Um, I didn't give up on the public option

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 19:44


There is a rumor going around the intertubes that I have given up on the public option.  The rumor is based on a post I made yesterday.

It isn't true.  I have not given up on the public option.  Let me set the record straight:

  • I still support the public option.  In fact, my ideal is either the original Jacob Hacker public option, or a national single-payer system.  Really, either way.

  • I am still organizing for the public option.  Among the many campaigns Open Left has engaging in on behalf of the public option, the most recent was getting several thousand people to sign up for SEIU's Adopt-a-State campaign designed to put pressure on Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson.  In conjunction with SEIU, we started that campaign only two weeks ago.  Sign up, if you haven't already.

  • I support the Senate health care bill, but that has a triggerless public option, at least for a few more days.

  • I am not organizing, or advocating, for the bill to be defeated if it lacks a triggerless public option.  In fact, the last time I can remember doing that was nearly three months ago.  Even then, I still framed the Block largely as a negotiating tactic.

  • In case anyone somehow missed it, the Progressive Block, which had been threatening to defeat a bill without a public option tied to Medicare rates, folded on October 30th, at the latest.  That was the day when the Block's organizer, Representative Raul Grijalva, indicated that he would no longer work to defeat the bill if it lacked such a public option.  Only eight days later, all but two of the original sixty members of the Progressive Block voted for a bill without a public option tied to Medicare rates.

    That Block / bloc folded on its own, not because of me.  I still the Block did a helluva lotta good in this fight though, and I'm not going to blast its members or organizers for their efforts.

  • Never once did I attack any member of Congress for not joining the Progressive Block.  I just never did that.

  • If the Progressive Block is still operational, great.  I am in favor of pushing it right up until the conference committee reports a bill, and then determining our options from that point.  However, the only Blocks / blocs I see at this point are Representative Diana DeGette's Pro-Choice Block and Representative Bart Stupak's Coathanger Block.  Each of them have issued threats, with a list of names, to Speaker Pelosi that they will defeat the health care bill if their demands are not met.  There has not been a threat like that from the Public Option Progressive Block since, at the very latest, mid-September.

    If I am wrong, and the Progressive Block threat around the public option still exists, then please let me know.

The only thing I have changed on is an expanded definition of a "win" on the health care bill.  For a while, I argued that a victory was only about the public option and increasing Progressive influence.  Now, I have an expanded definition that also includes saving thousands of lives by making it easier for them to purchase health insurance.

I hope this clears everything up.

Update: FWIW--I am working on a piece that weighs the arguments for and against killing the bill in its current form, and also depending on the provisions that might be added or removed.  Any information you can provide on that front would be very useful.

Chris Bowers :: Um, I didn't give up on the public option

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Um, I didn't give up on the public option | 88 comments
The pragmatism of the centrists... (4.00 / 1)
No one imagined that you no longer support the public option.  "Giving up" on X usually means the opposite, in fact -- that you want X, but have either abandoned hope, or at least stopped working very hard at it.  A lot of this comes down to what you apparently accepted three months ago, but many only realized with your recent post: that you no longer advocate threatening to sink a PO-less bill.  That had heretofore been the hallmark of the hardnosed left (hardened by retrospective regret at having given up the single payer system from the start).  Without that, your position appears little different from that of Klein, Yglesias, or Drum: the PO would be nice, we'll advocate for it, maybe do some petitioning -- but no threats, no fire, no dudgeon.  And of course there's no way, with such a meek strategy, the PO will long survive.  So, this is effectively bidding farewell to it.

My only complaint, personally, is that the PO is being abandoned without any significant concessions -- although perhaps the lefty Senators are doing a better bargaining job than the lefty blogosphere.  Stupak et al sure showed you could gain a lot with a credible threat to sink the whole business.  Even without being able to make that threat credibly ourselves, there should be some pain we can inflict if the centrists don't give us something good in exchange for our precious PO.  If you can come up with a clever strategy for that, that might make up this rather uninspiring turn towards conventional pragmatism.

(Big fan and continuing supporter, btw!)


Once difference (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for your comments.

I will just say, I think one difference the bloggers you mention and me is that I am actually engaged in the activism to push for the public option.  I don't see that from them.

But other than that, I think you are right.

[ Parent ]
Activists (0.00 / 0)
Those bloggers aren't actively engaged in any activism as far as I know.  They are bloggers, not activist/bloggers like yourself.

That isn't a value judgment either way.  I'm just pointing out that the PO is not a special case.

[ Parent ]
I put in a lot of calls to Congress (4.00 / 1)
Emailed friends, etc. Does that count as activism or is this some kind of special word? What about Jane Hamsher who continues to fight for it? Is she not an activist?
[ Parent ]
Who even implied that Jane, or you, weren't activists? (4.00 / 3)
What's up with this comment? Did anyone even imply than either you or Jane weren't activists? No, they didn't.

The bloggers in question were Yglesias, Klein and Drum.

[ Parent ]
Yglesias and Drum, I can understand. They are centrists. (4.00 / 1)
And I don't know about Yglesias's position in 2003, but Drim supported the idiotic Iraq adventure! so much for his good judgment.

But Klein is a totally different case. He may not be a steadfast progressive, but he's one of the most knowledgeable bloggers on healthcare issue. I never understood why he was so lukewarm on single payer, and the public option. Ok, he's a pragmatist, but reagardless of what he thought about the chances to succeed, he should have known that it's of uppermost importance to get the po into the bill, because it's the only real systemic change that would make a difference. But instead, he always argued that simple improvements would be just as good. Lunatic.

