The administration and Organizing for Obama are clearly aware that many of the strongest supporters of healthcare reform are reluctant to support the President's current plan because it lacks a public option. In the OFA conference call on finishing health care reform the following question was asked:
Q: I was just wondering if we come across folks who are still advocating for the public option, should we still be supportive of that or would that mess things up?
Mitch: The President laid out his plan and the public option is not in that and I know a lot of people - not only on the phone here - but a lot of the folks that you talk to feel very strongly about the public option, but this is what I would say... This is our best shot at getting health insurance reform; comprehensive health insurance reform passed and while its not going to be exactly what everyone wants. This bill - the President's plan - accomplishes 90% of what I think all of us agree is a step in the right direction. So I would just talk about what is at stake. Sitting on the side lines based off of the public option - at this point is going to be absolutely detrimental to our efforts as we move forward. We have a lot of conversations about that and just say what's at stake - is that the sole reason why you support health insurance reform? You know, pose that question to folks. If we don't get this done now, literally it will be a decade before anyone brings this back up again and our country can't afford that - businesses, families, individuals and our government - local, state and federal - can't afford to put this problem off for another decade so that is what I would say to folks. I know it isn't a perfect answer. I know a lot of people feel extremely strong about that issues, but that's the best answer I can give you all tonight.
(thanks to Chris Bowers for prosting this)
This is a gross misunderstanding of why public option supporters oppose the current bill. Our response is not the selfish, simple-minded "oh, we didn't get our pet project in the bill, so we're against it" mentality that OFA leadership has tried to present it as. We are, by and large, opposed to any bill that would force the uninsured (such as myself) to buy policies from the very same private insurance companies Obama and the Democratic leadership have painted as the corrupt, well-monied defenders of a broken status quo.
We cannot, and will not support a bill that rewards these companies for denying coverage, for putting profit over people's lives, for distorting the democratic process through lobbying money, by handing them 50 million new customers, forced by government to buy their overpriced products. We are not just sitting on the sidelines, we are fundamentally opposed to this type of a bill.
We have said from the very beginning, that if there is to be an individual mandate to buy insurance we must have some option outside of the existing private, for profit companies. Whether a new public agency, a non-profit, or a Medicare buy-in (this is what most progressives would actually prefer if voluntarily open to all ages), any or all would be fine, just not WellPoint (whose former CEO was the Baucus staffer that largely wrote the Senate bill that Obama has based his proposal around). We will not support a bill that was written by insurance company CEOs and lobbyists.
This is not a qualm over a small detail; it is a huge rift over the fundamental direction of healthcare reform and government in general. Do we truly change and move this country in a new direction, by once again using government to provide for the general welfare of the people, as the Constitution gives Congress the authority and responsibility to do (Section 8, Article I), or do we continue with more of the same: big government bailing out big business at the expense of our general welfare?
Hi all. Welcome back to The One About....'s special weekend feature, The One About Book Club. For those of you who are new readers to The One About...., let me recap for you. On the weekends I write in depth about a book that I feel is of significance to Progressives, looking at one or more chapters per post. For the complete introduction to the project you can go here. My pick to inaugurate this project is The 48 Laws Of Power. So far I've offered an introduction and overview of the book, and written about Chapters(or in keeping with the tone of the book Laws) 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6. So I bet you can guess what comes next.
1. I will inspire. I am one of the most charismatic orators of our generation, but as president, I’ve moved away from that critical element of my leadership.
While my speech to the Muslim world in Cairo and onreproductive rights at Notre Dame were inspirational—if I do say so myself—I haven’t brought that eloquence to my key domestic agenda items, or to my broader vision and goals as president. In 2010, I’ll recapture my eloquent voice, communicating the core values and human outcomes of my policies and presidency, then (and only then) explaining how the wonky details will help to achieve them. The values that I led with in my campaign were Community—the idea that we’re all in it together and share responsibility for each other—and Opportunity—the idea that everyone deserves a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential. Those values will return to prominence in my second year as president, and be joined by the values of Peace and Security in our foreign affairs and national defense. I may even dust off Hope and Change.
(By invitation, following Jeff's great diary about Gerald Bracey. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
The Center for American Progress is "progressive." Right? After all, CAP's website touts it as a source for "Progressive Ideas." The homepage lists its "progressive priorities." And the "About Us" blurb declares CAP's mission to draw from the great progressive "social movements of the 20th century."
So you would expect that any thoughts about education policy emanating from The Center for American Progress would be, well, progressive, wouldn't you?
CAP's most recent opportunity to push for a more progressive agenda for reforming America's public schools was released to the world earlier this month with the publication of "Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation," a follow-up report to another one bearing the same name two years ago. Even though the report was created in partnership with two well-known conservative organizations, you would expect that CAP would have inserted some fairly substantial representation of progressive education values in the report.
