The Trust Thing
Chris Bowers writes:
I don’t trust the Obama administration, either. I never really have trusted them, and this has been a major cause of friction I have had with many bloggers and commenters since the end of the election. Given that we are still early on in the Obama administration, the difference between progressive bloggers who are largely critical, and those who are largely supportive, of the Obama administration primarily comes down to this issue of trust. [...]
If you are a progressive and trust President Obama, then when things like cramdown and card check get defeated, or when the stimulus and climate change bill are weakened, it was because that was the best anyone could be done in our current political environment. However, if you are me, then it seems like these defeats could have been avoided, or at least lessened, if the administration had offered more than token, verbal support. The administration’s unwillingness to take on powerful, status-quo institutions comes off as satisfaction with those powerful, status-quo institutions.
I think this is a total misunderstanding of why people sometimes disagree with Chris Bowers and reveals a staggering lack of common sense about the operation of American political institutions. For a bill to pass the House of Representatives, it needs a majority. According to DW-NOMINATE score, the median member of the House of Representatives is currently Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota. The median member of the United States Senate is Kay Hagan of North Carolina. The pivotal sixtieth Senator required to break a filibuster is Ben Nelson of Nebraska. All you need to believe in order to believe that Barack Obama is generally signing the most progressive bills that it’s possible to pass is that the Obama administration is more left-wing than Representative Herseth and Senator Nelson. I don’t think that requires a huge leap of faith or a naive level of trust. The vast majority of Democrats are more progressive than Herseth and Nelson and Hagan; that’s how Herseth and Nelson and Hagan got to occupy those pivot point roles.
Or, to look at it another way, Obama’s median constituent (the median American) is substantially more progressive than Hagan’s median constituent or Herseth’s or Nelson’s.
Bowers likes to make the point that the administration does more to lean on progressives than it does to lean on moderates. This, however, ignores the basic reality that the administration has more leverage over progressives than it does over moderates. It also ignores the basic reality that progressives are actually the good guys. If you decide to adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference toward the gargantuan looming catastrophe of climate change, this gives you a lot of bargaining power in a legislative negotiation. But progressives can’t adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference merely in order to strengthen our bargaining position, because refusing to adopt such an attitude is part of what it means to be progressive.
But circling back, all anyone is asking you to trust is that the Obama administration is about as progressive as a generic Democrat, whereas the legislative pivot points are occupied by unusually conservative Democrats. No matter how jaundiced a view you want to take of the “generic Democrat” it still comes out that the unusually conservative Democrats are the real roadblock to progressive change.
117 Responses to “The Trust Thing”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 10th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“But circling back, all anyone is asking you to trust is that the Obama administration is about as progressive as a generic Democrat, whereas the legislative pivot points are occupied by unusually conservative Democrats. No matter how jaundiced a view you want to take of the “generic Democrat” it still comes out that the unusually conservative Democrats are the real roadblock to progressive change.”
This is true on many issues. However it’s not true on healthcare reform.
If something called “healthcare reform” isn’t passed in 2009, it’s going to be the “unusually conservative Democrats” who pay the price in November 2010.
Everyone in Washington except Matthew Yglesias seems to have figured this out.
And this means that the final language on healthcare won’t get determined by “unusually conservative Democrats”. It’s going to be determined by the WH.
It’s the “unusually conservative Democrats” whose political lives depend on getting a bill passed.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Most people on the left are far more concerned with being ideologically validated than with seeing the best possible results from a given political reality. It’s nauseating.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
The issue here is that the median Democrat can be convinced to do things that are more progressive than s/he would have done without being leaned on.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Even if one believes that “leaning on progressives” is necessary political theater, that doesn’t explain the relish evident in the way that Obama and Emanuel lard their statements and leaks with gratuitous hippie-punching and “left-of-the-left” bashing. In life, and eventually in politics, it generally is not a good idea to spend so much of your time and energy infuriating your strongest supporters.
Cranky
September 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I have to say I am a bit surprised at Mr. Yglesias here. His summary of Bowers’ essay as “naive” is very close to a Free Republic-style hit job. Just as a single example, the paragraph above the one MY quoted is this:
“If you are a progressive and trust President Obama, then appointing a huge number of pro-industry and pro-Blue Dog moderates to key administration positions (Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers being the most prominent cases) is actually a means of symbolically placating powerful institutions while still advancing progressive goals behind the scenes. However, if you don’t trust the administration, then this is simply continuing to make sure that the government remains primarily responsive to powerful, status quo institutions and individuals.”
That’s is an absolutely key question for progressives and liberals to be aware of and discuss (”have a discussion ‘around’” in MY’s preferred phrasing). Similarly for the rest of the essay.
I generally expect better from Yglesias; this post is really bad.
Cranky
September 10th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Chris Bowers (and most others at OL, FDL, Digby, etc) is very intelligent and has the best of intentions, but is not capable of separating his emotions from his thoughts. You need to be able to do this to succeed in politics. This is what separates activists from operatives.
The best of the best, an Axelrod, or a Mike Lux (the lone exception at OL), can play on both fields.
Why does Bowers “need” to “trust” Obama? Obama has no relationship to Bowers or me. He is an agent. Bowers and others really wish for a King of sorts.
The interaction between citizens and Obama (aside from those few who get really emotionally involved) is strictly about what we can get Obama to do. Obama’s priority MUST be self-preservation. It cannot be anything else. FDR exemplified this with his, “make me do it” line.
Bowers and other hard core activist-only’s can’t see this.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I’m really floored that I might be agreeing with Chris Bowers more than Yglesias on this …
Matt, I fear that in this post you’re advancing an argument that’s overgeneralized, so that it comes off sounding much more naive than it might. You make it sound as though the WH has no — or almost no — leverage on moderate legislators, so that all that matters is who’s sitting at the “pivot point.”
Surely you don’t really think that’s true. There are all kinds of informal pressure that can be applied. You yourself keep pointing out that procedural reforms could make a difference. The WH could — for instance — start talking (maybe, at first, behind the scenes) about supporting elective chairmanships.
I also think you underestimate the importance of energy on the left, which Chris Bowers and Jane Hamsher have been doing a lot to sustain. I understand your point about negotiation — it’s hard for sane people to pretend to be crazy, and maybe (as Ezra says) playing chicken isn’t a natural role for progressives. Okay, granted. It’s still true that Obama needs to have a bad cop sitting on his left — if nothing else, it affects the media narrative and makes him look more moderate.
Also, progressives need to feel that we have some leverage. I was over the age of twelve in the 90s, and I saw what happens when progressives feel disenfranchised. It’s bad news for the left. Even if it’s just for the sake of morale, we need to feel that the WH is listening. I actually think the way this has played out in healthcare has been very good. Progressives got organized, we did inside-outside organizing, and made our voices heard. That affected the tone of Obama’s speech last night. How much will it affect the final bill? I don’t know, I’m not clairvoyant. But I do believe that the coalition is holding together better than it would if we just trusted Obama.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
. The vast majority of Democrats are more progressive than Herseth and Nelson and Hagan; that’s how Herseth and Nelson and Hagan got to occupy those pivot point roles.
Have you checked this type of analysis against prior Presidents, particularly prior Democratic Presidents? I’d be curious to see how that matches up during Clinton’s time, and particularly during LBJ’s time.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Matt, you just said something no one disagrees with. Chris is saying not that Obama isn’t left of conservative center; he is saying je sees no efforts to drive the center even *slighlty* leftward. Argue against that, please.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
but is not capable of separating his emotions from his thoughts. You need to be able to do this to succeed in politics. This is what separates activists from operatives.
Oh sweet jeebus. OTOH, maybe he just needs to learn to “play the right way” or to gain the “eye of the tiger.”
September 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“I have to say I am a bit surprised at Mr. Yglesias here. His summary of Bowers’ essay as “naive” is very close to a Free Republic-style hit job … I generally expect better from Yglesias; this post is really bad.”
Why are you surprised? Yglesias likes running hit jobs on progressives when important issues are being decided.
It’s his raison d’être. It’s the Ygelsias Brand. It’s how he makes his living.
Matthew Yglesias: proudly liberal only when it doesn’t matter.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
On the other hand, I will say this: at the point where Chris Bowers and Jane Hamsher start doing things that split the coalition or damage morale — that’s where I would get off the bus.
I’m esp. interested to see what happens after a compromise is passed. I’m hoping that the FDL people will say “okay — we fought the good fight, and we won — not everything — but something worth winning.” At that point, they’ll need to walk back some of the rhetoric they’re now promulgating. You’re not supposed to take all of your own negotiating positions literally.
If instead they just go sulk, I will be very disappointed. That was the standard 90s m.o.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Obama, Emanuel, Summers etc. owe their careers to oligarchic types like Pritsker, Crown and Rubin. Each of those has, at some point, demonstrated a preference for elites over the majority.
As Upton Sinclair said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
The American people have been royally screwed over the last 30 years and a bunch of so-called democrats like Rubin, Emanuel, Summers, Clinton, Schumer and Baucus have played major roles in the debacle.
To trust those people is the height of naivete, and to promote trust is complicity in their crimes.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Obama and his fanboys are more interested in selling a marketing product than in getting liberal policy.
