Ryan Grim wrote this post before the final passage of the mini-Build Back Better Bill. But the point is still on target. The bill is good because it’s the best we can hope for in a Senate where Democrats have only 50 votes, and two of those votes are precarious. In a perfect world, the Democrats would have 62 votes in the Senate and could pass a perfect bill. But we don’t live in a perfect world. The Republicans are unanimously opposed to any legislation to address climate change or to curb the costs of health care. This, for now, is the best that can be done. Do not scoff at half-measures. They are way better than nothing, and the Republicans strongly prefer nothing. They want to go into the mid-terms with a battered Biden presidency that accomplished nothing. They are not thinking of the people they claim to represent. Biden needed this victory, but so do the American people. Think of it as a first step.

“Democrats have only 50 votes, and two of those votes are pre
cariousvaricateousFixed.
LikeLike
Haaaa!
LikeLike
Obama had 60 votes in the Senate and we got Republican “healthcare” that drove up premiums, co-pays and deductibles to the point that many people can barely afford insurance and when they have it they can’t afford to use it. He also didn’t bother to pass his promised Employee Free Choice Act, nor did he codify Roe (it wasn’t a “priority”). What makes you think Democrats will ever pass progressive legislation? Show me a Senate with 62 Democrats and I’ll show you 13 Joe Manchins.
Anyway, doing “something” is not always better than doing nothing. Peter Greene always used this example when talking about education rephorm (I may not tell the story exactly the same): A man collapses on the sidewalk clutching his chest. Another man comes running with a hacksaw. As bystanders gasp in horror, he begins sawing off the first man’s arm. “What are you doing?!” the bystanders demand. “Well, we have to do something!” he answers.
Sometimes doing “something” is doing exactly the wrong thing. Sawing off someone’s arm is worse than doing nothing. Privatizing education, focusing on test scores, punishing teachers, etc. are all worse than doing nothing about education. Similarly, giving away hundreds of millions of acres of land to oil and gas companies and green-lighting pipelines is worse than doing nothing for climate change. What minimal provisions that are in the bill that will help the environment are more than erased by the gifts to the the fossil fuel industry (and the 8 times larger military budget, the U.S. military being by far the largest polluter on the planet). There’s a reason that Exxon and other oil companies are exuberant about this bill.
LikeLike
It would nice if this poster EVER stopped repeating nonsense. To me, the fact that her main argument — “Obama had 60 votes in the Senate” is as much of a lie as when her friends demonize Bernie Sanders by saying “Bernie rabidly opposes gun control”. Using misleading statements like “Obama had 60 votes” and “Bernie opposes gun control” when you can’t support your demonization of your “enemies” with true evidence is right out of the Republican playbook.
The truth: When Obama took office in 2009, the Senate was 58-41 in favor of the Democrats. The Democrats did not have 60 seats until July 2009, after Al Franken was finally seated in Minnesota’s contested election and Republican Arlen Specter switched parties. And some might recall that Senator Ted Kennedy had a brain tumor and was failing and died in August 2009. Back to only 59 Democrats.
Massachusetts law stated that the seat must remain open until the next election. The Massachusetts Senate and House had to specifically convene to pass legislation to change that law so that the Governor could name a replacement, which they did.
At the end of September a temporary replacement was named for Kennedy — another Democrat which meant that when this constantly disingenuous poster says that “Obama had 60 votes” she means that for a couple months, until Republican Scott Walker won the January 2010 special election to replace Ted Kennedy, Obama had 60 votes.
That’s it. In Obama’s term he had approx. 3 months with 60 Senators.
Now Democrats in 2009 could have abolished the filibuster. But that was controversial because there were downsides as well. This poster would likely be first in line to scapegoat the Dems for ending the filibuster when the Republicans had free reign to pass their regressive legislation. Because it is never the Republicans’ fault when her demonization of Dems empowers the far right and allows them to pass the anti-progressive and anti-trans legislation that posters like this one say they are against.
Obama had 60 Senators (including one former Republican) for a ridiculously short time. This poster wants to foment anger at the Democrats by pushing the lie that Obama had 60 Senators for AT LEAST 2 years. Not a brief time from the end of 2009 to the beginning of 2010.
Truth. Try it sometimes.
LikeLike
^^Correction: Republican Scott Brown (not Walker) replaced Ted Kennedy in the special election. When I get things wrong, I correct them. Those who double down on things they get wrong and continue to insist they are true despite all evidence to the contrary mystify me.
What is sad is that we live in a world – as demonostrated by some folks here — where I could simply insist I am right because Scott Walker was the Senator from Massachusetts. If I keep shouting it loudly enough and have rich billionaires amplifying it, I would expect to see the NYT reporting that “this respected person (ha!) says Scott Walker replaced Ted Kennedy, but partisan democrats and progressives disagree”. I would never have to admit I was wrong. Some people seem to believe that it is more important to never admit they are wrong than to tell the truth. Most of them are Republicans.
LikeLike
I think Dienne’s point is that Obama could have pushed through universal health care, however he went into ‘negotiations’ and said (before even trying) that ‘Single payer health care is off the table’. Really? You announce that before you even start to bargain?
LikeLike
If Obama had 60 votes for only a few months, he could not get anything past a Republican filibuster.
LikeLike
And, NYC, you continue to make ‘ad hominem’ attacks that I (not a New Yorker) find distasteful. New Yorkers do have a certain negative image. They are considered particularly ‘nasty’ and ‘arrogant’ by much of the country (think of Trump). By starting your comment with, “It would nice if this poster EVER stopped repeating nonsense.”, you simply reinforce that image. Personal attacks and insults are considered rude in most of polite society.
LikeLike
And yes, Daedalus, President Obama was the one who scuttled single payer.
LikeLike
Having been there, fighting for a small piece of the pie, both for the Obama and Bill Clinton attempts at health care reform, I can categorically say Obama did not scuttle single payer. He sent signals he could live without it in the short term. But the fact is that the person who was least involved in the shaping of what became the Affordable Care Act, Obama and his administration sat on the sidelines and waited for a package to be delivered to him for which he could take credit.
LikeLike
…he was the person…
LikeLike
Daedalus,
I try to wrap my head around people like you who condone misleading comments by those who they view as kindred spirits. I find it fascinating to see you “translating” their misleading comments into something that is true, while you insult and attack people who you don’t like for pointing out what she actually did say is quite misleading. Obama had 60 Senators for an extremely short time and it was wrong to invoke that. If you can’t acknowledge that, that speaks for itself.
It just so happens I grew up in the midwest back in a time when being deceptive wasn’t something that was condoned and defended. I do understand that the widespread support for Trump’s pure nastiness and the condoning of the violence the Republicans foment may be what your “polite” friends and neighbors do while you denounce us “nasty” New Yorkers for speaking out when people lie and deceive. But back when I lived in the midwest, people appreciated the truth and my friends and family (with the exception of Trump supporters) who still live there are clearly not of your ilk since they would find your nastiness quite embarrassing, not something to pride yourself in. You do seem quite similar to the Trump supporters I grew up with. No doubt you admire their “politeness” as they rage against those who believe in democracy and honesty.
