| In the earlier diaries I posted today a number of issues have come up that I think deeserve further reflection and response. So I'm going to deal with several of them.
First up, some folks argued that the Stupak Amendment was no big deal, really, or at best overblown as an issue, even a red herring. But Digby had is exactly right
--the Stupak Amendment is establishment payback for getting uppity [emphasis added]:
I've received a couple of comments and emails wondering why I haven't weighed in on the health care vote. I did, it was just done before the vote was taken. Sadly, my predictions were correct.
One of the things that those of us who follow politics from afar tend to see that those who are involved in the minutia often understandably miss, is the over arching themes that guide the politicians and the villagers. I don't suppose that they are necessarily aware of it, although some of the influential strategists may be, but it's there nonetheless.
I knew that after all the sturm and drang over the past few months over the public option, the number one liberal priority in the health care debate, there would be a price for its success. The ruling elite could never allow an unambiguous liberal victory. It would endanger their narrative that says fealty to business, religion, military and other authoritarian structures is democratically inspired. They have to maintain the fiction that the people prefer to be subjects. If politicians aren't convinced that there will be a price for being liberals, they might get the idea that they can actually govern liberally.
Second, another major issuse concerned the efficacy of challenging and defeating reactionary Democrats. For the most part, this concern is either born out of chronic cynicism (in which case, I have to ask, why are you posting at Open Left?) or misunderstanding. Challenging and defeating reactionary Democrats is not a silver bullet. It's just one task among many. In Digby's post just referred to she essentially talks about hegemonic struggle, and about why the establishment can't tolerate allowing a clean liberal victory. Extracting a penalty in response to their penalty is just one part of the larger struggle we need to be engaged in. And even if candidates do lose, their campaigns represent an opportunity to educate voters. As I wrote in one of my comments, this is precisely how Bernie Sanders moved, over time, from getting 1% of the vote in his election to being a US Senator.
Third, some have complained that this is bad strategy. That (a) it's already too late in the cycle, (b) we should be targetting other issues--such as economic ones, (c) we should be postitively supporting existing progressive challengers instead. Both (a) and (b) have some truth in them--but this simply reflects the numerous ways in which the system protects itself. The point is that this pair of votes--the Stupak Amendment and final House passage--have provided a rare opportunity in which points that are usually intentionally muddied for the general electorate have become strikingly clear. And just because the timing is not optimal, and issue is not squarely in the middle of where voters are suffering most does not mean we should ignore this opportunity. Sieze whatever opportunity you can grab hold of--especially the opportunity to strike back at the sort of move that Digby describes. As for (c), it's most certainly true, but a case of walking and chewing gum at the same time. |