For instance, you would expect there to be some reference to educating children in ways that are similar to those pioneered by Francis Parker, who believed that children learn best by doing and that schools have to be child-centered. You would expect to find the influence of the great American thinker John Dewy, whose laboratory school proved that schools work best when they function as a community. And you would expect to see at least some reference to the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget and the work of Jerome Bruner who established that children aren't empty vessels that schools can just pour a standardized content into.
After all, the research base that proves that progressive education practices are effective has a pretty long history and is fairly well understood.
But anyone looking for a progressive influence in the "Leaders and Laggards" report will be sorely disappointed. Because there's none. Phrases such as "active learning" and "child-centered" never even occur. Nothing about schools functioning like communities, or kids being encouraged to construct their own meaning about academic content.
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee passed the Baucus health care bill.
What a disappointment. No public health insurance plan. No universal coverage. No real price controls. Billions of taxpayer dollars for insurance companies.
The U.S. health system has left 46 million Americans uninsured. [1] 45,000 people die every year due to lack of insurance. [2] Insurance companies deny coverage to thousands more when they actually get sick. And insurance is simply too expensive for millions of people and businesses.
The Baucus bill solves none of those problems.
By contrast, Medicare is so efficient that it could insure all Americans for the same amount of money that we now give to private corporations.3
Under such a single-payer system, you still get to choose your doctor... except without a profiteering insurance corporation standing between you and your health care.
Will you ask Congress to support real reform -- in terms they can understand?
(1) "Income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2008." Census Bureau, September 10, 2009.
(2) "Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage." Physicians for a National Health Program, September 18, 2009.
(3) "Single payer system cost?" Physicians for a National Health Program.
As Chris Bowers and many others have argued, bringing real change to the lives of millions of Americans means that people on the left need to challenge incumbent Democrats in primary elections. Given that Barack Obama either fails or refuses to understand important changes in the preferences of American voters, people on the left should think about potential challengers for the 2012 Democratic nomination.
The last time an incumbent president faced a serious challenge was in 1980, when Ted Kennedy came quite close to defeating Jimmy Carter. Of course, victory is not the only goal in such campaigns; a major argument in favor of challenging Obama is forcing him to fight for a progressive agenda. Nevertheless, despite what people like Chris Matthews and Marc Ambinder say, disaffection among liberals represents the major reason for Obama's slide in the polls, and it's far from inconceivable that a credible candidate could defeat him and, by extension, someone from the far less popular field of potential Republican challengers.
No doubt, intelligent and informed observers of American presidential politics will point out that Kennedy contributed mightily to Carter's defeat in 1980. Certainly, any candidate would face massive and powerful backlash from the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and potentially rip the party as a whole apart, thereby delivering victory to what will surely be a weak Republican candidate.
Nevertheless, I tend to think of "Kennedy '80: Another Carter Layoff" as an idea that was ahead of its time. In many respects, Kennedy's campaign in 1980, like Jesse Jackson's far less successful efforts in 1984 and 1988, represented the New Deal wing of the Democratic Party reasserting itself in the wake of the party's lamentable decision to move to the right.
But unlike 1980, we are no longer waging a rearguard battle to defend a quickly disappearing status quo - we are fighting for the overwhelming majority of American people who say believe that government should play a big role in improving people's lives. The terrain upon which American elections are contested has shifted by every measurable standard. Parts of the south are no longer a lock for the GOP, and the Republican base in general is steadily diminishing and should continue to shrink for the foreseeable future. If Barack Obama is unwilling to take advantage of these structural changes, we must do it ourselves.
While the netroots is relatively small, it has helped to redefine the health care debate by forcing the president and the Democrats to argue far more vigorously on behalf a government-run plan than they would otherwise be inclined. Activists on the left can make their presence felt in ways that were unimaginable in 1980, and if Obama continues to sell out a real progressive agenda despite tremendous popular support, it will be our duty as citizens to find him a viable challenger who won't.
I would like for this to be a serious discussion (assuming this is a serious topic in 2009) and will conclude in an open-ended way by nominating Howard Dean as the most logical person for the job. I tend to think he was forced out of party leadership by the Obama-Clinton corporate neoliberal cabal, and has shown an increasing willingness to take on the administration in the health care debate.
Moreover, Dean does not have a conspicuous stake in wooing the corporate base of the party to guarantee his viability in future elections. In any event, Obama's administration has proven a major disappointment, from his team of economic advisors, his unwillingness to deliver on promises to the LGBT community, and now health care. We owe it to ourselves to fight for what we believe in using every tool available to us.
1. Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies
To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality health care for all.
To preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.
To invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America's schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security.
To export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.
To reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.
To ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.
2. Protecting and Preserving Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
To sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.
To protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.
To extend the Voting Rights Act and reform our electoral processes.
To fight corporate consolidation of the media and ensure opportunity for all voices to be heard.
To ensure enforcement of all legal rights in the workplace.
To eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.