Trump, too, as well as many Republicans, whine that they are being “personally attacked” when people point out their dishonesty. It takes a lot of chutzpah to do that when you are the one throwing out nasty insults about “New Yorkers”. One only has to compare the polite and restrained way that “New Yorker” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responds to the nasty insults thrown by those “polite” non-New Yorkers in the Republican party to see how desperate you are to make such slurs.
Bernie Sanders is a New Yorker. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a New Yorker. Diane Ravitch is a New Yorker the way I am — neither of us grew up here but we have lived here a long time.
Bless your heart, you are quite the anti-New Yorker, aren’t you? Unlike you, I don’t insult folks because I have some inferiority complex about where they live. I call out misleading posts and sometimes those people are other New Yorkers and sometimes they are not and I don’t pay any attention. I am sorry you feel the way you do about New Yorkers, but as someone who grew up elsewhere, I can tell you that New Yorkers are just like your friends and neighbors. No better, no worse. Some of us appreciate honesty and if that bothers you, I suggest you take stock of your own values instead of obsessing over geography.
LikeLike
Furthermore, the reason there is no public option is because of Joe Lieberman, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, not Obama.
Obama was not “against” a public option. He was for getting some bill passed instead of doing what Daedalus wanted and promising to veto any bill that didn’t include the public option. Was that the right decision? If FDR and the Dems had refused to pass Social Security until it was perfect, there would be no Social Security. If LBJ had rejected the “imperfect” Medicare program of 1965, there would be no Medicare.
And if the Republican Party had not become the most right wing, regressive, neo-John Birchers and neo-fascists, Obamacare would already been improved, just like Medicare got better under Nixon.
LikeLike
GregB
Does sitting on the sidelines instead of leading say a whole lot about where Obama was on a wide variety of policy. And he certainly did not sit on the sidelines on the issue of Trade. In fact he promised to pass TPP with the Republicans in the lame duck ,one way or another ..Making a movie that justifies that policy by showing how terrible returning manufacturing jobs are dismisses that he said Jack Sh–about the Employee Free Choice Act that could have changed that as well. Handing the Mid West over to Trump by a mere 70k votes. Losing not those who voted for Trump but those that stayed home.
Arnie Duncan says all you have to know about his Education policy. Wait I forgot National Charter Teacher Appreciation Day or was it a week . Rahm Emanuel much of the rest you have to know about Obama. Now don’t get me wrong he made pretty speeches and I would vote for him again over any Republican in the last 50 years .
But he had the Black Swan moment that could have reshaped the Nation . Perhaps because of his situation as the first minority President he was afraid to use it or perhaps that is who he was.
Now I am not Dienne77 . I wish Biden had a bit more energy but as an old b@stard my self I understand that. A little more attack dog may be called for . However I think Biden is doing a very good job under very difficult circumstances and he has not sat on the sidelines.
LikeLike
When I visited Madison, Wisconsin, during the huge protest against Scott Walker’s union-busting, I dared Arne Duncan to meet me and March together.
But he was in Miami with Obama and Jeb Bush, celebrating the “turnaround” of a high school that was actually on the state “failing” list.
LikeLike
The problem with your argument is that Obama didn’t even try to fight for single-payer or a public option or anything that could be considered universal health care, even though he promised it when he was running for president. It’s not that he tried really hard and failed. It’s that he didn’t even try. And what do his followers do? Do they explain how hard Obama fought for it? No, they can’t, because he didn’t. His blind followers do nothing but make excuses for him while he and his party got “shellacked” by the GOP for 8 years straight. And then we know what happened after that. Obama’s weakness, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and broken promises cost Democrats over 1000 seats, both houses of congress, the presidency, 3 supreme court seats, and god knows what else. Instead of trying to pretend that Obama was a good president, we should be demanding better from the Democratic Party.
We could have had President Bernie Sanders, someone who actually fights for what’s right, fights for what the people actually want, and stands strong against Republican shenanigans. Instead, the party pulled out all the stops to hand Joe Biden the nomination, someone who said Republicans would have an “epiphany” after he takes office. lol Either he’s delusional or he has no intention of standing up against the GOP and fighting for what’s right. Or both.
You ended your little spiel with “Truth. Try it sometimes.” which is hilarious because the comment you were responding to was 100% true and you did absolutely nothing to refute it.
LikeLike
How can someone be so smug and so wrong at the same time? lol Mind-boggling.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent says “Obama was not ‘against’ a public option”. That was his PUBLIC position (as Hillary told us, it’s important to have a public position and a private position). Sure, Obama SAID he was for the public option. No one is disputing that. But when it came time to fight for it, he was nowhere to be found. When pressed on it, the admin clearly had no interest in pushing for it.
Look at what David Axelrod was saying (or not saying) at the time: “The Obama administration’s bottom line on a government health insurance option blurred Sunday as White House officials stressed support but stopped short of calling it a must-have part of an overhaul. … White House political adviser David Axelrod said Obama is ‘not walking away’ from a public plan. But asked if the president would veto a bill that came to him without the option, Axelrod declined to answer. The president ‘believes it should be in the plan, and he expects to be in the plan, and that’s our position,’ Axelrod told The Associated Press. Asked if that means a public plan has to be in the bill for Obama to sign it, Axelrod responded: ‘I’m not going to deal in hypotheticals. … He believes it’s important'” (source: The Associated Press)
Exactly what about that gives you the impression that it was something the administration was actively fighting for? From that exchange, it seems like it’s an issue they wanted to avoid. They knew they weren’t going to fight for it but they didn’t want to admit it. Simple as that.
LikeLike
LOL then I read that NYC parent is saying that they never thought Obama was a liberal. Well, maybe you were out of touch with what was happening in that race but Obama ABSOLUTELY ran as a progressive liberal. He made a bunch of progressive promises to try to get Democrats and independents to turn out to vote for him. No one knew at the time that Obama was lying. Well, Adolph Reed Jr. knew but no one else knew. lol And hey, maybe Obama really thought he would have a shot at getting some of it passed but that’s not the point. The point is that when it came time to actually put his money where his mouth his, he caved at every opportunity.
NYC parent lied when they said Obama threatened to veto the health care bill if it didn’t contain the ACA. Axelrod specifically refused to answer that question because it was a “hypothetical”. Yeah, right, it was so “hypothetical” until it wasn’t anymore. Now look where we are. A decade later and the need for health care reform is greater than ever. Thanks, Obama. Thanks for nothing.
LikeLike
Mitch,
I am calling your bluff. According to your logic, Obama should have said he would absolutely refuse to sign a bill without a public option. And when the only bill Congress passed was the one without a public option (since they couldn’t get enough Senators to approve a bill with a public option), Obama vetoed it, and we would have no Affordable Care Act period.
Or maybe your logic is that Obama should have SAID he would absolutely refused to sign a bill without a public option and then if that was the only choice, said “Oops, I lied” and he signed it because otherwise it would another few decades with nothing, and you and your ilk would be talking about how Obama is a liar who can never be trusted.