He may not really be the #3 most influential print/online reporter, as Mediaite pretends, but his opinion sure has an impact. And his disappointing stance on the public option hurt the progressive efforts. Grrr...

[ Parent ]
Good point (4.00 / 1)
Though calling it just one difference is doing yourself a disservice, since "activism" covers a diverse and ever-innovating set of strategies beyond the basic blog post.  Indeed, it's precisely because of that activism that I bother writing in here: it seems like there are still significant details to be negotiated in the bill, and I don't want to see our last major bargaining chip -- the public option -- pragmatized away before every last concession can be wrung out of it.  I myself don't know what we non-Senators can do about that at this point, but I was hoping for a final push of activism before concluding, well, we lost the PO, but we won a pretty solid health bill, time to move on to the next major issue (say, Afghanistan).  
[ Parent ]
Telegraphing your bottom line for the lose (4.00 / 8)
Here's where you tell us what  your bottom line is:

"The only thing I have changed on is an expanded definition of a "win" on the health care bill. "

You are repeating Rahm's strategic error regarding "any bill" or Reid's regarding reconcilliation- you are telegraphing. In negotiation strategy, the above quoted statement by you about "expanded definitions" is the only one that I would listen to because it tells me your bottom line need not include the public option.  

I am only concerned with what must be in the deal or must not be in the deal. Not what you would like to be in the deal. In a perfect world, I would love a unicorn. It is what I am willing to live with that forms the bottom line.

If my bottom line is to exclude the public option- I just won. You may think your nuances are still in play, but I know they aren't as far as my interests in the game are concerned.

I do not know if you mean to telegraph your position like this, but the fact is, you are telegraphing to me what set of behavior that I can now engage in to get what I want based on the anticipated bottom line you have set forth.

I have the knowledge that you will not leave the negotiation table for this.  You won't threaten my money supply. You won't threaten my position in Congress. You won't attack me later as a part of the "left of the left" base that may not show up to vote for me. This is a powerful tool that I can now use against you. Everything else is window dressing.

By the way, what others do is irrelevant to what you should think. As Big Tent Democrat correctly points out at Talk Left about you:

"Pols capitulate. Activists fight. Pundits wank."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/...

By the way, what others do is irrelevant to what you should think. (4.00 / 1)
By the way, what others do is irrelevant to what you should think. As Big Tent Democrat correctly points out at Talk Left about you:

"Pols capitulate. Activists fight. Pundits wank."

And by that token, I don't give a flying fuck what a wanking pundit like BTD thinks about me.  I have literally done tens of thousands of times his activism on this issue.

[ Parent ]
Chris, BTD admits as much (4.00 / 5)
He called you an effective activist and he called himself the "peanut gallery"  (Howdy Doody reference...the peanut gallery were the kids in the audience just watching, laughing and applauding)

But if you tell them that you have an expanded definition of what constitutes a win, (though I think that what in the legislation would fit your expanded win definition is not clear) then they will  give you no more than your minimal definition and often even less.

You have been right in the past...if you're never willing to walk away from the table, then they know you'll take any scrap they will place in front of you.

Liberals have a fundamental difficulty here. They actually care terribly about good outcomes. They don't want to blow the world up.  They want to make it better.  Sometimes, to go back to what you've said before...you have the threaten to blow the world up.

I understand how you feel...but I think it's a lot better not to show your hand too early.  


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Isn't this the exact same logic (0.00 / 0)
Used by hawks to argue against the setting of timetables for the withdrawal of troops?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I do not follow your logic (4.00 / 1)
What reason does Chris have to telegraph a bottom line here?. There are multiple reasons why you need to telegraph a timetable in the situation you describe. Can you give me a valid reason why Chris should telegraph his position regarding the public option?
[ Parent ]
I don't think Chris Bowers needs to telegraph a bottom line (0.00 / 0)
But, then, I don't think Obama needs to specify a concrete timetable for withdrawal in Afghanistan.  It's in Obama's best interests to be a bit vague on the numbers.

One reason for obfuscation on both the public option and timetables is the lack of strength.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus couldn't stand firm on holding out for a robust public option while I believe Obama knows he won't be able to stick to a firm timetable for withdrawal.  If Obama had more support within the military establishment or if House progressives had not been a pack of wussies, then telegraphing exactly what you want is not a problem.  Chris Bowers expanding the conditions for a win seems more like trying to salvage something out of a loss and spin it as the progressive movement moving forward, albeit not as much as hoped.  Rather than complaining about Blue Dogs, I think he should be mad at the CPC and seeking to replace bad progressives with better progressives, beginning with identifying bad progressives in safe districts who are sub-par in constituent services and possibly ripe for a primary challenge.  What's the point in agitating for a "Progressive Block" if your main progressives are unwilling to block?

Both you and proponents of war are saying that setting explicit conditions makes it easy for opponents to choose a patient strategy of waiting for capitulation.  I see a mistake in misunderstanding enemy goals.  For the war hawks, they think in old terms of war as physically subjugating the enemy, so that a failure to do so is a defeat.  Modern warfare against a non-state actor does not allow for an easily determined winner based upon forcing your enemy to sign a treaty admitting defeat.

You seem to be thinking that this has all been about the public option when, in fact, passing a bill that does not include a public option is still odious to most opponents of health care reform.  They would still prefer the status quo to HCR without a public option.  (Personally, I would have preferred health care reform pursued along the lines of the plan that Howard Dean laid out when he ran for president in 2004.)