What trust means to me is are we on the same side? Do you really have the same goals as me?
The Democrats have agreed to making health care reform one of its signature issues. It dominated the campaign in 08. Obama fanboys specifically told liberals to be patient when Obama was enacting right-wing policy because he was holding his powder dry for this issue.
I don’t see how any rational person can think Obama is giving clear messages to liberals. He’s stringing them along and giving them the least respect; no only in the leaked ‘punch a DFH” bipartispan politics game Obama plays (and this framing is terrible for liberals) but also in the fact that Obama keeps telling hippies: “C’mon, I know I had to vote against your interests this time but just hang with me, I’ll give you a little support, there’s pie in the sky hippie if you just let me appease the right-wing a little bit more.”
Frankly, Bowers is absolutely correct. Obama is snowing us liberals. You really have to be a sucker to trust him anymore. All this talk about not understanding politics like the great Compromisor Obama, all this interference MY and his liberal apologists (cowards of their convictions), all of it amounts to subterfuge, to giving mixed signals, to a MARKETING campaign of Obama’s greatness.
No, this proud liberal dirty FUCKING Hippy is sick of being treated like a sucker by his putative allies. Obama and MY are trying to snow progressives to get them to shut up and sit down so the centrist and conservative Dems can run the country with the big boys, the Republicans and coprorate interests.
You’re a sucker if you HOPE to achieve liberal policy victory with this sad group of “fighters”.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
This post makes sense so long as you adopt a strict median-voter theorem model of how political institutions work, and further assume that politicians have a core set of beliefs and understandings and etc., or an understanding of their median constituent’s same basket of etc., or some combination, and votes in that manner at all times. But, as Matt is well aware, Senate “centrists” and Blue Dog “budget hawks” don’t work that way.
Take the Stimulus bill, for instance. Obama proposed a bill that was probably smaller than needed, with an over reliance on tax cuts. Now, this could have been done either because it was what Obama actually wanted, or because it was what he thought would appeal to Ben Nelson, Kay Hagan, and Stephanie Herseth. Either way, what then happened was, predictably, it got watered down by “centrists” and “budget hawks” in very damaging ways, because that’s how “centrists” and “budget hawks” become “centrists” and “budget hawks.” This sort of incoherence is something Matt has blogged about many times in the past.
Now, this sort of result is utterly predictable. In a negotiation, you never want to make the first demand – and, if you do, you want to lead off with a demand which is almost unreasonable. But Obama led off with a moderate request, which was further shrunk by the legislative process.
Bowers would contend that this means one of two things:
1) The Obama administration is actually quite stupid or naive, and thought that opening with what was either their preferred outcome or a likely compromise measure would produce their preferred result; or
2) The Obama administration understands what will happen in the legislative process, and opened with a weak proposal (already less than Bowers, and many progressives, would have liked) because they knew it would become yet weaker – the outcome they favored in the first place.
Bowers then says he believes 2, while Obama trusters believe 1. I agree with Matt that I don’t believe this is strictly true. However, Chris does have a point that in many situations, had Obama staken out a more strongly progressive starting posture, the inevitable watering-down by “centrists” and “budget hawks” would leave them with a bill closer to the preferred progressive position.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Bowers:
If you are a progressive and trust President Obama, then when things like cramdown and card check get defeated, or when the stimulus and climate change bill are weakened, it was because that was the best anyone could be done in our current political environment. However, if you are me, then it seems like these defeats could have been avoided, or at least lessened, if the administration had offered more than token, verbal support.
Bowers is free to speculate what might could have happened if we had done this or that, however…
Obama has a middle of the road, liberal record as a legislator in Illinois and the Senate. He has a record of getting things done.
The Bowers and Cranky types said the stimulus was too small to turn around the economy and that failing to nationalize the banks would result in disaster. You should be accurate in your analysis of this kind of stuff if you want to advance your cause, but they treat us as if we’re stupid and have no memories.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
All you need to believe in order to believe that Barack Obama is generally signing the most progressive bills that it’s possible to pass is that the Obama administration is more left-wing than Representative Herseth and Senator Nelson.
That’s a dodgy argument for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it presumes that the DW-NOMINATE score represents some kind of “conservatometer” threshold that has to be passed in every instance in order to gain that vote. This is clearly not the case: Rep. Herseth Sandlin is going to vote like Anthony Weiner if the bill in question doles out federal largesse to South Dakota, or if it’s made clear that her vote on something that might not pass Blue Dog muster will be offset by such largesse.
Secondly, you’re buying into 60-votism bullshit. If Ben Nelson wants to vote against a bill, then he ought to be kicked up the rear hard enough to vote for cloture in order to do so.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Ted, I agree, but to a point. Hamsher and Bowers need to play the role they are playing…but they don’t seem to understand that this is what they are doing, playing a role, and that they have self-defined limits.
I maintain that they’d be even better at their jobs if they were able to separate from their emotions a bit. And they’d be a better model to their troops, their commenters (who are a much smaller slice of the coalition overall than they think of course.)
The constant insulting of Obama (or any one politician’s) motivations is just unproductive. It makes people self absorbed. “I have figured him/her out! YOU are stupid!”
Whenever you get people acting out in politics strictly out of emotion and resentment, and with no sense of how to get to a goal (i.e. you don’t get all your cookies, it’s about compromises, if you can’t persuade a majority, you lose, etc.)…you become like the teabaggers. Go on the threads of Atrios, OL, and FDL, and you will see a lot of venting that reminds me of teabaggery.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“If something called “healthcare reform” isn’t passed in 2009, it’s going to be the “unusually conservative Democrats” who pay the price in November 2010.”
I really don’t know what it is that makes people assume they care about that.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
FWIW, I just heard some winger on NPR use “the left of the left” and point out it was Obama’s phrase (so, the implication goes, it’s OK to use it).
September 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
To be fair no one has ever accused Chris Bowers of understanding how American politics works or of being insightful in his thoughts particularly as they pertain to his perceived critics and opponents.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I have to say I really don’t understand the MY post.
But I do agree with Bowers. I don’t “trust” the Obama administration, if that means providing blanket support for whatever they want to do. I don’t think Obama needs my “trust” either. What he needs, in my opinion, is for me and people like me — progressives — to be vocal about about what we think should be done.
The notion that we should rally behind our leader is a fine notion for a monarchy, but it seems to miss the point of what this country is all about.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“maybe (as Ezra says) playing chicken isn’t a natural role for progressives”
Of course, Ezra is basing his entire professional career on using his platform to defeat progressives, so I’m not sure he’s a particularly reliable source on that one.
Folks like David Brooks and Ezra Klein have lots of “suggestions” for progressives that never seem to align with progressive goals…
September 10th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
SF Hawkguy, You missed the point. Obama is showing liberals how they can communicate (because most don’t do it well). That is a very big thing. This is why he is President.
Obama is not snowing me. Obama has to play on a field with shitty rules – a joke of a Senate, where tiny states have equal representation, and the bogus filibuster, and its frightened members.
The fantasy of “Why can’t Obama just make Senators do what he wants” is an example. Nobody could do anything to make Nelson, Conrad, etc, do what we want. That’s the Senate for you.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“The administration’s unwillingness to take on powerful, status-quo institutions comes off as satisfaction with those powerful, status-quo institutions.”
Or satisfaction with the campaign $$$ the admin. gets from those powerful, status-quo institutions. This is what people like Nader have been screaming about for years, and during that time the differences between the 2 parties have narrowed as they whore for the same elites. We have the forms of a democracy, but not the substance.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@18: Buford, I agree with that. When I read Bowers & Hamsher, I hear a kind of Puritan zeal that scares me a little. They do seem to be taking their own negotiating positions literally.
But maybe they’re secret pragmatists?
That why I wrote what I wrote at #12. I’ll be very interested to hear the tone at FDL after this fight is over.
I’m a bit more confident about Kos.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
On the other hand, I will say this: at the point where Chris Bowers and Jane Hamsher start doing things that split the coalition or damage morale — that’s where I would get off the bus.
Yeah I think all summer the Petey types have been whipping gullible people into hysteria or making them depressed. It’s what they do.
I think the people who cut Obama some slack just aren’t the emo types. Obama isn’t emo either, even though he was pretty good last night.
It’s fucking sad no so-called progressives will give him credit for some of the progressive things he said last night. Clinton never said those kind of things.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Chris is saying not that Obama isn’t left of conservative center; he is saying je sees no efforts to drive the center even *slighlty* leftward. Argue against that, please.
Are you joking? Obama does this all the time. Like in the speech when he held up the public option as the moderate compromise between single payer and Wyden-Bennett. After weeks of the PO being cast as a demand imposed by the left. What would you call that?
September 10th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
MY,
Your thesis would only be reasonable if there were not clear evidence for distrust of Obama and Rahm on the issue of healthcare. The lack of transparency in the deals Obama negotiated with the health insurance industry and the drug industry to buy their silence highly suggests the minimum progressive position on healthcare was ceded back in May. Obama’s refusal to take on the health insurance industry full throttle undermines his demand for “choice”, and his moral argument. These are not ideological masturbation arguments–they are real issues to many Americans.