We could have had President “she who cannot be named”, someone who actually fights for what’s right, fights for what the people actually want, and stands strong against Republican shenanigans. Instead, a few angry folks who claimed to be supporters of Bernie Sanders could not stop talking about how no one should trust the lying Bernie who told them how important it was to vote for the Democrat when the Supreme Court was tied 4-4 with an open seat. I loved how they thought they sounded so smart when they “white splained” to Democrats about how they would have voted for the Democrats if only those Black voters in southern states had listened to the far superiorn and smarter Bernie voters and voted for Bernie, but since they did not, they were fine with Trump winning. Some of them even said that perhaps Trump would have an “epiphany” after he took office amnd appoint a Supreme Court Justice would not make sure Citizens United remained the law of the land for a very long time.
And then we know what happened after that. Their lies about how the Democrats should never be trusted cost Democrats over 1000 seats, both houses of congress, the presidency, 3 supreme court seats, and god knows what else. Instead of trying to pretend that Trump was a good president who was being unreasonably attacked by evil Democrats, they could have been fighting for the many progressives who were winning primaries, like AOC and the squad.
I responded to a post that was intentionally deceptive. Obama didn’t have 60 votes except for a few short months at the end of 2009.
And your anger that Obama simply told the truth – that he was not going to promise to veto any hard fought bill that didn’t have a public option – didn’t mean that the Democrats who wanted the public option didn’t fight for it. But ALL the Democrats who wanted the public option voted for the ACA because sometimes getting half a bill is better than having nothing for another 40 years.
You are free to disagree and say that it’s better to have nothing. But you aren’t free to accuse those who disagree of being corrupt and launching personal attacks. If the Democrats were like you in 1965 — preferring that seniors just die without access to health insurance if a perfect Medicare bill wasn’t passed, then we wouldn’t have Medicare either. And no doubt you’d find some reason to blame the party that WANTS to give Americans health insurance and not the party that does not and uses every bit of propaganda and maneuvering to prevent it.
LikeLike
NYCpsp: “And your anger that Obama simply told the truth – that he was not going to promise to veto any hard fought bill that didn’t have a public option – didn’t mean that the Democrats who wanted the public option didn’t fight for it.”
But it meant that there was no path forward on it. If you don’t promise to veto bad bills, then how can you expect to be presented with a good one?
As far as lying and whatnot, Democrats do that already. But there’s good lying and bad lying. Acceptable lies are often called “white lies” because they’re lies in service of good purposes. Especially in politics, it’s unrealistic to expect absolute honesty from everyone. If Obama actually had fought for the public option instead of giving up on it, and then he failed, I would give him credit. That’s my whole point. I’m not mad that Democrats tried and failed. I’m mad that Democrats DIDN’T EVEN TRY. You can make all the excuses you want for their failure but it’s all pointless because of the fact that they gave up before the fight even started.
I’m not saying I have all the answers or I know exactly what Obama should have done. All I know is what the evidence shows, which is that instead of fighting for the public option, the Obama administration immediately took it off the table. I’m not saying nothing would have been better–I’m saying the public option would have been better. And that’s what Obama ran and won on, including beating Hillary Clinton who rejected all universal health care proposals. So yeah, it irks me a little that they DIDN’T EVEN TRY to follow through on that promise.
Oh I’m sorry, does that make me a “fascist Republican”? LOL
In all seriousness, I actually can’t really take you seriously anymore because of your snotty/snide comments, your arrogant/rude attitude and the absurdly false assumptions you feel the need to make about others. I’d much rather respond to someone like Diane who treats other human beings with respect. But if you have anything respectful to say, I might respond to it. Don’t hold your breath though.
LikeLike
I often wonder if Dienne77 receives a pay check from Russia’s rasPutin. It couldn’t be Traitor Trump who wouldn’t pay anyone for anything. He’s a cheap lying crook.
Congress is not controlled by any president. That will never happen unless a fascist like Traitor Trump or Ron DeSantis becomes president.
So, even if the political party a president belongs to holds the majority in both houses of Congress, that doesn’t mean all of those elected representatives in the same party have to agree and often some don’t.
Democrats are much more independent minded than Republicans are today. Today’s Republican party are mostly fascists, and fascists throughout history love with a rancid passion marching in unison.
Democrats controlled the 111th Congress (2009–2011) with majorities in both houses of Congress alongside the country’s first African-American president, Democrat Barack Obama. Congress addressed the financial meltdown and subsequent global recession by clearing a stimulus package followed by comprehensive financial regulation. After months of negotiations, Democratic leadership passed a healthcare reform bill in a close vote that split down party lines.
In its last weeks, after Republicans won the House during the 2010 election, the 111th Congress renewed expiring tax cuts and repealed policies that prevented gays and lesbians from openly serving in the armed forces. A number of issues remained unaddressed, however, including deficit reduction, energy and the environment, campaign-finance reform, and regular appropriations.
LikeLike
Lloyd, watch out! Daedalus will call you a New Yorker!
LikeLike
That Obama opted for Romneycare (which was what this was before it was Obamacare) is obscene, as was his bailing out the banks without having this pass through the homeowners so that people could hold onto their homes. He was the darling of the neoliberal banking class. And his military and surveillance policies were, as Chomsky has long pointed out, barely distinguishable from those of Bush Jr. It blows me away that there are people who consider Obama some sort of liberal. Those people were not paying attention.
LikeLike
There is no like button .
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
The only people who consider Obama a liberal are right wing Republicans, and most of that is formed by their perception of him because of his race.
I’ve never heard a Democrat call Obama a liberal, and most of us who aren’t conservative Dems acknowledge Obama was far from perfect. That does not stop some liars on the left from constantly accusing us of claiming that Obama is a perfect liberal. I’ve never believed Obama was anything but moderate/conservative but I can’t tell you how many times I have been accused by anonymous posters here of saying and believing that Obama is a liberal or could do no wrong, even when I did no such thing!
Once in a while Joel even does that and replies to me telling me something that I already know and agree with as if I didn’t already know and agree with it! But I blame my flawed writing as something I wrote must have made him think I didn’t agree with him.
I think there are a lot of reasons for Obama’s political beliefs, but as much as I disagree with some of them, I don’t really believe those beliefs are to please his corporate overlords. Even with charter schools, I think he got swayed, as many people do, by the argument that the kids most lacking good public schools are inner city kids who are Black and Latino, and he was not interested enough to learn more. Given that both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were repeating ed reform talking points about “good public charters” as if they were true even as late as 2015 and 2016, to me it was always clear that the ed reformers were very good at one thing — using the vast wealth and power and media connections of the billionaire privatizers to set the narrative and get folks to believe it and those folks almost never bothered to listen to anything that contradicted it.