A robust public option is probably dead.  I think it died when Nancy Pelosi failed to extract support for Medicare-Plus-Five from Bart Stupak's group, something I think she could have gotten, in exchange for the up-and-down vote on his amendment.  So, declare a loss (for now) on that front and move on to the next battle.

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

[ Parent ]
Observations (4.00 / 4)
a) Chris is an example of a mindset.  That mindset could be applied to most of the progressives in DC and Democrats more generally. They lose because they do not know how to negotiate.

b)I have no idea how your post really answers why telegraphing one's position on the public option is the same as a timetable for a war. I have no idea how you view a basic tenet of negotiation (Don't telegraph your bottom line) as a matter of weakness when, separately, for a war you set up timetables

You set forth time tables in wars because you  a) want to place pressure on the locals to get their shit together b) want to give the public confidence that this is not a war that will last for ever and c) many other reasons I am not able to think of all top my head like I did with the first two reasons. The point is there are some concrete advantages that I can point out here for telegraphing a time table. And, at any rate, if you are prosecuting the war with any amount of objectives, you are definitely not telegraphing you are willing to ignore the objectives.

There is no comparable advantages to progressives telling opposing parties their position. Indeed, there are many obvious disadvantages.

That's what I am seeking from you- a sense of why you think telegraphing here is a strategic advantage.  

[ Parent ]
Here's the analogy (0.00 / 0)
For progressives, the idea of taking a stand on the public option was to pressure Democrats to get their shit together and give the public confidence that a robust plan would be passed so that they would agitate for it.  It turned out that non-progressive Democrats were able to resist that pressure and the public didn't go to war for the public option.  The progressive caucus stance ends up looking pathetic like Strom Thurmond's last-stand filibuster, when he knew he didn't have the votes, but was buying time for a populist uprising against civil rights that never happened.

Since it has become clearer that the progressive movement is much weaker than we had hoped, it becomes more correct to create a "fog of war" around progressive goals.  Let me make this clear, I don't think telegraphing was of strategic advantage.  I think it might have been advantageous if we didn't have a bunch of weenies in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  I believe Chris Bowers was fooled into thinking progressives had a much firmer footing.   I admit I was fooled.  I believed that the CPC's failing were due to previous caucus chairs being horribly inept at politics, but now I lean toward the idea that they are a lot of worthless idiots in that bunch.

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

[ Parent ]
Well we agree on their weakness and worthlessness (4.00 / 2)
But, I also think fear has an importance in politics. So, the base (of which I consider Chris a more famous member of the base) should not be telling them that failure is okay. Even if you think it, I would say never tell them that. Let them be afraid that it may not be okay. At least then, even if they are going to be foolish anyway, you are remain the ex-factor. By telling them that you are okay with their weakness, that just encourages them. I am not saying they will not be weak anyway. I am saying I see no value in encouraging them. I suppose the problem is that you all are still trying to be reasonable. Screw reason. More lizard brain. Anyway, back to research.
[ Parent ]
Important point to reiterate. (4.00 / 1)
We're citizens, not politicians.  We're not supposed to be reasonable and play insiderish games and all that.  We're not in any position to do that.  We're supposed to be demanding, and we're supposed to "throw the bumbs out" if they don't do what we tell them to do.  Because that's all we've got.

Granted, the system makes it more complicated than this, but that's the basic idea.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
re: public (4.00 / 1)
and give the public confidence that a robust plan would be passed so that they would agitate for it.

I think the D's will feel the agitation of the base in 2010

[ Parent ]
Negotiating tactics (4.00 / 4)
Did you ever see a union, for example, settle a strike for less than what it had been saying all along were its minimum demands?  It happens ALL THE TIME (at least all the times unions strike anymore but that's a different story).  Back in the day it also happened all the time.  You don't walk out on strike with only a few pennies an hour on the line.  That may be what you end up with, and you might consider it a partial victory.

You CANNOT expose your TRUE bottom line until it's time to shake the last apples from the tree.  That time inevitably comes, however.  Until that time, you may not even be willing to admit to yourself what your true bottom line is.  And yes, it may change.  One may argue that it's still not that time in this fight, but in that is a judgment call.  And that's what this argument is about.  It's not about anything else.

We'd all prefer to win clear, smashing victories.  We'd all love to rout our opponents instead of "fighting another day."  But it may not be possible.

Stupak et. al. don't have to deliver anything to "win".  They've staked nothing on health care reform.  In a sense, he has no dog in the fight at all.  If you have a dog in the fight you have to view it differently.

I'm fine with declaring this "victory", assuming we win it, "modest at best".  I'd like to see Obama do the same.  I'm not holding my breath.  But judging it a total defeat over arbitrarily arrived-at criteria is a fool's exercise before the battle is over.  History will provide that judgment.

The bottom line is that progressives moved their bottom line from single-payer before the fight started.  That was either stupid negotiating tactics or a realistic assessment of where the forces were aligned.  But don't make the mistake of assuming a linear relationship between your initial bottom line and what you eventually settle for.  There's nothing that says that a union walking out for a 10% increase will come back with twice as much as they would if they had walked out for a 5% increase.  

I see very little that convinces me of the former.  I see much that convinces me of the latter.  As I said yesterday, if there was hay to be made challenging any of these truculent moron obstructionists from the Red States on their health care stance, someone would be making it.  There isn't.  That tells me something.

If Chris had uttered these positions six months ago you'd be right.  But it's not about how stubborn you can be.  It's about how far you can carry the fight.  

Will we be better off with no health care reform and the Republicans back in control of Congress in a year?  I don't think so.  Are you ready for more "let's unite to elect more Democrats to take back Congress?"  Good luck with that.