Should Obama sign a healthcare bill that does not offer a public option at the onset for all parties who want it–not just those that have no other choice (precluding the competition he seeks), I believe it will be the last straw for many progressives. It reminds me of Carter’s administration, when Kennedy peeled off enough support from Carter to cost him his second term. I fear a similar outcome: progressive Dem’s are going to refuse to support Obama in 2012 and instead support someone to his left. And should it produce the same result as in 1980–a Republican white house–we progressives will be blamed, when in fact the real culprits will be the conservative blue dogs, the corporate-owned centrists in Washington, and the Obama team for not staying true to his campaign commitments and taking them on.
The crazies on the right end of the spectrum stake the right edge far left of center. This does not mean they should get to shift the governing center that much further right. At least Democrats should not continually let them.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
All you need to believe in order to believe that Barack Obama is generally signing the most progressive bills that it’s possible to pass is that the Obama administration is more left-wing than Representative Herseth and Senator Nelson.
I think Ted has already discussed this point. But voting behavior is not a straight-up function of where people happen to stand on some objectivized opinion spectrum. People are coerced, cajoled, intimidated, hoodwinked, dazzled and bamboozled all the time into voting for bills they would prefer not to vote for, or might not have voted for in other circumstances, or in cooler or less confusing circumstances. In particular, members of parties frequently face many pressures not to vote against their president. Those pressures aren’t all-powerful, and can’t be exploited too much without being lost. But they are real.
Also, politics involves a lot of horse-trading, and if you have a skilled trader on your side, you might find out when the results are tallied at the end of the day that your guy is pretty slick, and has way more horses than the other guy. And most people aren’t mavericks, but like to run with crowds and run with cover. It shouldn’t be expected that the most right-leaning members of a Democratic caucus always want to hang out their by themselves in the friendless middle, and stick out like sore thumbs. Some do, but many will look constantly for excuses to join the fold.
This kind of post frustrates me a bit, because it shows an intellectual tendency that is far too common among professional Democrats in Washington, whose understanding of human beings is overly influenced by political science and political pseudo-science. Democrats excessively influenced by polling and opinion science are much too inclined to take reports of what positions and stances happen to sit presently in someone’s head as indelible facts of life, and tend to treat legislative plans as processes designed to craft those “just right” mixes of policy tidbits to win votes from those hypothetical fixed-opinion legislators and the voters they represent. Meanwhile, their more aggressive opponents are out doing all sorts of things to change opinions. Opinion that presently appears to run counter to one’s aims is a challenge to be overcome, not just a fact in which to acquiesce.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“The fantasy of “Why can’t Obama just make Senators do what he wants” is an example. Nobody could do anything to make Nelson, Conrad, etc, do what we want. That’s the Senate for you.”
The standard AHIP talking points, of course.
You definitely don’t need Ben Nelson to get to 50. You probably don’t need Kent Conrad to get to 50. (Conrad is on the other side of the line strictly by the DW-NOMINATE scores.) But folks like Yglesias keep moving the math to 60 or 65 or 70 Senators needed for passage.
We need 218 and 50 to make law on this one. And we’ve got 218 and 50 for a genuinely good healthcare bill.
The problem is that the AHIP brigade doesn’t want a genuinely good healthcare bill. They earn their living by working to defeat a genuinely good healthcare bill.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Matt is right that Bowers is wrong to frame this as an issue of trust or lack thereof.
On the other hand, I am sure Bowers would acknowledge the need for bills to get the support of the marginal members of Congress.
So this is what I think is really going on. Bowers thinks there are better ways to get the support of marginal members of Congress than the tactics Obama has been using. Personally, I think Bowers doesn’t spend enough time thinking critically about his alternative strategies, but in any event he probably sincerely if unreflectively believes they would work better.
Bowers then makes the leap and assumes that when people like Obama don’t use his alternative strategies, it is not because they have an honest disagreement on the best tactics, but rather because they don’t really want to do any better. Again, I think this is a byproduct of Bowers not taking the time to think critically about his alternative strategies, such that he really can’t conceive of anyone honestly disagreeing with him.
And this trust/not-trust thing is really just a symptom of this dynamic. Just as with the players themselves, Bowers can’t conceive of commentators looking at the strategic situation and drawing the reasoned conclusion that Obama’s tactics are in fact likely the right approach, and that Bowers’ preferred alternatives are likely not a good idea. Rather, he has to frame this as people who disagree with him naively trusting Obama, because in his mind any independent analysis would lead inexorably to everyone agreeing with him.
Oh well. There isn’t much point hoping that people like Bowers are going to wake up tomorrow and start thinking more critically about their own assumptions and strategies. And that is the root of the rest of this dynamic.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Gee Buford, why do you resort to the strawman that I, and other liberals, don’t understand how the Senate works or that the president .
You prove my point. Obmama fanboys are more interested in snowing liberals, obfuscating the facts, and telling us to sit down and accept a right-of-center bill (something Mitt Romney and John McCain could have come up with) because that’s all that’s possible.
Besides, neither one of us knows for sure what would have happened if Obama had truly fought for some form of socialized medicine.
However, Obama apparantly believes he has the power to influence the debate. His Chief of Staff has threatened liberal groups and promised to withhold party financing and support.
Clearly you think Obama has some power to influence the debate and the ultimate bill. Historically, the threat of a veto is the way a president does this.
Anyway, it’s tiresome to prove what would have happened. I believe it’s absolutely necessary to bring radical change to American politics (and seem to remember some pol running on a similar concept) if we are to have a viable future. We need a party willing to fight for average Americans and not Wall Street and Insurance companies: you really have to be a sucker to thing the DLC, Obama, and his fanboys will bring us anywhere close to that.
Obama and his centrist fanboys seem hellbent on destroying the middle and lower class of America and sure seem eager to bring on a corporate neofeudalism.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
It doesn’t take Congressional action to end DADT. So why is it still here? It doesn’t take Congressional action to fully invesigate war crimes so why has Holder been handcuffed? Sorry but MY’s whole point just isn’t true. Obama isn’t doing the progressive thing even when he has free reign.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
As far as Bowers/Hamsher/Digby et al go, I think the answer to what it is that motivates their position is pretty simple; tribalism. It really doesn’t have anything to do with policy (which is pretty clear the more of them you read), and obviously the politics don’t make any sense (seriously, how exactly does one play chicken with people who don’t care if they live or die?), so ultimately it just comes down to “progressives” beating the Blue Dogs, the other team.
And the betrayal accusations, assumptions of bad faith, and imaginiative properties are just pretty standard fodder for the “base” of both parties in the American political system. Wingnuts do it too.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“Buford, I agree with that. When I read Bowers & Hamsher, I hear a kind of Puritan zeal that scares me a little. They do seem to be taking their own negotiating positions literally.”
You’ve got no fucking idea of how bad this is going to get if the final bill doesn’t have a robust public option.
I find it difficult to believe that this WH is crazy enough that they’ll voluntarily walk down the path of spending 2010 by fighting “the left of the left” and reaping the whirlwind that November. I find it difficult to believe that this WH has forgotten that off-year elections are base motivation elections.
But history does show that sometimes White Houses do fall deeply out of touch with reality.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“It doesn’t take Congressional action to end DADT.”
Well, yes it does.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“As far as Bowers/Hamsher/Digby et al go, I think the answer to what it is that motivates their position is pretty simple; tribalism. It really doesn’t have anything to do with policy “
Of course. The public option doesn’t have anything to do with policy.
I know that cuz Ezra Klein and David Brooks told me that on the teevee, so it must be true.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
> The Bowers and Cranky types said the stimulus was too
> small to turn around the economy
I posted a fair amount on the stimulus being directed to the wrong stuff (for which I think there is a fair amount of evidence in hand today; MY has posted along the same lines), and also that that was a marginal concern. I don’t recall posting anything about it being so small as to fail; not to say I might not have said or implied that in some way but I would need some specific links to my having made direct forceful arguments to that effect.
> and that failing to nationalize the banks would
> result in disaster.
Yes, and I think that is correct. Our financial system is insolvent by any reality-based accounting analysis, and the tourniquets put in place so far have not changed that. Nor will Geither’s nibbling around the edges of regulatory reform accomplish much. There are a LOT of underwater mortgages out there still waiting their time to implode.
> You should be accurate in your analysis of this kind of
> stuff if you want to advance your cause, but they treat us
> as if we’re stupid and have no memories.
Likewise.
By the way, the “naive” Bowers is reporting that Obama is meeting this afternoon with the Blue Dogs + Lieberman. And only the Blue Dogs. The promised follow-up meeting with the Progressive Caucus apparently never made it on to Emanuel’s schedule.
Cranky
September 10th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Shorter Chris Bowers: I’ve never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I’ve never been able to forgive them for the death of my boy.
Substitute ‘Obama’ for ‘Klingons and ‘Howard Dean’s political style’ for ‘my boy’ and you can pretty much explain the antipathy towards Obama from the netroots.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Rahm Emanuel spent his time as head of the DCCC eliminating liberal democrats from primaries and replacing them with pro-war and/or DLC types. He even went so far as to recruit republican businessmen to switch parties iot run.
Larry Summers played a major role in allowing investment banks to boost their leverage, getting Gramm, Leach, Bliley passed and exempting derivatives from regulation.