LikeLike
While I agree with you, Dienne, using the example of arm amputation to “do something” about cardiovascular disease is not the right metaphor. Corporate welfare that will be used to pay for stock buybacks instead of green R&D is corporate greenwashing. Corporate Democrats are greenwashing themselves this month. Greenwashing is particularly insidious and dangerous because it makes the public feel like they don’t need to do anything to help the environment anymore — it’s taken care of. “Our toxic product has a new, green colored label, so keep buying it!” It’s more like seeing a man clutching his chest, putting him in an ambulance that will dump him in a ditch somewhere out of sight, asking people to pay for the ambulance, and giving them a flashy award for their charity so they feel right has been done and leave you alone.
I also agree with you, Diane, that this needs to be considered a victory for Democrats when rolls around November, but it is a victory for Democrats, not for the people who will hopefully vote for Democrats.
LikeLike
We will not get the political victories we want until we get off our duffs and vote. Nothing sweeping can be accomplished when the Senate is 50-50 and two of those votes are dubious and must be bought off. Biden has accomplished more than I expected with a razor-thin margin.
Why should Warnock be in a competitive with Herschel Walker, who can barely complete a sentence? Vote. Vote. Vote.
LikeLike
that will be used for stock buybacks
And fat bonuses for C-level folks
Bingo. Again and again, this is what actually happens.
LikeLike
I agree, Diane. Democracy is not a birthright. It’s a collective effort, emphasis on effort.
LikeLike
LCT, the one thing we should have learned these past 7 years is that we can’t take democracy for granted. We have to protect it and be constantly alert to those who want to take away the right to vote and to fool voters into accepting the erosion of democratic norms. Like calling a violent assault on the US Capitol “legitimate political discourse.”
LikeLike
Dienne is 100% correct! 🙂
LikeLike
‘This, for now, is the best that can be done. Do not scoff at half-measures. They are way better than nothing, and the Republicans strongly prefer nothing.’
Sorry! Dems need to do better. They needed to do better a long time ago. Dems abandoned their Union worker base a long time ago for greener pastures (business and Wall Street). I’m really tired of being thrown the heel end of a loaf of stale bread and being told not to “scoff at half measures”. The ACA was a “half measure” and it’s still awful years later. It’s too late for this 2 party system. As much as I don’t care for Andrew Yang, I think he has a novel idea (the Forward party) and he just might get enough people to make it work. Time for change!
LikeLike
Andrew Yang? The following from CNN, quote: A group of former Republican and Democratic officials are forming a new political party called Forward, in an attempt to appeal to what they call the “moderate, common-sense majority.”
“Political extremism is ripping our nation apart, and the two major parties have failed to remedy the crisis,” David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman and Andrew Yang wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday. “Today’s outdated parties have failed by catering to the fringes. As a result, most Americans feel they aren’t represented.”
Andrew Yang is ‘breaking up’ with the Democratic Party and is now an independent
Jolly is a former Republican congressman from Florida, Whitman a former Republican governor of New Jersey and Yang is a former Democratic presidential and New York mayoral candidate. The three will merge their political organizations into the new party, whose launch was first reported by Reuters. END QUOTE
This “new” party is self-described as moderate leaning, just what we don’t need. The Democratic party is already pretty moderate while the GOP is an actual extreme far right wing fringe cult. There’s no comparison between the 2 major parties, please, let’s stop the nonsense. Third parties are a huge waste of time, they don’t stand a chance and some of them are even more right wing than the GOP. Political extremism? That would be the GOP not the Democrats. The GOP is the party of Trump and DeSantis, two extremist jerks. There’s nothing extreme about Biden.
LikeLike
It would take decades for this new party to gain any traction, if, in fact, it survived. This group would hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans since the GOP has a lot more radical “crazies” than the Democrats have corporate Democrats.
I didn’t like Yang when he was in the Democratic primary. He’s a big talking, wealthy “idea guy,” When he started bashing unions, he lost me.
LikeLike
My guess—or hope—is that a third party would draw more Republicans than Democrats. The current GOP would be Trump crazies. Sane, old-fashioned Republicans would vote for the new party. The Democrats have no reason to support a third party.
LikeLike
Please don’t tell me you fall for this! Yang is basically saying that presidents are above the law (with his tweet about the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago) and he made his fortune on standardized testing! I wish the Dems were more progressive, but Yang et al (Christine Todd “no health risks working at the 911 site” Whitman? Really?) are truly not the solution.
LikeLike
Yang has one and only goal- self promotion.
LikeLike
Progressives have the money problem – a lack of wealthy donors and they have AIPAC’s Trump supporters and establishment Dems. trying to defeat them. Then, they have someone like Rep. Yuh Line Niou, in New York, running as a progressive Dem in a primary. Daily Beast reported today about the Niou family ties (Panama Papers).
LikeLike
LisaM says: “Dems need to do better. They needed to do better a long time ago. Dems abandoned their Union worker base a long time ago for greener pastures (business and Wall Street).”
And her solution is a third party that COMPLETELY abandons unions and embraces Wall Street!
Talk about propagandizing people to vote against their own interests!
Hey union folks, the Dems haven’t destroyed you yet, but I warn you that they want to, so vote for a third party that will totally destroy you!
Hey progressives, I warn you the Dems are owned by business and Wall Street so vote for a third party that is completely owned by business and Wall Street!
LikeLike
Wow! Surprise, surprise! I tend to agree with you!
I’m not against a ‘third Party’, however one that intends to ‘fill the middle’ is worse than the current choice.. It simply moves our politics closer to a totalitarian police designed to perpetuate the rule of the current oligarchs.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent
Progressives are not Biden’s Problem they have voted for every piece of his legislative agenda. You can not say the same about “Moderates ” The votes against the infrastructure bill I would bet anything came after a Pelosi whip count. And would have shifted before the roll call ended if need be.
I suspect neither Dienne77 nor Lisa M are truly progressives. You might want to verify that with Chomsky .
“However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.”
LikeLike
Dienne mocked Hillary endlessly in 2016. She constantly derides Democrats. She prefers “worse” to “better.” I get NYCPSP frustration.
LikeLike
Diane R: I understand NYCpsp’s frustration as well but do they have to be so combative and rude to everyone who disagrees with them? Calling me a “fascist”, a “Republican”, etc, just because I don’t see things their way. Don’t you think that’s at least a little overboard?
LikeLike
Also, just because you deride Democrats DOES NOT mean that you “prefer worse to better”. It could just mean that you have valid criticisms of both parties and you don’t mind expressing them. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I’d say that’s the most reasonable, sanest, healthiest approach to this two-party system, even if one ends up voting for the “lesser of two evils” on election day.
LikeLike
LisaM
That’s an interesting question as to who abandoned whom. As I recall George Meany President of the AFL-CIO did all but endorse Richard Nixon in the 1972 Election. Eviscerating McGovern daily, a WW2 Vet and a Senator with a 100% voting Record with the AFL CIO . That of course was after Peter Brennan President of the Painters Union and the Building and Construction Trades Council in NYC, sent construction workers into the streets outside the World Trade Center to beat on anti war protesters after the shootings at Kent State. His reward was to be awarded the position of Labor Secretary in the second Nixon administration. Of course Nixon locked him in the closet and sent his Commerce Secretary Maurice Stans out to help organize the Business RoundTable to Control Construction Spending. Their mission was to break the Union Construction Trades and they did a very good Job. Union Market Share dropping like a rock by the end of the decade. You may know them now as simply the Business RoundTable. 350 of the Nations top CEOs who meet in Private no notes to set the Nations Business Agenda. Their first major legislative victory was defeating a repeal of Taft Hartley during the Carter administration, when 2 senators withdrew their support after receiving personal calls from numerous CEO’s . Heck of a Job George.