The Overton window doesn't glide.  You push and push and maybe budge it a few millimeters.  That's the way it goes.  We've budged the damned thing a few millimeters.  We're talking about what good health care reform is, we're not talking about electing more Democrats.  Progress of a sort.  

Starting a circular firing squad is the last thing we need.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Timing (4.00 / 3)
You have not presented me a reason why this needs to be stated at this moment in time. 6 months or 2 weeks- the effect is the same if the timing of the disclosure of the bottom line is not right.  By the way, now that progressives have decided they can not get the public option, do you know what the conservatives are now proposing? Eliminating state regulation of the industry.  
[ Parent ]
There will most likely be a vote on something (0.00 / 0)
in the next month and if now is not the right moment, that moment is coming awfully fast.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
the time for saying what you were willing to settle for is after the vote (4.00 / 7)
not before since you are still trying to place pressure on Congress. You are not Congress. You are the base. You don't need to be reasonable. Saying you are okay with less signals to them they can do even less. The "What more can I get" syndrome. They  will probably do less anyway. But you shouldn't encourage it. You have nothing to lose by saying you are not willing to bend on this since you don't have a vote in Congress. Let them feel like they are pissing you off a bit.  
[ Parent ]
Tell me how you haven't just admitted (0.00 / 0)
that YOUR word is not something to be taken seriously, that YOUR threats are easily disregarded.

They  will probably do less anyway. But you shouldn't encourage it. You have nothing to lose by saying you are not willing to bend on this since you don't have a vote in Congress. Let them feel like they are pissing you off a bit.

You've revealed your "negotiating" position is to never appear to give an inch.  Whoopdee-doo for you, since no one actually has to negotiate with either of us.  What I'm trying to say is that there is a time for such tactics and a time when you have to abandon them.  A successful negotiator understands the difference.  You don't.

What is the actual difference between what you're going to do next and what I'm going to do next?  I doubt it's very big.  You'll probably donate/work for to the same challengers of disgraceful corporate Democrats as I will.  They know they're pissing me off.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Yup, "no one actually has to negotiate with either of us." (4.00 / 2)
And afaics Bruh didn't say that. He says, the progressive base is providing the background for the progressive foreces in Congress to explain their negotiation position. If the base makes a determined stand, the progressive caucus has a much betrer argument for drawing a line: "We really can't go beyond this. We have already gone further than our constituency wanted, and we got lots of flak for that, so every additional step would be suicidal. NO! Period."
[ Parent ]
But by admitting that the progressive base (4.00 / 1)
is a bunch of blowhards whose threats are not to be taken seriously (see above) he (bruh) has devalued the amount of weight the Congresscritters need to put on it.

In every negotiation there comes a time when the glaciers melt.  You may argue that Chris has reached that point too early.  And I am not ashamed to admit that I reached that point too early, months ago, when it looked like the public option was dead (july/august) and if you look into the wayback machine, you'll see that I made some utterances like this one, that I regretted.  Big deal, who the f am I?  But I then shut my pie-hole and did what I could to support the people who, quite unexpectedly to me, were leading a credible fight.

But calling him a sellout for reaching a different evaluation of the moment than you have reached, when you have no evidence that he actually gained anything personally by his actions is unwarranted.  

Read my sig carefully and absorb its message!


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Ok. But where did Bruh attack Chris? (0.00 / 0)
I haven't read all his comments in this thread, but here he just made a point about negotiating, afaics. Where did he call Chris a sellout?  
[ Parent ]
he's engaged in hyperbole and a lack of understanding of what our role is (0.00 / 0)
Which is funny- on the one hand complaining that I am talking about going over the top by responding with criticisms that are false.
[ Parent ]
Ok, Stivo's really fighting a strawman, and not you. (0.00 / 0)
But he made some valid points about negotiating, and I like his personal story about how surprised he was when it turned out the po wasn't dead yet. Let's not forget that Stivo is a good guy, too! Be careful not start a flame war simply because there may have been some misunderstandings...
[ Parent ]
I don't really care about all this personal stuff (4.00 / 2)
my point was simply to say what I said. there is no emotion one way or the other between us. And, I do not think he is making a good point because ultimately I see this as some confusion about what a base is suppose to do. You know- you may not like the Birthers, etc, but you know what- the GOP is afraid of them despite the facts that the Birthers are nuts. I am not even saying become as nuts as the Birthers. I am saying be unreasonable. Stop acting like you are in Congress with colleagues. For god sake, stop telling everyone your every move in an open forum. IF you have doubts, keep them to yourself for post mortem. I am saying that you can not create any pressure if you are undercutting the few tools you have to create that pressure.

I will be blunt- I think part of the issue is that progressives like conservatives have these set of rules about how progressives are suppose to behave. Everyone expects it. It is time to change our behavior. Be unreasonable. Be angry and threaten. Threaten to torpedo people, etc.

Until and when we get tactical and strategic positioning we will be at a detriment to the otherside, and contra to the claims here it is not a maatter of what the other side wants that defines their ability to win. It is an example of their willingness to take risk. The reality is that they know they are taking no risk with us. We are a sure bet to step on because we are unwilling look unreasonable.

You can also sorts of personal thoughts that question outcomes or private conversations, but don't make it public. I don't get this. But then, I don't get why progressives don't understand branding or don't want to understand it.  Or consider as one person said branding to be unreal or vague, but that's another topic. I bring it up just to point out how many real world ways they tie their hands for no reason that I can see other than they assume tactics and strategies are wrong when in fact they are just tactic and strategies.  

