Tainted Saints

Ed Kilgore has a very perceptive analysis in The New Republic about the underlying (and largely unexamined) ideological and strategic differences among progressives that are at least partially driving the rift over the health care bill.  He argues — correctly — that the current debate “displays a couple of pretty important potential fault lines within the American center-left” that have manifested in other disputes as well.  That was the principal point of this much-maligned Daily Kos post observing that many (but not all) of the progressive bloggers most vehemently demanding passage of the health care bill also supported the Iraq War.  As the author of that post (Jake McIntyre) explicitly said, his intent wasn’t to suggest that those individuals shouldn’t be listened to because of their Iraq position six years ago (that would be an invalid and unfair claim), but simply that — as Kilgore says – there are underlying and significant differences in strategic and ideological outlook driving the health care debate that have been present for some time but are typically ignored.

Shared contempt for the Bush administration (at least once Bush and the Iraq War became discredited) largely obscured these differences when Bush was in office.  The desire to undermine the Bush GOP and dislodge that movement from power subsumed all other objectives and united people with vastly different political outlooks and agendas.  There is still a shared revulsion towards the Palin/Limbaugh Right, but that faction is too marginalized and impotent to serve the same function.  With the unifying force of Bush/Cheney gone, the divisions Kilgore describes are now vibrant and increasingly potent.  In addition to health care and Iraq, roughly the same progressive fault lines are seen over the bank bailout, escalation in Afghanistan, Obama’s economic team, tolerance for Obama’s embrace of Bush/Cheney civil liberties polices, and even the reaction to Matt Taibbi’s recent Rolling Stone article on Obama’s subservience to Wall Street. 

There are many reasons for the progressive division on the health care bill.  There are differences over the narrow question of health care policy, with some believing the bill does more harm than good just on that ground alone.  Some of it has to do with broader questions of political power:  if progressives always announce that they are willing to accept whatever miniscule benefits are tossed at them (on the ground that it’s better than nothing) and unfailingly support Democratic initiatives (on the ground that the GOP is worse), then they will (and should) always be ignored when it comes time to negotiate; nobody takes seriously the demands of those who announce they’ll go along with whatever the final outcome is.  But the most significant underlying division identified by Kilgore is the divergent views over the rapidly growing corporatism that defines our political system. [more...]

Today’s links courtesy of Think Progress and Crooks and Liars.

Right-Wing Projection Theater: Bennett compares climate-change science to Nazi medicine, debate to Hitler’s persecutions

The Rachel Maddow Show: Tea Baggers Taking Over the Republican Party

DeMint Laughably Claims Republicans Have Been Acting In ‘Good Faith’ To Improve Health Care Reform

Fox News: Ben Nelson Opposes Health Reform Because He ‘Understands The True Meaning Of Christmas’ »

Yep. The ‘Party of No’ Blocks War Funding To Delay Health-Care Bill.

Alan Greenspan, Born-Again Deficit Hawk

I haven’t been posting about “the Republicans” and they’re brainless campaigns against death panels, socialism, and so on, because other sites handle that side of things really well — especially Think Progress. I’ve been trying to remain high-minded about them because they’re just a distraction from the real issues we’re facing (which is their whole point…)

But I’ve been thinking lately that if I ignore these vermin completely, then that means I’m really in denial about them and the very real damage they’re doing (aided by the Democrats who use them as an excuse to not do anything at all.)  So beginning today, I will be posting a daily summary of the antics of the blockhead Republican contingency and their latest attempts to subvert common decency.

Glenn Beck Defends Founding Fathers’ Decision To Count African-Americans As Three-Fifths Of A Person

Republicans Obstruct Health Care Debate By Demanding Reading Of Sanders’ 767-Page Single-Payer Amendment

Bush officials e-mailed bogus rumor blaming Al Gore for failure to kill Bin Laden

Dick Armey mocks Rachel Maddow, referring to her as ‘a woman named Maddox’ who ‘has a Ph.D. in something that doesn’t matter.’

[Answer: Yes! -Ed.]

Influential liberals have begun arguing a funny kind of liberal Catch-22: The health insurance “public option” is already so diluted, it’s no longer worth fighting for. Got it? Because liberal Dems got played by conservative Dems, they should forfeit the entire game.

Crazy as it sounds, it might also be true.

American Prospect co-editor (and Clinton administration health policy advisor) Paul Starr kicked off this line of reasoning in the New York Times Nov. 28. “Liberals should be prepared to give up what is now a mere symbol for changes in the bill that would deliver affordable insurance more effectively and quickly to the millions of Americans who desperately need it,” Starr wrote. Starr’s preferred changes included moving up the bill’s start date from 2014 to asap — which is practically and politically smart — and establishing federal “regulatory authority to prevent insurers from engaging in abusive practices and subverting the new rules” that prevent discrimination based on age and preexisting conditions. Those were great ideas but they should have come along with a public option, not instead of one.

But now that a so-called Gang of 10 — five liberal Senate Dems, five conservative Senate Dems — has begun meeting to seek a public option compromise, the argument for substance over (public option) symbol is getting real traction. Two “compromise” proposals have been floated: Letting Americans as young as 55 buy into Medicare, and ditching the public option for a proposal to let individuals use their own money, or federal subsidies, to buy into the federal workers’ plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management — the same plans offered to Congress and the president.

Letting older but still Medicare-ineligible people buy into the popular public plan for seniors seems like a clear win. (Although Democrats seem to know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so without details, it’s hard to say that conclusively..) People aged 54 to 65 are the hardest hit by our current system — they’re most likely to be denied care or dropped by insurance carriers for health troubles, all while also being hit hard by layoffs. Plus, adding a big chunk of “younger” folks to Medicare seems like a way to stabilize Medicare as well as — assuming the experiment is successful — gradually make a case for “Medicare for all.” [more...]

On Saturday, November 8 the Democrat Congress gave us a corporate driven healthcare bill which amounts to nothing more than a de facto bailout of the healthcare insurance companies. The carnival conducted by the Democrats, masquerading as a debate around healthcare, demonstrates conclusively how craven are Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats.

We have witnessed cynicism in other administrations but the Obama administration has as raised cynicism to a veritable science. Imagine promising the poor and desperate people of this country healthcare reform and passing legislation which will not only hurt the working class but strengthen the very forces which oppose real reform – the healthcare insurance companies! [more...]

…The abortion issue had been rumbling within the House Democratic caucus for weeks, but Saturday’s votes revealed the depths of the fault lines. The amendment passed with the support of 64 Democrats, roughly a quarter of the party caucus.

But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment — enough to block passage…   

[more...]

…If the progressives cave, you can kiss any progressive influence on other legislation goodbye.  If they stand strong and vote down a bad bill, you can expect a better bill in round two, as well as a chance at voting down other unpopular items, such as war funding.

Read entire article here…