Then of course there was the Teamsters support of Ronald Reagan as if labor did not know who he was before the election . But never have certain portions of the Labor Movement failed to seek special treatment for their members at the expense of other workers . That did not work out well for PATCO. Even after an orgy of Union Busting by Reagan he was re elected by large portions of Blue collar Union workers in spite of the Leadership’s support for Mondale another Senator with a 100% rating from the AFL CIO. By the time Bill Bob gets elected it was common knowledge that the Union movement could not deliver the votes of the White Working Class that belonged to it . The last time that Democrats won the White Vote was 1964 . I wonder why ???
And I assure you I screamed at the White House operator
during the Clinton and Obama years more than you. By far Biden is the most Pro Union President in 80 years. Between appointments to the Labor Department , NLRB and Courts . , Executive orders that call not just for Prevailing Wage but Project Labor Agreements that assure Union Labor . Increased Made in America provisions for Infrastructure . Bailing out the multi employer UNION pension system. Yet it is like Trumplandia out there .
Who abandoned who . And why.
LikeLike
Joel,
I’m unclear why any honest history of unions and politics would omit the reality that back in the day, union leadership and many rank and file were anti-woman which was reflected in their support of candidates. And, the bias was reflected in the unions’ initial lack of support for the inclusion of women in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
LikeLike
Linda, I’m sure that’s a “woke” point to make but it’s irrelevant to this conversation. Unions aren’t known for being sexist or racist so why would it be necessary to bring up how sexist and racist they were in the 60s?
At their core, unions are just organizations full of working people. They’re not enlightened academics who are on the cutting edge of every social issue and they’re not supposed to be. Even when workers are sexist and racist, they still deserve unions. Do you disagree?
Unions will never solve sexism and racism but they can ameliorate the problem of lack of democracy in the workplace. It can give workers enough leverage to extract concessions that significantly improve the quality of their lives. That’s the point of unionization.
We should always try to stamp out racism and sexism wherever it exists, even within the working class, even among our family and friends and co-workers when necessary, but what you’re doing here is reaching back into history just to demonize the entire working class movement. We shouldn’t throw the entire working class under the bus to fight sexism and racism. It makes no sense, it’s unnecessary, and it’s counterproductive.
LikeLike
I agree with you about the Democrats but Andrew Yang is a walking talking half measure. His main slogan is “not left, not right, but forward”. lol He lives for triangulation. He’s very much like a Third Way Democrat in practice, although updated for the crypto era. That’s all he is. And his party isn’t a real party. It doesn’t run candidates. It doesn’t do anything. He is just ashamed of calling himself a Democrat, and rightly so, but the solution has to include turning the Democrats into a people-oriented party because there are too many barriers-to-entry for third parties. Also replacing one party with another isn’t a fundamental solution. The Forward Party will end up being corrupted by the same corporate interests that the Democrats are currently corrupted by. You think Yang would have fought for universal health care? I’m skeptical.
LikeLike
Do not scoff. Think of it as a First Step. Important strategic advice. This is a Battle for Democracy. Political, financial, ecological and ethical. We are just getting started and we are in it for as long as it takes.
LikeLike
kathyirwin1 says “Do not scoff. Think of it as a First Step. Important strategic advice. This is a Battle for Democracy. Political, financial, ecological and ethical. We are just getting started and we are in it for as long as it takes.”
I get where you’re coming from, I really do, but you have to understand this not as a first step in a long line of progression, but as an attempt to avoid truly solving the problem. We would need a lot more legislation to significantly improve the lives of working people in this country, and there’s no indication that this kind of legislation is going to continue to be passed.
Faith feels good but it can kill motivation. We sit around having faith that things will get better and in reality they only get much, much worse. This isn’t the first step. This is the only step. If we want a real solution, we have to change this country from the ground up, not sit back and wait for Congress to come through for us. They won’t.
LikeLike
Sadly, “we” can’t change it without Congress. Vote. Get your neighbors to vote. That’s the only way to get change.
LikeLike
Diane: Voting is important but voting in itself doesn’t change anything when the only two options we have to vote for are the bad Democrats and the terrible Republicans. Neither of the parties are interested in improving people’s lives. Neither of the parties want to actually do good things. Of course I prefer bad to terrible, but I also prefer good to bad, and I’m not going to give up on fighting for good things just because Democrats have given up. That’s not me.
LikeLike
Mitch, of course you should fight for the changes you want. I want the Democratic Party to fight for Medicare for All, green energy, the child tax credit, and fully funded public schools. I want Democrats to oppose privatization by charters and vouchers.
I’ll keep pushing.
But in the next election, I will vote blue because the other party has become mean-spirited, hard-hearted, and crazy.
LikeLike
“Zeno’s Paneradox”
Half a loaf
Means half again
Zeno’s proof
That “Half’s in vain”
(Panera Bread, of course)
LikeLike
True. With ‘half a loaf’, as Zeno noted, you never get there.
Panera is pretty good (my wife tells me), however I used to bake an unbeatable sourdough boule. I would never tell her it was ‘sourdough’ (she ‘hated’ sourdough because she thought it was ‘sour’).
Now, I’ve become ‘diabetic’, and can’t eat starches and my bread has gone, along with pasta. Sad, but at least it keeps me out of the clutches of drug companies.
LikeLike
OMG the ignorant “half a loaf” comments by people are supposed to educators. Scary.
I suggest folks read up about the BEGINNING of Social Security and Medicare. The first Social Security Act in 1935 was ONLY for workers in commerce and industry and Huey Long wanted a far more progressive bill. Imagine if FDR had refused to sign on to the bill saying that he would wait 100 years if necessary until a perfect bill was offered.
Instead, FDR said , when signing the bill into law: “This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.” And Social Security, while still flawed, became much better over the years. The list of changes since the “half bill’ was signed into law — covering survivors and disabilities, etc., is very long.
Imagine if the left said that FDR was no better than Herbert Hoover, and made sure to demonize him and help defeat him so that a right wing Republican could rule.
The same is true of Medicare, which Truman was advocating for nearly 20 years before it actually became law under LBJ (with Truman getting the first card).
And I am old enough to remember when Ted Kennedy was fighting for universal health care in the mid-1970s and I believed Jimmy Carter was a tool of corporate interests for not fighting for it. Then I remember Harris Wofford in the 1990s and my certainty that Americans WANTED universal health care. Yet all it took were a few Harry and Louise commercials to “inform” Americans that “government control of healthcare” was an evil socialist plot by she who must not be named.