[ Parent ]
Despite our other disagreements (0.00 / 0)
I really appreciate your sentiments here.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
I mean lets be honest- your role as a commenter on Open Left means about nothing (0.00 / 0)
to the Health Care debate. If you want to have an impact, organize.

the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?
[ Parent ]
Perhaps he didn't call him a sellout. (0.00 / 0)
But he did cite, approvingly, a post on Talk Left that basically called Chris a "wanker", and on that thread at Talk Left were others who did explicitly call him a sellout, a regular love-fest.

That's what I was responding to.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
Stupak has a strong interest in health care reform.  His record suggests that he wants something passed.  He just understood his leverage and was able to get something else that he also cares about added to the bill.

I could probably write a diary on how progressives should study and emulate Bart Stupak's tactics.

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

[ Parent ]
disagree (0.00 / 0)
Stupak may not oppose health care but he's willing to let it die over his obsession with abortion.  Whereas we are at most willing to let health care reform die because of our obsession with health care reform.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
I think Stupak supports health care reform but is willing to gamble when he knows he has a very good chance of success.  He's less risk-averse than the CPC, which is why he actually accomplished his goal.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Bingo! (0.00 / 0)
That's exactly it.  
[ Parent ]
He supports it but not like we support it. (0.00 / 0)
He supports something else more.  He has CLEARLY stated that if the cost of his anti-abortion crusade is no health care bill he's prepared to pay that cost.  He can not be pigeonholed into the "perfect is the enemy of the good" corner.  There is no half-loaf to tempt him.

The difficulty our side faces is greater.  To ask someone to vote against a watered-down version of the same thing he wants because it doesn't go far enough is inherently a harder sell, as any union guy who ever had to justify staying on strike for a 10% raise when the company has moved from no increase to 5% would understand.  

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Yaaaaaaayyy!! (4.00 / 1)

(Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.
[ Parent ]
if you have not seen it check out pee wee's christmas special (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Well this argument is rediculous seeing that... (0.00 / 0)
Chris and we on the activist Left arent AT the negotiating table. We have no legitimate grounds to say we won't accept the bill because we have no recourse to kill it. All Chris is saying is that the bill will be a net positive even without the PO and saving lives is good. Stop being so dramatic.

the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?
[ Parent ]
yes, chris isn't at the negotiating table (0.00 / 0)
but OL is influential on progressive voters, and progressive voters are influential on democratic politicians, and democratic politicians ARE at the negotiating table
[ Parent ]
also (0.00 / 0)
D.C. Reads Blogs

One of the sentiments I saw expressed during yesterday's meta discussions is that "no one in D.C. reads blogs anyway." This idea has been phrased both in a cynical / depressive manner ("no one who matters is reading us, so what does it all matter anyway?") and in somewhat nastier terms ("no one who matters reads Open Left, so Open Left doesn't matter.") Well, rest assured that Washington D.C. has, by a long way, the most political blog readers, per capita, of any city in the country.

Take Open Left as an example. Google Analytics reports that, since July 11th, 2007, the day we installed the service on our website, there have been 8,597,437 visits to Open Left, and 2,551,798 absolute unique visitors (and 16,788,540 page views, fwiw).  Among states, the District of Columbia (not the metro area, just the District itself) actually ranks 7th, with 317,460 visits, behind only, in order, California, New York (a surprisingly close second), Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Among cities, only New York City has more visits to Open Left, with 462,980 visits between Manhattan and Brooklyn combined. Manhattan and Brooklyn have, however, about 8 times the population of Washington, D.C.

If you take the typical 30% ratio between visits to Open Left and absolute unique visits to Open Left, then there have been about 105,000 unique visits to Open Left in Washington, D.C. over the past 19 months. If you further consider that only about 27% of the 700,000 jobs in Washington, D.C. are related to politics, that is roughly half of all D.C. political employees. Now, consider that Open Left consistently ranks about 15-20th in terms of audience size among progressive political blogs--and that the progressive blogs larger than us are often vastly larger--and you start to get a grasp of just how frequently political blogs are read in Washington, D.C.

Political blogging, especially progressive political blogging, is a major news medium in Washington, D.C.  On a per capita basis, progressive political blogs are more frequently read in D.C. than anywhere else--and by a long, long way.  People in D.C. are reading what you post here.  How much of an impact it has is entirely open to question, but it is getting read.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

[ Parent ]
One question (4.00 / 1)
So, how come you're no longer in favor of a public option?

:)

For the update (4.00 / 13)
Please consider the effect of depressed progressive morale should the final bill not include something that can be plausibly defended as a public option.  

Digby got me thinking about this today:


I continue to believe that it's because they just can't let the silly old liberals have their way on such a high profile issue. That particular "win" (such as it is) would indicate that liberals have the power to affect legislation and be serious players in the governance of our country. After all, on the substance, this public option really doesn't mean all that much. They tell us that themselves over and over again. So it's not about policy at all.

For some it's about ideology to be sure. They don't like liberalism and don't want anyone thinking that liberals have any kind of constituency for it.
But I would guess that there are just as many in the Democratic Party who believe that allowing liberals to "win" something that has become so symbolically attached to the left will upset this allegedly center-right country and the Democrats will lose political power because of it. (They are already petrified that having a centrist African American president is a bridge too far for the Real Americans.)The Village CW would certainly indicate that's the common cocktail party assumption.

Which is to say, if winning a (weak sause even) public option would be so symbolically imporant a victory, that the centre-right guardians of the discourse fear it, then conversely, losing that fight will be really disheartening for progressive activists.