These two both made millions from wall street, even though neither had any experience.
I would suspect anyone with that kind of background. But maybe I’m just a skeptic.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Bowers then makes the leap and assumes that when people like Obama don’t use his alternative strategies, it is not because they have an honest disagreement on the best tactics, but rather because they don’t really want to do any better. Again, I think this is a byproduct of Bowers not taking the time to think critically about his alternative strategies, such that he really can’t conceive of anyone honestly disagreeing with him.”
What’s interesting, however, is that the other thing Bowers (and Digby, Hamsher, etc) actually don’t enterain either (if you actually take them at their word and game out accordingly), is the notion that Blue Dogs and Senate Democrats like Nelson are actually bad people acting in bad faith. Which isn’t all that surprising, these sorts of triablist elements are often operating from a fairly deep well of cognitive dissonance, but the point remains that if you really do believe that Nelson, Landrieu, and the Blue Dogs are operating from a first order priority of doing the bidding of the insurance industry, then it logically follows that there simply isn’t anything Obama or anyone else can do to change their votes, save for chaning the marching orders they’re getting from industry. It’s deeply idealistic and cynical at the same time; in that it imagines that progressives are being blocked by fundamentally evil actors who are going to be overcome by the sheer force of will of one actor who will…convince the evil people to do something not evil, with the help of other actors who will threaten to be just as evil. It really doesn’t make any sense, but it really doesn’t have to I suppose.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
This is the same Petey that supported John Edwards so vociferously, right?
Jesus, he, Abbi and Al must all live in the same flophouse.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
@38
I’d take that a lot more seriously if the Bowers and Digby’s of the world even realized that they’ve already backed down about a month and a half ago.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I wish Obama was more progressive. I wish Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ had been more progressive. But that dissatisfaction doesn’t translate to:
1. The worst enemy of liberalism is the Obama administration.
2. The single most liberal outcome is a public option in the health insurance exchange for people not covered by an employer, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA.
3. The next best liberal outcome is 30 more years of Republican rule in congress and/or the presidency.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
As far as Bowers/Hamsher/Digby et al go, I think the answer to what it is that motivates their position is pretty simple; tribalism.
Well, that’s nice of you.
Perhaps it’s the belief that if you elect people to do something, that you shouldn’t have to campaign twice as hard to get them to do it.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The law REQUIRES that evidence of torture be investigated by the Justice dept. Obama opines that we should just look forward. Obama not only doesn’t press for progressive goals, he evades the law to protect Bushies (and perhaps some democrats).
September 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I think it is important for people to understand that it is the extremes that define the center. I must admit that I have not had time to read the work of Bowers or Hamsher, but really, the fact that they exist, and take the positions they take, is enough. During the nineties, there really were not any people on the left who took the type of extreme, inflexible positions, that would have anchored the Democratic Party and prevented the rightward drift that ultimately took place. The result was that democrats traded temporary electoral successes at the Presidential level for policies that would have helped their natural constituencies and defined them against the Republicans. Therefore, after eight years of what on the outside would have appeared to be a successful presidency, where a President left office with a seventy percent approval rating and an outwardly healthy economy, the Democrats ran a listless and passionless presidential campaign in 2000 that, although it barely won, ultimately folded during the ensuing electoral controversy. The Democrats continued folding right on through Bush’s first term, with disastrous results for the country where the damage was especially felt by those whose interests the Democrats were supposed to represent. We need unreasonable “left-of-the-left” people to make the positions that responsible “center-left” people take seem, well, responsible and centrist.
As for the “trust” issue- just from the text from Bower’s article supplied by MY and his response, I think that MY mis- characterizes his point. Its one thing to, during a negotiation, passionately argue for a position, then comprise when no other choice is presented, and another thing entirely to offer a lukewarm argument for the position, then offer a compromise. The first action offers further ground to build on in later negotiations, while the second pretty much cuts off the momentum of whatever position one is advancing. I think that Bower’s feels that Obama is taking the second approach, rather than the first, and that it is harming future progressive goals. Certainly, handing epithets like “left-of-the-left” to the right wing in order to smear progressives does not help. Ultimately, though, whether or not Bower’s charge is true, however, I am not ready to render a judgment upon.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I would be willing to believe Matt if it were not for the two years between 2006 and 2008, when Matt used the “But the Presidency is too damn powerful.” excuse for two solid years of Democratic foot-dragging.
At some point, it becomes obvious that Matt is just playing Calvinball. No matter what the merits of any individual argument he makes, he’s not making them because of the merits. He’s making these arguments in the service of Washington DC conventional wisdom. so if he needs to Pretend that congressional Democrats are powerless to do anything progressive in the face of big bad GWB, then he does. He doesn’t even hesitate to turn around and say that the Powerless Obama President can do nothing in the face of Big bad congress.
At some point, for both these facts to be true one of the following must also be true.
1.) Obama is simply worse at being President than Bush was. That’s why Bush got what he wanted and Obama doesn’t.
2.) The Democrats lack the political cohesion to be an effective political party. If this is true, it’s third party time and there’s no point in putting the moment off.
3.) Chris Bowers is right and Obama doesn’t actually agree with us. People like Matt pretend we all agree on goals but disagree on how to get there. Increasingly, it looks like we just don’t agree on anything.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
[H]ad Obama staken out a more strongly progressive starting posture, the inevitable watering-down by “centrists” and “budget hawks” would leave them with a bill closer to the preferred progressive position.
Or no bill would have been passed at all, or it would have been passed in a very different and less progressive form after Obama and his congressional allies completely lost control of the process.
We’ve been through this a million times, but I find it very frustrating that proponents of this simplistic negotiation model are simply unwilling to acknowledge the risks of their proposed strategy. I honestly think this is a product of Obama making what he does look so effortless, such that these people take it as a given that a stimulus bill with hundreds of billions of dollars of new government spending will be passed, or that a universal health care bill costing almost $1 trillion will be passed, or so on, and that the only issue is negotiating over the final form these bills will take.
But getting these efforts to the point that their passage is assumed is no trivial task. And yet there is rarely any acknowledgement from the proponents of the simplistic negotiation model that taking a much harder line up front would potentially put those accomplishments at risk.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Yes Carlos, because sleeping with a younger woman is WAY more morally bankrupt than refusing to prosecute people who tortured and raped children. Edwards is clearly the more immoral of the two between him and Obama.
Retards like you are why Republicans get away with Impeaching people over blow Jobs and totally ignoring the comittal of several war crimes. Because Sex is sooooo much worse than violence.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
DTM, and it’s very furstrating that morons like you refuse to acknowledge that maybe you’re not smarter than everyone else, and maybe other people have valid concerns.
But hey, you’re convinced you’re better than everyone else, that you see things the rest of us could never see, and that youk now what is in the minds of Obama. Well, the rest of us actually have brains, have heard the arguments you’re making, and just don’t buy them.
You can keep pretending that’s because the rest of us are just so damn stupid if you want to, but some of us know when we’re getting conned.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
One thing that it is really hard for hard-core progressives to understand is that their role is to move the discussion to the Left, and that in doing so, it is necessary for them to take positions that are almost always going to not be the final position. But it is very important to advocate strongly for those positions, because that is what moves the debate to the left. If Obama were accepting all the progressives’ positions, it would mean they weren’t radical enough.
Alternatively, some people prefer to work as insiders, or more directly and less antagonistically with the decisionmakers, and they get more of what they want. But they aren’t real progressives. One just has to chose the position most suited for ones temperament and accept the trade-offs. Mike Lux really understands this point, but not everyone on the Left does.
Observers are a different category, but they too follow the same pattern as activists.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“What’s interesting, however, is that the other thing Bowers (and Digby, Hamsher, etc) actually don’t enterain either (if you actually take them at their word and game out accordingly), is the notion that Blue Dogs and Senate Democrats like Nelson are actually bad people acting in bad faith. Which isn’t all that surprising, these sorts of triablist elements are often operating from a fairly deep well of cognitive dissonance, but the point remains that if you really do believe that Nelson, Landrieu, and the Blue Dogs are operating from a first order priority of doing the bidding of the insurance industry, then it logically follows that there simply isn’t anything Obama or anyone else can do to change their votes”
Is this really so complicated?
On many issues, your calculus above is true. But it isn’t true on healthcare reform.
The Blue Dogs in the House are the members of the coalition most vulnerable to a failure of any healthcare bill to pass, since the ensuing GOP wave will result in them losing their seats in 2010. This fact means the WH has enormous leverage over them. And the WH doesn’t need enormous leverage to get to 218 in the House.
As far as the Senate goes, Nelson’s and Landrieu’s votes simply aren’t needed, if we pass the most difficult elements of the bill via reconciliation.
I understand there are lots of folks out there who simply don’t care about the language in the final healthcare bill. But that doesn’t change the fact that the WH has an enormous amount of leverage about the language in the final healthcare bill.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
@50: DTM is right that negotiation is not just a matter of splitting the difference between starting positions.
Progressives like to say that we should have started with single-payer. But I haven’t heard anyone seriously game out what that would have done to the media narrative.
There would have been some loss of credibility. And some players might have left the table.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“Obama is simply worse at being President than Bush was. That’s why Bush got what he wanted and Obama doesn’t.”