I was unhappy with Obamacare because it didn’t go far enough. But I realized is that with our propagandized media, we NEEDED a “half loaf” or we would still be waiting as I did for nearly 4 decades for that “perfect” plan.|
The ACA was deeply unpopular with the people who hated “socialized medicine” until it was in danger of being repealed.
It is easier to improve a program than get the public to support a new major public program that non-stop propaganda demonizes as socialism that will control them and ruin their lives.
I don’t like compromise, but I also don’t like progressives who claim to care about progressive ideas fighting to have NO program rather than “half a loaf”. It’s not because Dems are controlled by corporate masters. It is because there aren’t a lot more Dems with a far bigger majority. Compare to LBJ and FDR’s day, when they still only got half a loaf.
LikeLike
Thank you, NYCPSP. I’ll continue to defend half a loaf as better than nothing at all. When Democrats control 70 votes in the Senate, they can go for the whole loaf.
LikeLike
In the South all Democrats are considered “socialists” by Republicans running for office. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Lots of conservatives today are Christo-libertarians that want authoritarian rule instead of democracy. The want the notion of democracy to be nothing more than “window dressing.”
Everyone can agree that the only way to move forward is to vote, and do your homework before you vote. The League of Women Voters often provide non-politicized information on candidates running for office.
LikeLike
“Everyone can agree that the only way to move forward is to vote”
Oh yeah? How’s that been working out for us? Nothing is getting solved, our politicians are corrupt liars who don’t care about us, working people struggle every day just to afford basic needs, and Democrats are pretending everything is fine and making excuses for their failures. How does that look to voters?
If all we can do is vote, then we can’t do anything. We have to do more than vote. We have to band together and use our numbers to apply pressure on people in power, the politicians and the rich people who fund them. We can’t vote away our problems. I wish we could but we can’t. The problems are so much deeper than that.
LikeLike
How do you “pressure” the politicians and the rich people who fund them”?
Voting is the only way to change what we don’t like.
LikeLike
“How do you ‘pressure’ the politicians and the rich people who fund them?”
By hitting them where it hurts–their wallets.
I assume you’re agreeing with me that rich donors do have some influence over the politicians they fund. So what’s the one thing that drives wealth creation and the entire economic system? Profit, right? Rich people, owners, investors will always do whatever it takes to increase and maximize their profits, right? Even proponents of capitalism readily admit that. So how do you put pressure on them? By driving profits down. How do you do that? By refusing to go to work. Public protests can sometimes be effective but if they don’t put downward pressure on profits, there’s little incentive for the powers that be to make concessions. So the key here is to organize working class people, in and out of workplaces, to put their bodies on the gears (so to speak) and stop the system from functioning as the owner class intends it to. Investors LOVE predictability and any hint of instability in profits will drive investors away. This is just a basic explanation but I can get deeper if you want, even provide examples.
If we have to give up and accept “half a loaf”, then we have to. And sometimes we will. Compromise is always necessary in politics whether we like it or not. Part of being an adult is knowing when to fold ’em. The problem is that Democrats fold before their hand is even dealt. If you try your hardest and lose, that’s commendable. If you don’t even try and then whine about how hard it is, I have no sympathy for you.
So with that said, you know from my previous comments what I mean by “fighting”. But that’s why it’s so important to me, because I KNOW we can do better than “half a loaf” on most of these issues. Not all but most. But the only way to know that it’s the best we can do is if we try our best and fail. If we don’t even try to do better, how can we say with such confidence that “half a loaf” is the best we can get? Why would we continue to so aggressively defend such an untested claim?
Thank you for respectfully disagreeing 🙂
LikeLike
“Voting is the only way to change what we don’t like.”
But if voters want changes that neither party wants to do, then voting isn’t a viable way to make changes. If voters don’t like either party, then voting isn’t a way to change what they don’t like, is it? In order to change what they don’t like, the Democratic Party would have to change into a party that supports popular policies instead of a party that consistently says “no” to things that voters (even their own voters) want.
LikeLike
You’re comparing Obama’s agenda to FDR’s agenda and you expect to be taken seriously?
This isn’t just about compromise vs. no compromise. This is about basic standards that we have for our representatives. We expect our representatives in all levels of government to be honest, to have integrity, to follow through on their promises, to do thing that are popular and are in the public’s interest. When Democrats fail to do that, as Obama did, they need to be called out on it and they need to be replaced by Democrats who will actually serve the public.
If Obama had tried and failed, you would have a point. He didn’t try. That’s the main reason why you’re wrong.
You’re doing nothing in this comment section but lashing out at Obama’s critics and making weak excuses for him. Nothing that you’re saying is actually refuting the criticism that his critics make. Another reason why you’re wrong.
Almost everything you say is wrong. Like this: “It is easier to improve a program than get the public to support a new major public program that non-stop propaganda demonizes as socialism that will control them and ruin their lives.”
That doesn’t make sense. The GOP demonized Obamacare as socialism because that’s what they do. You’re moderating your priorities based on how angry Republicans get, which means you’re playing right into their hands. That’s exactly how they want and expect Democrats to react. They played you like a fiddle.
It is MUCH easier to A) sell the public on a universal program than it is to sell them on a means-tested half-measure, and B) maintain the health of a universal program than a piecemeal program that can be dismantled by judges and state governors. That’s why programs like Social Security and Medicare are still going strong, even popular among Republicans (even though GOP pols demonize both programs as “socialism”). Obamacare was too complicated and it was too easy to fall through the cracks. It didn’t account for the Medicaid Gap. It didn’t account for GOP non-cooperation. It was a really bad idea in a political sense and a policy sense. That’s why we need Medicare For All right now more than ever, and that’s why we don’t need people like Obama and Biden and Clinton in charge of the party. We need someone who actually stands up for what’s right, and doesn’t need an army of blind followers making excuses in blog comment sections.
LikeLike
Mitch says: “It is MUCH easier to A) sell the public on a universal program than it is to sell them on a means-tested half-measure..”
yes, that’s what Ted Kennedy thought in the 1970s, and I sounded JUST LIKE YOU, Mitch, when I ranted about how I knew that the American public was desperate for universal health care and the evil and corrupt Jimmy Carter was preventing that, and only by scapegoating Carter and the Dems and convincing the public of how corrupt they were could we have the progressive nirvana I knew the public wanted. Only they didn’t. They wanted Reagan. They wanted anything BUT “socialized medicine.” Same thing happened in 1993. You seem to believe nothing is better than half a loaf. Which is why “nothing” happened in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and most of the 2000s. We could still be waiting with that perfect plan and no Affordable Care Act. But having the ACA made people realize it wasn’t “socialism” and if Dems had a big majority the ACA could be reformed to look similar to Medicare for All. Which also happens to be opposed by some union workers who want to keep their hard worn private insurance. It’s complicated and you want it all to be as simple as I did when I blamed Jimmy Carter for blocking the progressive future that I knew would have happened if Ted Kennedy had defeated him in the primary. Dare you say I was wrong?
Do you believe that Social Security and Medicare were “universal” when they began? They were not. It took time to expand them into the programs that we know today. They were wildly criticized by Republicans for being socialism, but also criticized by those on the left for not being enough.
You sound like a fascist with your “we need Medicare for All right now”. We need Americans to WANT Medicare for All. You want to conveniently skip that step and simply tell them that an elite group of folks like you know better than them.
I already like Medicare for All, so you don’t have to convince me. You have to convince not just the Republicans who fear “socialized Americans”, but the union workers and Democrats who like their private health insurance and don’t necessary want to be ordered to trade it in.
But you won’t do it with your arrogant view that you, and only you and your buddies know best. Instead of trying to convince voters, you just whine and scapegoat the Democrats (and not the Republicans!) for “preventing” the programs that you and your arrogant buddies say voters just don’t understand they unconsciously want.
LikeLike
FDR and LBJ had the luxury of large majorities and were able to pass whatever they wanted.
When they don’t have a filibuster-proof majority, they have to negotiate with the Party of No.
A universal program that benefits everyone is harder to pass—think Social Security and Medicare—but impossible to kill. Even deep red voters want their Social Security and Medicare. The candidate for Senate from Arizona, Blake Masters (wholly owned by Peter Thiel), said he wanted to privatize SS and quickly retreated.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent can’t stop calling me a “fascist” for some reason even though I’m clearly a socialist. lol Once I can handle but this is like the tenth time total. Instead of just treating me like the leftist I am and arguing against the points I make, they have to make stuff up in order to demonize me. Weak and pathetic.
I’ll respond to one last point before I start ignoring them, because regardless of their terrible personality and arguing style, this is a point worth responding to. “They wanted Reagan. They wanted anything BUT ‘socialized medicine.'”
What NYCpsp needs to understand here is that I’m not talking about choosing between Democrats and Republicans. I realize that’s a landscape we have right now, but that doesn’t mean it’s what people want. Look at how dissatisfied people are with both parties and their leaders, look at Biden’s and Trump’s approval ratings, look at how many independents and unaffiliated voters there are now compared to how many there used to be.
More importantly, if you want to know whether people support universal health care, there is a WEALTH of polling data that proves that they DO support it. You call it “socialized medicine” to make it sound scary but when you explain what it actually does–makes it so everyone automatically has access to really good health care–it gets 60-70% support in the polls. Why? Because people like having the ability to go to the doctor. Just because Republicans beat Democrats, that doesn’t mean people suddenly oppose universal health care. It may just mean Democrats are weak and out of touch and can’t connect with voters, and that could be for many reasons that have nothing to do with policy or ideology. Look at the Conor Lamb vs John Fetterman primary if you want a good example of the contrast I’m talking about–Fetterman the populist everyman DESTROYED the establishment empty suit candidate. Why? Because Fetterman connected with voters and ran on popular issues. And now he’s beating Mehmet Oz by 20 points. Conor Lamb would have been neck-and-neck with Oz, at best.
If only NYCpsp would be respectful and civil, if only they would stop lashing out at people (not just me) they disagree with, I could probably have a productive conversation with them. Too bad.
LikeLike
If only the GOP would stop labeling any and every progressive reform—like Medicare for All, green energy, child tax credit—as “radical socialism,” just because it helps everyone.
LikeLike
“FDR and LBJ had the luxury of large majorities and were able to pass whatever they wanted. When they don’t have a filibuster-proof majority, they have to negotiate with the Party of No.”
Exactly. And why did they have those majorities? In large part because they ran on popular progressive issues and delivered on their promises. What I’m talking about wouldn’t just help improve people’s lives, but it would help improve Democrats’ electoral chances which would in turn improve people’s lives by preventing Republicans from winning. It just seems like such an obvious strategy to me but yet Democrats want nothing to do with it. I believe that’s because they care more about raking in the corporate cash than they care about turning out voters and beating Republicans.
As far as “harder to pass but impossible to kill”, exactly. And sure, at this point in human history, the things we need to do are going to be really hard. But we have no real alternative other than to let wealthy/powerful people dominate us, extract value from us, deny us our rights, deny us a decent standard of living, and keep producing two parties that most voters dislike but vote for anyway because of the “lesser of two evils” logic. As much sense as “lesser of two evils” does make when it comes time to make a binary choice, when it comes to deciding what kind of society we want to live in, that’s not a binary choice.
Look, I often vote for Democrats only because I feel like I have to, but here’s my point: I don’t want people to vote because they feel like they have to–that leads to low turnout which helps the GOP and low working class political engagement which helps rich people—I want people to vote because Democrats are offering them things that they want and need and deserve. Call me crazy. 🙂
But yeah, running on popular progressive issues won’t just help when it comes to making progress on those issues, it’ll also help Democrats win more seats. Win-win.
LikeLike
I fear Dems will respond to some of the screeching above in point-by-point rebuttals about stupid theories. I hope someone over there understands it’s about time to go on the offensive and be unapologetic about good policies and positive policy direction. If anyone at the DNC who’s into messaging cares, I suggest two things. Listen to Drive-By Truckers Southern Rock Opera and American Band and figure out how to create big picture, simple messaging campaign that addresses the concerns of the people the sing about. And secondly, listen to the caller here and ask yourself how to reach him.
LikeLike
LikeLike
These guys are awesome.
LikeLike
https://genius.com/Drive-by-truckers-angels-and-fuselage-lyrics
LikeLike
BJ Novak’s new movie, Vengeance, covers similar territory.
LikeLike
I would have liked to hear the caller in the video express an opinion about the hold of GOP Jesus in the rural areas.
LikeLike
Manchin and Sinema want to go into the midterms with a battered Biden presidency that has accomplished next to nothing. They have come close to succeeding in that.
LikeLike
This bill contains 80 billion for the IRS, enough to double the size of the agency.
LikeLike
If that additional funding and staffing is used to go after wealthy tax cheats, great. More of that! If it is used to increase auditing of poor-and middle-income taxpayers, including those running very small businesses, yuck.
LikeLike
Depends on who has administrative control. That increased budget will become a weapon under a fascist administration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes
LikeLike
I’ve been doing some more reading about this. It looks to be pretty clear that the agency desperately needed funds for upgrading computer systems. They are using really antiquated systems and equipment. So, this makes more sense to me now.
LikeLike
e.g. Book Ban Busters, local chapters in states like Ohio
LikeLike
Of course, Koch was/is a Trump backer, despite his claims otherwise.
Cleta Mitchell will host a fundraiser for staunch Trump ally, Rep. Budd. Lara Trump is scheduled to appear. Mitchell has close ties to Ginni Thomas and she was formerly the attorney for the National Organization for Marriage. John Eastman was president of
NOM, a group founded by Robert P. George.
LikeLike
“Do not scoff at half-measures. They are way better than nothing”
Ryan is dead wrong here. Half-measures are not good. They are not better than nothing. Nothing means people will still be fighting for a real solution. Half-measures are designed to placate people and lull them into inaction. They’re not meant to address problems, they’re meant to trick people into thinking that problems are being addressed. If we had nothing, at least people like Ryan Grim wouldn’t be out there saying “actually this is good” when it’s at best a cynical, symbolic gesture to people like him. He’s so gullible.