I think the people who kept the PO from going kaput will have a hard time getting out of bed.  And they're going to be needed, to get a meaningful climate bill passed the senate, and to hold off the Bernanke-Conrad "Let them eat catfood" commission.

Anyway, that alone is a reason to contemplate making the PO a hill to die on.  Your earlier utilitarian ethical reasoning about the lives to be saved even by the Senate bill is very compelling, but a PO-less bill that saves lives but hands away all the momentum on the next big fights is something to consider.

They're also going to be needed in 2010. (4.00 / 1)
Let's remember, it's not the Village,or the rethuglicans who kill the po. It's the Dems, and they will have to pay for that in 2010. You can't demotivate a large part of your won party and still expect them to fight for your reelection. This bluedog won't hunt.  
[ Parent ]
Well, here's some information. (0.00 / 0)
If the bill as it's currently constituted in either the Senate or House versions is passed, it will have done more to directly improve my quality of life and practical freedom to do what I want in terms of work, and to some extent in terms of personal relationships, than any act of congress passed in my lifetime.

Mostly that's because of the regulations to end denial of coverage for preexisting conditions.

Having gotten this far, the conservatives are now trying to water (4.00 / 1)
down the rest of the bill. This is predictable from the strategy of assuming you can just blurt out that you are willing to give up on what you formerly claimed was crucial to your vote.  
[ Parent ]
it'll cost me lots of money, and holds zero benefit for me personally (4.00 / 2)
all because I'm guilty of making enough to afford to occasionally splurge and buy name brand groceries

thanks, guy I voted for because the other candidate was crazy about mandates!

[ Parent ]
Believe it or not (4.00 / 1)
there are only 1-2 million people in the county who are in the situation you describe. You are the poster children for this reform, and yet there are very few of you. The bad outcome TravisDisaster describes is at least 10 times more common.
[ Parent ]
pre-existing conditions (4.00 / 3)
can still be used to exclude people from coverage until 2014, as far as I understand. How do you like waiting four more years?

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
If a public option passes (4.00 / 3)
it won't even matter all that much.  It's been whittled down so much from the original idea that it's practically dead already, at least in my mind.  The promise of the PO was that it would be a significant game-changer in the insurance markets, but we're way past the point where that's gonna happen.  
do you think there's any chance we'll get a public option if... (4.00 / 3)
... we say 'hey, a public-option would be nice, but it's no big deal if we don't get it'
It's kind of tough (4.00 / 1)
For an "organization" like the netroots to do any behind-the-scenes strategizing.  Unless a few prominent bloggers collude by email, there really is no way for the community as a whole to get behind any kind of strategy that requires any secrets.

It really requires telegraphing your strategy so your supporters know what is going on and why.  Unless the netroots starts formally electing leaders to do this sort of thing, we're stuck with being transparent about goals and acceptable outcomes.

[ Parent ]
Maybe (4.00 / 2)
A few prominent bloggers should collude by email.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
solves some problems (4.00 / 3)
But not all.  Game this out:  FDL, OL, Kos, etc etc, all agree to fight tooth and nail for the PO, but agree that ultimately they will support a PO-less bill if it really comes down to that, or nothing.  They agree this can't be disclosed ahead of time for obvious reasons of bargaining power.

When that day arrives, and they all relent and advocate passage of the bill - how do you think the readers of these sites would feel?  It would be a massive cave-in and a huge disenchantment/betrayal.

It's not so easy.  I can see why people like Chris would rather opt to tell the readers where they're at, and accept the downsides of that.

[ Parent ]
I would like to think that an honest explanation afterwards will be enough (0.00 / 0)
many people have lamented that the single-payer giveaway hurt our negotiating position?

won't these people understand?  

[ Parent ]
You or I might (4.00 / 1)
But there is already a significant group of people inclined to believe that A-list bloggers have sold out, every time they do anything that they disagree with.  I don't know if these are just a vocal minority, or what, but you don't have to go far to find someone describing just about every prominent blogger as "progressive" in scorn-quotes for some perceived failure or other.

[ Parent ]
if dk, fdl, ol all together say the same won't the sellout accusation get very small? (4.00 / 2)
anyway, the netroots better get organized

seems we need some structure, maybe put something together at netroots nation?

if we ever make a single-payer push or somethink else (say ss) we'd need it

[ Parent ]
It's worth considering, IMO (0.00 / 0)
A formal netroots secretariat with some elected officers who could more plausibly represent the membership.  
[ Parent ]
Time to get real (4.00 / 3)
Touchy-feely is nice, but strategizing out in the open where the other side can read along with everyone else is insane.  It's like watching kids play make-believe.

It sounds like it's time for the netroots to start organizing themselves for real political impact.  There will always be whiners, you have to learn to ignore them, and expect some of them are shills for the DC establishment.

Time to grow up.

[ Parent ]
Yep. (4.00 / 3)
I think that's why we, as plain, ordinary citizens, have to stop being reasonable.  We're not politicians.  We're not in the halls of power.  We're not making the backroom deals.  We can't keep our cards close.  All we've got going for us is how loud, demanding, and uncompromising we can be.  The politicians have their job.  We have ours.  Let's actually start doing it.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.
[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
bingo! (0.00 / 0)
this is probably the single greatest strength that ordinary citizens have, that we can be uncompromising.
[ Parent ]
I'd suggest that the piece on (0.00 / 0)
arguments for and against killing the bill include the question of whether the bill can in fact be killed by the netroots, activists, etc.  

