Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTime to End False Bipartisanship
God I hope David Broder is wrong. "The President has told visitors," the Washington Post columnist wrote last week, "that he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52-48." The good news is that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is now talking about how bipartisanship may need to be redefined downward if the Democrats are going to pass meaningful healthcare reform. In a meeting with journalists last week, Emanuel proposed that health-care legislation could be bipartisan without Republican votes. "There will be ideas from both parties, and individuals from both parties, in the final product," he said. "Whether the Republicans decide to vote for things they promoted will be up to them." ( David Axelrod seconded the emotion in his appearance on ABC's "This Week.")
The trick now is to ensure that "centrist" Democrats (who, as Paul Krugman notes, "are in fact way out in right field") pay more attention to the broad majority favoring a strong public option than to the wads of dough lavished on them by big Pharma and insurance lobbyists. As Joe Conason put it in his invaluable New York Observer column, "If Congress fails to enact healthcare reform this year---or it enacts a sham reform designed to bail out corporate medicine while excluding the 'public option'---then the public will rightly blame Democrats, who have no excuse for failure except their own cowardice and corruption." Blame could well be registered in ugly midterm election results in 2010.
It's time to part ways with obstructionist Republicans and pass a strong healthcare bill with a majority vote, which is possible if efforts cease to get a handful of Republicans to cross over. Redefining bipartisanship at a time when the GOP has become a male, pale and stale party committed to deficit demagoguery and fearmongering is the common sense and, I'd even argue, pragmatic course. Instead of wasting time on recalcitrant GOP holdouts, do what Drew Westen, author of the terrific book "The Political Brain," advises to pass meaningful healthcare change: "Focus on principles, tell compelling stories, move people emotionally and send clear messages."
Sure, there are legitimate issues raised by people I admire about the value of a public plan. Even President Obama once said, "If I were designing a system from scratch, then I'd probably set up single-payer." Like 59% of the Americans surveyed in January 2009 by CBS News and the New York Times, I would prefer, as would my colleagues at The Nation, to see Congress respond to this country's healthcare crisis by scrapping a failed-for-profit system and replacing it with a comprehensive national health insurance program.
But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken single-payer off the table. That doesn't mean we cease fighting to get it back on --but it probably means we need to balance our short and longterm goals. Let's assume some compromise in our political system is inevitable. The hard question is whether the compromise opens the door to greater progress or forecloses opportunity. A weak public plan will make it harder to get healthcare expenses under control while extending care to all. A weak plan may discredit healthcare reform for a generation. Real reform will cement strong attachment to the party which has shown it can pass legislation truly improving the condition of people's lives. (That's a key reason why former Dan Quayle adviser and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol fought tooth and nail to derail Clinton's healthcare reforms.) And for all the wrongheaded deficit anxiety circulating, do Democrats really think that if they pass major health care reform, and increase access--that voters will punish them for growing the deficit? (And the cost debate is forcing to the fore much-needed consideration of changes to our dysfunctional and unjust tax structure that will enable us to pay for these healthcare reforms.)
Congress is, of course, usually pretty skittish about reform, but with a President with high approval ratings and an historically unpopular GOP--if this isn't a time to pass sweeping reform with a strong public plan, then when is?
37 Comments so far
Show AllAh yes, the calculus of political viability. If I hear one more word about the calculus of political viability I think I'll throw up. Why does the calculus of political viability never affect WAR PROFITEERING, HUH KATRINA?
Give me a forking break, lady. Corruption, bribery and extortion is NOT ACCEPTABLE as the calculus of political viability. And that's what you are REALLY talking about and are too cowardly to come right out and say.
We reject your party of scum. You're as bad as the Republicans.
Out of principle, I am against any idea that any Republican has had a say about. Bipartisanship should be about having a consensus between the Green Party and the Democratic Party. Let's just focus on political ideas that matter.
I'm sure this is another echo in the chamber of friends, but another thing it's time to end is the bloody Nation. Man, she's destroyed that rag.
Time to stick a fork in the US sham bourgeois democracy and its two wings of the same political party. The party of the wealthy can be identified at different times and places as the Republicans or the Democrats.
Only one division is real, the one between the working class and the filthy rich. Only one battle left to fight. Socialism or death.
Ah Katrina, nothing but stupid drivel. How do you like your Obama now sucker ?!?!?
Obama's Healthcare Reform is shaping up to be a terrible plan. If this trend continues we will have:
1. A weak or no public plan
2. Mandated buy-in that will force everyone to buy rip-off McInsurance policies from private for profit insurers.
3. Taxes on employer health benefits. First only high-end, expensive plans will be taxed. But that's just the foot in the door. Within a few years all employer based plans will be considered taxable income.