Who can forget how Bush successfully privatized Social Security following the 2004 elections? Or his achievement of immigration reform, a measure that had bipartisan support?
September 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“DTM, and it’s very furstrating that morons like you refuse to acknowledge that maybe you’re not smarter than everyone else, and maybe other people have valid concerns.
But hey, you’re convinced you’re better than everyone else, that you see things the rest of us could never see, and that youk now what is in the minds of Obama.”
I haven’t seen this much projection since my last trip to Cannes.
(Lame? I guess that’s lame. Would “Sundance” work better?)
September 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
This is the same Petey that supported John Edwards so vociferously, right?
Jesus, he, Abbi and Al must all live in the same flophouse.
He’d also argue Obama would be a crappy President b/c he was a wishy-washy editor of the Harvard Law Review and would quote extreme right-wingers to back it up.
Cranky:
By the way, the “naive” Bowers is reporting that Obama is meeting this afternoon with the Blue Dogs + Lieberman. And only the Blue Dogs. The promised follow-up meeting with the Progressive Caucus apparently never made it on to Emanuel’s schedule.
I don’t think Bowers is naive. He has a grasp of the issues and is obviously passionate and could have been right about the stimulus being too small or the bank nationalization being needed or else, but he wasn’t. And his type won’t admit to being wrong.
As to the meetings, so what, they’re meetings. What matters is what is in the final bill.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
It’s deeply idealistic and cynical at the same time; in that it imagines that progressives are being blocked by fundamentally evil actors who are going to be overcome by the sheer force of will of one actor . . . .
Indeed. There just isn’t a lot of critical thinking going on there.
I would be willing to believe Matt if it were not for the two years between 2006 and 2008, when Matt used the “But the Presidency is too damn powerful.” excuse for two solid years of Democratic foot-dragging.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. Our system of government is stacked in favor of the status quo. The President without working majorities in both houses of Congress can’t get much done, but he usually can protect the status quo. So if Obama’s goal was just blocking the GOP agenda, he’d be having no problem. However, he actually wants to get stuff done, and that is much harder.
That’s why Bush got what he wanted and Obama doesn’t.
Once again, Bush was a miserable failure when it came to his domestic agenda. He almost excusively got stuff done when he started with a lot of bipartisan support, and he had many high profile failures on key initiatives. Obama is going to get much, much more done than Bush when it comes to domestic legislation, all with little or no cross-party support.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
The “Trusters’ have the evidence before them. They choose to ignore it.
-FISA
-indefinite detention
-no torture probe
-bank sellouts
-no regulatory action
-appointments of scumbags
-no bully pulpit for progressive laws
-”compromise” with rightwing zealots
September 10th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Spoken like a true “Inside the Beltway” tool, Matt. I didn’t think it was possible to be in DC too long (which you are; not long ago, you bragged that you’d gotten skilled enough to be able to write a right-wing policy blog) and still not understand how DC works.
There are three realities. First, political decisions are made in response to pressure from both sides. Second, pressure comes in two forms– rewards and punishment. Third, no elected official has equally strong opinions about every issue.
To use your example, Stephanie Sandlin’s positions (she got married and you might want to use her proper name if you’re going to lecture on governance) break down as follows:
1. Stuff she cares about very deeply or are critical to her voters (where she won’t budge one inch).
2. Things where she has a preference (or her voters do), but her position isn’t fixed (would require real persuasion).
3. Issues she has an opinion about but don’t really affect anyone (where it’s negotiable).
4. Matters she and her constituents couldn’t care less about (where it ought to be easy).
To imagine, as you do, that she’s not movable on anything– that her position on mortgage cramdown is as fixed as her stand on, say, credit cards (she and Citibank are from South Dakota) that’s naive.
Moving her requires work– coaxing, promising and obligations. And some administrations are more willing to do that sort of work for their interest groups more than others.
Bowers believes that this administration isn’t interested in doing that work for progressives. I think that’s a little oversimplified on his part. I suspect Obama doesn’t mind doing it but Rahm Emanuel can’t stand it and he keeps telling Obama that doing it will kill his presidency (and I’ve seem him work a lot longer than you have).
But if you look at what this administration promised and what it actually does, there’s good reason not to trust it. These guys didn’t say “We’re going to fight to keep all the unitary executive Bush policies and quote Rick Santorum in our briefs on gay rights” when they ran.
And I absolutely would not assume that these folks are going to pursue the policies that progressives favor unless they put the pressure on and keep it on. And that, Matt, is what “trust” in DC is.
In case the Iraq War has slipped your mind, let me remind you that you can be flat wrong on issues– and arrogantly so. Bowers gets emotional, but he often has a better grasp on realities than you do.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
A correction to my last. In my zeal to use the examples that you and Chris cited in my lecture, I forgot that Citi is actually one of the largest mortgage lenders in the country. Sandlin would, of course, be violently opposed to cramdowns, so substitute the EFCA, if you please.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
DTM, and it’s very furstrating that morons like you refuse to acknowledge that maybe you’re not smarter than everyone else, and maybe other people have valid concerns.
I don’t claim to be smarter than anyone else (and the irony of you calling me a “moron” while making such an accusation didn’t escape me). But if you have substantive, factual, logical arguments to make on these issues, you should be able to make them. And if you instead just get angry and incoherent and start questioning everyone’s motives whenever someone dares to challenge your assumptions, well, yes, I tend to think that means you haven’t really thought these things through.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
All you need to believe in order to believe that Barack Obama is generally signing the most progressive bills that it’s possible to pass is that the Obama administration is more left-wing than Representative Herseth and Senator Nelson.
I think you’ve botched the analysis here.
According to the median voter assumptions you’re working from, “the most progressive bill it’s possible to pass” (”TMPBIPTP”) is the most progressive bill that could possibly win Herseth’s and Nelson’s votes, and which wins their votes and every single vote to their left, and not a single vote more.
The extent to which Obama signing TMPBIPTPs is the extent to which the bills he signs match these characteristics.
Obama’s value as an advocate for progressive legislation, in this view, is the extent to which he works to bring about the passage of such legislation.
That Obama’s theoretical DW-NOMINATE score is on the progressive side of Nelson and Herseth is an assumption required by the analysis (otherwise Obama would be the pivot) rather than its conclusion.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“I would be willing to believe Matt if it were not for the two years between 2006 and 2008, when Matt used the “But the Presidency is too damn powerful.” excuse for two solid years of Democratic foot-dragging.
At some point, it becomes obvious that Matt is just playing Calvinball. No matter what the merits of any individual argument he makes, he’s not making them because of the merits. He’s making these arguments in the service of Washington DC conventional wisdom. so if he needs to Pretend that congressional Democrats are powerless to do anything progressive in the face of big bad GWB, then he does. He doesn’t even hesitate to turn around and say that the Powerless Obama President can do nothing in the face of Big bad congress”
Or…..the ability of the President to veto bills passed by Congress is both a formal power afforded the office and a negating action. It’s clearly the case that, where this is concerned, the President has an awful lot of power over Congress, provided his party holds at least enough seats to block any attempt to override his veto. It simply doesn’t follow, however, that the fact of a formal negating power also means the President has similar influence with regards to inforal affirming actions.
But that’s not all that insiduous, so it doesn’t really serve the Devil Theory that the wingnuts and FDL’ers sustain themselves with.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
As far as the Senate goes, Nelson’s and Landrieu’s votes simply aren’t needed, if we pass the most difficult elements of the bill via reconciliation.
But then you still need Kay Hagan’s (or whomever’s) vote to actually pass this part of the bill through reconciliation.
Which is not the same question as whether or not Kay Hagan (or whomever) supports the public option, as much as Petey wants to pretend it is.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Ahh, the conclusion to my last comment isn’t making sense.
Let’s try this:
“That Obama’s theoretical DW-NOMINATE score is on the progressive side of Nelson and Herseth is an assumption required by this analysis (otherwise Obama would be the pivot) rather than an independent fact which allows us to bypass this analysis.”
September 10th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
> Once again, Bush was a miserable failure when it
> came to his domestic agenda.
I despise George Bush more than I can possibly express, but I think it is critical that we be honest with ourselves: Bush, Cheney, Norquist, Wolfowitz,and Roberts accomplished more of their agenda, both foreign and domestic, than any Presidential administration except (possibly) FDR and Hopkins. And possibly more than FDR; enshrining the Unitary Executive theory and unlimited Presidential power as the law and custom of the land will cause far more damage in the long run that Hopkins was able to cure between 1934 and today. And that is not even counting the transfer of over 1$ trillion in wealth directly to Bush’s class and Cheney’s confederates in such a way that the economic balance has been tilted permanently.
If you want to call that miserable failure go ahead and console yourself; I call it deeply evil success.
Cranky
September 10th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Ted:
Progressives like to say that we should have started with single-payer. But I haven’t heard anyone seriously game out what that would have done to the media narrative.
There would have been some loss of credibility. And some players might have left the table.
These things don’t matter. If your ideas and motives are pure, than you can just will things to play out as you want. This is what George Bush did and his record is awesome.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
> These things don’t matter. If your ideas and motives
> are pure, than you can just will things to play out
> as you want. This is what George Bush did and his
> record is awesome.
I am just baffled by comments like this one. Bush/Cheney implemented the Unitary Executive Theory, full stop, and today Barack Obama, a nominal Democrat who at one time said he is a liberal, is defending it to the death. The concept that the government, under the direction of the Unitary Executive, can ignore both the law and the Constitution and treat citizens however it wants has been enshrined as the law and custom of the land, and again a Democratic President is defending that concept full-force. Yet you imply that Bush’s record is a failure? Cheney, Wolfowitz, and John Roberts certainly got 90% of what they were after.
Cranky
September 10th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“1.) Obama is simply worse at being President than Bush was. That’s why Bush got what he wanted and Obama doesn’t.
2.) The Democrats lack the political cohesion to be an effective political party. If this is true, it’s third party time and there’s no point in putting the moment off.
3.) Chris Bowers is right and Obama doesn’t actually agree with us. People like Matt pretend we all agree on goals but disagree on how to get there. Increasingly, it looks like we just don’t agree on anything.”
And that’s a very concise summary of precisely why soullite and friends have a low level of political judgement. Bush often DIDN’T get what he wanted, especially when it came to getting what he wanted if he needed a bill to be passed through Congress. His entire second term was pretty much a completed failure in terms of any of his major domestic policy agendas going anywhere (if he needed to get a bill through Congress to get that agenda point accomplished).
As for point 2, sure, the Democratic party isn’t a very effective political party. But, they’re magnitudes more effective than any other option. If soullite had built an effective alternative option, we’d be talking about how soullite was the greatest political genius in American history. If your best alternative is the Greens, or even worse, something that doesn’t even exist yet ……..well, you’re not talking about anything serious, are you?
September 10th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“But then you still need Kay Hagan’s (or whomever’s) vote to actually pass this part of the bill through reconciliation.”
I have to say, I’m a little bemused by the casual assumption that there are 50 votes for the public option in the Senate.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I despise George Bush more than I can possibly express, but I think it is critical that we be honest with ourselves: Bush, Cheney, Norquist, Wolfowitz,and Roberts accomplished more of their agenda, both foreign and domestic, than any Presidential administration except (possibly) FDR and Hopkins.
The only way this is even plausible is by lumping together foreign and domestic policy, which is why I was quite clear about restricting my claim to domestic policy.
And on domestic policy exclusively–Bush was a miserable failure. As I noted, his big “achievements” were things with broad bipartisan support, like NCLB and the Medicare drug benefit. And his failures were numerous, including making his tax cuts permanent, Social Security reform, and immigration reform. There really is no lasting domestic legacy from his administration that was high on the Republican agenda.
[E]nshrining the Unitary Executive theory and unlimited Presidential power as the law and custom of the land will cause far more damage in the long run that Hopkins was able to cure between 1934 and today.
“Custom” remains to be seen, but almost every time Bush et all actually found their executive power theories put to the test in court, it ended up setting a new and powerful Supreme Court precedent against their views. That is why they remain deeply afraid of legal action–they know they will lose.
And that is not even counting the transfer of over 1$ trillion in wealth directly to Bush’s class and Cheney’s confederates in such a way that the economic balance has been tilted permanently.
I’ll grant you that could be considered a domestic policy victory of sorts, but I take great consolation from the fact that a lot of that wealth went up in smoke. Hence, I don’t actually think the tilt in question was permanent at all.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“But then you still need Kay Hagan’s (or whomever’s) vote to actually pass this part of the bill through reconciliation.”
Yup. You need 50 votes in the Senate. Not the 60 or 65 or 70 that Matthew generally pretends.
“Which is not the same question as whether or not Kay Hagan (or whomever) supports the public option, as much as Petey wants to pretend it is.”
The issue, as you are well aware, is not whether there are 50 votes in the Senate to support the public option as a separate vote. I suspect there are, but it’s not a lock.
The issue is whether there are 50 votes in the Senate to support a public option as part of a larger omnibus healthcare bill. Everyone who’s been counting agrees that is a lock.
—–
The WH doesn’t have an enormous amount of leverage over everything that needs to go through the Hill. But they do have an enormous amount of leverage over the language in the final healthcare bill.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I have to say, I’m a little bemused by the casual assumption that there are 50 votes for the public option in the Senate.
I think it is a good bet there are 50 Senators who would rather vote for a bill with a public option than kill health care reform entirely (not a sure thing, but a good bet).
Again, though, that doesn’t answer the question of whether there are 50 Senators willing to pass a public option through reconciliation. I honestly don’t know the answer to that question.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“I think it is a good bet there are 50 Senators who would rather vote for a bill with a public option than kill health care reform entirely (not a sure thing, but a good bet).”
Well, just looking at things briefly; from a starting point of 59 Senators, Lieberman, Carper, Landrieu, and Nelson can already probably be chalked up as “nos,” which brings you down to 55. But that 55 includes Bayh, Lincoln, Pryor, Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson, Hagan, Mark Warner, Bill Nelson, Baucus, Tester, and Feienstein. There’s a lot of different ways to wrangle 6 votes out of that group.
I’m not saying it’s not a “good bet” that there are 50 votes there for it, but a good bet is different than a casual assumption.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“But that doesn’t change the fact that the WH has an enormous amount of leverage about the language in the final healthcare bill.”
But therein precisely is the rub: “enormous amount of leverage” isn’t zero and isn’t infinite. It’s always unclear what precisely that level of leverage is, and that level of available leverage can change moment to moment. Asserting that someone is untrustworthy because they believe the level of leverage might be somewhat lower than you do is a rather large leap in judgement.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The issue is whether there are 50 votes in the Senate to support a public option as part of a larger omnibus healthcare bill. Everyone who’s been counting agrees that is a lock.
I honestly don’t understand this claim.
You’ve got three possibilities:
(A) 60 votes to bring a comprehensive bill including the public option to a vote and 50 votes for this comprehensive bill;
(B) 60 votes to bring the nonbudgetary part of a split bill to a vote, 50 votes for the nonbudgetary part of the split bill, and 50 votes to pass the rest of the bill including a public option through budget reconciliation; or
(C) 50 votes to change the Senate rules and then 50 votes for the bill however structured in light of the new rules.
In no scenario is it enough simply to have 50 votes for passing a comprehensive bill with a public option. You always have to have something more than that.
But if you have another scenario in mind, lay it on us.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I’m not saying it’s not a “good bet” that there are 50 votes there for it, but a good bet is different than a casual assumption.
I absolutely agree, and I have been clear in the past I am willing to consider the possibility my bet is wrong.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
wow, this is soooo many kinds of wrong all at once. these silly measurements do not reflect reality or account for what you’re describing, or even refute Bowers, who is making a perfectly valid point.
you maybe need to pack it in for the day, grumpiness makes for bad blogging…
September 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Put another way, Yglesias is arguing that the question of whether Obama should be trusted as a progressive advocate turns on whether the median voters in the legislative branch (Nelson/Herseth) or the median “voter” in the executive branch (Obama) that has a more progressive DW-NOMINATE score. In that analysis, whoever is further to the right determines how progressive “the most progressive bill it’s possible to pass” (TMPBIPTP) is.
If Nelson/Herseth are to the right of Obama, then we’re passing TMPBIPTBs, because it’s Nelson/Herseth’s position that determines where the TMPBIPTP line is. The only thing we need to know about Obama is that he is somewhere to their left.
Once we know Obama is to their left, we can remove him from the analysis, because we know that he has no impact of any kind on the content of TMPBIPTP.
Here, Obama — the President of the United States — only becomes relevant where he is to the right of Nelson/Herseth. (At that point, it becomes Obama’s position that determines what TMPBIPTP is; if Obama moved to his left, it would be possible to pass something more progressive, because it’s only his not being further left that prevents something more progressive from passing.)
Once you make this analysis, you can call people who don’t share your conclusions naive and ignorant of how politics works in the real world.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“I’m not saying it’s not a “good bet” that there are 50 votes there for it, but a good bet is different than a casual assumption.”
If you think there aren’t 50 votes on the climactic up-or-down vote in the Senate for a healthcare bill that includes a public option, you either don’t know how to count, or your comments have “Wellpoint” listed as the author in the document properties.
It’s easier to imagine a bill without a public option not getting to 218 in the House than it is to imagine a bill with a public option not getting to 50 in the Senate.
“that 55 includes Bayh, Lincoln, Pryor, Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson, Hagan, Mark Warner, Bill Nelson, Baucus, Tester, and Feienstein. There’s a lot of different ways to wrangle 6 votes out of that group.”
I count 2 to 3 ‘no’ votes out of that group. That leaves the leadership with two free passes to hand out, (and an extra free pass if Massachusetts gets its act together.) Not to mention that I think that the leadership could get one of the votes you have marked as a definite ‘no’ if they needed it.
—–
I’m one of those crazies who actually thinks the language of the final healthcare bill matters, so I’m fine with passing the thing with 51 & 219. The smaller the majority voting in favor, the better the language will be.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“In no scenario is it enough simply to have 50 votes for passing a comprehensive bill with a public option. You always have to have something more than that.”