LikeLike
I prefer Half-measures to nothing at all. Get a half-measure this year, a quarter measure next year, and the whole measure the year after.
Or be content with nothing.
LikeLike
“I prefer Half-measures to nothing at all”
But those aren’t the only two options.
The reason why you say that is because you’re conditioned to believe that you can’t have nice things, that the things you want and need and deserve are unattainable. It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats were strong New Dealers who embraced the use of public resources to improve people’s lives. During that era, regular people got a lot of nice things that made their lives better (and Democrats dominated congress for 5 decades).
Look, when it comes time to vote up or down on a bill, we can talk about how much compromise is necessary. And it always is necessary in politics. But the problem is that Democrats compromise away their values well before they even get to the negotiating table. You’re already giving up the fight before the fight begins.
I realize the left is at a very low position when it comes to electoral politics but look at public opinion: almost every progressive policy has majority support, sometimes an overwhelming majority (70-80+%). We have the tools to fight Republicans with popular issues but instead we just say “half a loaf is better than nothing”. And yeah, under the current landscape, all we have to choose from is something that isn’t good vs something that is actively bad. That’s why I think overall, the most important task for us progressive-minded folk is to expand possibilities so that good things can become possible again, like they were from the 30s to the 60s.
I’m not saying that because I think life so so great back then, but it’s just a fact that the working class had more power and a higher level of representation in politics. And as a result, good things were possible. Right now, we have very little energy pushing from the outside. All I’m saying is we need to increase that energy, reach out to people, connect with people, organize, mobilize, don’t just give up and let the right dominate us on every issue. Fight back. Hard. If we don’t, we will just have to live with two bad options forever.
LikeLike
When Social Security began, it was a half-measure. It didn’t even begin to cover most Americans. FDR himself said upon signing the bill: ““This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.”
Do you believe FDR should have said: “I am vetoing this half-measure bill and until I get a perfect bill, we will have nothing.”
Medicare wasn’t the program it became when it started. It was a half-measure. By your standards, LBJ should have vetoed it.
My vote against Jimmy Carter didn’t empower that “full-measure” health insurance.
I also find that when you ask folks like Mitch details of this perfect “full measure” bill, they go quiet.
Mitch, you going to make all union members give up their health insurance? Abolish private health insurance? Yes or no?
And if you aren’t going to abolish private health insurance, Mitch, those private health insurers will love you. They can cover the people they want to cover and profit handsomely, and Medicare for All will cover the people who they don’t want to insure. Just like charter schools.
LikeLike
“Mitch, you going to make all union members give up their health insurance? Abolish private health insurance?”
Yes, and here’s why. Right now, we have an unaccountable middle-man (the insurance industry) that provides absolutely no public service other than to siphon money from patients and health care providers. That’s literally the only purpose of health insurance.
Ask people if they care whether their insurance is public or private and they will tell you that they don’t care as long as they’re able to see the doctor they want. Medicare For All gives everyone the ability to see any doctor they want. As of now, private insurance makes it difficult for patients to find the right providers because many of them aren’t “in network”. Medicare For All puts all of the patients in the same pool, so any doctor who wants to make a living will accept Medicare. That’s gonna be at least 95% of doctors, whereas now you’ll be lucky if you have access to 20% of the providers under even the best insurance plans.
You’re trying to use unions as a talking point against me because you know I’m a leftist. And look, it does get complicated when you talk about replacing people’s plans, and I understand why it would make people nervous but make no mistake: Medicare For All would be MUCH better than even the best insurance plans under the current system. No question about it. And a lot cheaper.
You can define “half-measure” however you want. I don’t consider social security and Medicare to be half-measures, even if they could have gone further, because they solved the problems they intended to solve. The kind of policies I’m talking about are the ones that are ostensibly intended to solve a problem but doesn’t nearly go far enough, and often doesn’t even make a dent. You know, the kind of legislation that Democrats specialize in post-New-Deal.
Call them “half-measures” if you think it helps your argument but ideas like Medicare For All, mandatory paid leave, and universal child care would ABSOLUTELY solve the problems they’re intended to solve. Not every problem, but at least it would mean significant improvements to people’s quality of life.
LikeLike
“The bill is good because it’s the best we can hope for”
LOL See what I mean? Just because something is the “best we can hope for”, that doesn’t mean it’s “good”. Instead of pretending this is “good”, we need to be trying to expand our possibilities to make real solutions viable in our political system, so that we don’t have to settle for the “best we can hope for” as the world is literally dying.
We don’t have time to mess around with half-measures. If real solutions aren’t currently possible, then our task is to MAKE THEM POSSIBLE.
LikeLike
Pablum worthy of a Republican. “Make them possible”. Well, thanks for explaining that.
I assume you aren’t advocating fascism (although perhaps you are). How do you convince Americans to WANT these programs, once you try “Mitch says make them possible” and it leaves most Americans voting for candidates who aren’t promising to take away their private health insurance?
The world is “literally dying” and your friends and family are likely still flying on airplanes or driving cars on occasion and using air conditioning during a heat wave. Did you tell them the world is “literally dying” and they should stop?
I very much support us fighting for a progressive future, but if that involves us invoking pablum and generalities, I doubt very much you make much headway without a boost from fascism.
You might have noticed that Dems are fighting to make sure Americans – even progressive ones – can vote, while Republicans are fighting to keep power by any means possible, including disenfranchising voters. Showing Americans that SOMETHING is possible is likely better than your tactic of showing them that doing nothing and empowering the far right is your preferred alternative to doing something if you can’t do exactly what you want.
LikeLike
“doing nothing and empowering the far right” is EXACTLY what the Democrats are doing, and you’re eating it up with a spoon. What you’re saying is “we can’t have nice things so the best we can hope for is crap”. What I’m saying is “if the best we can hope for is crap, we need to work on expanding possibilities so that future generations can have nice things”.
Far from “pablum”, what I’m talking about is democratizing the economic system and the political system under which we are all forced to live. My point is that if people have to abide by rules, they should have a say in what those rules are. No Democrat wants to democratize these systems, even the progressive ones. So your whole “lesser evil” schtick works fine when it comes down to voting for a Democrat vs a Republican. But when it comes to deciding what kind of world we want our descendants to live in, it’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about which party is less bad than the other. We’re talking about how we can alter the political landscape to make good things possible again. The only way to do it is with a massive grassroots working class movement. We can’t expect to get the nice things we want and need and deserve without challenging BOTH parties, even if we end up voting for one or the other on election day.
All you’ve done in your response is call me a Republican and a fascist and claim that I want to “do nothing”. This is self-evidently absurd. I’m obviously a leftist (as you well know) so pretending I’m some kind of fascist is extremely disingenuous. And notice how easy it is to prove you wrong without even making false assumptions about you.
I’ve said it a million times and I’ll say it again: If we can’t have nice things, then our task isn’t to just throw up our hands and accept our miserable fate. Our task is to make nice things possible. You’re welcome for explaining that. 🙂
LikeLike
It is so easy being a republican, just think on themselves, instead of what is best for all the population
LikeLike