I'm skeptical.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

Realistically, probably not. (4.00 / 2)
And I say that as someone adamant that it be killed.

The Dem leadership is so scared of not having a bill, they'll do anything to keep it alive.  Anything.  The conservatives aren't weak like our side, so they're not going to give anything up, and they have no problems doing everything they can to kill the bill to get their way.  So it'll be our side that folds.  Again.  And the bill will go on.

That said, just because the congresspeople nominally on our side don't have the guts to kill it doesn't mean we should reflexively support it.

We are not politicians.  It's not our job to be reasonable.  Let the insiders play the game by insider rules.  We're outsiders.  We have to play the game by outsider rules.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
I wasn't suggesting otherwise (0.00 / 0)
That said, just because the congresspeople nominally on our side don't have the guts to kill it doesn't mean we should reflexively support it.

You are right. These are two separate issues. But the "kill the bill" talk, if it truly is just talk, may distract us from more productive ways of responding - like, for example, going after the worst Democrats from this fiasco (like Stupak or Landrieu.)

I also agree that outsiders should not try to play by insider rules, and that too often, we forget that and worry too much about being reasonable.  But I think talking into account what can and can't be done matters. We should always be thinking about how to move the ball forward, but it's still important to know if you are on your own 10, mid-field, or the red zone.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I think part of ousting any politician (0.00 / 0)
requires that we explain why, so that future politicians don't do something similar.

That's part of the reason I think it's important to advocate killing the bill, even now and even knowing that the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Politicians need to know that we are not happy with them.  They need to understand that the bill they are discussing and likely to pass does not meet even the minimum requirements we laid out at the beginning.  They need to understand that killing the bill rather than letting it continue on as some sort of undead zombie creature would have been better for them politically.  And they need to understand that, as the people we elected to represent us in these negotiations, they failed and are going to be fired for their failure.

In other words, we can't just be whiny brats.  We have to be whiny brats with fangs and claws and eager to use them.

Granted, we probably lack the widespread capability to fire all of our negotiators, but we still need to target at least a few and take them down hard as a message to the rest that they could be next if they don't shape up.  (Of course, this won't work against any who are either contemplating retirement or already planning retirement.  But we have to start somewhere.)

Hmm...  Even better.  Choose who to go after by lottery.  That is, if we decide we can only go after three, put all the names of those we want to get rid of in a hat, and pick three at random.  That way, it's not a matter of how much they piss of off, but rather that they did so at all.  Or we could put their name in every time they piss us off, so that it's more likely we go after those who anger us more often, but even those who only anger us once could still find themselves the target of our wrath.  None of them will ever know if they could be the next target until we pull their name, and so they will be more likely to try not to anger us rather than take the chance.  Standard human gambling psychology.  And the really cool thing is, being completely open about the method won't change how they react to it.

Of course, we first have to prove that we can actually take a few down to begin with before it becomes a useful tool.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
Only kill the bill vicariously (4.00 / 2)
through the right.

The left killing health care reform won't sit well with the low info voter.

there's a disasterous amendment proposed ... (4.00 / 6)
... to kill all state regulation of health insurance and let the insurance companies move to the most laissez-faire states so that they can "compete across state lines".

This would be a financial disaster for families like mine. My daughter has Asperger's and is doing well thanks to all the help she has received: occupational therapy, social groups and the like.  Since we live in Califonia there's a strong mental health parity law, so my insurance company is required to cover this care, at least partially (we pay 30%).  if the Snowe amendment becomes law, California's tough regulations will be killed and insurance companies will be free to set up shop in whichever state has the weakest regulations.

If the Snowe amendment is attached to the bill, the bill must be killed.  The status quo would be infinitely better.

that's the bad idea (4.00 / 3)
That is instantly my clue as to who is a bad faith operator.  If you want more competition, remove the anti-trust exemption, rather than gut all state regulation down to Mississipi's or whomevers is weakest.
[ Parent ]
and as mcjoan says (4.00 / 2)
the importance of it for the majority of Democrats in Congress not to cave to the ConservaDems and risk losing power on every future policy fight, weakening the progressive populist movement at a time when it's most critical for the American people. Not to mention Dems' prospects in 2010 and 2012.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

I think Chris has made this point too

Haven't posted in a while (4.00 / 1)
BUT Chris it is obvious that you have caved and are now working in Rahm's Army and your spin is just bad.  I assume you will be saying the Rahm Mantra of 'any bill is a good bill' and it is a win ... so lets all cheer and now get on our collective knees and begin to suck our insurance masters giant cocks.  
The only thing I have changed on is an expanded definition of a "win" (0.00 / 0)
The only thing I have changed on is an expanded definition of a "win" on the health care bill.  For a while, I argued that a victory was only about the public option and increasing Progressive influence.  Now, I have an expanded definition that also includes saving thousands of lives by making it easier for them to purchase health insurance.

So your expanded definition includes saving lives by making insurance more affordable with a public option?

Or will you also define it as a "win" if Americans are forced to buy health insurance without the choice of a public option?

And this isn't a direct reflection on you, but I am curious: Wtf happened to the bloggers on October 30th? When Raul Grijalva weakened on the CPC Block, I don't think a lot of us even heard of it. Why didn't the blogosphere light up like Vegas on New Years with condemnations and reminders that we could demand our donations to the CPC back?