The scenario the real world is headed towards is reconciliation for the hard parts and non-reconciliation for the easy parts.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I am just baffled by comments like this one. Bush/Cheney implemented the Unitary Executive Theory, full stop, and today Barack Obama, a nominal Democrat who at one time said he is a liberal, is defending it to the death.
Is that the theory where it’s impolite to heckle the Executive when he’s giving a speech in the most sacred of sacred places?
September 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I’m a little bemused by the casual assumption that there are 50 votes for the public option in the Senate.
You can say that Kay Hagan (BCBSNC-NC) might be predisposed against it; Kay Hagan also has five years of her first term in the Senate left to run, which may mean that she’s clear of electoral challenges for the moment, but she’s also in prime position to inherit the benefits of a good bill that kicks in fully in 2013.
Furthermore, there are ways to make Kay Hagan’s legislative life somewhat less pleasant over the next five years.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
If you think there aren’t 50 votes on the climactic up-or-down vote in the Senate for a healthcare bill that includes a public option, you either don’t know how to count . . . .
Speculation on how this would play out isn’t the same thing as vote counting. Vote counting would require 50 Senators to have gone on the record with their intentions, and to my knowledge there is no such count available.
Which is not to say I actually think Petey’s speculation on how this would play out is wrong. But his inability to consider the mere possibility that his speculation is wrong, and his inclination to attack the motives of those who are not so incapable, is part of what makes Petey so special.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“But therein precisely is the rub: “enormous amount of leverage” isn’t zero and isn’t infinite. It’s always unclear what precisely that level of leverage is”
I don’t think the level is particularly unclear. The basic parameters of the WH’s range of motion on healthcare reform have been clear for months now.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The scenario the real world is headed towards is reconciliation for the hard parts and non-reconciliation for the easy parts.
Fine, that is my Scenario B. In that case, you need 60 votes to bring the “easy parts” to a vote, 50 votes for the “easy parts”, and 50 votes to use reconciliation to pass the “hard parts”.
But again, whether there are 50 votes to use reconciliation to pass the “hard parts” is not the same question as whether there are 50 votes for a combined bill that includes the “hard parts”. And that will remain true no matter how much you try to avoid the distinction.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“Vote counting would require 50 Senators to have gone on the record with their intentions”
I don’t think you understand what “vote counting” means, DTM.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I don’t think you understand what “vote counting” means, DTM.
Typical Petey–hostile, defensive, and substance-free.
Anyway, in fact I do understand vote counting, and I understand there is a category for the uncommitted, and I understand that what you are doing is speculating on how the uncommitted will break. Again, that isn’t vote counting, it is speculation, but you wouldn’t be Petey if you didn’t claim to know things you don’t actually know.
In fact come to think of it, you usually end up being wrong in these cases. So I might have to readjust my sense of the odds.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
The smaller the majority voting in favor, the better the language will be.
Petey stays on theme with the standard application of median voter theory.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“Anyway, in fact I do understand vote counting, and I understand there is a category for the uncommitted”
I honestly don’t think you do understand. Vote counting a parliamentary body has very little to do with publicly expressed intentions or lack thereof. Vote counting a parliamentary body is simply about counting how folks will actually vote on the day the vote is actually taken.
For example, take Byron Dorgan. I assume you’d put him as “uncommitted”. I have no idea how Byron Dorgan will vote because I have no idea if his vote will be necessary or not. But I do know that Dorgan will vote yes if he’s the 50th vote. There are a chunk of Senators sitting in that category, which is one of the things that gives the WH their leverage.
“Which is not to say I actually think Petey’s speculation on how this would play out is wrong. But his inability to consider the mere possibility that his speculation is wrong, and his inclination to attack the motives of those who are not so incapable, is part of what makes Petey so special.”
There are a lot of folks directly or indirectly on AHIP’s payroll who have spent the past few months trying to distort the picture that progressives have of the legislative state of play.
Yglesias, for example, has spent all summer just flat out lying through his teeth about the meaning of what was going on in the Senate Finance Committee.
There really are lots of folks in this debate who have motives that deserve nothing but attack.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
What a relief. I was afraid Petey was going to pull some evidence out of his ass. Instead, he’s relying on his magical mind-reading powers, which have always proven infallible.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“Vote counting a parliamentary body has very little to do with publicly expressed intentions or lack thereof.”
I’m sure the whip operations on both sides of the aisle would be terribly interested in that revelation.
Mike
September 10th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
What progressives need is some kind of LEVERAGE.
How about this? There must be some amendments or bills that Blue Dogs really want (Ag?) but that Progressives are indifferent to and usually support at least enough to pass. Why don’t they put some such bills on the line. Like, if you screw Climate Change legislation, we will screw your Ag bill!!
September 10th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Vote counting a parliamentary body has very little to do with publicly expressed intentions or lack thereof. Vote counting a parliamentary body is simply about counting how folks will actually vote on the day the vote is actually taken.
Ah, I see . . . you have no idea what you are talking about.
It is true the committments in question need not be “publicly expressed”. But there does in fact have to be a committment from the legislator in question to be counted as a yes or no.
But anyway, regardless of what you want to call it, we have confirmed you are indeed just getting to 50 by speculating. And again, you wouldn’t be Petey if you admitted your speculation could be wrong, and if you didn’t attack people for even raising the possibility of your speculation being wrong.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
The far left is, if anything amusing in their audacity. They forget completely that they abandoned Clinton in 1994, forcing him to the right, or that they turned on Gore in 2000, bringing Bush to power. They’ve been an albatross to the Democratic Party for decades – and yet they think they’re ‘where its at’ and that they’re owed Obama’s full attention. Any attempt to compromise and the left scream ‘we’re you’re biggest supporters.’
Hell with that.
Further, skepticism about all proposed climate change legislation thus far is prudent. If Democrats manage to pass ‘Cap & Trade’, it will do for them what invading Iraq did for Republicans and it won’t do a damn thing to reduce global temperatures. Sometimes your opponents serve your interests better than your allies by mitigating your tendencies towards extremes.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
What Ron & Woodrow L Goode IV said @ 60 & 61. Among others.
The list of Obama Adm betrayal of “left” or “progressive” campaign promises is too long to ignore. Goes way beyond health care reform.
Matt’s argument here and consistently boils down to: “The President can propose, but the Congress will dispose.” There’s truth in that, but very incomplete truth.
The Obama Administration has been very muscular in passing supplemental funding for the Iraq
September 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
A few years ago, when Dems didn’t have much power, there were a lot of blogospheric discussions about ‘losing well’ – losing in a way that at least made the point that you were fighting for something good, or against something bad, and got the bad guys on record on the wrong side of the issue, so you could hammer them at election time.
A lot of these discussions were at MyDD when Chris Bowers was still there, so I expect they have something to do with how he feels.
With something like cramdown, maybe Obama was going to lose regardless. But if he had made a visible effort to twist arms, and made his displeasure in the outcome equally visible afterwards, he would have sent the message to all those folks who are staring foreclosure in the face that Obama, and most Democrats, were on their side on this. It would have given them more of a reason to vote Democratic.
And it would have also given those of us in the progressive base a bit more reason to be ‘in the game’ as the midterms approach next fall. Hopefully, a strong health care reform bill will pass, and that’ll be all we need. But maybe it won’t pass, or maybe it won’t be that great. In either of those cases, fighting on stuff like cramdown could make the difference between a base that still wants to get out and ring doorbells, and a base that feels like staying home.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Because refusing to adopt such an attitude is part of what it means to be progressive.
No. It’s not. There is absolutely nothing within progressivism, or liberalism, about playing the sucker over and over because you’re willing to sacrifice what leverage you have.
Even if it were, it’d be something that liberals should jettison as a remnant of a simpler time, and a simpler mindset.
As for the “median member” stuff… it’s fundamentally irrelevant. What matters is not the position, what matters is who is most willing to bend. Republicans are not, which is why the discourse keeps moving to the right. “Progressives” are, which is why liberals ended up having to conjure up that b******t name to begin with.
No more. No more bending. No more playing nice. No more hoping that it’ll be different. No more expecting some magical faerie of reasonableness to change the public’s views of the parties, and the fact that the public thinks that the Dems are spineless because they won’t hold to their principles. NO MORE.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Ah, I see . . . you have no idea what you are talking about.
It is true the committments in question need not be “publicly expressed”. But there does in fact have to be a committment from the legislator in question to be counted as a yes or no.s
September 10th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
DTM got a piece of that transfer of wealth to the top 1% so he doesn’t consider tax cuts to be domestic policy but divine providence. I bet with the help of his pals at Goldman DTM’s gains did not go up in smoke.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
What Ron & Woodrow L Goode IV said @ 60 & 61. And low-tech cyclist @ 99. Among others.
The list of Obama Adm betrayals of “left” or “progressive” campaign promises is too long to ignore. Goes way beyond health care reform.
Matt’s argument here and previously boils down to: “The President can propose, but the Congress will dispose.” There’s truth in that, but very incomplete truth.
The Obama Administration was very muscular in passing supplemental funding for the Iraq War. They made their position crystal clear. They got House and Senate leadership firmly on their side. They dealt, threatened, twisted arms, and manipulated congressional procedure. They made progressive dems who previously pledged they would not vote additional funding without a firm withdrawal date eat their words. And their pride. Where’s the change we can believe in?
