Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama's Health Reform Waterloo
The Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats are finally hitting the inevitable wall that was bound to confront them because of the president's congenital inability to be a bold leader, and because of the party's toxic decades-old decision to betray its working class New Deal base in favor of wholesale corporate whoredom.
The wall is health care reform, which both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party had hoped would be the ticket for them to ride to victory in the 2010 Congressional elections and the 2012 presidential election.
But you cannot achieve the twin goals of reducing health care costs and providing access to health care to 50 million uninsured people, while leaving the profit centers of the current system--doctors, hospitals and the health insurance industry--in charge and in a position to continue to reap profits.
Watching President Obama address the American Medical Association was a cringe-inducing experience as he assured the assembled doctors he was not going to expand Medicare payments "broadly" to cover all patients, or end the current "piece-work reimbursement" system that has so enriched physicians, or as he told them that savings would "not come off your backs." It was particularly cringe-inducing when he told the AMA that he knew that making money was not why its members were in the profession, saying, "That is not why you became doctors. That is not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That is not what brings you back to a patient's bedside to check in or makes you call a loved one to say it'll be fine. You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers--and that's what our health care system should let you be."
Oh please. I know there are plenty of wonderful doctors who are dedicated to their patients and to patient care. But I also know plenty of doctors who have told me how half their classmates in medical school were mainly in it for the money, and that study halls and cafeterias of American med schools echo with the conversations about what can be made working in particular specialties. Not to mention the corrupt and insidious profit-sharing arrangements doctors enter into with labs, CAT-Scan and MRI test centers, pharmaceutical companies and other businesses, to earn profits by sending patients for unnecessary tests and treatments.
One can only imagine what he would be saying to insurance industry executives about his "reform" plans.
Because Obama and Congressional Democrats are unwilling to cut themselves off from the lucrative campaign-funding bonanza that is the health care industry, they cannot address seriously either the cost or the access crisis that plagues health care in the US, and that makes health care in this country cost 20 percent of GDP--twice what it costs in any other modern nation on a per capita or GDP basis, and that still leaves one in six Americans without ready access to even routine health care.
The answer to this crisis is obvious: a single-payer "socialized" system, in which you still have private doctors, and private or publicly run hospitals, but where the government sets the payment rates for treatment, and provides all compensation to health care providers.
If Democrats in Congress were serious about health care reform, they would immediately order the Congressional Budget Office to conduct a cost study of instituting such a program--a study that would include an estimate of the savings to individuals and employers if health care costs were lifted entirely off their backs (because obviously it would require considerable new government revenue to fund a single-payer program, but that's only half the equation--the other half, the savings, is simply ignored by critics and doomsayers on the right and in the health care industry). Instead, Obama and the Democratic Congress are studiously avoiding even allowing any mention of the single-payer option. (A New York Times report today on the various health care plans working their way through Congress, and coming out of the White House, completely blacked out any mention of a single-payer bill in the House authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which the House leadership has prevented from even getting a token hearing.)
Obama's unwillingness to lead on this issue will doom his health care plan. There is obviously no way Congress is going to shake off its corrupt leech-like attachment to corporate sponsors and their cash-spreading lobbyists, but had the new president wanted to make a historic mark and cruise to victory in 2012, he could have, like President Lyndon Johnson before him in his campaign for Medicare in 1965, put himself solidly behind a single-payer plan and made the case that it could cut America's collective health bill in half while opening the door to every American.
Instead, he's likely to end up with worse than nothing--that is with even more uninsured Americans come 2012, and with health care costs moving up as a share of GDP--and could well find himself out of a job. The policy that his handlers, like White House Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel, had conceived of as Obama's ticket to re-election, health care reform, could well prove instead to be his Waterloo.
That is if his adoption of a policy of expanded war in Afghanistan--another example of a failure to lead--doesn't prove to be this president's bigger policy disaster.
123 Comments so far
Show AllJacksonian
Obama's health-care plan was doomed as soon as he took single payer off the table. As for, "bold leadership," that's something that requires two characteristics sorely lacking in Obama: He is neither bold, nor is he a leader.
He also isn't much of a progressive or much of a Democrat. But, hey, he gives a nice speech, and he has a nice family.
If you're sick, you can't take that to the bank, but you can take it right to bankruptcy court.
Like his predessor Obama seems to be more interested in having fun being president than governing.
There is no evidence that he is surrounding himself with anyone who might guide him to real solutions for the problems that confront us.
His first few months in office are more than disappointing, they are frightening.
I don't think he can be contemplating a second term. Everything he is doing is a short term fix that is guaranteed to come back to bite him.
If he were planning to run again he would be concerned about the long term economic effects of doing nothing for the victims of the economic crisis.
He would be concerned about increasing the distortion of economic distrubution by stuffing the pockest of Wall Street con-men.
If he planning a second term he would care about rewarding fraud and deceit.
If he wanted to occupy the White House for four more years he would be concerned about saddling the economy with an even more expensive and dysfunctional healthcare system.
If he wanted a second term he wouldn't be relying on the top 1% of the economy to re-elect him.
What I find worrying is that we don't have the fat we had when Bush II started his assault the US treasury and our civil rights. Deterioration seems to be accelerating.
I don't care if the Obama presidency fails. If he continues to make bad decisions he deserves to fail.
I care that he is going to drag us down with him and that there is "a bottom below the bottom we know".
"I don't think he can be contemplating a second term."
Of course he is. He doesn't need to actually win the election. There is the fraud and complicity of 2000 and 2004 that set the precedent that Obama can employ.
Elections? They're just for rubes and the "little people".
Elections are just a media orgy. A big commercial production to sell a lot of advertising space. But mostly, just a huge motherfucking hyped-up distraction away from things that matter the most, but aren't important to, or are a huge threat to big money. And it keeps the people thinking they are still living in a democracy, so they'll all stay home and watch more television, and stay off the streets.
That too.
Good people stay home and get TV dinners and round the clock programming. Protesters get pepper spray, jail and sometimes bullets. Terrorists and people unfortunate enough to live on top of fossil reserves get industrial warfare and displacement.
Neeto.
Nanoo
Dave Lindorff, You said earlier I'll stand with Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky in saying it was necessary to vote for Obama. That was the beginning position of these two big minds. However, Howard Zinn very close to the election changed his mind and supported Nader. I read it here on Commondreams.
I hope you will now stand corrected.
I am resurrecting a post I made from a previous one of Lindorf's articles from Feb 9 entitled, The Third Party Delusion. Since Lindorf is playing out the same tired rebuttals ad nausea, I think it deserves another hearing. Don't let Lindorf's obfuscations take you by the hand into a dead end cul de sac of sterility and sentimentality.
I think, my first job as a radical is to reveal the truth as I see it. From there we can chose our options. Right now our options are limited for sure. To wit: 3rd party in-viability is a direct result of Democratic party suppression both in codified legal infrastructure and illicit shenanigans. The political process itself is consciously rigged to exclude 3rd parties and while Democratic rank n' file types such as yourself will lament the 'reality' of our two-party system-- you won't demand anything better (i.e., anything more democratic) from the party. You tacitly approve of its tactics by continuing to vote for them.
Also, the media consciously and through more subtle filters (see: Chomsky's propaganda model) excludes 3rd party voices. This is no accident-- it is manipulation by the corporate press-- a press that is buttressed by the two-parties and the capitalist infrastructure; it is the apotheosis of cynical collusion.
In fact Ralph Nader himself cites this very phenomena (see: Crashing the Party) as his raison d'être for getting into electoral politics in the first place. He listed, ad infinitum, the examples of inaction/obstructionism on progressive and popular policies by the Democrats. He noticed that left-wing/progressive ideas (ideas popular with large majorities of the population—but unpopular with big-business) were routinely shunned by the Democrats.
Now, to be fair, some marginal gains can be made for sure through petition and protest once the Dems are in power. But marginal gains are not enough to pacify those of us you place under the rubric of "Nader advocates".
My point is that the mythology of the efficacy of "putting pressure from the left" on the Democratic candidate is so strong that it limits first your capacity for critical thinking on that particular candidate (e.g., Obama); and further, occults your ability to see how rigged the whole system is.
And since we radicals see the "pressure" tactic within a larger "from-the-outside-in" strategy as largely ineffective, we must attempt something else. You are willing to have Democrats in power forever and have more Progressive types put pressure on them from OUTSIDE.
Look, it can apparently never be said enough: Obama is BETTER than Bush. But he's not "BETTER" enough. Mussolini was better than Hitler but I wouldn't vote for him and I wouldn't try to "work" with him and expect much. I know that syllogism is hyperbolic but you get my point.
Some of us are literally dying as a result of neo-liberal economic policies married to military adventurism into the 3rd world. Many liberals can live with that compromise (you bourgeois liberals get your lower prescription drug prices, a less politicized DoJ, and the rest of the world gets continued US hegemony and State Department backed political repression at home [see: central America for example] or if they're really lucky a CIA-led coup that destabilizes the region!
These are compromises some of us are not willing to make. These phenomena happen on BOTH parties' watch. Foreign policy objectives (not tactics, but objectives) are almost monolithically agreed upon by the two parties. If one needs proof I suggest reading Jonathan Perkins’ account of economic to military hegemony in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit-man and also any number of Noam Chomsky’s books on the subject (e.g., Culture of Terrorism, Thrid-world Fascism and the New Power Mandarins, Re-Thinking Camelot, et.al.)
However, you guys insist that it's good enough to "play within the system" and squeeze whatever blood we can from the stone that is the Democratic Party - if we just get them elected. But, time and time again, they ignore us and rightly/tactically so. Where are we gonna go, to the Republicans?
So it's not really an internecine battle as you posit. I do not really think the pusillanimous or reactionary liberals of the Democratic party are inside the Left-wing movement in any real way. They have shown their allegiance is to capitalism, state-corporate power nexus, careerism, and other right-wing values.
This impotency is why I advocate that serious people on the left read up on our historical precedents when the entrenched parties de jour (e.g., the 18th century British monarchy, the 20th century Batista regime, our 21st century DNC/GOP duopoly, et.al.) were unresponsive to the normal mechanism of democracy.
This lack of power in the contemporary hands of the left is why I first advocate for electoral participation by hook or crook i.e., by 3rd parties. It's the only way inside the process in which the Dems are forced to take the Left seriously—we already know the ‘pressure tactic’ is impotent.
Insurrections and rebellions from Cape Town, to the Moncada Barracks of Cuba, to Boston Harbour, have sprung up when people believed their fundamental rights and needs were being transgressed by their governments; when their natural rights were being usurped with impunity. It is the right of every people to rebel against tyranny, and its discussion as a concept and a legitimate political praxis, (in the abstract of course, heh heh), is very much within the bounds of legal discourse.
Furthermore, this is why I suggest reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense & Rights of Man, Fidel Castro's, History Will Absolve Me, Sgt Stan Goff's (US Army RET) Full Spectrum Disorder, Ward Churchill's, Pacifism as Pathology& On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. I suggest we pull our heads out of the sand (or our asses) and begin to look at the broad picture of history. There is a reason that historical analysis is so valuable-- it shows you the precedents for all the bullshit you will see and hear from Obama (Clinton, Carter, Johnson, et.al.) so you don't get suckered again.
"Look, it can apparently never be said enough: Obama is BETTER than Bush. But he's not "BETTER" enough. Mussolini was better than Hitler but I wouldn't vote for him and I wouldn't try to "work" with him and expect much. I know that syllogism is hyperbolic but you get my point."
Okay, so don't vote for Mussolini and see who you get and how your life improves.
We're worshiping the light here, folks. The door is open and it's letting the light in, but we're stuck inside worshiping the light.
Change is not going to come at the ballot box. Change will never come at the ballot box. The ballot box is not intended for big change. Let go of that fairy tale and save your energy for where real change can happen. The only place change can happen.
You are living the fairy tale, Ted. It is called denial.
For anyone still following this thread, I highly recommend reading Ward Churchills, Pacifism as Pathology. I am also linking a book review off of Amazon that is accurate and powerful in my opinion. If you want to join the resistance movement, this is the opportunity to read something based on historical analysis, argument unsurpassed, logical, without any holes in it.
"One of the previous reviewers sums it up very well: In this book, and pulling no punches, Churchill lays out his case against white progressives-to be precise the liberal/social democratic complacent legions of mostly well-educated midlle and upper middle class activists-who are delusional not only in the ineffectual tactics and strategies they pursue (which the ruling elites are only too happy to accommodate as per a well-scripted minuet), but in the belief that they are actually performing revolutionary acts...
So, like it or not, Churchill is correct in pointing out that these liberals will do everything except assume actual risk in opposing the system..and that, being mostly interested in practicing "comfort zone" politics, they will almost invariably indulge in essentially worthless "cathartic" posturizing instead of solid opposition.
By the way, the same writer is NOT correct in saying that nonviolence has achieved huge transformations. The Iranian revolution (1979) was far from a nonviolent process: the Shah had been opposed for decades by above ground and underground groups, several of which practiced armed struggle and paid a horrific price for it, while the last month of his rule saw masses of people in most Iranian cities, but especially Tehran, literally storming strong points and tanks in the streets with their bare chests and being mowed down...until more and more soldiers simply gave up and melted away or switched sides.
As for the collapse of the USSR (1991), that came about as a result of complex processes that did not involve invested CLASS PRIVILEGES, as we have here and in other corporate-dominated nations. As for South Africa, the end of apartheid did not issue from a nonviolent process. Decades-long protests against the fascist legislation escalated until 1958 when the tragedy of Sharpeville occurred. Soon thereafter the government tried to suppress opposition through the sledgehammer approach of bannings and systematic "targeted repression".
The first to be hit were the ANC and the PAC, but such bannings merely caused the organisations to go underground and become even more militant. The "armed struggle" therefore began in earnest in 1958 and by 1970 was beginning to affect the South African economy as greater and greater manpower was required to maintain an ever increasing army. Thus, Mandela's organization, the ANC had both a civil and a military arm, even if the latter developed after all roads to a peaceful elimination of Apartheid had proved futile, and long after the beneficiaries of the status quo had demonstrated through their unrelenting savagery that only armed struggle would move history forward.
As for the much revered Arundhati Roy I do not think for a minute that she got it right in her speech in New York, where she argued "that there is no way to defeat the Empire by force and that its component parts must be isolated and paralyzed one by one." Sounds terrific and we only wish it were true, but Ms. Roy is also, like her liberal counterparts, utterly delusional. Furthermore, all the acclamation in the chi-chi salons and media precincts she's accustomed to will not change that simple fact. How does she propose to paralyze these component parts of the most heavily armed, cynical, and ruthless class privilege system in history without some form of REAL confrontation? With 2-hour candlelight vigils and some symbolic arrests which, by the way, may or may not be reported by the corporate-owned media?
If THAT was all that was required to get rid of an immoral, deeply rooted capitalist system, a Nazi terror regime, a vicious landowning oligarchy as in Salvador, and so on, humanity would have moved past these filthy horrors decades if not centuries ago.
As Churchill points out in his book, Nazi Germany was defeated by the massive application of force; the racist American South was similarly juridically defeated in the 1860s by massive military force, by organized all-out violence, (I say juridically because in practice it took 100 more years of struggle that saw innumerable crimes before African Americans could begin to take their rightful place among their fellow citizens)...There is not a single case in history where a deeply entrenched system of class or racial exploitation was overthrown by moral suasion and symbolic protests...If real change came about it was because force was being applied somewhere else alongside the nonviolent tracks...That's the point that Churchill is making in this book. It's a discomfiting point, but I'm afraid it is a true fact. Social change does not come cheap. Well, I could go on, but if you're a liberal I'm sure that facts will matter far less than attachment to convenient fantasies."
Many good points, well done.
elohim,
Thanks for posting the historical reminders that are so desperately needed at CD, though I doubt it will raise what I call the Wimpy Keyboard Intellectuals here off of their comfortable and cowardly asses. "Armed struggle" to their ilk is an anathema, at best an interesting academic read.
Sioux Rose
ELOHIM: Thank you for taking the time to outline these well-thought out posts. I am no political strategist, my venue being the paths to spiritual application; so I can only applaud the thesis you've laid out here.
Rose, I would like to learn more about "paths to spiritual application" and what that means. If you would like to talk further about it my email is coyoteteacher@gmail.
Chris
I can only hope that a republican will not take the white house and they don't grab control of congress again and in essence, the dems don't get the white house or control of congress.
Ideally, I want to see a 'no party' affilliate control in congress and someone with balls in the white house bringing oversight, investigations and prosecutions because, true justice is when the real crooks are punished, then we may get a good slice of our country's democracy back....
I hope.
You know how out of touch the parasites around Obama, the national media and the crooks in DC are? Without a doubt, 2010 and 2012 will roll around, the economic and healthcare policies will fail because they are giveaways to corporate interests and don't solve the fundamental problems of the systems, and the press and the right wing will say that they failed because of "big government" and "liberal" economic policies. Up will be down again and we're back to the Clinton years. Obama had a chance to change what needed to change, it was never likely though, and he has basically kissed that good bye. It was obvious we'd be in this position though when Obama started to appoint his advisors. It was entirely about assuring the power centers of this country as to where his priorities were, and they weren't in line with popular opinions on the issues. Oh well, back to voting for the lesser of two evils, who always get more evil as time goes on, right? The left has better ideas, they line up more with popular opinion, but they're properly ignored by more Democrats come election time. Somehow people like Sanders and Kucinich become the voice of the people and “liberals” in between elections then become pariahs come election time. I still can't figure out how this works out. Maybe a Democrat could explain this. Kucinich is right about healthcare, he speaks for you. He’s right about economic issues, he’s right about the war and corporate power, the environment. Explain why he’ll, and people like him, none the less become an afterthought once 2012 and 2016 rolls around.
Simply legislate an ongoing reduction in the eligibility age for Medicare, say reduce it by one year every 3 months, with no bottom.
Problem solved in short order.
Well yeah, but wait to hear the bloodcurdling howls when Americans see their paychecks getting smaller.
A Corporate Health Care System Will Be A Disaster
"Why?"
"Corporate overhead costs of upwards of thirty percent will bring about a situation where there'll be widespread triaging of patients and denial of services."
"Better or worse than nothing?"
"Worse."
"Based on?"
"Congress doesn't do anything about health care and the clamor for universal health care can only intensify, whereas, Congress, by passing off a corporate, completely privatized, user-be-damned system (like it's an improvement on the status quo), for a while at least, very well might lower the pressure for single payer."
"Buying time for the powers that be?"
"By whatever means are necessary."
"Otherwise?"
"Turnabout."
"And then what sort of world?"
"It'll be up to us."
"Anything else?"
"Yes we can."
The following two paragraphs come from the article written by William Blum regarding the election of Obama as the president. I apologize for not providing the link for I have lost it.
“The problem, I'm increasingly afraid, is that the man doesn't really believe strongly in anything, certainly not in controversial areas. He learned a long time ago how to take positions that avoid controversy, how to express opinions without clearly and firmly taking sides, how to talk eloquently without actually saying anything, how to leave his listeners' heads filled with stirring clichés, platitudes, and slogans. And it worked. Oh how it worked! What could happen now, as President of the United States, to induce him to change his style?”
“But he has no vision — not any kind of systemic remaking of the economy, producing a more equitable and more honest society; nor a world at peace, beginning with ending America's perennial wars; no vision of the fantastic things that could be done with the trillions of dollars that would be saved by putting an end to war without end; nor a vision of a world totally rid of torture; nor an America with national health insurance; nor an environment free of capitalist subversion; nor a campaign to control world population ... he just looks for what will offend the fewest people. He's a "whatever works" kind of guy. And he wants to be president. But what we need and crave is a leader of vision.”
In my opinion, the above quotes are prophetic.
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer69.html
· Yr Obd't Servant
Here's the link to Blum's quote - http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer69.html
Blum is always very much on target. He's a real leftist, not a liberal who thinks "leftish" things sometimes sound exciting.
Sioux Rose
CHRIS: I'd say the quotes are apt. Is this where a society ends up when it worships the packaging over content? Seinfeld did a funny episode on the concept of a TV show about NOTHING being ultimately destined for success. And I still remember being of pre-school age when Candid Camera did a spoof on persons encouraged by enthusiastic protesters to picket with BLANK signs. I often ask my good friends what percentage of the world, or American citizens for that matter, they imagine to be awakened? Guess wagers welcome.
I think what Dave Lindorff is trying to say is that it's okay to criticize Democrats as long as you still vote for them no matter what, because a Democrat, by virtue of being a Democrat, will always be better than a Republican. The problem is:
-That isn't saying much!
Lindorf offers this in his bullet points:
"How would they be feeling today, if McCain and Palin had been elected..."
Let me venture a guess. McCain would be advocating for FISA and TARP just like Obama has done.
McCain would be conducting covert operations in Pakistan killing innocents, just like Obama has done.
McCain would be escalating the war in Afghanistan and dropping munitions on non combatants just like Obama has done.
McCain would be advocating for a fantasy called "clean coal" and authorizing mountain top removal permits, just like Obama has done.
McCain would most likely have appointed General McChrystal to command forces in Afghanistan. McChrystal was Cheney's assassination general in Iraq and responsible for black ops missions to increase the body count of innocents turns out we did not need McCain, Obama was more than happy to appoint him.
McCain's appointment to regulate financial matters might have included a guy like Tim Geithner whose claim to fame is that he was a chief de-regulator under Bush and now a born again reformer under Obama.
We all know that McCain would still be in Iraq perpetually; and it turns out Obama plans to occupy Iraq indefinately by leaving upward of 50K in country.
McCain's health plan would benefit corporate insurance. Turns out, so will Obama's health plan. Apparently, another cash giveaway via mandates for all.
Is it possible that the country is a hair less dumb and more sane with Obama rather than McCain in the White House? Yes . . . but only by a hair, and only in ways that are mostly symbolic. In terms of actual economic/national security policy, there are no significant differences.
Your insistence that McCain would have bombed Iran is akin to your insistence that a second Bush term would have ushered in fascism. Lindorff and his ilk always pose counterfactual hypotheses about extreme measures they expect the Republicans to make, or moderately progressive ones they expect from the Democrats; but neither imagined course ever comes to pass, and emprically, while in office, these knaves always follow pretty much the same policies in all the areas that matter. So according to the standard liberal "chicken little" argument, we needed to vote for Kerry because Bush was ALSO going to usher in fascism in his second term.
But whatever this "fascism" was supposed to consist of, every element of Bush's barbarities: war funding, assault on civil liberties, right-wing Supreme Court nominees, flim-flam drug benefit--was supported down the like by the mainstream Democrats. In Mr. Lindorff's imagination there are imagined differences: in practice, there never are: the Republican regime never ushers in fascism, and the Democrats ratify every reactionary folly of the Republicans. Lindorff's chicken-little pretext for voting Republican is just a lame excuse, entirely refuted by history and fact, time after time. So your methodology of ratiionalizing your votes for Democrats is always nonempirical and always refuted by the facts of actual history.
Moreover, Lindorff's approach guarantees that he and others will always be trapped by this duopoly shell game. If one group pretends--and I emphasize "pretends"--to be so much worse than the other, then Lindorff and others can easily be scared into supporting the least worst, time after time, with the result that we always get some variant of "worst" and never any "better."
There has to be a decision, at some point, that the entire paradigm of financial fraud and imperial adventure will be repudiated, that people will begin devoting their energies to posing and building an alternative, rather than being bamboozled into settling for what will be at best a marginally--and only marginally, if at all--less repugnant variant of the reigning barbarism. You have no business ever choosing barbarism--even barbarism with a "human" face--the human face of the focus-group marketers, of course.
If we are ever to break out of this closed paradigm, we must break with it decisively. Given the imminence of total economic collapse, brazen looting of the Treasury, and global-warming disaster, there is no longer any time to indulge in hair-splittng scholasticism over preferred variants of barbarism--or purely imaginary, counterfactual BS about Republicans as the bearers of "fascism" as an excuse to prefer the rancid status quo.
We must act boldly to press for those measures that will challenge the barbaric paradigm once and for all. If those measures will not and cannot be taken up by any significant and influential sector of the Democrats--and we have seen over and over and over that this is the case--then we must stop playing their game and begin the hard work of saving this planet--for no less than that is at stake.
That means insisting on single-payer, nationalizing the banks, cutting military spending, and so on. The Democratic Party is a swamp where these demands sink into oblivion. THERE IS NO TIME TO PLAY THIS GAME ANY LONGER.
When will you stop playing it, Mr. Lindorff? If people as informed and enlightened as you keep playing this losing game, then all is lost. Your resignation to the status quo is a self-fulfilling prophecy of stagnation at best, and doom.
You must help to build the alternative we need, not shrink from it with lame excuses and sneering condescension. To the extent that you abjure, you are complicit in the barbarities and knavery you vote into office year after year WITH YOUR OWN VOTE.
Are you asserting that what we've had since Bush's first term, continuing with Obama, (for that matter since Clinton, Bush, Reagan) is not at least quasi-fascism? If not, what would you describe it as, since it meets several of the definitions of fascism - albeit without the concentration camps and jackboots in the streets demanding "your papers please"?
Actually, the sycophants of today are only occasionally that obvious, so we have the 21st century version of much of it with Gitmo-type imprisonment and warrantless wiretapping. No need to get in your face when they already have our calls and e-mails on hard drives at the NSA. Except when getting in your face is "necessary", like say...to confront and arrest peaceful protesters and indy media at the Republican Convention. Ask Amy Goodman and her crew.
They've learned their lessons from WWII and Vietnam of what NOT to do. It's a bit more subtle to control the message from the MSM, or to never show on TV the bodies returning at Dover, or to create a "stop-loss" policy - instead of a real draft that would get the middle classes seriously riled up. Need I mention the rampant corporate/banking-government whoring, decimating the labor unions, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the Jane Harmon treason that was swept under the rug, 9/11, '00 and '04 election fraud, ad infinitum? Today's "terrorists" are Hitler's "Juden" racism and Mussolini's "opposition" nationalism, scapegoats.
The main difference I see is the US today is not a *dictatorial* fascism per se. But the results are similar in many ways to the 1930s-40s. I guess it depends on how you like your fascism served.
Is it "barbarism" too? Of course. I do not defend Lindorff's article here, but am only critiquing your incorrect political characterizations. It is not only which party that ushered in the current form of fascism that's important (though both are complicit). Also important is to name it what it is.
Well, no wonder that John McCain says Obama is doing pretty good!
The real problem is not the sellout Democrats or the despised Republicans, they are just the symptom. The real problem is capitalism, an economic and social system in which trade and industry are privately controlled for profit rather than for the good of the people.
Capitalism cannot produce anything other than what it produces because the goal is to produce then increase profit. There is more profit to be made by exploiting people than by helping them. Unless the system is changed we will forever have the same outcomes.
In a capitalistic system if you try to help people you undermine your bottom line. A business would go bankrupt if they told you, "My widget is pretty good, but if you go down the street you can buy a better one for cheaper."
I agree completely with this assessment. So exactly how do we move to revolution? I don't see Americans taking to the streets. I barely see them signing on to unions. On healthcare, people abstractly say they'd like socialized medicine, but then they say (check outthe poll in today's Times) that they like their own health plan. The people who say they have it good, but don't want a society where 50 million can't see a doctor are few and far between.
So all you fine radicals who see no difference between McCain and Palin on the one hand and Obama on the other (and I agree there are many agreements between them), can sit back and pat yourselves for having not voted for Obama,
I still say you are condescending as hell towards minorities who voted for the guy and feel like, in the Sotomayor nomination, and the Ledbetter law, they've already gotten something, who feel that in the extended benefits for unemployment insurance, they've gotten something, and who in the federal stimulus grants to education and higher education assistance feel they've gotten something are just stupid, naive or hypocritical.
No, there are differences between Obama and McCain. I will admit that I was hoping against hope and experience in saying that I would vote for Obama with some hope that he would turn out to do some really good things. I no longer expect that. But you are either an idiot or are simply a disingenuous sophist if you think that what's happening today would be the same had McCain won. Trust me, we would not have had a Sotomayor being nominated to the bench. McCain said he see's Scalia as a model justice. "Bomb-bomb-Iran" McCain would likely have already hit Iran's nuke processing sites, or have given Israel the go-ahead.
There are differences, and it is ridiculous to say there aren't. Is that a reason to have voted for Obama? That's debatable, but it's not debatable if the person debating simply pretends there are no differences. I'll stand with Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky in saying that it was necessary to vote for Obama, and to work to build a movement of popular opposition to bad policies and for progressive ones.
I have no love of the Democratic Party, but this third party fetishism posing as noble leftism is going to get us nowhere. You guys are a pathetic joke.
Build a popular movement and the third party will come.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
deleted by user.
Dave Lindorff: "I'll stand with Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky in saying that it was necessary to vote for Obama..."
In this video: www.videosift.com/video/Chomsky-says-pick-the-lesser-of-two-evils, Chomski says to vote against McCain, which means for Obama, with no illusions. He says Democrats do not represent public opinion and are to the right of the public. It's hardly an endorsement.
In this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEJyrrgUvFI
Chomski ridicules Obama's choices for his cabinet. He says Obama's choice of pro-war Biden and Rahn Emanuel are a calculated slap in the face of his anti-war supporters.
The guy's kinda right. I'd like socialism now please... but even Sweden's not quite there yet. We just had a government footsteps away from fascism - you really expect to rebound *that fast* in the other direction? Obama was a nicely sized hop back towards sanity, but how could anyone have reasonably expected that we wouldn't still have a long, exhausting road to travel?
We've got 'em on the run. See that poll on the "public health option" (read: eventual single payer with a sort of trial period first where we clearly prove the insurance companies use money like toilet paper)... just about *everyone* agrees with us. Now get on your twitter and start bringing about the revolution!
Is it possible that the country is a hair less dumb and more sane with Obama rather than McCain in the White House? Yes . . . but only by a hair, and only in ways that are mostly symbolic. In terms of actual economic/national security policy, there are no significant differences.
Your insistence that McCain would have bombed Iran is akin to your insistence that a second Bush term would have ushered in fascism. Lindorff and his ilk always pose counterfactual hypotheses about extreme measures they expect the Republicans to make, or moderately progressive ones they expect from the Democrats; but neither imagined course ever comes to pass, and emprically, while in office, these knaves always follow pretty much the same policies in all the areas that matter. So according to the standard liberal "chicken little" argument, we needed to vote for Kerry because Bush was ALSO going to usher in fascism in his second term.
But whatever this "fascism" was supposed to consist of, every element of Bush's barbarities: war funding, assault on civil liberties, right-wing Supreme Court nominees, flim-flam drug benefit--was supported down the like by the mainstream Democrats. In Mr. Lindorff's imagination there are imagined differences: in practice, there never are: the Republican regime never ushers in fascism, and the Democrats ratify every reactionary folly of the Republicans. Lindorff's chicken-little pretext for voting Republican is just a lame excuse, entirely refuted by history and fact, time after time. So your methodology of ratiionalizing your votes for Democrats is always nonempirical and always refuted by the facts of actual history.
Moreover, Lindorff's approach guarantees that he and others will always be trapped by this duopoly shell game. If one group pretends--and I emphasize "pretends"--to be so much worse than the other, then Lindorff and others can easily be scared into supporting the least worst, time after time, with the result that we always get some variant of "worst" and never any "better."
There has to be a decision, at some point, that the entire paradigm of financial fraud and imperial adventure will be repudiated, that people will begin devoting their energies to posing and building an alternative, rather than being bamboozled into settling for what will be at best a marginally--and only marginally, if at all--less repugnant variant of the reigning barbarism. You have no business ever choosing barbarism--even barbarism with a "human" face--the human face of the focus-group marketers, of course.
If we are ever to break out of this closed paradigm, we must break with it decisively. Given the imminence of total economic collapse, brazen looting of the Treasury, and global-warming disaster, there is no longer any time to indulge in hair-splittng scholasticism over preferred variants of barbarism--or purely imaginary, counterfactual BS about Republicans as the bearers of "fascism" as an excuse to prefer the rancid status quo.
We must act boldly to press for those measures that will challenge the barbaric paradigm once and for all. If those measures will not and cannot be taken up by any significant and influential sector of the Democrats--and we have seen over and over and over that this is the case--then we must stop playing their game and begin the hard work of saving this planet--for no less than that is at stake.
That means insisting on single-payer, nationalizing the banks, cutting military spending, and so on. The Democratic Party is a swamp where these demands sink into oblivion. THERE IS NO TIME TO PLAY THIS GAME ANY LONGER.
When will you stop playing it, Mr. Lindorff? If people as informed and enlightened as you keep playing this losing game, then all is lost. Your resignation to the status quo is a self-fulfilling prophecy of stagnation at best, and doom.
You must help to build the alternative we need, not shrink from it with lame excuses and sneering condescension. To the extent that you abjure, you are complicit in the barbarities and knavery you vote into office year after year WITH YOUR OWN VOTE.
The current unfettered capitalism which Naomi Klein correctly details about in "Shock Doctrine" is the real problem. Capitalism always existed in the US but up until the 1970s, it was not the monster that it has become today.
On your last sentence that you quoted, I would like to share with you the first lesson Finance 101 dictated to us students back when I took that course in college. It's always "Whole sale volume sale good, quality not important and not good for the economy". This is why we're stuck with "free" trade, privatized care, "cheap" labor for fast output and turnover instead of quality driven labor to bring out the best and longer lasting results, wars for oil for volume profiteering instead of growing our own oil locally and in stable amounts, etc ... While I generally advocate care before profits first, I have come across small companies that put their profits to wise use and even truly helpful and charitable uses both inside and outside the company. I did live in the 1950s and 1960s but from what I heard and studied, there was regulated capitalism back then to keep things checked and balanced unlike today where the system is RIGGED to screw the not so monied.
PS: If anyone here who lived through the 1950s and 1960s can confirm or correct my understanding of capitalism then, I'd welcome it. Thanks.
"Capitalism always existed in the US but up until the 1970s, it was not the monster that it has become today."
I strongly disagree with this. It was just as much of a monster then, the victims were poor people and countries, our country and countries like ours benefited from their struggles. Now some of the poor countries are asserting themselves, many in opposition to capitalism, and there are fewer people to exploit and less people willing to stand by and see their environments destroyed. The people in Peru are the latest example of this. We live in a world of finite resources and they are demanding a larger share of those resources and demanding that we stop our destruction of THEIR environments and stop the monopolization of THEIR resources, which means we all have less resources for ourselves. So, wages have stagnated since the 1970's and we are increasingly the victims of this system.
Tony Benn said it best. People used to challenge official polices that didn't suite or benefit them and the system changed to meet their needs. That isn't the case now. People are forced to change to the needs of the system. Capitalism in the West during the early 1970's was facing a crisis. Profits were stagnant, labor was relatively still powerful and wages were high. The elites responded with what is now called "neo-liberalism", which has destroyed poor and rich countries alike, because those policies are what is needed to save capitalism. It is not possible for us to ask for a new and far better system. The system is a given, we can only debate what price we must pay to save capitalism (the elites don't have to worry, they aren't paying a price) and where we fit in the system. It's the same system. Now you know how much relevance the arguments of social revolutionary regimes in the poorer countries had and has.
It's not because of more regulated capitalism then versus now.
Two reasons things have changed.
One, after world war two the industrial capacity of Europe and Japan (both the leaders at the time) was destroyed. America filled this void by producing steel, lumber, minerals, manufactured goods, agricultural products for the world. The Marshal plan helped finance this industrial expansion. Things were good in the 50s. Easy to get a good paying job.
Two, Americans had just won a major war. There were true expressions of patriotism and community. War veterans were treated very well by the government. CEO pay was, at most, 100 times that of the average worker. There was a feeling that everyone contributed and thus everyone should benefit.
By the beginning of the 80s these attitudes changed. Mostly due to the selling and implementing of conservative values of less government, a hierarchical society, more capitalism (that is, more concentration of economic power by the elite) the view that all Americans should benefit lost its appeal. The rich got richer and more politically powerful and selfish.
I'm all for socialism for the people and not for the already well to do. As I see it, what we have is the opposite. Thank you for the info on true respect and patriotism. With more troops being replaced by mercenaries such as in Iraq which Obama strongly supports, whatever troops are remaining are likely to copy their ways and get themselves into trouble when they get home if they're lucky that it.
It's not because of more regulated capitalism then versus now.
Two reasons things have changed.
One, after world war two the industrial capacity of Europe and Japan (both the leaders at the time) was destroyed. America filled this void by producing steel, lumber, minerals, manufactured goods, agricultural products for the world. The Marshal plan helped finance this industrial expansion. Things were good in the 50s. Easy to get a good paying job.
Two, Americans had just won a major war. There were true expressions of patriotism and community. War veterans were treated very well by the government. CEO pay was, at most, 100 times that of the average worker. There was a feeling that everyone contributed and thus everyone should benefit.
By the beginning of the 80s these attitudes changed. Mostly due to the selling and implementing of conservative values of less government, a hierarchical society, more capitalism (that is, more concentration of economic power by the elite) the view that all Americans should benefit lost its appeal. The rich got richer and more politically powerful and selfish.
Kicked out of HS in 54 joined the AF and was dumb about most things got out in 57 looked for a job,none,single and mooched off my parents and went to Junior College on the GI Bill and still nothing so went back in the AF till retirement.The one thing that comes to mind is the strong union presence throughout the northeast,midwest and California,my home state but it was already morphing into what we see today because of the collusion with big business.If I were to guess this would be at the top of my list as to why JFK was killed.The fix was in and corperations ended on top of the heap with more money and clout and just kicked the unions to the curb.Union leadership killed unions and isn't that the way now with leadership kicking people to the curb?Tony
I refuse to be disappointed issue after issue. A corrupt system is incapable of producing health care reform. Forget it. Your words and letters mean little. Money does the talking.
Disengage as much as possible from the old collapsing system and engage in the new system forming at the bottom. It's the only rational path forward. Capitalism has brought Democracy down. Prepare for Fascism and hardship. The old system will try to sustain itself in war. Don't let your kids go. War will collapse too if no one goes. It is still possible to live a happy and fulfilling life living more simply and sustainably.
Yeah Stone!
What's going down? Empire and War.
What's coming up? Cooperation and peace.
We plant the seeds of sustainability by living simply.
"War will collapse too if no one goes. "
I would like to agree, but we'll just continue to hire corporate-employed mercenary soldiers. And I'm afraid that today's kids are going to be easily lured by the video game-like atmosphere of war, where you can sit in a comfortable room in Las Vegas (or any other location), push a button, and watch on the monitor as you hit your targets thousands of miles away-- no need to personally witness the blood and carnage.
This is yet another wishful thinking article and since others have revealed that the author supported these same thugs last year, why bother asking for them to improve? I'm glad that others on this forum are bringing up the fact that all this wishful thinking is completely meaningless as long as the same author continues to vote status quo. I noticed on this thread that even when challenged about who he would support should the healthcare mess get worse by 2012, he tried to evade the question but in fact condescended them about 3rd parties. So Lindorff claims to be concerned about money getting in the way with healthcare and yet he still says that we should vote for the "winner" before we even vote even if that "winner" is a big money supporter. So basically this author admitted to negating his own article. What a phoney !
So basically this author admitted to negating his own article. What a phoney !'
Funny, I cracked up when I read that!
Terminate Corporate 'Personhood' with extreme prejudice!
The Senate also needs hard term limits - time's up.
I'm not sure why we have so many Lindorff articles on healthcare reform. Really, this issue was closed by Dem leaders some time ago. No single payer for you!
I agree with Lindorff on the need for single payer, but he's too distracted by the whole "failure of leadership" idea. No, this isn't failure of leadership. This is the point of the Democratic Party. They defend their constituents, which are their campaign donors: HMOs, insurance companies, big pharma, AMA, etc.
No, Dave. This is the leadership you and other reflexive Dem voters voted for. Why you continue to do so is not real clear, although it seems it's mostly due to fear of Repugs. Of course, that's the game. It ensures that the public never votes for their interests. It's time to be clear about that.
Lindorff once again make a flat-out wrong statement when he writes about Obama: "That is if his adoption of a policy of expanded war in Afghanistan--another example of a failure to lead--doesn't prove to be this president's bigger policy disaster."
Wrong, Dave. Obama promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan during the election. It was a main part of his platform. He really is following through on his "leadership" there. I can't see how you missed it.
-TIA
One small correction Thoughts: money into campaigns is not a "donation" in my view, but rather an investment. And corporations expect a return on those investments via legislation favorable to their interests.
"But I also know plenty of doctors who have told me how half their classmates in medical school were mainly in it for the money, and that study halls and cafeterias of American med schools echo with the conversations about what can be made working in particular specialties."
My son is about to enter his residency, and his views and goals have almost completely reversed themselves since he entered college. In the beginning, he was compassionate and empathetic to the needs of people. He went into medicine for all of the right reasons. I still remember our conversations.
However, now, his main objective is to make as much money as he possibly can, and as soon as he can. No doubt, student loans reflect part of his change of attitude. And, I can understand that element of the equation. At the same time, though, in discussion, he tosses out the terms "socialist" and "Communism," with accusatory abandon, whenever the issue of "single-payer" comes up in any conversation. He shrugs off all arguments and refuses to listen.
My son attended medical school in Omaha, Nebraska, and of course, Nebraska is a very conservative state. In the case of my son's about-face on policies concerning health care reform, I can't help but to question the very institutions, the colleges and universities, who teach our children. Are these institutions part of the problem? My personal conclusion is that they are.
By the way, I lost my job 2 1/2 years ago, and I have no health insurance. My son is completely disconnected from this reality.
Kay Johnson, I am sorry about your experience. And yes, medical school is big on brainwashing. It isn't the location, it's the philosophy they hammer into the students. And students come out seriously in debt. And when the money pours in, let's face it, money corrupts. If it didn't, we would have honest news journalists. Medical students are brutalized during residency. As a nurse in a teaching hospital, I saw it at work. Third year residents terrorize the first year residents. When I pointed out an abnormal glucose lab result on a patient (about which nothing was being done) to a 1st year resident, he ran off with it to his supervisor saying "I'm concerned about this" and I realized how important it was for him to get credit for noticing it (which he hadn't, nor had anyone else). This was at Stony Brook University Hospital. They were making residents work 36 hour shifts. All I could think was hope I never run into one of them at the end of a shift if I needed a cut down. New York did pass a law requiring adequate sleep, but the hospitals found ways around that.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Kay,
There is no doubt in my mind that the institutions of learning, from public schools to med schools, are geared for creating workers for industry.
Several years ago, when my daughter was in junior high, my wife and I went to a parent's night early in her 8th grade year. As we entered one of her classrooms, I noticed a list of subject on the blackboard. After we were all seated, the teacher told us that the list was the subject matter that Business wanted kids to come out of school knowing. What Business wanted kids to know! Never mind opening the minds of young people to the classics and to learning and reasoning, but to business needs.
I am not surprised that your son's perspective was changed after med school. From what I hear, one of the first things they drum out of future doctors' minds is compassion. This is simply a mirror of the society we live in, where the dollar rules all. In my opinion, the only way to counter this is in our own lives and how we treat others.
The good news is that many people come through their training with their core intact, and then do good things. Many medical professionals are advocating for single payer universal health care. Hopefully, they will be able to have a bigger impact than the ones who are in it for the money.
Hopefully, your son will come around. Right now, he's fallen into the tendrils of the system. If you imparted a sense of conscience in him, it's still there.
I thought that I had instilled a good sense of conscience in him, but who knows? I will hope for change!
I work as a researcher, when I can get work, and the other day, when I found myself in the year 1983, and working in the Atlanta Constitution, I ran across an article that had nothing to do with my subject of research, but I printed it out to read later. Ted, your comments reminded me of the article.
Titled, "Teacher: I am angry because...I have come under attack," written by John T. Driscoll, and originally published in the Washington Post, the article begins, "I am a teacher in the public schools, and I am angry. I am angry because for the past several years I have come increasingly under attack. Though I try not to take the attack personally, I find that such a response is no longer possible.
"A few years ago my students sought to compliment me by asking why a person like me would work for a teacher's salary. The question reflected their misunderstanding that the only factor relevant to job satisfaction is pay.
"I am besieged not only by students who have been encouraged to believe that only fools work for less than $50,000 per year, but by other groups equally impossible to ignore.
"We must be reminded that it is not the recent products of the American education system who have led us into this stagnation. It was the best and brightest of the "good old days" who, by debasing the currency to finance their war in Southeast Asia, created an inflation that eventually crippled our economy. It is not mediocre high school graduates, but Harvard MBAs who are so paralyzed by fear for their five and six-figure incomes that they have become incapable of taking the risks necessary to make a capitalist economy grow and remain competitive."
These are excerpts. This article appeared in the Atlanta Constitution on June 19, 1983, and seems quite relevant today.
"It is not mediocre high school graduates, but Harvard MBAs who are so paralyzed by fear for their five and six-figure incomes that they have become incapable of taking the risks necessary to make a capitalist economy grow and remain competitive."
Good points, Kay.
The last part about a capitalist economy nothwithstanding, there are a couple of points made here. First, of course, it is the elites who graduated from elite schools who are pulling the strings. Always have. My point is that our whole system is aligned to crank out cogs and if the system is flawed, as it is, the cogs will merely work away to propel this system on its flawed progression.
Secondly, it is (sadly) human nature to protect what we have. More than that, the fact that so many keep striving for more and acquiring long after they have secured plenty is a testament to how flawed this society is. We simply have no measure for what is "enough." Striving and acquiring are equated with success, while having just enough plus a little more is, well...something less. We see this in all aspects of life in this society/culture.
Again, I look at this and what I intuit and realize that all I can do is to live my life the way I wish the world to be. Not in poverty, but ever more simply and humbly. I'm not there yet (actually, never will be), but I struggle daily to live this way.
Ted,
I should have included the following:
Mr. Driscoll continued with, "If the nation is truly at risk, as the president and his commission on educational quality suggest, it is at risk due to a failure of American leadership, in both the public and private sectors. Politicians substitute slogans for action as they watch, spellbound and helpless, while government spending becomes an ever increasing percentage of GNP. Business leaders, already recipients of countless billions in government subsidies, spend millions that could be used for research to acquire an ever larger amount of public dole. They demand more protection from foreign competition. They get protection for their foreign markets, even when such protection requires that this nation often overlook the most blatant violations of human rights. Still, they ask for more."
He concludes, "I attended a university that took for its motto, 'That we may serve.' The motto had a profound effect on me; it led me into teaching. I am still proud of my decision. I will not be branded as incompetent because I accepted a job for which the rewards are less tangible than the bottom line on a paycheck. Nor will I stand by silently and beomce the scapegoat for a frustrated nation."
When he wrote this article, Mr. Driscoll was teaching U.S. Government in the Fairfax County, Virginia public school system.
Sioux Rose
KAY: I raised two daughters mostly on my own. One put herself through college and the other, with all kinds of scholarships, dropped out. Both want the "good life" and both are dazzled by what money can buy. I suppose this is partially a rebellion to my more ecologically-oriented values. To them, Mom was a hippie. It's very painful that I can't reach them, that they grew up in the l980's, "The Reagan era," and most of my friends of similar age, even a gay female friend who sees this in her nephew's case, all agree that this group has a remarkable sense of entitlement. (I can think of only one exception or two.)
It will become poignantly ironic that this generation that pursued money and privilege over more lasting ideals, and/or altruistic service, is likely to be the one that has to adjust to a highly deflated U.S. dollar, and all the things it no longer purchases. Perhaps the training in simplicity that the parents sought to deliver will prove quite useful at that time.
I actually have two sons, both of whom also grew up in the 1980s.
You are so correct:
"Both want the "good life" and both are dazzled by what money can buy. I suppose this is partially a rebellion to my more ecologically-oriented values."
My other son is studying "organizational psychology" and when he finishes his Ph.D. he will be equipped to assist corporations in making decisions that will guarantee them even "greater efficiency" -- a euphemism for "higher profits."
Both of my sons expect to make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. And, as you suggested in your comment, they feel "entitled" to these salaries.
I agree!
"It will become poignantly ironic that this generation that pursued money and privilege over more lasting ideals, and/or altruistic service, is likely to be the one that has to adjust to a highly deflated U.S. dollar, and all the things it no longer purchases. Perhaps the training in simplicity that the parents sought to deliver will prove quite useful at that time."
In tracing the attitudes of both of my sons, I first noticed a change in both boys during the second semester of their junior years in college. Therefore, I couldn't help but conclude that part of the problem is the institutions themselves.
"It will become poignantly ironic that this generation that pursued money and privilege over more lasting ideals, and/or altruistic service, is likely to be the one that has to adjust to a highly deflated U.S. dollar, and all the things it no longer purchases."
This may vary from family to family. Some parents will acknowledge their mistakes and try to help their children out of the mess that they got them into. Others will simply try to wash off their hands and leave their children to hold the bag which may cause the children to hate their parents when they grow older.
"Perhaps the training in simplicity that the parents sought to deliver will prove quite useful at that time."
I have seen cases where parents have tried to train their children well but the children refused because they fell into what appeared to be something that made them feel bigger and better even if it turned out to be another big empty. I don't think I have been bad but sometimes I feel that I missed some critical spots in my life. After you told me about the two incidents in a row pattern, when I look back and think, at first I feel scared and upset. In the long run however, I and countless others who correctly interpret what we learned will hopefully be tomorrow's saviors. I don't know how many countless others share that fear and what is the best way to help them overcome that fear.
"It will become poignantly ironic that this generation that pursued money and privilege over more lasting ideals, and/or altruistic service, is likely to be the one that has to adjust to a highly deflated U.S. dollar, and all the things it no longer purchases. Perhaps the training in simplicity that the parents sought to deliver will prove quite useful at that time."
I hope so, Sioux Rose. However, much knowledge and experience in living more simply and humbly has been lost, drummed out by this culture's greedy march for endless growth.
My parents grew up during the depression, but it was their parents who had to put the food on the table and a roof over their heads during that time. The things they knew were all but lost, forgotten for the ease of instant gratification.
What we are going through now, with the economic downturn, is a good thing. Yes, there are many people out of work, but we have become a very soft and needy people with a high sense of entitlement. This is not only the domain of the people who grew up during the Reagan years, but everyone who came of age after WW II when the great machine really kicked into high gear and the masses had to be convinced (by marketing psychologists) to want and need and consume ever more products.
There are other things waiting in the wings for us - peak oil, climate change, huge debt - that will force us to live a different way. Hopefully, we have been using this time to pare down and learn how to make do a little better. It's going to be a bumpy road ahead, so fasten your seat belts and throw the ballast overboard!
Oh, one more thing: Single payer universal health insurance now!
Ted, you're right. And quite a few doctors favoring single payer have come around because the greed of the corporations is not allowing them to practice good medicine. When it gets to where they are willing to let the govt set rates, that's getting pretty bad. But that's 60% of practicing doctors and 70% of pediatricians. So some doctors are greedy, what's new in the human race? There are good doctors out there who care about their patients. One wrote "when I look into my uninsured patient's eyes, I just can't do this".
Kay, my 9 yr old grandson asked me why I was giving money to a homeless vet and I told him why. He said, "Granny, when I grow up I want to be just like you". How we raise our kids sets their compass. It can get knocked off course at times, but it's set.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I went to medical school at a fancy Eastern university in the 1970's, & most of the other students there were among the most selfish dishonest hypercompetitive cutthroat assholes I ever met in my life. They were doubtless the very type that in more recent years wound up on Wall Street.
There were a few exceptions, of course. But in the main, they were just the type you'd expect to be selected by a system that guarantees a good income to anyone who can make it into medical school.
1970s? And I thought that time period was nothing compared to the decades after that. I can only imagine the more vicious ones coming out in the 1980s and 1990s. I sure don't want to know what they'll look like once on Wall $treet.
I've seen this kind of selfish and dishonest behavior in a lot of students regardless of profession. What you said makes me feel at ease even more that taking my classes online with only midterm and final exams being proctored face to face wasn't a bad idea.
I wonder if homeschooling without the religion stuff might be a better idea for people who want to get into medicine. The reason I wonder is that especially in medicine, putting life before profits is absolutely critical. I just don't think that the modern schools are putting basic interpersonal communications skills first and foremost in their curriculms.
JenniferBedingfield: The medical profession has always been primarily a group of greedy pigs; not all, but enough. That's why the AMA was started--to create and preserve a monopoly. In 1976, Ivan Illich (who also wrote "Deschooling Society") published Medical Nemesis, according to the book jacket, "the most explosive, uncompromising, thoroughly researched attack on the gravest health hazard we face today: our medical system." New Age Journal called it "A critique, not only of medicine, but of industrial society..."
Hi cassandra. Thanks for the info on Ivan Illich. I'll find those sources and give them a read since they sound interesting. By the way, thank you also for pointing out that there was never really a free market. The weakness in progressives and liberals is taking the frame "free market" and just calling it bad when in fact it was a rigged market purposely mislabelled as "free". Naomi Klein discusses this very well in her book "Shock Doctrine" which I am reading.
Affected by a computer virus, I did not answer you yesterday, so I hope you see this.
I totally agree about free markets. Saying free markets don't work sets up an argument that is not useful. We should want to know what works. Health care is one of the most unfree markets in the world. If you don't know about Codex you will be shocked (maybe) to learn that the UN is pushing for "harmonization" in food production and health care delivery, i.e., agribusiness and Big Pharma run it. There is a German doctor in charge who believes that nutrition is irrelevant to health!
Health freedom (the ability to choose how you treat illness in your body) is critical to a healthy society, both physically and sociologically. I never tell people "you should do so and so" but now they want to tell me what I can't do.
If you have $49, see www.wrightnewsletter.com and order a one-year subscription. You will have access to 9 years of archives, with research and references. Otherwise, try www.hsibaltimore.com and sign up for e-alerts. Ignore the ads. They also have archives available to search at their website.
Hi cassandra,
No problem. Unless I get sick or just tied up by work pressure, I'll usually check back. I am aware of Codex and if I recall, it was snuck into CAFTA. So much for "free" trade. I am also well aware that the UN quietly protects Monsanto and I have been getting a few sympathy letters from people in St Louis ashamed to have that company exist and are even starting to write to the mayor like I've done twice. It's bad enough that Washington subsidizes Big Agri but as my older friend who used to post here, JWVerez, also informed us in the archives, the UN is doing too and blaming small farmers for global warming. Conventional corn-feed meat and diary, not pasture raised, for the past 50 years is a major cause of global warming. Even some Republicans and Democrats, generally the ones from very rural districts, acknowledge this. If only they'd stand up to obscene subsidization of Big Agri.
I agree with you on health freedom and the more I find out what's being outlawed and what's being made more unfairly expensive, the more I see the double backstabbing from our pols. I think single payer needs to be framed in a non-monetary tone. In other words, discussing it should involve less about the money and more about the actual offer for our tax dollars. I know it's a complicated issue but I think that as money continues to be further degraded, health freedom and care will be more clear. When I moved to the city away from the farmlands, I became more independent on what to eat and decided to give the organic foods and even the "forbiddens" a try. Having recently recovered, I often thank my stars that had I not gone for better quality foods such as hemp, stevia sweets, grassfed milk, etc ... that I would have been in worse shape or even died. I cannot deny that at some point, no amount of insurance coverage will save one. All factors need to be taken into consideration.
Thank you for the info on those two sites. I will be happy to check it out. $49 for a year's worth plus a decade of archives doesn't hurt.
Cassandra, I appreciate the information about the Ivan Illich books, as well as the websites you mentioned. I will check them out. The books are now on my "to read' list.
Jennifer,
Thanks for your comments on our educational system. I hope that my son will revise his attitude once he is out working as a doctor, when he finishes his residency.
Several months ago, I read Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine." Meticulous research and documentation went into the book. The revelations were, for me, devastating. I could only read a couple of chapters at a sitting. I knew about some of the incidents she outlined, but others, I knew absolutely nothing about. She certainly pulls back the curtain to reveal the truth about U.S. -- supposed -- "free trade" policies.
When I studied Finance 101 in college, the first thing they teach is "whole sale volume sale good for the economy, quality products not important and not helpful for the economy". Every profession follows those Enronomic principles from there. So yes, I strongly agree with you that it is these institutions that are a big part of the problem. I sorry to see the status you are in and wished your son would open his heart and help you. I'm glad I did my graduate and most of my undergraduate studies online and still got to be with the family. Maybe online education is needed so that parents and young adults can keep love and sympathy going.
Another thing to consider is that DOD and Corporate America financially control the way education is conducted in this country. This would explain why self-development and true creativity are often punished while cheating and copying are often not only going unpunished but in fact rewarded. Even in the most "Liberal" states, it's no better. Corporate America's favorite go-to corporate trial lawyer John Roberts went to Harvard just like Obama.
Actually, the "debate" about health-care is exactly the same as all the other "debates." Straight across the board -- no matter if you're talking about banking, health-care, military policy, energy policy, or holding torturers & war criminals responsible for their crimes -- there is one (and ONLY one) underlying issue: whether or not government will act to preserve the privileges of powerful elites.
In each of these areas, the interests of the general population conflict with those of the elites who dominate the particular portion of the economy under discussion. If government weighs in on the side of elites, you get a bad result (from the viewpoint of the population). If government were to weigh in on the side of the population, it would hurt elites' interests; would infuriate them; & there would be a big political price to pay. But this can never happen, when the whole government is composed of only two parties, which both represent big business.
This is why there is no solution to any of these problems inside the framework of the US political system, which is designed to make sure that big business interests never lose. In every case, the relevant business interests effectively hold a veto against change, & the political system enforces that.
All American voters who support the "lesser evil", who get swept off their feet by "eloquent" politicians yapping empty banalities about "hope and change", or who say things like "Obama has only been in office for a few months, give him time," etc -- you are the very suckers the system is designed to fool & betray.
The system ensures that the govt will always defend elite interests. Since elite interests usually conflict with those of the general population, the system cannot possibly deliver more to the general population than empty banalities & betrayal. A political system that's designed simply to guarantee the privileges of big business is ALWAYS going to reward Wall St, the health insurance thieves, the military industrial complex, and Exxon. It will ALWAYS screw everyone else.
According to opensecrets, the Democrats took in over twice the bribes from the "care" industry in 2008 as they did in 2006. Democrats took in $90.7 million, which accounted for 54% of their total.
But lobbying by the same industry amounted to $484.4 million in 2008.
The Democrats are finally outcompeting the Republicans in this important profit center, although I think pharma is still Republican. Seeing which party can deliver more will be an important early indicator for 2010 and beyond.
Anyone see Baucus delivering the good news that pharma said they'd steal $80 billion less from Medicare over the next 10 years so long as the Democrats don't ask why they can afford to steal $80 billion less and still make out like the Pirates of the Care-Ibbean?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk23AtoTzMM
I suspect there are a lot of people like me who have, over the years, been betrayed repeatedly by Democratic Party candidates once they are in office. Once elected, they all morph into Republican Lite, corporate-controlled politicians. After every betrayal, I thought about joining a third party--but didn't. This time is different.
This time, if Democrats in Congress do not support a public option when over 70 percent of the American people want one, I will definitely be joining a third party. I hope others will do the same en masse. It may be the only way to get some representation for the American people back into our political system.
I WONDER
I wonder at all the diverse comments, ideas, personalities that come out here on CD.
I wonder if it is from a particular segment of the population, old, young, school of hard knocks, college or just blasé’ ordinary people with a desire and a yen for a fair life for all and not just for themselves?
I wonder at the amount of times that we sign petitions, call our political representatives, write letters to them and to an editor of the MSM trying to get them to do what is right for the majority of people.
I wonder if it makes any difference? Don’t think so.
I wonder what would be critical mass for them to pay attention to the people instead of the money?
I wonder if there are enough CD’ers to start something, anything without money because we cannot compete in that race.
I wonder if the will is there as much as the intelligence that is shown here daily?
I wonder if it would be better to do just as Jesus said in Luke 21 that all these wars, rumors of wars, turmoil’s and all the ugly things that are going on these days; he said don’t sweat it because it is written in the big book of life and it will happen so don’t worry.
I wonder about the time and a half times and the Maya time of the end: 2012 and the Hopi prophecies and other Native American ones also.
I wonder if loving God with all your heart and soul and everyone else as much as yourself would be enough to do while on this planet as in the end each one of us will answer for ourselves.
Tony 6/20/2009
Good things to wonder, Tony, and I share most of them.
"I wonder at the amount of times that we sign petitions, call our political representatives, write letters to them and to an editor of the MSM trying to get them to do what is right for the majority of people.
I wonder if it makes any difference? Don’t think so."
I wonder about that too. While I don't think that it changes things overnight, a steady reminder of what we want is important. However, this is just the beginning. We're going to need to follow up with demands, both in print and out in the streets. We need to get messy with this.
"I wonder what would be critical mass for them to pay attention to the people instead of the money?"
Good question. Dunno. I do know that a critical mass isn't even the majority, just a strong and vocal minority to lead. The others will follow. That's the way it always is.
"I wonder if there are enough CD’ers to start something, anything without money because we cannot compete in that race."
Unfortunately, no. Common Dreams is not geared to allowing people to organize. It's geared to allowing people to vent and share views and bitch. It is impossible under this structure to organize. Inform others of events, yes, but not organize.
"I wonder if the will is there as much as the intelligence that is shown here daily?"
Apparently not. Unfortunately, things will have to get worse before our will gets better.
The rest of your questions I'll leave to the religious.
Just my inconsequential thoughts.
Thanks for the comments Ted and you may of noticed that my post is all over CD this day because I wanted some input but it seems there is not that much interest.Dont do religion and haven't been to a church in 40 years but do read a chapter of the Bible every day and as I've gotten older read only the prophets and psalms;it helps me think.Thanks again.Tony
sierra7
The best word description of our government by the author is...."Whoredom"
Very simply put: You can't have "Guns and Butter?" Remember that phrase????
We have military/industrial/Wall St Complex that is sucking the life out of our economy. We have corporate elites, so intertwined with each other that the cloak of control is almost invisible, but there nonetheless.
Like health care, our concerns with the activities of Wall Street are puny compared with the power of the money in the system to promote more war.......Weapons: use them or lose them. Period.
Until we as citizens can crush the military/industrial complex and further invalidate it's influence on our nation we will not ever, ever become a truly progressive one.
And, a morally progressive nation must include single-payer health care system. Nothing less will do. Nothing.
Everything else is plain, "BULL#$%^!!
Make no mistake, this administration is going to "modify" (reform, what a word; ugh!) present systems and move on to further destroying our economy with more "reforms" which will go nowhere....
Until the citizens of this country get their heads out of their collective A$%^ we will continue to go downhill and deteriorate. Possibly this economic situation will wake people up to the fact that "something" is seriously wrong with our system.
While our major media continues to further the lines of fear of other countries, and we do not turn off away from that sort of propaganda we will not be able to counter the elitist view that, "....happiness comes out of the doors of a Wal-Mart...!"
Our national government is fed by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and until we can come up with a better way of politicizing we again will continue to go downhill.....
Wake up people!
When you all decide to "opt-out" of the mainstream you will truly become "free."
(I'm a registered non-partisan voter)
Speaking of naivete, This is probably a terribly naive question, but have any activist organizations - the several single-payer healthcare groups, peace groups like code pink, the anti-MTR groups in West Virginia or others, contacted the White House and requested or attempted to request, a meeting with the President? Surely corporate lobby groups get such meetings with the president or at least his chief of staff.
Maybe the president only be getting the corporate side of the issues because the peoples side is organizing invisible rallys and CD actions, but not bothering to call the White House to at least attempt to schedule meeting?
The answer to this question is yes. The single payer advocate organizations asked to be part of the discussion when the White House was developing its plans, and were rebuffed, and not invited to participate.
In the Senate, they were left out of Sen. Baucus' hearings on the Senate's health care reform plans, and when they came anyway and tried to raise the issue from the audience in the commitee room, he had them all arrested.
Your democracy at work.
In the House, Rep. John Conyers has bravely tried to keep the Single-payer idea alive with a bill calling for it, but he has been prevented from having it get even a hearing.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Yes, Democrats working feverishly on health care reform "face increasingly noisy protests from those on the left who complain that a national program like those in Europe has been excluded from the debate," The Washington Post reports.
But it's more than that. I also, perhaps against all logic and experience, admit that I expect something good of an Obama presidency.
Call me naive, but based upon my own life experience, I keep thinking that a guy who has worked as a community organizer, a Harvard Law School grad (and even law journal editor!) who could have named his price at a Wall Street law firm, but who chose instead to be a political and community activist, a guy who has relatives who live in humble surroundings in Kenya, and who spent some of his childhood actually living in a Third World Asian nation, not to mention a guy who has surely felt the sting of being called a nigger, has to bring something new to the White House. Certainly no other president in the history of the country has come to the office with such a background.
Sure Obama is no leftist candidate. But if he were, he wouldn't be heading for an election victory. He wouldn't even be the Democratic nominee. He'd be, at best, where Dennis Kucinich is--holding a seat in Congress where his every progressive effort would be stymied or mocked by the House leadership. - Dave Lindorff Oct. 15, 2008
-okay Dave, you are naive
Is Kucinich even promoting single payer anymore? Have they ALL whored themselves out?
As far as I know, yes he does. Headlining his website he quotes Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Chicago Archdiocese:
"Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity and there is an obligation for society to ensure that every person be able to realize this right."
Obama is a strong leader. What he's doing is positioning himself to take as much power away from the people he sees as the opposition.
The people he sees as the opposition are the ones who got him elected.
Now we are on the same page!
The Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats are finally hitting the inevitable wall that was bound to confront them because of the president's congenital inability to be a bold leader, and because of the party's toxic decades-old decision to betray its working class New Deal base in favor of wholesale corporate whoredom.
Many thanks for this, Mr. Lindorff. It made my Sunday. Borax Obysmal, yet another jackass politician about to overwhelmed by his own corruption.
What I don't like about Obama is we KNEW Bush was a corporate stooge. He didn't falsify anything, he said it proudly. The problem isn't that Obama is a pro-corporation cheerleader. The problem is that he represents himself as a break from the established (corporate) order. He represents 'change'. NOwhere is the duplicity of the modern DNC better illustrated than in this healthcare debate.
I think I'd prefer the GOP back in power. At least I could honestly hate them, rather than the furtive 'hatred mixed with self-loathing' I'm feeling now.
Here here!
I've always said that it is unclear that Obama is better than McCain.
Vote third party.
David Lindorff - That opening paragraph was the most accurate and succinct I've ever read on any topic. It's not what I want to hear. But I tire of putting my hands over my ears while screeching in protest. Thanks Dave.
Pat Thurston
Extraordinarily lucid and on point, Mr. Lindorff. Should be read by every member of Congress.
"Obama's unwillingness to lead on this issue will doom his health care plan. There is obviously no way Congress is going to shake off its corrupt leech-like attachment to corporate sponsors and their cash-spreading lobbyists, but had the new president wanted to make a historic mark and cruise to victory in 2012, he could have, like President Lyndon Johnson before him in his campaign for Medicare in 1965, put himself solidly behind a single-payer plan and made the case that it could cut America's collective health bill in half while opening the door to every American."
So the author recognizes the problem and demonstrates the measures why a single payer system will never emerge in the current political climate of corporate sponsorship of the U.S Congress and ownership of the presidency. Then why did he vote for Obama and advocate for him before the election?
"Then why did he vote for Obama and advocate for him before the election?"
He has had a history of calling voting for 3rd parties a "waste of votes". He would often argue that voting 3rd party does nothing to build a mass movement. Unlike most people here on this forum who are regretting their votes for Obama and are open to giving new parties a chance, I don't know if DL will do so by 2012 even at the rate Obama and Congress are getting worse by the days. It will be interesting to see what he says by then.