So once again, the average working American is once again screwed-this time by the Dems. Now that's what I call bi-partisanship.
Do a search for Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel-an Oncologist--and--Rahm Emanuel's brother and delve into this healthcare debate by doing some general searches. The June 10, 2009 Healthcare debate was not only a fiasco but virtually unreported in the terrible American "media."
Look up Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and euthansia together as well. Say bye-bye to Medicaid and Medicare with Obama.
Obama's Healthcare Reform is shaping up to be a terrible plan. If this trend continues we will have:
1. A weak or no public plan
2. Mandated buy-in that will force everyone to buy rip-off McInsurance policies from private for profit insurers.
3. Taxes on employer health benefits. First only high-end, expensive plans will be taxed. But that's just the foot in the door. Within a few years all employer based plans will be considered taxable income.
So once again, the average working American is once again screwed. This is an enduring
Congress knows damn well what the majority wants, and defiantly proceeds to offer something else, maybe even anything else.
I say Fire the Bastards. A credible showing of resolve to eliminate the Congress might scare them into doing what they should. Wouldn't that be kind of refreshing?
Too bad that Obama is not a real leader but a follower who is always looking to please the wrong people--you know those whom voted for McCain-Palin. Obama forgot really fast who actually voted for him. For that, Obama and the Democratic Party are behaving like pathetic fools.
Obama will be a one-term president.
God I hope David Broder is just spreading more DC beltway insider disinformation once again.
If the goal is simply to formulate sound and wise public policy, what sane political leader would prefer to shit can a 100% good bill that passed 51 to 49 that you and your partisan colleagues could take full credit for, in favor of some watered down piece of legislation (which is only 85% effective) that you also have to share both credit and blame with the opposition party for enacting?
There is absolutely no logic to that logic, unless maybe the goal is to actually accomplish something else.
Broder's latest gossip exemplifies gamesmanship gone beserk, trumping substance with every turn of the screw. Please say it ain't so.....
Bill from Saginaw
Katrina vanden Heuvel has been one of Obama's biggest suck-ups and she is one of those liberals who cannot see that Obama is not a true liberal/progressive.
Ms. vanden Heuvel needs to get into some reality and fast regarding Obama and the DLC-Democratic Party. The Democrats are corporatists and militarists and the sooner Ms. vanden Heuvel understands or admits this, the better off she will be. Until then, Ms. vanden Heuvel will continue to lie to herself about Obama and the DLC-Democratic Party.
Ms. vanden Heuvel along with Paul Krugman forgot I guess during Obama's speaking presidential tour that the Democratic Party, is all DLC-led and supports the corporate agenda. Shame on Mr. Krugman and Ms. vanden Heuvel who have yet to figure this out or remember the history of the Dems since 1988.
One last thing---President Obama's approval ratings will soon take a nosedive downward when true lefrists and real progressives understand that he---President Obama is not an antiwar president but someone who is prowar and not out for peace but out for world mayhem in the military, economic, and political sense. Wait till the dollar really drops and you see hyperinflation and that your money means nothing. What then folks?
The compromises are over folks, unless you want continued failure in the results department. This is not the time for compromises or playing the middle or settling for scraps. Ms. vanden Heuvel needs to take a trip across America and see what is actually going on in places like Michigan, Ohio, and California. Ms. vanden Heuvel--please stop enabling the pathetic DLC-Democratic Party and the Obama administration into doing nothing!
For many years, the state agency where I worked received funding in accordance with the Wagner-Peyser Act.
There were a few middle managers and veteran apparatchiks, and one in particular, who would reference this act at every opportunity, and make supposedly knowing and involved points based on such arcane Wagner-Peyser lore.
They received respect and deference for this expertise, because no one understood what they hell they were talking about, or cared enough to research the merits of this mundane bureaucratic drivel.
One day a supervisor asked me if I understood the latest Wagner-Peyser analysis from her boss. I replied, "I always just substitute the phrase 'Mumbo-Jumbo' for 'Wagner-Peyser', and that's all I need to know."
* * * * *
In this spirit, I suggest that we simply delete the phrase "calculus of political viability" from the text and substitute "Boogie Man".
· Yr Obd't Servant
"Let's assume some compromise in our political system is inevitable."
Thanks Katrina.
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken single-payer off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken withdrawing from Iraq off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken withdrawing from Afghanistan off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken ending the bombing of Pakistan off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken ending support for Zionism off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken slashing the military budget off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken the Fourth Amendment off the table (and out of the constitution)."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken efforts to restore the rest of our civil liberties off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken restoring habeous corpus off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken banning or reducing coal and nuclear power off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken actually banning torture (for real this time) off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken banning extraordinary rendition off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken the desire to eliminate "no child left behind" off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken the idea of nationalization off the table."
"But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken trillions of tax dollars off the table and given them to the wealthiest corporations in the world."
And on and on...
Explain, again, where is the compromise?
+ 1
Another article from a mainstream liberal and offers nothing new, and has no real suggestions on how to proceed.
A rhetorical question for KVH: if our Ruling Duopoly can ignore the wishes of the majority of people for decades, and continues to do so, what does that say about how "democracy" is practiced in the USA?
Why do we just pretend that our system is fine and just sweep things like rampant institutional corruption, election fraud, structural and informal barriers to democratic choice, under the rug and pretend they don't exist?
A real progressive author could think of something to write and say outside the narrowly prescribed frames of the status quo.
Yeah, why on earth would you want to appeal to Republican reps who, BTW, represent some 40% of Americans? The sounds democratic, doesn't it? I guarantee that several years ago this same board was full of comments about and active and forceful minority in Congress...how our legislature was intended to respect the minority and use it as a method to balance the majority. Are we throwing that all away now? And what will happen when the Right regains the majority? Will you be singing the same tune then?
The voters of this country are being raped by congress, this much is true. But, being that we have representatives which are currently spending us into trillions of dollars in debt...maybe we should let them all have a voice? That's somewhere in the constitution, isn't it?
Oh, NOW you want minority rights, "RIGHT" side. Where were you during the last eight years of the RIGHT Totally Ignoring when not downright denigrating liberals and progressives?
During that time, you got all you wanted, all your endless wars and your huge tax cuts for the wealthy and your financial deregulations and your gutted federal watchdogs and your blasted-mountain coal mines and your anti-environmental laws and your anti-union judges and your so-called-'free' trade and your Friedman-flat-world and your corporate ownership of America and your corrupting privatization of the public commonweal and your 7 million people in prison and your hedge fund operators and your runamok banks and your corporate payoffs and your phoney budgets and your sham asset valuations and your fraudulent money-leverage-to-the-skies and your Chicago-boys-disaster-capitalism and your Federal Reserve bailouts and on and on and on in a sickening litany of right-wing neo-con Republican Rot.
Yes, you got everything you wanted out of government, over the Totally-ignored appeals of left-leaning people like Kucinich and Nader and Dean and Chomsky and socialists in general. But now you plead to be included in governing, and say that it's not fair that you can't get what you want anymore.
Let me tell you, the right EVEN NOW STILL has way too much say in the affairs of America at this time. The RIGHT is like the servant in the parable who did not forgive debt when HE was owed it BY others, but wanted HIS debt forgiven when HE owed it TO others. In other words, a gross hypocrite and an oppressor of the people.
During the last eight years, the despicable Republican congress deemed approval of even the milquetoast-center-left Democrats Irrelevant. But now, RIGHTside, you are SHOCKED, SHOCKED that the last eight years has led to the unhappy necessity of having Government Socialism Bail Out Capitalism YET AGAIN and save the asses of Americans after virtually ALL the horrific neocon-radical-rightwing experiments have gone horribly wrong, along with rise of the right's evil pathology of violence, unfettered greed, and lookin-out-for-number-one corruption (and the rule of "he who has the biggest pile of money gets the most votes" -after all, it IS the corporate way of voting).
And RIGHTside refers to the Constitution that the Bushites TORE UP during the last eight years, to plead that the right should be catered to and listened to now, the same right that has become TOTALLY OBSTRUCTIONIST in its behavior, like the spoiled Brats they are. Yes, NOW the neo-cons and right-wingers are all about respecting their minority opinions, about which they are LOUD and WHINEY and VICIOUS and VILE.
I wish all Republicans after the fiascos and debacles of the last eight years would have the decency to SHUT UP and SIT DOWN! And not block real progress to a better world with their parliamentary maneuvers and nay-saying.
But, as the the right is indecent and unethical and in general consists of a bunch of lying sacks of shit, someone else must tell them OK, you got what YOU wanted over the last decade or so, and it turned out to be a crock of crapola leading to the ruination of the nation, so now, rightwingers, SHUT UP and SIT DOWN! Don't you be blocking what Progress we can make to a more just, equal, sane, good, kind, nature-inspired country of WE THE PEOPLE - not a coutry just for HE WHO HAS THE MOST.
Sioux Rose
FV HORN: Excellent post. Actually "Right boy" is demonstrating exactly how the right views events. Although Bush and his cronies set 90% of these bad policies into motion, now that Obama has inherited them (and tragically, enabled them further), "Right boy" is ready to blame all the bad news on the guy CURRENTLY in office. I really think that's why they let a Democrat win. Sure, there are only slim differences between the parties, both bought out by the same corporate lobbies, yet a lot of people programmed by sports really need the SENSE that our elections are still as sacrosanct as the old BALL game with team A and team B in dramatic (apparent) competition. Of course lots of us now recognize it's all mere theater; but to "Right boy" democracy is all about watching the action from the stands and understanding little, so long as he and his ilk remains mesmerized by the team uniform and demonstrates a kneejerk response of fealty to his elected (team) color & logo.
So, it's OK to be a hypocrite, as long as you're a liberal hypocrite. I understand...actually I don't, but I do get that you guys aren't used to being in power. You're used to playing the minority. Don't worry. It won't last. The country has seen the results of the great Liberal experiment...trillion $ deficits, useless and expensive legislation, 3am pork sessions, Pelosi's approval in the toilet, Obama's dropping fast, appointments that won't pay taxes, AIG bonuses, secret coal meetings in the Whitehouse, Senate seats for sale, a nuclear Iran, a nuclear N Korea, an economy that is twice as bad as it was 6 months ago, broken promises, taxpayer dates in NYC....Hope and Change we can all believe in. LOL
Well said.
I would like to add that, reptilians aside, with Democrats like Pelosi, Harman and that jerk from South Dakota, we might as well change anyone with a D or an R to to a C for corporate crook.
"The trick now is to ensure that "centrist" Democrats pay more attention to the broad majority favoring a strong public option than to the wads of dough lavished on them by big Pharma and insurance lobbyists."
Well hell - if congress votes with the "big Pharma and insurance lobbyists" then the money is cut off because they got what they wanted. OR congress can vote against "big Pharma and insurance lobbyists" because their money is already in pocket and congress can vote legislation to help the people. (The ones who can ACTUALLY VOTE!)
On June 4th Nick Skala, representing a pro-single payer physicians group, made the following remarks to the Congressional Progressive Caucus:
"The difference between these choices could not be more stark: single-payer has at its core the elimination of U.S.-style private insurance, using huge administrative savings and inherent cost control mechanisms to provide comprehensive, sustainable universal coverage.
The “public option” preserves all of the systemic defects inherent in reliance on a patchwork of private insurance companies to finance health care, a system which has been a miserable failure both in providing health coverage and controlling costs.
Elimination of U.S.-style private insurance has been a prerequisite to the achievement of universal health care in every other industrialized country in the world. In contrast, public program expansions coupled with mandates have failed everywhere they’ve been tried, both domestically and internationally."
Isn't it obvious that the "calculus of political viability" ensures that whatever type of public option is ultimately adopted, its basic design will be no better, and almost certainly worse, than that of other such programs that have uniformly failed to achieve their (alleged) aim of lower cost and expanded coverage? People like vanden Heuvel and Professor Krugman would argue that the "right" kind of public option could succeed -- on the other hand, Mr. Skala and the 16,000 physicians he represents believe otherwise.
Bottom line is that I've seen absolutely no evidence that there is really such a thing as a viable public option, and even if there was, it seems impossible to believe that an industry powerful enough to prevent even the mere discussion of a single payer system would not be able to find a way to sabotage it. It's hard for me to avoid the conclusion that Ms. vanden Heuvel is advocating for an empty gesture -- a fake reform that applies a band-aid to a cancer -- as opposed to a principled fight for a policy that represents the only real and proven solution to the ongoing crisis in health care.
Modern liberalism at its Clintonian finest: Never let the genuine become the enemy of the sham.
God I hope David Broder is wrong. "The President has told visitors," the Washington Post columnist wrote last week, "that he would rather have 70 votes in the Senate for a bill that gives him 85 percent of what he wants rather than a 100 percent satisfactory bill that passes 52-48."
In this case, Broder is not wrong. Obysmal is truly a boy scout in short pants. He is straighter than straight, squarer than square. He believes al that junior high school civics class BS. There isn't a Republican politician alive who wouldn't wish him dead if wishes were weapons. A writer at Antiwar.com referred to Obysmal as "the timid emperor". There's nothing timid about him; he'll off you as quickly as he'd sneak a cigarette. What he is, however, is the head of the heavily armed D.C chapter of Mensa, where guns are referred to as "firearms" and death is "sleep's brother".
Oregoncharles
"Congress is, of course, usually pretty skittish about reform"
This author must not be serious. Look at the last 30 years. No reform?
What she more accurately should have written is: Congress is, of course, pretty skittish about reform that would benefit We the People. They are happy to reform in favor of corporations. Welfare "reform" springs to mind. Tax reform. Reforming trade policies .....
Oregoncharles
"Focus on principles, tell compelling stories, move people emotionally and send clear messages."
Is vanden Heuval willfully naive or just ...? She writes as if Barack Obama has no idea how to use rhetoric to win hearts and minds. duh.
Look, he doesn't want a government run health care. If anything resembling one must pass, for political reasons, it will have to fail. They will make sure it fails. and then they'll cry, "see! it can never work!"
unintended double-post removed
More hamstrung moderate liberal hand-wringing from "The Nation"! I see that I'm not the first reader to react to the curious sentence, "But for now, the calculus of political viability has taken single-payer off the table".
The disgraceful debacle over establishing sensible modern health care is proof positive that our elected representatives serve corporate and financial interests, not the People from whom their political power and authority is ostensibly derived.
The politicians, in service to their true Masters, have simply willfully and knowingly refused to even heed, much less comply with, the broad support for single-payer.
This circumstance ought to be seen as what it is-- an openly defiant, arrogant, mutinous, co-opted, venal, misfeasant, bought-and-paid-for bipartisan political elite collectively violating their solemn, sworn responsibility to promote the COMMON weal.
Artful terms like "the calculus of political viability" are just pseudo-pragmatic gibberish.
Furthermore, the author's call for a "strong public option" is itself ludicrous-- even though Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman shares her misplaced faith.
No public option will pass that is, to borrow a term, "viable" enough to accomplish what Krugman hopes, i.e. prove so appealing and successful that it causes insurance corporations to lose customers and ultimately fade away in a "free market" competition.
And, incredible as it seems, David Broder probably IS right this time-- even a blind hog roots up an acorn now and then.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Oh, I get it. Yr Obd't Sevant thinks the 'calculus of political viability' is just pseudo-pragmatic gibberish. No, it means the corporations favoring a no vote are paying the best price for the votes in our Congress. These 'donations' and 'contributions' will give a very fine return to the corrupters. It is just the American way...MONEY TALKS. And Congress obeys the paymaster. So much for our form of democracy. The best government money can buy---and has.
Katrina disses right leaning Democrats while not recognizing her own marriage to right wing values and norms. More of the same tired eco la la tripe without any bite whatsoever.
Yawn!
"Katrina disses right leaning Democrats while not recognizing her own marriage to right wing values and norms."
Yes, indeed--great point here....Katrina on foreign policy issues is a closet conservative hawk. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations....
I always knew there was something odd about KVH other than her focusing too much on "abortion" alone. I could never understand her railing about "abortion" rights all the while letting everything else go by.
Sometimes it is hard to separate the chaff from the edible. Much like wadding through satire, or cynicism although both provide insight on our current state of affairs.
My dislike of KVH is her appearing on all the corporate news wires, while trying to be everything to everyone. As an afterthought she shovels her tripe here pretending to be a progressive while really representing the cadre of those offering a status quo line, always apologizing for right wing causes taken up by her hero Obama.
Obama says jump, a Katrina asks, "How High!"
I guess for some, her stance on abortion rights is an earthshaking revelation of some sort. We supposedly live in a free country and Katrina can shovel her tripe anywhere she chooses. But I don't have to belly up to the bar and drink it.
KVH tilted The Nation rightward until it couldn't come up with the fortitude to endorse a third party.
I used to love The Nation, a once proud publication.
"the calculus of political viability has taken single payer off the table" is a statement I don't understand. What is the calculus of political viability? Polls show that 72% of the citizens want single payer. They want all the health care funds to go for health care and none to the insurance companies who deny services and make a profit on the pain and suffering of our people.
The Democrats have control of both houses of Congress. The Republicans are " a male, pale and stale party committed to deficit demagogury and fearmongering" which makes no sence to the collapse of the Democrat's stand for Single payer. Why are they caving without any real opposition?
wantrealdemocracy sez: "What is the calculus of political viability? Polls show that 72% of the citizens want single payer."
***
Ah, this is new-math calculus. See, 72 percent of "citizens" (sic) want something. Instead, they have a dump-truck load of animal waste matter dropped on their heads. Upon emerging from the reeking pile, they hear the pols explain how all this fertilizer is going to result in the growing of the Garden of Eden - which will be all theirs! Adding 2 + 2, the "citizens" then arrive at a solution: re-election!
Unless Obama fires all his current advisors, the only way he'll win re-election will be for him to get a bj from a WH intern and lie about it on oath. The GOP may just be stupid enough to try another impeachment.
Rainborowe