Same thing on bailout legislation. They got Congress to give Geithner a blank check without accountability, to bail out financial institutions that created the meltdown and individuals with huge stakes in the shitpile they created. So that when Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel charged with monitoring the bank bailout, was recently asked, “Where did the money go?” She had to reply, “I don’t know.” Where’s the accountability?
But when it comes to health care reform the President is powerless to get anything to the left of Ben Nelson? And we shouldn’t criticize Rahm for cutting deals with Pharma and Hospitals that will cost them millions and save them billions? And for enabling Baucus to tie up the whole process for months and then come out with a proposal written by a former health insurance exec? And for offering to make Sen Snowe co-President, just to have her laugh in Barry’s face? That just doesn’t make sense.
The issues that erode trust of the progressive left are too many to list. But you’re telling me we should swallow Obama’s continued support for DADT, DOMA, his expansion of the state secrets privilege, transforming a rock- solid, first-day pledge to close Gitmo into a plan for indefinite or preventive detention, failure to take EFCA anywhere, allowing solid nominees like Dawn Johnsen at OLC to swing in the wind, etc. etc.? Where’s the hope?
It’s beginning to look like Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. “Lookee, lookee, little baby. See the cat? See the cradle.” But there’s no damn cat and there’s no damn cradle.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
As for the “median member” stuff… it’s fundamentally irrelevant. What matters is not the position, what matters is who is most willing to bend. Republicans are not, which is why the discourse keeps moving to the right. “Progressives” are, which is why liberals ended up having to conjure up that b******t name to begin with.
No more. No more bending. No more playing nice. No more hoping that it’ll be different. No more expecting some magical faerie of reasonableness to change the public’s views of the parties, and the fact that the public thinks that the Dems are spineless because they won’t hold to their principles. NO MORE.
It depends on the context and what you’re talking about. It’s not a general rule.
You say “Republicans are not, which is why the discourse keeps moving to the right. ” I don’t know, the discourse last night was pretty much to the Left.
The Republicans are in the minority in the House and Senate and look to be in the wilderness for a long time. Bush accomplished nothing that was lasting. He didn’t privatize Social Security, he added to Medicare.
The best things Bush did for his backers was add Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court and dodge that flying shoe from the Iraqi journalist. That was some nice reflexes and he was very nonchalant about it.
Bush certainly didn’t change the discourse. The financial implosion he presided over probably has changed the discourse about economics though.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“And we shouldn’t criticize Rahm for cutting deals with Pharma and Hospitals that will cost them millions and save them billions?”
Uh, when those deals results in Pharma and Hospitals not doing everything they can to stop any reform at all from happening…you’re darn right you shouldn’t criticize them. I’m all for complaining and pressuring, but not when it’s utterly disconnected from reality.
Mike
September 10th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Mike,
Utterly disconnected from reality? Must be that floaty feeling I’ve had lately. Could just be too much coffee. Do you think I should go in for a consult? But enough about me. What planet do you spend most of your time on?
Pharma makes huge profits. Please don’t say they need those profits to conduct groundbreaking, lifesaving research. Many of the most effective and broadly used drugs were developed in countries that have “socialized” medicine. Not to mention that research is a cost, not a component of profit. The President says healthcare reform will not add “one dime” to the deficit. Every dollar of excessive profit and excessive executive compensation takes a dollar away from a patient in need of lifesaving treatment. How does bargaining away the ability to to save billions in costs in exchange for millions in voluntary giveaways make sense?
Unless you work for Pharma, their trade groups, one of our slimeball captive legislators, or Rahm.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
DTM got a piece of that transfer of wealth to the top 1% . . . .
My household has never been in the top 1%.
. . . so he doesn’t consider tax cuts to be domestic policy but divine providence.
I already agreed this is an area of domestic policy. But Bush failed to make his tax cuts permanent, and their effects from the relevant period are not necessarily going to end up permanent either.
I bet with the help of his pals at Goldman DTM’s gains did not go up in smoke.
I don’t know anyone at Goldman. And all we do with our savings is make steady investments in index funds and periodically rebalance.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
@28:
Because he has allowed the debate to be so misdirected by not using the bully pulpit until now, I’d call it very little, very late. He is a good performer, no question, and a good politician. He is also definitely a “liberal” in the Clintonian sense, that is, good on some cultural issues (yea!) and very, very tentative on other issues (DADT, health reform, investigate torture, taxes, blah blah), and **every bit as bad as Bush on some issues** — going into court and arguing Bush’s positions on secrecy and intelligence issues (For cites, read Good Ol’ Glenn G.)
I currently believe about him much the same way I felt about Bill C., that they both are progressives in their heads, but when they must actually fight for something, if it threatens their political bases at all, they are gunshy progressives. Cripes, DADT is Clinton’s baby in the first place.
I’ll take it up from some of the other posts. If the TMPBTCBP is the one with 51 votes, to achieve it you must push those 51 as far to the left as you possibly can without pushing them into no. Instead, I’ve seen him leave the six drifting in the wind for months now, absent substantial covering fire, absent obvious buyoffs (typically referred to as earmarks), until last night. Late, late, late.
If he gets a bill to go through, I do not believe that it will be the TMPBTCBP. If it has an impact, I’ll still be happier than I currently am, of course, but right now, I don’t believe that Obama is doing very well at this. Political capital is to be spent on important things; not hoarded forever.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I find it hilarious that DTM spent what looks to be 1/2 an hour arguing with someone he thinks is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong.
Really, pot to kettle. Two idiots who aren’t terribly bright but who are both absolutely convinced that they are the brightest people in the room are usually more entertaining than this.
Personally, I side with Petey. They both may be morons, but at least Petey actually believes in something. DTM only believes in sucking up to power and preserving the privileges of the upper class. To put it bluntly, DTM is a purely selfish creature. That means he’s not just a moron, he’s absolutely immoral.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
soullite,
I don’t believe I am smarter than you. I just don’t think you are even trying.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:42 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kathy Flake, Matt Yglesias RSS and Atlantic Wire. Kathy Flake said: The Trust Thing http://bit.ly/3TbaMG (Or, Chris Bowers is still an idiot) [...]
September 11th, 2009 at 7:18 am
DTM is smarter than soullite and an apologist for monied interests. The world would be a better place if he was only one or the other.
My household has never been in the top 1%.
No shit. If you were in the top 1% you wouldn’t be here. Instead you would have some flunky posting for you. Hence why I stated you were getting a “piece” of that transfer of wealth. No one thinks your a Wall Street titan, just an professional class flack with a vested interest in the status quo.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:44 am
No one thinks your a Wall Street titan, just an professional class flack with a vested interest in the status quo.
Professional class I will cop to.
By the way, among other things I support broader tax bases and higher tax rates for higher-income households, including in ways which would adversely affect my own household (at least in the short term–in the long term I think we all would benefit). I also support much more direct, strict, and coercive risk regulation of the financial industry (although again I actually think that is saving the industry from itself in the sense that competing on risk tolerance is a losing proposition in the long term). And so on.
Not that I think any of that will somehow convince people who claim I am an “apologist for monied interests” or “preserving the privileges of the upper class” to change their tune–these people aren’t really interested in what I actually believe. I just thought a little reminder was in order.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:44 am
“How does bargaining away the ability to to save billions in costs in exchange for millions in voluntary giveaways make sense?”
Because that bargain prevented Big Pharma from spending hundreds of millions of dollars to stop any sort of reform from occuring. That’s why I mean by diconnected from reality. Do you really think health care reform would be in better shape right now if, in addition to all the “death panel” insanity, there were hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads being run against it all over the country and Big Pharma was making a full scale lobbying effort against it in Congress?
Mike
September 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“How does bargaining away the ability to to save billions in costs in exchange for millions in voluntary giveaways make sense?”
Because that bargain prevented Big Pharma from spending hundreds of millions of dollars to stop any sort of reform from occuring.
“…any sort of reform…” is the operative term that separates your POV from mine.
With significant majorities in both houses of Congress and a very popular President, the Democrats appear poised to twist progressive arms to achieve “any sort of reform.”
Progressives will not settle for “any sort of reform” that uses mandates to compel people and businesses to buy health insurance from or pay health care costs to corporations that demand obscene corporate profit and executive compensation and absurd overhead costs. This opportunity won’t come again soon. Without a public option that provides a benchmark for coverage and cost, mandates will be nothing but a boon for insurance companies. Without bargaining power against providers costs will continue to soar, and exploding costs will be used not only against the reform provisions, but against the public programs which are currently doing a good job (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.). Republicans obviously don’t care what makes sense.
Baucus and Conrad are now busy trying to accomodate Joe Wilson’s concerns about coverage of illegal immigrants. That’s the kind of slavish devotion to “any kind of reform” and “bipartanship” that looks like it will send this whole effort right down the crapper.
But you will probably get your “any kind of reform.”
September 12th, 2009 at 6:48 am
[...] Yglesias: But progressives can’t adopt an attitude of sociopathic indifference merely in order to strengthen our bargaining position, because refusing to adopt such an attitude is part of what it means to be progressive. [...]
September 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
[...] is Matthew Yglesias on the problems facing Obama, which are of course about the way the US Senate [...]