EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
If Health Care Reform Falls, Progressives Need to Look In The Mirror
Supporters of Obama's health care reform are "keeping a stiff upper lip" reports The Hill as reaction to three tough days of oral argument and questioning on aspects of President Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA).
President Barack Obama listens to a question during the Organizing for America National Health Care Forum at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009 (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
The entire health reform effort seems to hang in balance, dangerously. It looks like a very real possibility that Americans who do and will need health care, and who do or will have health conditions -- i.e., pretty much everyone -- will again be excluded from coverage for pre-existing conditions and others priced out of coverage at alarming rates if the unusually conservative and ideological Supreme Court backs the GOP.
It didn't have to be this way. We had the power to make things different. In fact, we still have the power to make things different.
As poorly as the administration calculated, strategized, composed and communicated their reforms, they did what Administrations do. They brought industry to the table, they excluded single payer advocates, they vastly overestimated their ability to bring the other side on board, they vastly underestimated the extreme ideology that opposed reform and they botched the messaging of all of it.
Candidate Barack Obama campaigned on universal coverage. He told would-be supporters that, if he were "starting from scratch," single-payer would be ideal. Indeed, he even understood that the only true reform, that would sufficiently control costs and actually achieve universal coverage, was a single payer, government-sponsored health care system. The evidence is overwhelming that only such a system can achieve those goals.
President Barack Obama however, not only quickly abandoned any thought of a fight for a true universal system, he set his left flank where he wanted to end up: the public option. In addition to current private plans, geographical regions would have another choice, a "public option" which would have the power of the federal government behind it to negotiate down premiums. Absent a single payer system, there could be some real cost savings this way and, some thought, an opening to a future single payer system. Though perhaps this weak option is all one could expect from a centrist administration, it was not what progressives and the Democratic base either really wanted nor should have fought for.
But progressives did fight for the public option. With some notable exceptions, almost exclusively. Instead of being the rallying grassroots campaign and reasonable solution desired by all progressives, universal, single-ayer health care became the pariah of the organized progressives, scoffed at and scorned as unachievable.
It should have come with no surprise that starting where you want to end in a negotiation is a sure way to not get what you want. Progressives could have not only kept their integrity, but they could have provided a left flank as a foil for the administration. Centrist Dems and less-extreme Repubs could have seen a public option as a place to go. The administration should have allowed it, encouraged it, engaged it, used it. Progressives should have fought like hell for it.
No one can say that the outcome then would have been the public option, or wouldn't have. No one knows what the political climate could have been with a strong, organized fight from progressives for Medicare for all. But without a strategy that included such a fight, it could easily have been predicted that public option would not be the outcome.
If we had ended up with a single-payer system, then of course the "individual mandate problem" is non-existent. Even if we had ended up with a "public option," we would not have had this the question before the Supreme Court this spring. Justice Kennedy himself suggested so in his comments that the Individual Mandate problem could be avoided by a tax funded single payer national health service.
So, while progressives, Democrats, Americans who want affordable health care for all of us go forward wringing our hands and "keeping a stiff upper lip," blaming the misinformed conservative ideologues in Congress, in the Supreme Court, in Tea Party get-ups, perhaps we should take a long look in the mirror.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
193 Comments so far
Show AllI don't think Ms. Dolan has done her homework very well. _REAL_ Progressives have _always_ been in favor of a universal single-payer system over any other plan. I was at a town hall meeting with Ron Wyden, who eventually wrote the mandate into the current law, where most of the people in the room were advoctes for single-payer, and he stood up there and told us that "What people want is what Congress has". We told him he was wrong. He was thinking like 2004, and single-payer had more support in 2009 than just from Kucinich's backers. In 2010, I voted for a Progressive candidate who advocates single-payer, over Ron Wyden. Move-on.org backed the "public option", then backed the plan as it came from Max Baucus and Ron Wyden. ... I never agreed with Move-on.ogr.
I think the problem is in paragraph 7. I followed the links, read the John Nichols link twice, and it still didn't line up with the main thrust of her piece. Please invite her to rewrite that paragraph.
Agreed. This is very weak reasoning, trying to split the difference between an inept/corrupt Administration and progressives somehow not trying enough.
The truth is less diplomatic: Obama's a hack, an industrial-strength, Double-Stuf Oreo of an Ivy League shit-heel only too happy to do corporate errands. He represents racial progress in only the most superficial of ways (and stay tuned for his base evaporating for lack of federal response to three very public acts of heinous violence against African Americans). For those who never fell for the hype, the health care sell-out was no surprise. Maybe Ms. Dolan should address herself to those still blinded by "Yes, He Will."
As for Obamacare, it deserves a miserable death, unlike the thousands who perish because we don't have single-payer. There is no substitute for it.
The author of the article conflates progressives with Obama supporters. Apparently, "progressive" has been radically redefined, since this puts ostensible progressives in the position of supporting all of Bush's agenda except with regard to abortion and (belatedly) DADT and DOMA.
The ACA is in no way progressive, it's a sop to Obama's friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
If being a progressive entails renouncing principles and voting based only on partisan loyalty or personality cultism, count me out.
It's frightening to think that there are people in Dolan's position who still think negotiation is a matter of starting high and then slowly giving in til you wear the other person down.
Principled Negotiation has only been around for 35 years or so -- longer than she has, by the look of her -- so I wonder how much excuse she has for not knowing about it.
Principled Negotiation principles say that you start by deciding whether negotiation on the merits is even possible (if the other side has all the power, it's not), then deciding (a) what you really want and (b) the minimum you'll accept rather than walk away. You open by stating what you really want and the generally-accepted principles that support you.
You don't give ground toward your minimum unless the other side can make a case by also citing generally-accepted principles.
The "negotiation" part then becomes deciding which generally-accepted principles are most applicable, discovering and offering douceurs that are valuable to the other side but not to you, and, perhaps, getting up and walking away if the other side refuses to act in good faith. ("Walking away" means anything from starting a war to taking them to court -- basically anything that's based on brute force rather than negotiation)
It's an extremely powerful system, far more so than the traditional bombast-and-sellout one.
Maired,
Obama never intended to negotiate for single payer or the public option. For people to argue that he did means they have to deny reality (read Phil Rockstroh's essay on denial today). Obama handed health care off to Liz Fowler, the hand-picked assassin from the insurance companies.
But I agree with your point on negotiations. Not only must you say what you want, but you must walk away from the table if the other side offers something unacceptable.
Most people make the mistake of thinking that you have to get something out of every negotiation or that you always have to "win." Sometimes losing now means winning later.
But Obama convinced millions of democrats that they had "won" something with his Opharmacare, when in fact the 1% won.
OilyBomber the Lesser also clearly revealed his dysfunctional position when OilyBomber appointed Bacchus to head the study group. Better nothing than OilyBombercare.
Yes, the 1% won and this may be attributed to the 'progressives' who always stick with the Democrats on the belief that Democrats are better than Republicans and that these two corporate parties have different points of view. WRONG!! Both the Democrats and the Republicans are working for the same paymaster---the top 1%. These are the forces that direct the actions of President Obama.
Only by facing the fact that the people of this nation have NO POWER in our current government can we begin the fight back to get some democracy. We need a clean sweep of EVERYONE IN OUR FEDERAL POSITIONS TODAY. We must not vote for candidates who are bought and paid for. That means EVERY ONE IN FEDERAL POSITIONS TODAY. You must not vote for the re election of your 'representative' in the House or your 'representative' in the Senate and surely NOT for the re election of President Obama. If you have any hopes for a democracy where the government is of, by and for the people of this nation you must stop voting for corporately funded candidates. It is as simple as that. Don't vote D or R.
Ever see "Mouseland" by Tommy Douglas out of Canada? I think he first gave the speech around 1942:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGLCYhYqs24
Check out Citizensparty.org
Tommy Douglas (Architect of Canada's Universal Health Care) in 2004, Canadians voted him the "Greatest Canadian".
http://archives.cbc.ca/society/celebrations/topics/1455/
THAT is how much we love our system.
Agreed! Well said! That's exactly what I plan to do. I urge others to do the same. If possible, vote for a third party candidate of your choice. If not, vote the incumbent out! Keep the rascals from getting a foothold and keep them on their toes.
Karen Dolan is absolutely correct on one point.
She and all of the other delusional democrat apologists need to look in a mirror.
Of course, it needs to be added, that this "mirror" needs to be a reflector of REALITY. Not the same warped and warping mirror image of their delusional fantasies which allow them to continue spouting rubbish about how "progressive" they think they are because they elected a blatantly corporate, murderous, fraud democrat administration.
There are no "Centrist dems". It is an impossibility to belong to a Wall Street corporate front group and be centrist, much less progressive.
The biggest problem is that Ms. Dolan is typical of democrats and their delusional hypocrisy.
Here is the frame for your mirror.
The republican, the libertarians, and the democrats are owned by Wall Street.
Now, good luck seeing through all of the smoke coming out of your ass, Ms. Dolan.
"lanista"
Here is my waste of time.
You cannot belong to a corporately owned party and be anything centrist, much less claim to be left of the so-called center (which is where we need to be).
"Honest centrists" in a corporate hell-hole of a party?
To have a center, you have to have some integrity and you cannot have integrity if your words are distinctly in opposition to what (and who) you support.
The vast majority of democrats are hypocrites who are merely playing the game of good cop/bad cop with the republicans.
But in the grand scheme of things IT DOES NOT MATTER if there is "a few in each party that have people's best interest at heart." They are still members of a corrupt duopoly, and they are therefore wasting their time being there. They have absolutely no meaningful power within that system, and as such, the people are wasting their time voting for them. These "few" representatives are accomplishing nothing but doing their damn best to try and save a system that is beyond salvage.
Don't forget Dennis Kucinich.
After Obomber took him for a little ride on Air Force One he started whistling the right tune.
He is a coward and a sell-out just like all the rest.
Same for Anthony Weiner.
Yeah cuz they probably threatened to push him out over the Atlantic unless he changed his tune.
"elmysterio"
I have wondered whether Kucinich actually was begging Obama to help him save face on that plane ride, but then we are not allowed to know because all of what transpired is a party secret.
Obama probably already knew, based upon Kucinich's record of devotion to the democrats (and republicans?), that Kucinich would do what he did "for the party" and may have only been commiserating (or pretending to do so).
Kucinich has been deemed a loser (by his beloved democrats) and yet he still clings to their fraudulence.
That's what's really amazing. The party gives him zero respect--ridicules him at every opportunity--and yet when they need his vote it's "yes massah, I be der fo' you!"
It'll be interesting to see if he actually grows a pair now that he's essentially starting over from scratch.
The Republicans and Democrats are owned by Wall St. no question, the Libertarians is a much more gray area. For example all Libertarians would have let the "too big to fail," banks fail. They also hate the private bank controlled Federal Reserve. Most Libertarians I know really loath Wall St. because they see it as a nexus of statist imperialism, and state backed stopped welfare capitalism, which they see as more akin to mercantilism or state backed cartels than a real market.
Having said that I think Libertarians DO have too much faith in the dog eat dog market, and too little understanding that some public goods like health care, a healthy environment, and labor rights are more important than capitalist accumulation in a "market."
Thus I think it is possible to be severely critical of Libertarians without the sort of anti intellectual and inaccurate broad brushing you did above.
"mrcrow"
So they say.
The libertarians are the far right version of the hypocrite "progressive democrats."
Wall Street wins again.
Actually you are quite wrong, many Libertarians have a specifically anti imperialist analysis that is FAR more radical than the one at commondreams. For example here is a piece from a Libertarian think tank that is more radical than 90+% of the pieces published here:
"The fact is that the U.S. military has historically used its massive firepower to intentionally kill large numbers of civilians. Most Americans, however, are either ignorant of this ugly truth or rationalize the carnage as an unavoidable consequence of waging just, necessary, and “good” wars.
John Tirman, author of the remarkable and thought-provoking The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America’s Wars, calls this phenomenon “the collective autism” of the American people. He writes,
One of most remarkable aspects of American wars is how little we discuss the victims who are not Americans. The costs of the war to the populations and common soldiers of the “enemy” are rarely found in the narratives and dissections of conflict, and this habit is a durable feature of how we remember war. As a nation that has long thought itself as built on Christian ethics, even as an exceptionally compassionate people, this coldness is a puzzle. It is in fact more than a puzzle, for ignorance or indifference has consequences for the victims of American wars and for America itself.
As General Sherman infamously said, “War is hell.” So why do so many Americans support creating hell on earth? I suppose many still think that these wars are necessary to defend the country, and thus are beguiled by all the pro-war propaganda, patriotic symbolism, and flag waving.
But the truth is that most of America’s wars have been waged neither for purposes of defense nor for the promotion of freedom abroad, but for imperial conquest. This lust for wealth and power has driven U.S. foreign policy for more than a century, and millions of innocent civilians have been the victims of Washington’s imperial ambitions."
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1203za.asp
So uh yeah "Wall St. wins again," when the critique is specifically of:
"This lust for wealth and power has driven U.S. foreign policy for more than a century, and millions of innocent civilians have been the victims of Washington’s imperial ambitions."
mrcrow,
Talk is cheap. The proof of their conviction is in their action. So far just like someone we know they can talk one way and do something totally opposite. AFAIK, libertarian is just another name for far right republiCON.
Not really, Libertarians are against U.S. interventionism, the drug war, the NDAA, The Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, corporate person hood, the real ID act, all things the Republicans are for. And yes many do walk the talk, if you look at Ron Paul's voting record for example he has walked his talk more consistently than any politician out there even Kucinich who has taken a couple of dives.
While I would agree they have too much faith in what an unregulated market looks like to say, they are the same as a Republican is ludicrous, Oily Bomber is FAR closer to being a neo-conservative Repigliecon than Ron Paul or any Libertarian party member. It's fine not to like Libertarians, but don't dishonor yourself by lying about them, that doesn't do you any favors.
"The market" is how we got "U.S. interventionism, the drug war, the NDAA, The Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, corporate person hood, the real ID act, all things the Republicans are for." All of those things are the result of property rights being placed over human rights, supported by the notion that protection of property rights somehow leads to human rights. "The market" means property rights, and property rights means the right of those with property to control and dominate those without.
Wonderfully stated, Mike.
And yet, the Institue of Justice defended a little old lady in New Jersey who was defending her little home from a takeover by Donald Trump.
Yes and no.
My research seems to indicate that the rise of corporations comes from the state back stopping large businesses through things like corporate person hood, limited liability, intellectual property laws that benefit large media and software corporations, Taft Hartley limiting the power of Unions to strike at will, the private bank controlled Federal Reserve tilting the money market in favor of large banks, bailouts, the MIC directly buying hundreds of billions of dollars of goods from favored crony corporations, mercantilist wars to steal resources from the third world for favored corporations, ag subsidies that benefit large growers, and that's just off the top of my head.
The negative symbiotic combination of state and big business power as we see in the United States is utterly toxic and needs to be replaced with a combination of small owner operated businesses, and owner operated equal share co-ops funded by credit Unions selling on a market. Yes there is a place for a market for several reasons.
1. Real competition does drive prices down and encourages producers to use resources efficiently.
2. Central planning really does stifle innovation of a positive sort. Say an owner of a small orchard has a delicious recipe for apple jelly from their grandmother and they want to sell it at a fair price. This benefits the buyer who gets good homemade jelly, and the seller who gets another income stream. I am sure living in northern Michigan you see this driving the back roads families selling preserves, they are NOT the enemy, nor are they something that could happen in a centrally planned system where a small planning bureau must determine all the goods to be produced in a standardized fashion that crushes the unique ideas individuals come up with.
I agree with you that large concentrations of land and wealth are wrong, and must be discouraged by encouraging people not to patronize large business entities destroying our communities like Wal Mart and the influx of cheap Chinese goods made with literal slave labor. This IS starting to happen naturally, co-ops are booming, buying local is more and more popular, and will get even more so as oil gets more scarce.
Violent Bolshevik Communist revolution OTOH is a case where the "cure" is worse than the disease, the forced collectivization of farms in the Ukraine caused literally millions to die of starvation, and millions more were put in gulags for freedom of conscience. I believe it is possible to arrive at more democratically self organized society that is more sustainable and humane without revolution or violent expropriation of land. I believe it will happen due to unsustainable empire falling apart and people using the rapidly evolving memes being spread on the internet to *choose* to live a better free from both large business and bank oppression, and state coercion and violence. That is what Occupy COULD be if it chooses to listen to it's left anarchist voice and not to Democrat corporatists on the far right, or Communists on the state centralist left both of whom are trying to infiltrate and destroy Occupies original founding principles of activism against concentrated wealth and power based on direct democracy consensus based processes, and cooperative non hierarchical organizing principles. The Bolshevik Communism you shill for TA is just replacing one set of hierarchical bosses with another, out of the frying pan, into the fire...
Of course the states are essential for capitalism to exist. That is a no-brainer. That does not mean that the right wing program of individualism is the solution.
I do not agree with you that the "free market," if left unfettered will prevent income and wealth inequality.
I do not agree with you that the only alternative to your free market libertarianism is your imagined "Violent Bolshevik Communist revolution." Fanning the flames of Red Scare hysteria in order to promote "free market" libertarianism is the same old extreme right wing program that we have seen for the last 100 years. You can dress it up with "organic basil" or "coop" and other counter-culture themes, but that changes nothing.
The small jam manufacturers in northern Michigan - I have worked with just about all of them - all have regular kitchen inspections and abide by the various regulations for the protection of public health and safety. That is not "Bolshevik Communism" that I am "shilling." Nor does it have anything to do with "hierarchical bosses." A new law in Michigan allows "cottage industry" operations to escape inspection and regulation. This was rammed through the legislature in a late night stealth session by the extreme right wingers. It is a serious potential threat to public health.
A new law in Michigan allows "cottage industry" operations to escape inspection and regulation. This was rammed through the legislature in a late night stealth session by the extreme right wingers. It is a serious potential threat to public health.
-----------------------
*Completely* escape, Mike? No inspections or regulation at all, ever???
Too often the regulatory machinery acts as a polite goon squad for Capitalism. Why should a single-family boutique maker of, say, fruit preserves have to have a small version of the Smuckers's kitchen and endure similar enforcement? Why aren't common family standards enough for such a small, personal operation?
In the case of a large corporation, regulators are dealing with those who are in it purely for the money, with no emotional connection to the business, its reputation, or the community. Those operations obviously have to be monitored ruthlessly until we can make Capitalism and its ilk go away altogether.
But that's not true of most family-size businesses -- they're in it as a way of life, and their reputation is valuable at least as much for personal as commercial reasons. Those who behave well do so because that's how they were socialised, not because some regulator is standing over them. Why isn't an annual walk-through and human-level (non-bureaucratic) assessment of goodness enough?
I find it very hard to believe that public health is in danger from such micro-operations any more than it is from the little stalls at a folk festival where we've (I presume you have; I certainly have) pigged out on home-made pierogi z kapustoj, pakoras, and ngorm makok.
+ 1
Creating artificial barriers to entry to small owner self manged operations does nothing but create more disempowered wage slaves for corporations.
And Mike lied about me as per Commie usual, I actually said I WAS skeptical about some aspects of the free market dogma of Libertarians but he skipped that because he assumes everyone is an intolerant idealog like him, where as I feel free to read BOTH Kropotkin and Murray Rothbard, and learn from both how we can make a better self organizing society without a need for either capitalist bosses or an elite coordinator class like you see in Bolshevik Communism.
Well put.
Sure, the "progfessive" caucus folded, the leaders of the Democratic party dissed Singlepayer advocates like Dr. Flowers and of course our duplicitous President used mialeading language to garner left votes which he brazenly betrayed---forget all of rhat. The real problem is with us progressives. Perhaps it is. The real problem is that we vote for these a**holes. I've learned my lesson on that point. I'll never do that again. Now what will you blame me for?
I think the reason the Progressive Caucus failed, is that there is only one member of the Progressive Caucus in the Senate. Incidentally, he's not a Democrat. One member of the Progressive Caucus vs. 99 members of the Wall Street Caucus.
"MalikX"
The so-called "Progressive caucus" not only is a failure, it is THE way the democrats keep real beneficial change from happening.
To pretend to be progressive and to be a democrat is worse than delusional.
They are hypocrites who support warmongerers and the gutting of the constitution by their PARTY membership.
Re-read my post. I did not say the Progressive Caucus claimed to be Democrats. I said one member of the Senate(where legislation goes to die) is in the "Progressive Caucus" and he is NOT a Democrat. But, I'm curious as to how "party membership" guts the Constitution. Does that apply to all political parties? Politicians? If the Constitution is being gutted, isn't it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to assess the constitutionality of the "laws" gutting the Constitution? And to strike down unconstitutional laws? However, what I am mostly interested in is how the Progressive Caucus "...is THE way the democrats keep real beneficial change from happening", please enlighten.
"MalikX"
Other than Bernie Sanders (in the Senate), who else in the so-called progressive caucus is not a democrat?
The progressive caucus is a tool of deception which is used to keep people within the control of the corporately controlled democrats
INSTEAD of forming a real opposition party.
The "Progressive Caucus" is a sham. They only support progressive ideas as long as their votes are a minority.
Kucinich made that a blatant fact. So they had to get rid of him. He made their fraudulence too obvious.
Bravo. And the only thing that gives me "hope" in all of this is....sometimes when you lose, you can really win. I don't believe that the people will sit still when the politcal hacks vote 5-4 to overturn ACA. We came so close to getting real reform before Obama and the Dems got scared off. I believe we will take to the streets to demand what every other indudstrialized nation in the world has: health care for all of its people.
"Joanne Boyer"
The only thing Obama and the dems are "scared" of is being seen as the frauds that they are.
The whole notion of bi-partisanship is a lie. The dems and the repubs are working for the same agenda.
I like what Digby had to say about this bidniz yesterday:
"I wish I had more confidence that liberals would rise up en masse and demand single payer if Obamacare is struck down, but I just can't imagine it happening. It would take a whole bunch of people who have health care (most of the country) taking to the streets and demanding it for others. At this point I think the middle class is battered and tired. The best case is that some states would manage to pass Romneycare in fits and starts."
This is not how I'd like to see health care reform in the U.S. play out. But given current politics in this country, this seems (unfortunately) like the most likely way it will play out.
The rest of the developed world laughs at us in our incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, and our weird religio-political beliefs. In effect, Amerikuns are hoping the Tooth Fairy will come and save us from ourselves before the fecal matter really hits the rotating oscillator. Few seem interested in demanding we do what ultimately needs to be done. By ourselves, for ourselves.
Glad other people see this article for the load of propaganda it is. "Progressives" like Darcy Burner were working to eliminate single payer from the debate. I heard Jim McDermott say "single payer's dead" a couple of months after the election at a local town hall meeting.
Also since the health care crisis is so dire, why is Obama's plan still two years away from being put in action?
"And notice her credentials."-- totalmadness
I noticed!
Another George Soros funded think tank/foundation.
So where is the nation-wide, years long effort to build a party that can elect people actually able to govern as well as to say things that I like to hear said?
So where is the nation-wide, years long effort to build a party that can elect people actually able to govern as well as to say things that I like to hear said?
------------------
It's in the works and, last I heard, fairly close to going public.
It's been put down for at least 20 years by Democrats who chose Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama over a real progressive in their primaries because they believed that a centrist would pull in more Republican votes. There are still liberals who blame Ralph Nader over Bush's 2000 win, even though more Dems voted for Bush than for Nader.
And even though they complain about voter disenfranchisement before elections, afterward they are silent on actual election fraud. Do you think people in John Stewart's audience, or Huffington Post readers really care about Iraqis, about war crimes, or about social justice? Politics is just another sport to them, and they just want their team to win before they go back to updating their Facebook status or checking their NCAA pool brackets.
Hey Hector, nice thought, just one teeny weeny little problem, its called Programable Electronic "Voting" Machines. Occupy Defiance!
Goggle the Justice Party.
Maybe you can help form a new political party that is not owned by the top 1%.
The problem is that today's progressives don't know a Democrat from a neocon.
"Perry Logan"
To believe there is still a difference is the delusion.
You'd need a total of about three mirrors in Washington for this to happen.
Am I missing something here?
Why is it the progressives fault again?
They are lectured for not falling in line and now for falling in line?