"What happened to the bloggers on October 30th?" (4.00 / 1)
The opt-out happened.  The entire left was more or less split on the issue, so the necessary support to hold the prog bloc together crumbled.  Without that support, the prog bloc broke, and we ended up with Negotiated Rates instead of Medicare +5.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.
[ Parent ]
a good example (0.00 / 0)
of the state of progressive political power  
[ Parent ]
For the follow-up piece (4.00 / 2)
If there is no real alternative to the abusive, for-profit, private insurance companies, and very meager tax credits, I don't know how progressives can morally, politically, or intellectually allow an individual mandate to become law.

Chris, this is A) A fundamental question that needs to be confronted on whether to kill the bill and B) The predicate that has not been made publicly, openly, overtly for progressives to kill the bill, let alone have their threat to kill it taken seriously.

Also. Any thoughts on killing/not killing what comes out of the Senate as it relates to the once again emerging marginalization of the (people's) House? If they thread the needle to get 60 votes it's hard to see the House being able to exact any changes in conference, effectively leaving us with a unicameral legislature run by Conservadems.

Finally, is accepting a bad Senate bill that can get 60 votes better than forcing reconciliation by denying it 60 votes?

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

well, thanks for the giggles. (4.00 / 1)
i'm a little behind in my HCR debate reading.

Chris, let's hope you're right, and after months and months and millions of dollars raised and spent and broken hearts and friendships and all that, this bill "saves lives." In some seriousness, and as a person who manages the health insurance and care of two elderly people, let me suggest to you that if the authors of the final bill aren't careful, it may also end up that it kills some people. byzantine law and regulation can do that.  

To Kill or not to Kill. (0.00 / 0)
I answered this on Digby's blog, but to repeat I don't think Progressives have the votes to kill it. I think sold-out Republicans will swoop in and save their bill. (The health industry, running out of pockets to pick, desperately needs this bill much more than they're letting on.) Republicans may demand it be made marginally worse than it is now, but in truth it can't get much worse without provoking a pitchfork revolt when it's actually implemented. Progressives should vote their conscience. Democrats should get bipartisan cover. They DO NOT want to own this bill.
Now it all becomes clear! (0.00 / 0)
All makes sense: clearly, the WH plan all along was to make sure the bill was so dire that enough Progs would vote against to require the Interests to get enough GOP to break ranks to pass it.

And - hey presto! - bipartisanship!

Politics, doncha lovit?

[ Parent ]
In response to the request for suggestions: (0.00 / 0)
(1) State single payer! Obama already killed it in the House, but if we could get this back it would be worth passing the bill. This is my #1 remaining hope for reform. (2) Subsidies and affordability caps MUST be indexed to medical inflation. Because they are only indexed to CPI, they erode at a rate of 2-6% per year! (3) The Cadillac tax is a huge backdoor tax increase on the middle class which will hit everybody by the 2020s. Progressives should NOT be supporting this. At a minimum, it should be stipulated that ALL money from the Cadillac tax must go to subsidies, NOT to reducing the deficit. (4) I believe the bill is paradoxically going to turn out to be really bad for minorities, and Latinos in particular. This is due to inadaquate subsidies and a faulty employer mandate which encourages employers to cut hours, and also because there is built-in discrimination against immigrants. The full employer mandate must be restored. Instrusive citizenship questions should be minimized and legal immigrants should not be treated differently from citizens.
all good ideas (0.00 / 0)
but killing this bill won't increase the chances for any of those measures getting into a new bill next year. Sad, but true.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
Depends (0.00 / 0)
on who kills it, and how.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.
[ Parent ]
best argument against killing the bill (4.00 / 1)
I am leaning toward the position that this bill would not improve the status quo and therefore should be killed.

What makes me hesitate is that in the real world, this will not lead Obama to push for something more progressive/comprehensive next year. Instead, he will push for something much more modest, which also won't do anything to improve the status quo. Then Democrats will get crushed in 2010, and we'll have to wait another 10 years to try again.

When I see how corrupt Congress is on this and so many other issues, it's hard to avoid concluding that the U.S. is a failed state.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

The bill can't get much worse dude. (4.00 / 1)
It really can't, without risking a populist uprising. Someone above used the L-word. It's a progressive loss. If we can't get the public option or the state single payer amendment, progressives should vote against it and let the "centrists" figure out a bill they want to present to an angry public.
[ Parent ]
Except that the Public Isnt angry.... (0.00 / 0)
we seem to be loosing the PR war, the polling is quite depressing, I think centrists creating a modest bill thats less expensive might actually come out more popular.

the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?
[ Parent ]
What would a modest bill look like? (4.00 / 1)
If you have an individual mandate you have to have decent subsidies or the pitchforks will come for you. This is true no matter who creates the bill. Mike Enzi's 2007 reform proposal is fundamentally the same as the bill Chris Bowers would now consider to be a progressive victory. I shit you not.
[ Parent ]
Oh im not sure- something entirely ineffective.... (0.00 / 0)
I was just commenting on the politics of the debate at this point, and while im sure the polling will change after something is indeed passed- im just incredibly surprised how unpopular reform is at this point.

the funk can move and the funk can remove- dig?
[ Parent ]
Precisely (4.00 / 3)
If the bill is okay in the Bowers of the worlds book.. that's one thing.. but it's altogether different from supporting it by putting a progressive name on it.

Progressives should absolutely vote against this bill... and state clear reasons why (waving copies of two bills.. a robust PO and SP in the air while doing so). Using very simple bullet points. Let the Conservadems have this mess while coddling Republicans.

What little if any gain garnered should be sold and defended by those who wrote it.

The vast majority of people will not be happy about this formany  years to come, if ever.. we stand to gain much more by separating ourselves from this bill in every possible way.

[ Parent ]
Um, I didn't give up on the public option | 88 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox