :v)
[ Parent ]
Speak of the Darcy -- she just started posting responses! (0.00 / 0)
Now to go read....
[ Parent ]
Yes, it was inevitable... (4.00 / 2)
...that I'd show up eventually. :-)
[ Parent ]
Great! But who won? (0.00 / 0)
Or were you distracted from the game by people wanting to discuss healthcare reform with you?
:-)

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
The Dodgers beat the Nationals (4.00 / 1)
Which was the expected outcome. A few dramatic plays, mostly ordinary baseball. But I was happy to be there:
I figure watching a baseball game with a friend I really like and her very nice parents, one of whom my little brother collected on baseball cards, can't be a bad way to have a little diversion for an evening.
[ Parent ]
Wow! (4.00 / 1)
Kudos to Darcy for reading this deep....  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Let's not identify pragmatism... (0.00 / 0)
... with careerism.

"A bad bill is worse than no bill" is a perfectly pragmatic argument. It's just not a careerist argument.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
I see careerism as the same as corporatism, which I mentioned. (0.00 / 0)
Just another flavor of corruption. Of course, all careerists have to be pragmatic, but this is only a secondary characteristic. The important point is, their own interest trumps all considerations for the welfare of the people. And that's despicable.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
+100 (4.00 / 2)
Bingo, Russ!

Given how the Reps and the banks were on the ropes, and the mandate for Change Obama had, the most pragmatic policy offensive would have been the most aggressively principled.

This is why "What Obama Really Wants" is such an essential question. The climate is ideal for real change: a nation hungry for populist reform and a smooth-talking president. The missing "x" factor, it seems clearer by the day, is any desire for real change on the part of our elected Dems.

Sure, it was possible to line up a bunch of Dems for "public option," but that's because it doesn't actually mean anything. And in case it might, Obama has intermittently wavered in his support for it, called it a "sliver" of his plan, and he brags that fewer than 5% of Americans will ever get it. I hope the health reform comes with neck braces for everyone, 'cause all this change is gonna give us all whiplash!

Also, the perfectly respectable word "pragmatic" has been tarnished by its re-purposing as "unchallenging of the status quo."

The "pragmatic" option is the one that ruffles the fewest feathers in the Village. Such "pragmatism" is widely misconstrued for "pragmatism" as in sensible and practical. This kind of "pragmatism" is the antithesis of change.

It's pretty brave of Obama to have run on a platform of change, given his apparently profound allergy to the stuff.

[ Parent ]
"his apparently profound allergy"! Hehehe, vastleft!!! (0.00 / 0)
Nice way of phrasing it! Never saw anyone explaining the problematic relationship between Obama and Change in that way. That's a good one!

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
That's two presidents in a row being expected to do what they like least (0.00 / 0)
Last time it was when Katrina hit, and Bush was expected to help poor black people.

Obama is doing a heckuva job with change, and with comparable relish.

[ Parent ]
A differeent dichotomy (4.00 / 2)
In his trenchant post about the bizarreness of Glenn Beck at salon.com, Glenn Greenwald explains why the conventional view of Left/Liberal vs. Right/Conservative is become antiquated:

"a completely different dichotomy . . . is growing in importance:  between system insiders and their admirers (those who believe our national political establishment and its elites are basically sound and good) and system outsiders (those whose anger is confined not to one of the two political parties but who instead believe that the political culture itself is fundamentally corrupted and destructive)."

He cites quite accurately that while healthcare and taxation may still provide litmus tests of left vs. right persuasion, there are more and more issues that do not "fall comfortably into the conventional 'left-right' dichotomy through which everything is understood."

So far, I don't see strong evidence that the new dichotomy that Greewald describes is emerging in the halls of Congress. But the closer we get to the '10 election, the more it will probably be displayed.

And if this energy gets leveraged... (0.00 / 0)
... by right wing populists, that will be bad.

The real bulwark against right wing populism would have been good policy (by which I mean a policy that actually improves the lives of ordinary Americans) but whether in finance, housing, or health care, the Dems have consistently refused to do any such thing.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
Sarah Palin here we come (4.00 / 1)
Given the frame that GG outlines, it's not hard to see how this works against the Dems across the board:
* the war in Afghanistan -- a welfare program for the MI complex
* education reform -- the feds telling us how to run our local schools
* energy reform -- creating more subsidies for large providers which ends up sticking us little guys with the bill
All these positions are not reflective of traditional right and left but of anger at rule by Versailles and Wall St.  
[ Parent ]
Fortunately, our Democratic leaders are huge populists (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
Promote this - it cuts through the noise (0.00 / 0)
This is really good, giving the Republicans credit for standing for something positive while clarifying where liberals stand, throwing off the right wing slurs.

You need to promote this broadly - on YouTube, for instance. Will help people to frame issues, see through right wing framings which have effectively captured the media.

The left has been too complicated in presenting itself. This makes it easy for people to grasp and support the left.

Personal reponsibility seems fine until someone has to deal with a sick child or elderly relative or laid of family member. Or neighbors in distress.

Thanks!

Promote what? Looks like embedding video has failed. (4.00 / 1)
And, apart from this, I'm very sceptical if a video "giving the Republicans credit for standing for something positive" is really a way to win the battle for public opinion. For heaven's sake, where is there anything positive among all those distortions and lies that the rethuglicans have spread? This sounds like utter nonsense to me. You won't win this fight by raising the credibility of the liars!

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Why bipartisanship can't work right now: the other axis | 64 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox