Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMoment of Truth for Obama and the Democrats
Fellow Americans, and fellow Democrats and Obama supporters, we are at a moment of truth, a pivotal turning point -- in the form of what happens in the next days and weeks with robust, universal health reform. A fork in the road socially, economically -- and politically. It could go either way depending on Obama and the Democratic officeholders many of us worked so hard to elect. They have the power to act, but will they use it -- or lose it?
If at this remarkable juncture Obama and the Democrats cannot enact a robust health care reform -- with a strong nationwide public option, cost controls, and nearly universal coverage -- I would not want to be in charge of fundraising and mobilization for them in the 2010 and 2012 elections! Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican.. But if Obama and the Democrats cannot act now on a once in a half century challenge and opportunity, they are not worthy of extra energy. And those of us who wrote big checks last time will tell the Democrats -- especially in the Senate -- to hold pharmaceutical fundraisers instead.
Key leaps forward for U.S. public social provision -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- have NEVER happened through "bipartisan" compromises and they always happen in close votes. They have always sqweaked through after gargantuan effort, strong presidential pressure, and refusal to allow eviscerating compromises. Think of Social Security if the Clark amendment -- allowing corporate opt-out -- had passed in 1935. We would not have it. And conservatives and the medical and insurance establishments cried "socialism" in 1965, too. We would not have Medicare if we had listened.
Obama and the Democrats are coming off a historic, landslide election. They have all the popular support for robust reform they will ever have. Good policy design as well public desire for change and considerations of social justice and economic efficiency insist that they enact health care reform with a strong public plan in the mix. That is the only way to move toward cost control and guaranteed access with quality to all -- especially for Americans in lower economic strata or in rural states where one or two private insurers call the tune. There is no need for "bipartisanship" and the calls for it from some weak-kneed Democrats are merely excuses for doing the business of the medical-insurance establishment. Senators Baucus, Conrad, Feinstein, Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh -- this means you. All of you come from states where people really need robust reform and you should step up.
The stakes here in political-economic terms are NOT between a "free market" and "government control." They are between two alternative uses of government regulations and subsidies: We will in America continue on the path set over the past thirty years: using government regulations and subsidies to distribute income and security upward, to guaranteed private profits; or will we redirect government interventions toward expanding popular security and leveling the economic playing field for various businesses? So-called conservatives seeking "compromise" on health care reform want more subsidies for their buddies' profits, and want to force more Americans to buy inefficient products (through a mandate to buy private insurance). If Obama and the Democrats agree to such compromises under the name of "reform" they will have squandered the country's future economically -- and undercut their own political fortunes for the future.
Because let's not kid ourselves: WHATEVER passes this year will make the Democrats owners of the health care mess going forward. If they just throw more subsidies and piecemeal regulations into the current system, they will ensure galloping public costs for residual arrangements and for subsidies to private insurers who will easily find ways to avoid sick or costly patients. Businesses and citizens will grow more and more irritated as time passes, and will blame the Democrats. Rightly so.
And to return to my theme at the start: no matter if Senate Democrats still think they are operating in the world of the 1980s or 1993, they are not. Activist Democrats -- mobilizers, volunteers, bloggers, analysts, and donors -- are watching them. We will know exactly who blocks or eviscerates real reform here. We WILL blame the Senate and the responsible individual Senators. And many of us will blame the Obama adminsitration if it does not take a strong stand on the public option and real reform, starting right now. Whatever he says in public, Obama needs to draw lines in the sand with Democrats in private -- and get tough. If he does not, and this fizzles into no legislation or reform in appeance only, energy will dissipate from the Demorats and the Obama movement. There will be the wrong kind of turning point for them -- and for America.
So step up now, Obama and the Democratic Party. Your moment is here and now.
122 Comments so far
Show AllThe fact that the author of this article voted for, and raised money for, Obama shows a lack of understanding of what Obama is about. It was clear during the campaign that he would act as President exactly as he now is acting. You were fooled once. Don't be fooled again. Better to spend the taxi fare on a pizza than to go to the polls to support these Democrats. It would be better if no one showed up on election day.
"Better to spend the taxi fare on a pizza than to go to the polls to support these Democrats. "
What pizza? The corporate kinds such as Pizza Hut and Papa Johns or your local brand?
"It would be better if no one showed up on election day."
What about Independent candidates? If everyone who voted for Obama had instead chose Nader or Mckinney, things would have been different. Otherwise, I agree with you.
True, if everyone did what you want, you might get it.
Except that is not how reality works.
Well, I vote on the issues and not on the party. Too bad everyone else votes against their economic interests and falls for the glitz.
Just voting Green won't do it. We have to unite all the *fringe* parties. Otherwise, we get on our horses and gallop off in four directions at once.
I like McKinney and Kucinich. They might be a good ticket with her at the top. It's looking like Palin is getting ready to run, so having a woman might be timely. Or Feingold as VP.
Kucinich, Nader, McKinney, anyone but the U.S. two-party ruling class consensus. While I continue to act in open opposition to the system in as many ways as I can, when it comes time every 4 years to engage in the act of voting, I will continue -- as I have every year since I was eligible to vote (since 1976) -- to vote for candidates who represent interests other than those of money, the media, and the machine.
Bring America Back !!!!...........Theda needs to know, in the past 5 short months Obama has abandoned single payer healthcare completely , and he has completely caved-in to the DC culture of corruption, as well as the runaway military industrial complex !!
**Team Obama and his merry Demmys have abandoned us, and now is not too soon to abandon him and them .
**We need to identify some strong Progressives and get behind them now and for the 2012 Campaigns.
Team Obama is a one term pony. Believe it or not, their time has already come and gone. They now own The War, and they now own the Destroyed Economny. In fact, it is too late for them to repair the damage they have already done.
"Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican.. But if Obama and the Democrats cannot act now on a once in a half century challenge and opportunity, they are not worthy of extra energy."
If you want your vote to show bought-and-paid-for Republicans and Democrats that you're not going to wait for real healthcare reform, get active with the Green Party. The Greens are the only national party supporting a single-payer "Medicare for all" healthcare system, the kind that 2/3 of Americans want.
Ditch the corporate Dems, and go Green! www.gp.org
I take it there aren't many or any Dean people here. :-)
This article could have made me angry, it didn't; frustrated? a little. I wanted to get fired up about it, but I can't. It just made me sad.
As I thought about something to write, all that came to mind was Leonard Cohen's words:
"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom,
for trying to change the system from within"
It was the Clinton and Bush Families that gave us not only
Nafta, but the outsourcing of our industrial base to China.
We are in a major depression because of the Clintons, we
the working classes have been doublecrossed by all those
over-educated Ivy League Morons. Forget Move-on and let's move-out of the Democratic party in the next election, and
let's see how those Ivy Leaguers make out without our support.
Why is Bubba Clinton pulling in Millions of dollars from Foreign countries for his so called Arkansa Library?
Why are all those countries beholden to the Clintons?
How many jobs did Hillary outsource to India?
The Clintons should be charged with Treason before we all die-off. {WWII Vets}
The moment of truth for the Democrats came a long time ago when they rolled over and allowed Bush to steal the White House.
The moment of truth for the Democrats came a long time ago when they rolled over and allowed Bush to steal the White House for the second time.
The moment of truth for the Democrats came a long time when they refused to even attempt to impeach Bush or hold him accountable.
The moment of truth for the Democrats came a long time when they continued to fund Bush's and now Obama's wars.
The moment of truth for the Democrats came a long time when:____________________________________________(fill in the blank)
Anyone unaware that the Democrats and Republicans are really two factions of the same party of Big Business & War Inc. is a simpleton and wouldn't know the meaning of a moment of truth if it smacked him in the face so hard it drew blood.
It boils dwn to the health and mortality of all of us versus cororate profits for insurers and pharmaceuticals. We should count on Obama not to cave in on a govrnment option. Better to veto and try again than to go along with phoney reform. Yes we can.
It's hard to believe this is from the person who wrote "States and Social Revolutions". Prof. Skocpol, you should know better than most to act surprised at Democratic behavior. I do not understand your fascination with that party at all. You could actually be helping us with your knowledge and skill instead of serving power. Or are the downtrodden only useful as subjects for books?
Hey, we can't lose anythIng by taking to the streets - we did get Medicare 40 years ago, and there's a birthday celebration in the making in D.C. on the streets. The more people who attend, the more impressive it will be, and maybe, just maybe, we can get enough of a crowd to scare a politician or two.
SINGLE PAYER AND ONLY SINGLE PAYER!!!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!
SEE YOU IN WASHINGTON, IT'S WORTH A TRY!
I asked my Senator to say those three little words that says she cares (Medicare For All)
but all I heard was "Co-op co-op co-op!"
Rhymes with "No-op no-op no-op" or
"Po-op po-op po-op" it's time for a recall.
Theda, dear, sweet, child of hope whatever delusional substance you are smoking, snorting, or shooting up is fogging up your ability to see what's going down.
As things stand six months into a brand spanking new adminstration we can safely predict that one year from now:
Health insurance companies will be even more profitable as they dump the worst risks on the federal alternative insurance that Max Baucus and crew will shove gown our collective throats.
The Middle East wars of agression (Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan, maybe Iran, and maybe Syria), will keep on chugging along because about the only thing American know-how knows how to do anymore is endless war.
The value of the US dollar will be a joke as the gazillions of bucks being spewed around under the guidance of Helicopter Ben Bernanke, Economic Advisor Larry Summers, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner work their magic.
The Congress and Senate will yap and whine like a bunch of toy poodles just before they pee a puddle in the presence of strangers instead of snarling like hungry Rotweilers looking for prey.
Barack Obama is a Beige Bush. He is a little nore polished and not nearly as stupid, but inside is the same equivocating and compromising cowardice that animated his predecessor.
Poet
While it's unlikely Dr. Skocpol would ever stoop to reading the rabble, please treat her respectfully. She's a formidable intellect and an outstanding scholar. I'm also frustrated by her long loyalty to the limo liberal wing of the Democratic party--especially from someone that has studied elite solidarity and power for most of her intellectual life (albeit largely abroad).
Hi Skip--
I mean no disrespect towards academic credentials honestly earned and rigorously exercised, but given what Dr. Theda has written and the history of the past 2 years and 6 months, this Dr. gives the appearence of being a quack.
The real question we all should be debating is: What are the Democrats going to do once the lazy slugs that are the Minnesota Supreme Court finally certifies Al Franken's Senatorial victory and thereby gives the Democrats veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate?
At that point there will be no more excuses except the lack of will to do anything different on the part of anybody in DC.
Poet
Hi Poet,
Really, they don't have many excuses now. What separates many of us is how we deal with the structural reality of American politics. Most of the academic class simply accepts the two party system as a reality and deals with what is possible within that reality. I disagree with that approach intensely, but it doesn't necessarily make them bad people (and I even feel that way about many of the more sober Obama supporters).
Our tasks differ depending on our politics. For me, as a radical and a democratic socialist, my primary task is to do what I can to begin the long but necessary process of divorcing our people's loyalty from loyalty to this system. Without that, there is going to be no possibility of opening their imaginations to something new and different from what they know. The sad truth is that Franken's case won't be that big of a deal. Those who believe the system is salvageable will continue with the necessary gymnastics to defend it and advocate for "reform". Those that don't will do as many of us do, and that is push for a more rebellious and resistant stance, as well as an altering of consciousness. Doing that, of course, won't make us very fun at parties. But hey, the price of progress and all that..:)
This brings me back to Skocpol. The cold truth is that intellectual classes are historically major movers in social consciousness--either for the benefit of power or to the detriment of power. We need as many allies in those ranks as we can get, although given the industrialization and commodification of education, that's a much harder task than it was fifty years ago.
I think someone like Skocpol could be a large asset to mass agitation, given her areas of expertise, so I think treating her courteously is a wise course of action.
She's a student of Barrington Moore's, an innovator in the scholarship on revolutions, and understands perfectly well how a two party system made up of ideologically unified elites can transform into a class-dominant behemoth.
I think a beer is in order after that one...:)
Remember, with all that power comes all of the credit...and blame.
I'm heartened by your optimism but unfortunately it has nothing to do with reality. The moment of truth for this administration PASSED just before the month of April began. The obviously corrupt actions covered by rhetoric are finally sinking into the public. Obama is getting a rep for mendacity. Nobody really expects anything but window dressing on the health care front. As soon as the continual bullshit wars for wall street position was made clear, we knew it was over.
There is ONE corporate party with two branches. We need, like others here have mentioned, to vote for an independent, non-corporate party. We need Kucinich, Nader, McKinney and even Ron Paul to get together against the war spending, PERIOD. The social programs will be easy to fund if we eliminate the CIA, make our military a National Guard prohibited from doing anything but guarding our borders and prohibit the privitization of public utilities.
Public utilities must include, water, sewer, garbage pickup, electricity and health care. Health care should be pro-active, not reactive. People should have access to treadmills or an exercise track and/or exercise machines. People should have a motive to be healthy besides the cost saving of less sick people in our society so incentives for healthy lifestyles should be put in our tax code. It's all doable. The problem is that the elite society that governs the masses already does all this for themselves. They just don't want to do it for anybody else.
Add education to public utilities. Education at least through college as all the countries of Western Europe except the UK (destroyed by Reagan's evil twin, Thatcher, and continued by Blair the Clinton clone) have.
Rainborowe
Moment of truth for Obama and the Democrats?? Sorry it's never going to happen. As long as the cash keeps rolling in for these creeps, they'll keep lying through their teeth.
And Democratic voters will keep voting for these criminals. Each nation has the leadership it deserves.
I think that the main problem is finding candidates to run against the corporate sellouts in the Democratic Party. All the oddball third party candidates want to run for president but what we really need are candidates to run for the House and Senate. And for our state legislatures.
Rainborowe
Politicians seem ready to bite the hands that vote for them and give them their health care.
Now is the time for a voter initiative and referendum on Medicare for all.
george w obama won't let single payer happen, too many of his friends are depending on that money for their lifestyles, all other priorites are rescinded.
And by the way, g.w. obama was never a democrat, as a matter of fact he has out classed pelosi in sneaking into office under the guise of a democrat but both are hard core neocon republicans, oops let us not leave harry reid out of this either.
It all boils down to the sham elections used to make people believe we control the country by elections but the night of elections when the last polls close, those we 'elected' turn to their true handlers for instructions, principably the military industrial complex, corporate america, wall street and the american izraeli public affairs committee.
How many have read Greg Palast's 'Armed Madhouse'?
If only more people will just vote with their hearts and minds on the issues and stop voting on party and personality alone would we not be in tears like this. Theda should not expect anything from Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc ...
You pantywetting Naderites won't get over your stupidity. Obama is enjoying high public approval ratings. Only the Naderites want him to fail. Even Rush Limbaugh knew how to be an analyst before going partisan. You pantywetting Naderites give me a lot of laughs. Go get a job you losers.
I have a job and my own business, but if I was jobless, I doubt I could get a job. There has not been a single, solitary net job created since 2001 in the United States. In other words, the US has just as many jobs now as it did in 2001, but it has 20 million more people.
So I am trying to figure out what is the most ignorant thing about your asinine comment. Is it your assumption that anti-Obama people don't have jobs? Is it that pro Nader people don't have jobs? Is it that high approval ratings mean anything when the election is more than 3 years away? Or is it that you can automatically get a job in an economy where jobs are being rapidly LOST, the worst economy since the Great Depression? Oh well, does it really matter? You are obviously an idiot.
- Well well well. Here we have NebraskaNathan, back to flaunt his stupidity under another name.
Sioux Rose
RICH M: Thank you. Think his constant use of the term "wetting" has something to do with giving his twisted identity away?
Whatever its true nature and gender, it is manifestly incontinent.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Omigod, that is FUNNY!
Most of us here may have voted for Nader but that's because we voted on the issues and not on party or personality baloney. And if you think a lot of those who voted for Obama are happy, guess again Obamabot. There are a growing number of remorseful voters who did not expect Obama to be as bad or even worse than Dubya. On Alternet, I saw you bashing progressive ideas and values. You can keep Obama while the rest of us move on.
Is this a parody of the typical infantile USAn level of analysis, or the real thing?
EncinoM does this a lot on Alternet. He's an Obamabot. Just ignore that rightwinger.
Its the frightening truth that there are many like EncinoM around. Defenders of....What exactly ? I know obama has many fans among blacks, but sadly they too must admit thathe is NOT what we had HOPEd for.
"I know obama has many fans among blacks"
If you think that's true, try checking blackagendareport.com I'll think you'll find things a little different than you think.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss' - Pete Townshend
Tru dat, as my brethren would say. As a matter of fact, you'll find that amongst progressive and radical blacks, Obama is seen as the epitome of empire and as a fork tongued wretch. I surely think that if after 500 years, Obama is the best we could offer Amerika, that we failed somehow...
Well said, and absolutely true. This will be the final betrayal. I am astonished, but not surprised at the Democratic Party senators who say, "We just don't have the votes." Bull---! This is not about the numbers. The health care issue is about whether or not the American people have any say whatsoever in their government. Democratic Party leaders need to work to get the votes and at least stand up for common decency.
I want to see a cartoon of a watering hole (labeled health care) with crocodiles (labeled HMOs, insurance companies, Republican leaders, Democratic leaders, etc.) guarding it and keeping a myriad of dying animals from getting past them. The Democratic Party crocs could then say to the dying masses converging on the health care watering hole, "Sorry, but we just don't have the votes."
The Democrats are well to the right of the CONSERVATIVE European parties. Obama is trying to straddle the line between the Democrats and the extreme right wing Republicans. Therefore, Obama is a very right wing politician who is serving Corporate and elitist interests.
That he is not right wing is fantasy. Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, and Harry Truman are four examples of presidents who were much to the left of Obama. Eisenhower (a Republican) was also to the left of Obama.
hell, Nixon was well to te left of Obama - maybe even Reagan.
hell, Nixon was well to te left of Obama - maybe even Reagan.
THE WHOLE US GOVERNMENT (BOTH PARTIES) HAVE BEEN RIGHT-WINGERS SINCE ITS CONCEPTION IN 1776?
You are wrong in claiming that Lyndon Johnson was to the left of Obama. Lyndon Johnson overthrew the Democratically elected president Juan Bosch in Dominican Republic in 1965 !! What's so socialist about that. The US government has been a capitalist government since 1776. What we need is a socialist system.
WHAT USA NEEDS A SOCIALIST-WORKERS PARTY TO RISE TO POWER AND SMASH THE BOURGEOISE-STATE !!
WHAT USA NEEDS IS A TEMPORARY DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAN !!
"The dictatorship of the proletariat is a stubborn struggle, bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative against the forces and traditions of the old society." -Lenin
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the instrument of the proletarian revolution, its organ, its most important mainstay, brought into being for the purpose of, firstly, crushing the resistance of the overthrown exploiters and consolidating the achievements of the proletarian revolution, and secondly, carrying the revolution to the complete victory of socialism
The dictatorship of the proletariat arises not on the basis of the bourgeois order, but in the process of the breaking up of this order, after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, in the process of the expropriation of the landlords and capitalists, in the process of the socialisation of the principal instruments and means of production, in the process of violent proletarian revolution
Under capitalism the exploited masses do not, nor can they ever, really participate in governing the country, if for no other reason than that, even under the most democratic regime, under conditions of capitalism, governments are not set up by the people but by the Rothschilds and Stinneses, the Rockefellers and Morgans.
Democracy under capitalism is capitalist democracy, the democracy of the exploiting minority, based on the restriction of the rights of exploited majority and directed against this majority.
Only under the proletarian dictatorship are real liberties for the exploited and real participation of the proletarians and peasants in governing the country possible. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy is proletarian democracy, the democracy of the exploited majority, based on the restriction of the rights of the exploiting minority and directed against this minority.
The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot arise as the result of the peaceful development of bourgeois society and of bourgeois democracy; it can arise only as the result of the smashing of the bourgeois state machine, the bourgeois army, the bourgeois bureaucratic apparatus, the bourgeois police.
Therefore, Lenin is right in saying: "The proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of the bourgeois state machine and the substitution for it of a new one" (see Vol. XXIII, P. 342)
Soviet power as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat signifies the suppression of the bourgeoisie, the smashing of the bourgeois state machine and the substitution of proletarian democracy for bourgeois democracy
Lyndon Johnson was picked by Kennedy because he could work the Senate; he knew where the bodies were buried and Kennedy needed him to get his legislation through. He was liberal in the American sense when it came to domestic policy--his Great Society legislation was a very New Dealish thing to do and he pushed through the Voting Rights Act despite being told that the Democrats would lose the South for decades as a result, because "It's the right thing to do." And the Dems indeed have still not recovered from that fracture.
But LBJ was clueless about foreign affairs, had never paid attention to them (hey, in Texas the whole USA was "foreign" in those days--I was a Texan and I remember: in the '60s most of Texas was still racially segregated). So on foreign policy LBJ did what the CIA, etc. told him to do: botched up Vietnam and Latin America and so on.
But he was still one of the good guys and our last liberal president.
Rainborowe
WHAT USA NEEDS IS A TEMPORARY DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAN !!
-oh hell no! I don't want anything to do with dictatorships whether capitalist or socialist. Look, get real, we can't even convince people to stop voting for Democrats and start voting in their own interests let alone agree to a violent overthrow of the current the devils and the installation of unelected new ones. Like it or not, in the US, most people are capitalists. People with socialist tendencies are looked upon with suspicion in America. Socialist are a tiny minority.
I want socialized medicine, free education K-college, an end to corporate control of our government and a cessation of US military aggression. Achieving that in our society would be a monumental accomplishment and one that could be achieved nonviolently if people voted for the Cindy Sheehans of the world instead of the Nancy Pelosis.
The majority of Americans support the system that oppresses them. Until we can enlighten them that changing the system to meet the needs of the people instead of the needs for profit for the few is in their best interest, I am opposed to forcing a TEMPORARY DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAN upon them.
Ric, I think proletarian is a typo for proletariat.
Rainborowe
Thanks for the clarification.
Johnson also covered-up the JFK assassination too.... and all the rest have followed him.
But you can shove your "Temporary Dictatorship".
Oh spare us the dogmatic Marxist orthodoxy, MarxGod. Yeah, we saw how well the "temporary dictatorship of the proletarian" worked out in the USSR and China. We don't need Marxist orthodoxy. That said, neither the Democratic or Republican Parties represent the masses in the US. But all the Marxist dogma only contributes to collective fears of Democratic Socialism. Violence is not the way toward any positive end. And making a God of Marx or Marxism is simply bad religion.
Marx is a God compared with the capitalist philosophers: Adam Smith, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Ayn Rand, and all the oligarchic corrupt satanists of the capitalist free market system. Are you crazy or what? Wake up !! Marx and socialist thinkers at least were in favor of the defranchised, the wage-slaves and the poors.
Just because the US constitution is the Bible of USA, doesnt mean that we should be US constitutionalists. By the way who said i liked the USSR? USSR wasn't a real socialist system. Only the Bolshevik short-lived socialist-state was closer to socialism.
However if i were to choose USSR and USA, i would choose USSR. At least under the USSR system basic utility services, medical services, would be subsidized, cheaper and lower in price. Life in general would be a lot better under a USSR system than the USA oligarchical system where a few live like kings and majority like SLAVES !!
A WORKERS-DICTATORSHIP is what we need, but a populist, workers-dictatorship, a temporary centralized phase where the government would take over and expropiate Wal Mart, Shell, Exxon, American Airlines, Private colleges, private universities, Hospitals, Mcdonalds, Burger King, Sonic, Wendies, Golds Gym, Toys are US, JC Penney, Sears, Microsoft, Target, and most giant corporations in America in order to to give the poor americans REAL PARTICIPATION in the joys, wealth and pleasures produced in USA.
.
I read your junk and there are times I'd swear you were a cop. Either that or you just finished your first semester of political philosophy. I'll tell you something else: no one is going to swap one dictatorship for another, and your reading of the notion of dictatorship of the proletariat is flat out incorrect (a common misconception by the grammatically challenged or the Stalinistically inclined).
It's good that you're reading Marx. No all you need to do is understand what you read. If Marx read your posts, he would slap you silly.
All I have to say is this. I will work just as hard and fight just as bloodily to destroy your monstrous 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' as I do against these vile capitalist dictators. I'll never understand these authoritarian nut jobs who claim to know better than regular people do...
This is the sort of rhetoric that makes people scared of socialism, so it undermines the agenda of change.
Socialism is about the needs and aspirations of common people today and has nothing to do with the attempts and betrayals to establish a socialist state by authoritarian demagogues elsewhere and in other times. It is not what we need to hear right now, because people don't have the courage to engage in something new if they are reminded of all the times before that similar aspirations went wrong.
More suitable contemporary models for socialism would be Venezuela, Bolivia or Sweden, but Americans have all the right in the world to invent their own brand of socialism (Even, since Americans always like to be on top of the world, a 'better' form of socialism).
The first, and most important element of a socialist state is that it is democratic, and supported by the masses. The steps that the U.S. needs to take before it can achieve socialism are democratisation and voter education and only then there will be significant policy changes.
"It could go either way depending on Obama and the Democratic officeholders many of us worked so hard to elect."
-You have to really wonder about anyone who worked hard to elect Obama and wasn't able to see through his fraud.
Couldn't see through his voting for war funding while citing an antiwar speech made in 2002? Couldn't see through his FISA vote? Couldn't see through his choice of pro-war Biden and Rahn Emmanuel. Couldn't see through his support for no-strings-attached Wall Street Fat Cat wealth transfers without reform? Couldn't see through his choice of Bush people like Robert Gates and Timothy Geithner? Couldn't see through his keeping single payer advocates shut out?
Keep in mind Theda Skocpol has been awarded the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science, one of the world's most prestigious prizes in political science.
-couldn't see or didn't want to see? you figure
Ric, I trust you've seen those computer 3-D images that were popular in the early '90s. They look like abstract patterns, but if one properly shifts the focus of one's eyes, a three-dimensional image pops out. See: http://www.magiceye.com/
The 3-D image-within-an-image has nothing to do with the shapes, colors, or motifs in the patterned background.
I believe that the Industrial Light & Magic-class campaign designers created a sort of virtual or holographic "Obama" that was distinct from, and in a way greater than, the sum of the parts. The "parts" including Obama's actual behavior and expressed views.
Like the above-cited 3-D images, if one learns to shift one's focus abnormally, one suddenly leaves behind the seemingly-random and chaotic bits and pieces and sees instead a distinct and clear image "floating" over the two-dimensional background.
It's an either-or for most, apparently. Once they're zoned in to the "magic" 3-D Virtual Obama, they're not processing or connecting that experience to any analytic mosaic-- they're more likely to feel as if their positive regard for the limitless possibilities of Virtual Obama is itself enlightenment.
Sketched broadly, my impression is that there was a remarkable swirl or whirlwind of allegiance and citizen participation during the so-called "rock star" phase after Obama emerged from the wings into the campaign spotlight.
The media was happy to pimp the burgeoning Obamania, and credit the Obamapalooza style of his campaign-- especially in contrast to their ramshackle opponents. In short, Obama began getting traction with media infotainwhore hearts & minds in the supremely-important tug-of-war for "coolest candidate".
And despite the buttoned-down, neo-liberal, Zionista, militarist banalities thumped out with monotonous distinctness by this putative virtuoso orator, the image of a Virtual Obama eclipsed critical analysis, prudent skepticism, and reason.
The Virtual Obama was a Rorschach inkblot upon which viewers projected their own wishes. That's why there were Hope®ful stirrings from diverse "leftish" blocs; Virtual Obama seemed to promise at least an Open Mind for legalizing marijuana, backing down the destructive and self-serving military and state security apparatus, abolishing incandescent lights, whatever.
It's exactly like The Wizard of Oz. Except there was no clever dog to unmask the fraud beyond a doubt. So the safest bet was to take the preposterous illusion at face value.
Inevitably, Virtual Obama diminishes to extinction as Actual Obama in turn eclipses it. But it takes a while for the halo to fade.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Yr Obd't Servant, your metaphor of Obama as a 3-D image-within-an-image that has nothing to do with the images themselves i.e. peace, change, hope, etc. is beautiful. Well done.
How about Obama as an image in a kaleidoscope's object cell filled with liquid so Obama can seem to float and move through the object cell with a slight movement from the person viewing?
Average Americans (working-class, young and ethnic Americans) need to go into the streets just like the youth of Iran ---- not to protest for Democrats, but for democracy, which is totally separate and distinct from either of these corporatist, elitist, and Empirist Parties.
We need our own 'color revolution' right here in River City, and it should be multi-color and multi-ethnic and democratic socialist --- maybe instead of Green or Orange, or Yellow, it should be the "Red, White and Blue Second American Revolution of democratic socialism".
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
"Compromise on the public option" isn't a case of watering down the whiskey.
It's a case of watering down the water.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Funny. But of course what we have now is vinegar.
My strategy--challenge them in the primaries--make them spend more money to win there. The more money they have to take from corporate and monied interests, the more they will be seen as what they are-- corporate foot solders. If we make them spend enough money-- we might even defeat them.
To my CD friends:
It's over.
Obama has just capitulated on the public option.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/health/policy/
24health.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
I was just driving home listening to Ed Schultz. Ed announced it's being reported that Barack Obama indicated he's willing to compromise on the public option.
That means it's over.
A minute later the most trusted name in news, CNN, followed up by reporting about a Medicare fraud ring just busted in Florida to the tune of $50 million.
Gee, isn't it uncanny that that story should be announced almost immediately after President Change taps out?
When they have the propaganda ready to roll you know it took planning.
It's over.
Except for watching how the rest of the misinformation and disinformation rolls out...IT IS OVER.
Here's the kicker:
"Asked whether a public plan had to be in the bill if he were to sign it, he said: “It’s too early to say that. Right now, I will say that our position is that a public plan makes sense.”
Speaks with forked tongue!
If history repeats itself, all the outrage will be checked at the voting booth curtain and because of fear that a vote for a Progressive will ultimately be a vote for the Republicans, most Progressive Democrats will vote for Obama again. We need NOW to start grooming a Progressive candidate by building name recognition and the appearance of an actual chance to defeat the (two?) mainstream party candidates. How about a Kucinich/Paul ticket? I put them in that order simply because I prefer the former over the latter, but if they were both on the ticket in any order, I would vote for them! They should both be getting pretty fed up with their Party affiliation by that time if nothing changes between now and then, and they are both already pretty well known, and know their way around congress.
How about Dean/Feingold? Howard already has recognition and the CM is talking nicely to him these days. I think the *scream* days are over.
Howard Dean is in favor of judges who limit your first amendment rights. He brings no change.
Howard Dean Appointees Guilty
Federal Court Finds DNC Chair Howard Dean’s Judicial Appointees Guilty
(PRWEB) February 26, 2005 -- In a 1997 Vermont Press Bureau article, Howard Dean expressed his desire to appoint judges that were not so concerned about the Bill of Rights -- or in Howard Dean lingo “legal technicalities.” Howard kept his aim true. Within two months of his proclamation, he appointed Nancy Corsones and Patricia Zimmerman to the Vermont bench.
http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Frank_Dean-Death-Penalty.htm
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.' - Pete Townshend
I voted for Kucinich in the Democratic primary and Paul in the Republican primary. After the primaries were over, I wrote each of them a letter begging them to just leave the Republican and Democrat parties and start to form an Independent Party. I never received a reply from either one of them but I applaud a lot of what they have done. I know Paul has issues but myself a strong hemp lover, my heart goes out to him for trying to legalize industrial hemp. Same for Kucinich for being the first cosponsor. Both of them also support ending the war and bringing peace. Last year, Nader ran as a Peace Party candidate even though he wasn't officially part of any party. It would be lovely to see Paul and Kucinich start a PEACE Party. I don't know how far it would go but support would definitely come the more people lose their jobs, lives, happiness, etc ...
Oregoncharles
Paul is not a supporter of single payer or any government "interference" in health care.
I like his stand on many issues but he is not a progressive as are Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. But many progressives don't like Nader because, you know, they were taught not to.
"Paul is not a supporter of single payer or any government "interference" in health care."
What about legalizing industrial hemp and removing Raygun's state to state ban against transporting raw milk? In some other ways, Paul is for opening more doors to better healthcare and reducing the costs. I too wished he would open his heart to single payer but I love his other ideas. Plus, he doesn't support most of those "free" trade deals since he knows they're nothing but foreign briberies. I know I may sound desperate saying this but if I had to pick between Obama and Paul, I'd pick Paul in a heartbeat.
Oh no, another Ron Paul kool-aid drinker.
Ron Paul is a "Libertarian". Libertarianism, as the term is used in the US, is a belief in dog-eat-dog capitalism as a social ideal. They believe that the acquisition of wealth is the epitome of what it is to be a human, and that the unlucky or weak must be left to die. They do not believe in the concept of "society". Libertarians, including Paul, believe that in all forms of common-wealth and regulation - environmental laws, labor laws, social security should be abolished.
Their bibles are the novels of Ayn Rand - particularly her novel "Atlas Shrugged".
Trade deals have nothing to do with foreign bribery - although that is how a libertarian may view it (they tend to be isolationist). The so-called "trade deals" really represent the foundation of of a meta-government of the investor class which has veto power over individual nations and communities and their efforts to provide worker rights and environmental protection.
Obama is so bad exactly because he has adopted so many of the libertarian economics of Paul.
And yeah, all that legalized hemp and raw milk will really help a poor uninsured woman who discovers a limp in her breast. Heck, if we had legalized hemp and raw milk, it would surely prevent those 20,000 uninsured person's deaths every year. Yeah, that's all we need legalized hemp and raw milk...
The more i hear progressives trash Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and Libertarians, I Google and find out they have much to offer.
There are many types of Libertarians...and even socialist ones like Noam Chomsky.
The Idea came out of the Enlightenment and is against the State calling all the shots.
Here is an interesting one I found on Wikepedia
---------------
Libertarian socialism
Main article: Libertarian socialism
Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[67]
This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions such as an individual's right to own private property,[68] in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole.
----------------
Use google and research a bit before you make negative generalities, Please
"Use google and research a bit before you make negative generalities, Please"
Okay, I Googled Ayn Rand and this is what I came up with: "Then he [Greenspan] discovered Ayn Rand. 'What she did ... was to make me think why capitalism is not only efficient and practical, but also moral,' he said in 1974.
"Rand's ideas about the "utopia of greed" allowed Greenspan to keep doing what he was doing but infused his corporate service with a powerful new sense of mission: making money wasn't just good for him, it was good for society as a whole. Of course, the flip side of this is the cruel disregard for those left behind." Naomi Klein
"Ayn Rand’s ideology, powerful since the 1940s, denies the common good. It actually prescribes not helping. In particular, selfishness and greed are virtues, altruism is a vice." http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_448.shtml
"Rand's political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by constitutionally limited government. She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism,[5][6] including fascism, communism, and the welfare state.[7] She was also an atheist, and promoted ethical egoism (which she termed "rational self-interest") while condemning altruism.[8]" Wikipedia
Indeed, there are places where Randian self-interest, Libertarian self-interest, and progressive self-interest intersect. Yet, I find Rand's views anathema to the health of a society. Certainly, there are aspects of Rand's thoughts and Libertarian thoughts that I agree with, but the melt-down that we are experiencing is a direct result of Randian/Libertarian laissez-faire capitalism.
Greed may be good for Gordon Gecko and Wall Street, but not for society.
"Oh no, another Ron Paul kool-aid drinker."
If you would just look at my posts, you'd realize I'm none of that. I vote on the issues and not on party affiliation. I know Paul's controversial stands but I am NOT a Ron Paul kool-aid drinker. If I had to pick between him and Kucinich, I would pick Kucinich. I hope that helps.
'Ron Paul is a "Libertarian".'
Actually, the Libertarians rejected Ron Paul because he was too nutty for them.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the boss.' - Pete Townshend
Name calling aside, I agree re Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy and adherence to Ayn Rand. This is the epitome of cowboy diplomacy that Reagan was so fond of.
While Paul is a smart guy who shows integrity, I couldn't vote for him.
As for Nader...sigh...a political corpse and a major liability. I like Ralph, and agree with much of what he believes in, but he is a huge lead weight. That's why he runs unaffiliated. Time to cut bait with Ralph.
Anyway, another day, another round robin of "who's it gonna be?" Jeopardy.
Sioux Rose
JOHN2: That's a very interesting team. And even if there are many things about Paul I dislike, I'd take it ANY day over the usual fare. The problem/question is how to get the two into media or debates. Can Utube or an Internet group, a more enlightened version of Move.on create enough clout? The PUBLIC is ready and eager for other. Paul could draw in some of those disillusioned from conservative sectors, whereas Dennis would speak to the ideals of progressives. It would be a fascinating "marriage," and probably the only one that could draw together the genuine needs of workers across the spectrum. Wow... maybe this is the ONE PAGE ad that CD persons might consider supporting? Where we define ourselves as a forum and publicly call upon the aforementioned to unify and run in order to preserve what's left of citizens' rights, lives, & liberties. There's also the chance of using a billboard or metro bus ad campaign.
Okay, so after this so-called "moment of truth" becomes a moment of betrayal (or really, just keeping the same policies that Obama espoused while running for president which his supporters chose to ignore) will all the Democrats and Obama supporters ditch their childish delusions?
So true. Do these supporters forget Obama's about face on FISA before the election??? Get real. Universal Healthcare will NEVER happen with Obama and these Dems. NEVER.
20-30 years ago George Carlin did a great stand-up bit about the difference between Russia(the Evil Empire)and the U.S.A., one of the things he pointed out was that Russia was corrupt because they only had one party to vote for and that it was SO MUCH BETTER here in the U.S. because we had, count em, TWO parties. That was way back when, during Ronnie Ray-gun and the mine's bigger "nuclear phallacy" cold war with said Evil Empire. Things have only gotten worse. Three parties aren't even enough, you need at least 5 parties to ensure that none ever have an outright majority and that all governing is done by coalition.
I don't think that was the answer George Carlin was humorously pointing out since we already have more than 5 parties.
Alas, if only we could sit down and redraw the lines of political power distribution necessary to achieve the 3, 4, or 5 political parties you envision.
The problem is federalism and ballot access. Ask Ralph Nader. Wholly aside from the financial hurdles facing creation of viable new political parties, each state has its own bizarre formulae for qualifying to even get a slot on the ballot, and the two major parties will fight tooth and nail (very bipartisanly) to disqualify the new kids on the block.
It would probably require a constitutional amendment to achieve the multi-party world you and I would both like to see come into existence in the United States. And how do you think the two major political parties would react to that effort?
Bill from Saginaw
At one point, the Florida legislature passed strict requirements for a political party in order to outlaw the Communist Party there -
and the requirements were so strict they accidently outlawed the Republican Party. The quickly reversed. Can't hurt your partner in crime.
Good grief! Could it really be true?! A moment of truth "for Obama and the Democrats" at long last!
I suppose a moment of truth for the U.S. public (i.e., non-corporate persons) would be too much to hope for even at this late date.
A not-for-profit health care system that covers EVERYONE. Anything less is pure BS.
Obama has made it clear that "reform" must be passed this year. He has willfully made it very unclear exactly what the "reform" will be. That is, put a bill, any goddamn "health reform" bill on my desk, this year or else! Because Obama wants the political victory, not actual significant change in the health care system. It doesn't matter what kind of contradictory, self-defeating, toothless but ugly Frankenstein monster they send him. He'll sign it and shake hands proudly with Mitch McConnell, John Behner, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The end result will be a frightful deepening of the health care crisis, ever greater concentration of wealth and political power in ever fewer hands, "modernization" of medical records (as the federal government becomes less transparent, your records become more transparent), etc. etc.
I don't know what is going on with Barack Obama. Either he made his choice years ago or he is going to go the mats and find out quick who his real friends are. If we get real health care reform, 70% of the electorate will be his friends. If not, look out! Those 70% out there know that something is wrong with the bloated, unfair, inefficient system we have now, but they seem unable to remember anything past about one week ago. Who knows who they'll follow in 2010, 2012 and 2016? Who knows who they'll blame for this failure and what they'll decide to do about it?
It's all about the bottom line folks and we don't give guys like Bauchus or gals like DIFI millions to run for re-election when the time comes. BIG VAMPIRE CARE does. $$ talks and BS runs the marathon. We're all just so much BS as far as the Congresscritters are concerned. Obama is rapidly going to lose big chunks of his base if he fumbles this, but he figs. in a couple of yrs. we'll all get over it.
The good news here, of course -- is at last, at long last, the Democratic Party faithful might actually be beginning to "get it". After multiple sell-outs, lay-downs, surrenders to any criminality (and broad-daylight-banker-heists of billions of taxpayers money) Bush and Cheney cared to suggest, many like myself are wondering what the hell took them so long. If the upcoming health care "reform" sellout is what it takes to bring folks around to serious consideration of alternatives to either appalling camp, maybe -- just maybe -- we'll be getting somewhere ...
It is an inescapable fact of life that greed is an insatiable appetite. No matter what they may profess, it is endemic among both Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
I, too, am tired of being seduced by the Democratic Party and the icons such as Bill Clinton and, now, Barack Obama. They all do a laudible job of screwing without benefit of kiss.
Perhaps the time has come to seriously re-visit the political philosophy of Paul Wellstone and try to build a meaningful alternative to what is euphamistically referred to as a "two-party" system that now has a strangle-hold on our national politics.
With the sheer numbers and the caliber of progressives in society today, surely there must be a ray of hope left.
It is an inescapable fact of life that greed is an insatiable appetite. No matter what they may profess, it is endemic among both Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
I, too, am tired of being seduced by the Democratic Party and the icons such as Bill Clinton and, now, Barack Obama. They all do a laudible job of screwing without benefit of kiss.
Perhaps the time has come to seriously re-visit the political philosophy of Paul Wellstone and try to build a meaningful alternative to what is euphamistically referred to as a "two-party" system that now has a strangle-hold on our national politics.
With the sheer numbers and the caliber of progressives in society today, surely there must be a ray of hope left.
Great article. I really don't understand why the Democrats are so concerned with repub support on health care. The GOP has gone completely insane as in the case of one Dan Burton a repub congressman who wanted a cost benefit analysis of putting a plexiglass dome around the house chamber to protect the legislators (from what exactly I'm not sure.) Then there is Governor Mark Sanford from South Calolina famouus for refusing federal stimulus money to help the people of his state then reportedly spending Fathers' Day weekend down in Argentina apparently to be away from his kids. On Fathers' Day?????????????
Do we have ANY representation in our government right now?? The dems are completely in the pockets of FOR-PROFIT insurance, big pharma and greedy doctors. The republicans have crazied themselves into complete irrelevancy. If the dems fail on health care, where are we to turn in 2010?
2010? You've lost the battle if you ask that question.
you do NOT wait until 2010 and hope there is an option.
you start working on school board elections on up to get 3rd party candidates elected.
the Libertarians are not a third party - they are Republicans that smoke dope.
Repubs that smoke dope? We need more of them if we want to win.
"If the dems fail on health care, where are we to turn in 2010?"
nixon68 (whoa, why does that handle give me the willies?),
I don't know where we turn to in 2010. I will say that Americans seem to have a fetish over "leaders" and being lead. I think some of the founders of this country would have a problem with that. It seems so ingrained that most, from the far left to the far right, cling to it like a drowning man clings to a bloated corpse floating in the sea.
So, who do we vote for in 2010? The Democrats will give us the Democratic wing of the corporate party. Whatever psycho candidates the Republicans vomit up will give us the Republican wing of the same corporate party. And we will once again be asking the same stupid, inane questions that we've been asking for a generation...or more.
In other words, as long as we look "out there" without moving our own feet, we will lose.
"Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican."
And there's the rub. Most Americans will vote for the Dems again. Bill Maher nailed it, "the Democrats are the new Republicans". If the Dems lose enough support then we get the "crazies" of the radical Right. The "business party", the "property party" aka, our ruling party (with 2 factions) will still run the show. Maher is right, we do not have a party that represents the interests of the majority of Americans. Until we do, the Dems will continue to sell out their base who elected them.
Lance Sulfa, in his book the "The Democrats: a Critical History", demonstrates over and over again, how the Democratic Party has coaxed progressives, labor, environmental, peace and civil rights activists to join the party promising positive change, only to dissipate movement energy, delivering after tremendous work by activists, crumbs or nothing at all. He makes it clear, that this, is in fact the Democratic Party's role in American politics - to channel the energy of social movements away from actually affecting the status quo. We will never get anything from the Democrats. It's time to abandon the Democratic Party. We must build independent movements and, our own party. In capitalist Europe, why were they able to achieve universal health care? They have 3rd parties (and 4th and 5th...), Labor and Green parties that actually represent the interests of working people.
But the Parliamentary system is not winner take all and it is designed so that multi parties can form coalitions and 3rd parties can have some power.
What power do the Greens or any 3rd party have in the USA?
I will tell you they only have a small influence on whether the Dems or Repubs will win. So in the USA they preserve the status quo simply because they don't unite.
Since our system is designed to only elect a Dem or Repub, We have to organize and form the coalitions outside the congress to get our reps elected.
We are not Europe which means as they now operate, none of our 3rd parties can win.... Why? Because they don't even try to unite so they end up splitting all our power and votes.
The sooner we realize that this is not Europe the sooner we will progress.
Because progressives have allowed ourselves to be conned by this, we cant get any progress.
In a winner take all system like the USA, if you don't unite to win, you lose like we love to prove over and over again.
The Big Boys take advantage of these hard facts and we let them. We like to complain and act hopeless and the Big Boys smile at our stupidity.
We are the Revolution...if we work for it.
Good post, exactly right.
"And many of us will blame the Obama adminsitration if it does not take a strong stand on the public option and real reform, starting right now."
-yeah, blame them and then, like good The Nation liberals, implore us with lesserevilistic arguments to support them again because the dreaded Republicans are coming. These liberals will never break with Democrats.
"Just give him another chance," they'll implore, "What about the Supreme Court?" "Look, Obama gave us Sotomayor didn't he?"
The Democrats certainly are the new Republicans, no doubt about that.
It is my understanding that capitalist Britain at least got a national health care system as a direct by-product of World War II. The citizenry became accustomed to receiving rationed "national emergency" health care services that accompanied dispersal (evacuation) of a lot of children out of the urban population centers into rural communities. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, and related medical care delivery resources were geographically redistributed as well.
When the war finally ended, Labour unexpectedly ousted Churchill's Tories from power chiefly over the issue of scaling back on empire in favor of reconstruction at home, and government-run health care was a wartime measure that became successfully institutionalized. The British people were familiar with the system that had grown up. They trusted it, no matter how much ideological hyperbole was thrown at them about the evils of centrally planned socialism, or the purported virtues of free market economics.
Bill from Saginaw
So true.
And Truman had a similar opportunity - millions of USAns came home and had become accustomed to the free military hospital healthcare system. So Truman proposed a national healthcare insurance syatem for all.
Unfortunately, he did cave to the cries of "socialism"!
Hey, look!
The title uses "Obama" and "Truth" in the same sentence.
"...Whatever he says in public, Obama needs to draw lines in the sand with Democrats in private -- and get tough. If he does not, and this fizzles into no legislation or reform in appeance only, energy will dissipate from the Demorats [sic] and the Obama movement..."
- This article reeks of toothless liberalism. Again & again, the author issues meek little threats to the Democrats, having said at the outset that "Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican." // She also engages in unjustified rhetoric, calling the pack of naive timid sheep who supported Obama a "movement." (And when has Obama ever "gotten tough," other than in bombing Pakistani villages, protecting torturers, & shoveling money to Wall St?)
So, what will Ms Skocpol do when the "Demorats" sell out to the insurance companies, as they undoubtedly will? She doesn't say. Evidently, she hasn't thought that part out yet.
There are only 2 parties. Both are pawns of big business. If you don't speak directly to the impossibility of fixing anything inside this kind of framework, you're not really saying anything. That's why the best this well-meaning author can do, is issue toothless threats.
Oregoncharles
the author called "the pack of naive timid sheep who supported Obama a "movement."
It's not a movement until it moves! It's in desperate need of a powerful laxative. I will be happy to supply the Cascara tea at the next MoveOn convention.
ROFL, Charles.
The answer to what do we all do if a public option doesn't pass is simple.
A third party so loud and huge, uniting all factions (greens,naderites etc) that the CM will have to cover our candidate!
If we stop standing in the wrong corners at the IA caucus, we could do this.
You might want to see how much money Obama and the rest of the fascist government took from the
"health care industry". Then you might get the general picture of where we are headed.
Too bad the american people will not get off the sofa and into the streets like they do in the
rest of the world.
The deal with health in this country is that the sick are of course the ultement minority. Most
people rairly think about the problem unless it hits home. I go garage sale shopping every week
and there are always somebody selling everything they own because of a medical problem. I always
ask them if they wished they lived in Canada and the most of them still don't get it. IT always just blows me away. A lot of the time they repeat the propaganda "we hear they have to wait for health care" They never seem to realize that you can wait till you are dead in the greatest country in the world and never get health care or have spent the last dime you have....
We do not see anything changing anytime soon. For now the corporations have won but even they will realize soon that they are going to be beating a dead horse.
SINGLE PAYER ALL THE WAY
Most of us who supported them (the Obysmalistas) last time will of course not vote for a Republican . . .
Right you are! I'm writing in my bulldog.
Perhaps they should rebrand themselves as Demosquats since they have done squat for the American People since Slick Willie basically converted the party into a cesspool of corruption and indifference to the needs of working people.
And we don't need a 'public option', we need universal health care, not to mention an end to endless wars, accountability for war criminals, an end to corporate personhood, and on and on. Two sides of the same coin of empire, what a useless article to post!!
"Slick Willie basically converted the party into a cesspool of corruption and indifference to the needs of working people."
I wonder where you get that. The Clinton administration has a list of accomplishments as long as your arm--the longest economic expansion in American history, lowest unemployment in 30 years, lowest crime rate in 26 years, higher income at all levels, lowest teen birth rate in 60 years, etc.--all excellent stuff for the working class, as was the Family Leave Act and the largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill.
You might want to hang around a bit less with Clintophobes. Clintophobes are very fervent--but they don't know doodley squat about the Clintons.
As for corruption, it is the opposite of what you said. As measured by the total number of convictions and forced resignations, the Clinton Administration was the cleanest two-term Presidential administration of the 20th century--the cleanest since Teddy Roosevelt.
Clinton is currently rated the 15th greatest President by historians, which is not very consistent with a "cesspool" of an administration.
Your harsh words about Clinton suggest you may been influenced by the mulit-million campaign of character assassination directed against the man and his famly. It was easily the most comprehensive and successful ad hominem propaganda campaign in world history.
Part of the reason the Democratic Party is so messed up is that most progressives still believe crap about the Clintons that was made up by right-wing psychos during the 90s. As far as I can see, they haven't questioned a bit of it or checked any of it out.
This means that many Democrats will go to their graves hating their own President. What a signal triumph for the right-wing slime machine.
None of this speaks well of today's progressives. Consider the sorry record:
They swallowed right-wing lies about their own President--and even went around repeating them.
They thought Obama would be hot sh*t.
PS: Read "The Hunting of the President," by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons.
Now that you've finished your Lewinsky of Slick Willy, here are a few other things not to forget.
Clinton gave us NAFTA.
Clinton gave us DOMA.
Clinton gave us Don't ask, don't tell.
Clinton finished ripping apart the safety net we so badly need right now with his Welfare Reform.
Clinton bombed Iraq every three days on average for 8 years.
Clinton, with American sponsored sanctions, was responsible for the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5. When asked, Madeline Albright said the price was worth it.
Clinton was responsible for the deaths in Waco.
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss' - Pete Townshend
Sioux Rose
D COSTELLO: Apart from "Ruin Iraq, Part I" I would say the 3 worst things emerging from Clinton, oops, make it 4 are:
1. The deregulation of the FCC which allowed for a handful of broadcast companies (all with ties to big business and/or the MIC) to effectively OWN content and manufacture consent for oh, I don't know, things like a war based on false pretenses.
2. NAFTA: Effectively gutting the nation's industrial base and leaving blue collar workers fighting for crumbs, disabling many unions.
3. Taking away the firewall that Glass-Steagall maintained to keep the banks from speculating on Wall ST. Enter the current disaster, and in the glaring light of day the same perpetrators at the wheel pretending to manage the crisis or heal conditions when they are ultimately arrogating more freedoms to themselves to enact yet more carnage to the global financial system.
4. Ending "welfare" as we know it... to the poor, but opening the door to all kinds of military deals that Bush made a heydey out of. Private armies, anyone?
Clinton has done enormous damage... and it keeps on going, each Prez feeding on the disasters of the former, and each covering the others' asses so that we now have lawlessness posing as leadership, and it's giving rise to serious crimes of escalating proportions.
Democrats nominated Obysmal because they didn't want a third Clinton term.
Then the rank and file became gutless and refused to vote for a third party after the FISA vote.
So they got a third Clinton term.
Add to the list of Clinton's accomplishments really slick NAFTA, the slickest way to deindustrialize US of A and to get rid of unions.
On another hand, who are we to judge history? Slick Willey might have done good job for the rest of humankind by starting defunging the beast, cleaning way for haves and have mores and unmasking people's capitalism.
So is this is what all the discredited Obama shills are now retreating to - revisionist defenders of Clinton?
What economic expansion? You mean his ridiculous specuative bubble economy that benefited only the wealthy? For me and most workers, the 1990's represented the longest upbroken period without a raise, while the possibility of home ownership receded further our of sight.
The Family Leave (completly without pay or benefits even a job when you go back) Act??? You have got to be kidding.
Then there is his hang-em high death penalty act. and his "get a job you lazy welfare collecter" Act.
His complete inaction and sabotage of any effective international action on global warming - expertly pursued by Al Gore himself.
Clinton has the blood of hundreds of thousands if Iraqi, children staining his soul plus more than a few Hatians, Somali's. Sudanese and Serbians. As his secritary of State said: "It was worth it" in pursuit of his power agenda.
Then there was Clinton's and his international capitalist buddy's near successful push at the complete subjugation of national and local sovereignty to the intererests of corporations and investors - AKA "free trade"? Thank goodnes for the brave efforts and blood shed in Ssattle, DC, Quebeec, Goteborg, Genoa and many other places for at least slowing that effort. The spirit of Porto Allegre will continue.
And I didn't learn any of this stuff from a right winger. Unless the "Monthly Review" is a right wing rag.
I refer you to Amy Goodmans famous interview of Clinton on his last day in office.
Clinton has a place waiting or him in hell.
Don't forget Don't ask Don't Tell and DOMA...
Clinton wasn't all that great for everybody.
Oregoncharles
Clinton gave us pre-emptive bombings in Iraq. It was, still is, illegal to bomb a sovereign nation unless they have attacked you first, in other words for defense. And he presided over the deaths of half a million children who died as a result of severe sanctions that prevented them from getting medical care and supplies to save their lives.
I'm always astounded by the callousness of some people. You're more concerned about pumping up your identity ("I'm a Democrat!") than you are about the lives of innocent, suffering people.
If you're in favor of the brutal killings, wars for empire and great wealth, torture, bank bailouts, corporate subsidized health care, FISA, that's your business but don't expect anyone here to buy into your bs. Spare us, please. You could join up to fight in Obama's wars if you like. Maybe you could train to be a drone operator and kill little children playing in dusty, empty yards in Afghanistan.
The rest of us can see right through to the bottom of this cesspool and we are very concerned about what we see there.
Have a nice day.
Clinton also gave us Waco, where 80 men, woman and children were MURDERED and burned to a crisp, IRAQ where they systematically killed-off children (with Ms. Albright's blessings), and as we know, NAFTA was--to this day--just great for the working citizens of this nation, wasn't it?
While they may claim the "victories" you speak of, they pale in light of anything substantial like Medicare or Social Security or Civil Rights.
The Clintons were just as much the murderers and empire builders as Bush and his successor, Blackbush.
When you talk about The Money, they gave the People zilch. Its ALL about the money. The hell with birth rates, and piddly give-aways. The vast amount of money went, and still goes, to the murderous military industrial complex and the richest of this land.
As for the article, they'll not give us single-payer because they are ruthless, heartless, greedy sons-of-bitches, and because there's nothing we can do about it short of going to Washington to make them give it to us.
Screw the tawdry, jaded hillbillies known as "The Clintons".
"...tawdry, jaded hillbillies..." I like that. How many Iraqi children died under US sanctions in Clinton's 8 years office? Half a million? How many people were slaughtered in his illegal bombing of Yugoslavia?
"...Part of the reason the Democratic Party is so messed up is that most progressives still believe crap about the Clintons that was made up by right-wing psychos during the 90s..."
- No, that is not "part of the reason the Democratic Party is so messed up." The DP stinks because it is rotten from top to bottom, with possibly a very few (less than 10) exceptions like Feingold & Kucinich. The party stinks because it is gutless and stands for nothing. It stinks because it's made up of people like Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, Obama, Emmanuel, Harman, & the Clintons. It has nothing to do with what "progressives" believe or don't believe.
Incidentally, any "progressive" who believes spin from the right-wing psychos isn't much of a progressive to begin with.
Excellent post. Mr. Logan is, respectfully, full of it.
Will the avoidable YEARLY deaths of 22,000 Americans due to lack of health insurance mean more to members of Congress than their campaign contributions from the profit-care insurance industry?
Stay tuned...
Shoot, the death of Americans don't matter to them.
The deaths of anyone don't matter to them unless making a stand serves them politically/financially.
Interesting that the author makes threatening noises but outright states that of course they will never support a Republican. If she hasn't had reason to be yet outraged, it is unlikely that she would be willing to support anything outside the 2 party monopoly--so anything she says amounts to big talk, no action. The Democrats know they are a captive block so they turn their attention to curry favor with the Right while Democrats continue back them fearing the Republicans will win.
There is no escape from that box.
I think Theda is hinting that if Progressives organize and unite to win, which is politics 101, that there is an escape from the box.
This is an opportunity to show that when the going gets tough, the tough get goin.
The question now is, do we have what it takes to do take the next giant step?