3. Electoral Reform
Eliminate or reform the Electoral College so that a handful of states cannot game the system to override the will of the electorate;
Introduce Instant Runoff Voting so that a wider variety of political parties may compete in elections;
Eliminate private money in elections by creating a national, mandatory, publicly-funded election pot from which all federal candidates must draw; and
Pass laws, up to and including further amendment(s) to the Constitution, protecting the right of every citizen over the age of eighteen to vote.
4. Promoting Global Peace and Security
To honor and help our overburdened international public servants - both military and civilian.
To bring U. S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible.
To re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.
To enhance international cooperation to reduce the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.
To increase efforts to combat hunger and the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
To encourage debt relief for poor countries and support efforts to reach the UN's Millennium Goals for Developing Countries.
5. Environmental Protection & Energy Independence
To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation's security.
To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation's security.
To change incentives in federal tax, procurement, and appropriation policies to:
(A.) Speed commercialization of solar, biomass, and wind power generation, while encouraging state and local policy innovation to link clean energy and job creation;
(B.) Convert domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient vehicles, enhance global competitiveness of U.S. auto industry, and expand consumer choice;
(C.) Increase investment in construction of "green buildings" and more energy-efficient homes and workplaces;
(D.) Link higher energy efficiency standards in appliances to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in U.S. factories;
To eliminate environmental threat posed by global warming and ensuring that America does our part to advance an effective global problem-solving approach.
To expand energy-efficient transportation choices by increasing investment in synthesized networks, including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.
To preserve prudent public interest regulations that encourage sustainable growth and investment, ensure energy diversity and system reliability, protect workers and the environment, reward consumer conservation, and support an expanding marketplace that rewards the commercialization of energy-efficient technologies.
To protect, preserve, restore, and where reasonably possible expand wild lands and animal and plant populations endangered by human activity, reasonably compensating businesses and homeowners for damages or losses incurred by such.
Pass legislation and encourage community leadership to, among other acts: Increase funding to child placement services (foster care agencies); increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that are proven to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies; increase awareness of the protective benefits of proper use of contraceptives, and increase access to them; increase funding for educational programs to spread awareness of sexually transmitted pathogens including viruses and bacteria, and their effects upon the human body; increase funding for prenatal care for unwed and low-income mothers; and expand daycare and nanny services to assist low-income families and single parents who choose to keep their children after birth.
7. Gun Control and State Militias
Adopt reasonable gun control laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while preserving the 2nd Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Restore full control of the National Guard units to their respective states, maintaining both a federal standing military and the individual state-controlled and regulated Militias.
8. Legalizing Marijuana
Legalize marijuana, and regulate it like tobacco and alcohol.
Increase funds to existing education and rehabilitation programs; create new programs and expand existing ones where necessary, to reduce addiction; pass common sense drug laws that focus on rehabilitation for non-violent offenders; and engage parents and community leaders to educate their children on the dangers of drugs.
A previous post of mine (Splitting equals losing...) now has over 100 replies.
The good news is that I found topics that people feel passionately about (how to advance progressive ideology, and how [or even whether] to recapture the Democratic party from the hands of corporate interests). The bad news is that some of the responses to my post involved a fight between the Pro-Naders and the Anti-Naders. This fight is like a red-hot coal (lots of heat, and not much light).
The point of my post was not to point fingers at the past, it was to point the way towards victory in the future.
On the topic of Nader, both sides seem to agree upon two facts. One is that there were a dozen factors that helped Bush steal the election (purging Black voters, confusing butterfly ballots, Katherine Harris, a bizarrely biased 5-4 "no precedent" Supreme Court decision... and of course Gore's own lackluster campaign). The second fact is that, if we could change history, holding all else constant and ONLY removing Nader from the race, the result would have been: President Al Gore. (And while Gore is only progressive on the environment, I think we can all agree that Gore would have been better than Bush.)
One commentor actually accused other commentors of "not caring" about all those that died during the Iraq war. I will not accuse FeralCat, Dr. Anonymous and others of "not caring". If they did not care, they would not spend their time posting here.
What I do want to do is help us all agree upon effective strategy for the future. And to achieve that, I have a few suggestions.
One is that we should all try to spread the "fusion voting" model to every state. We have that model in New York, and when I vote, I look for candidates that are on both the Working Families ballot, and the Democratic ballot (and I then pull the lever for WF).
A second thing that I would suggest is that splitting is great (when the split is among the Right). In 2008, I signed petitions in favor of including Ron Paul and Bob Barr in the debates. When the Right fights itself, the Left wins. Most of our time and money should be spend in making the Left stronger, but whenever we can help the Right defeat itself, we should do so.
A third good idea that I have heard here is that support for progressive third parties should focus on congress first, before attempting to influence the presidential election. That idea has a lot of merit.
A fourth idea is that progressives should support third party candidates in non-competitive states only. In 2000, I had not yet moved from Texas to NY. I knew that Bush would win Texas, and I liked some of what I heard Nader saying. (In the end, I chose to vote for Gore, to give him a larger mandate.) But maybe in 2012, if the race is between Obama/Biden and Huckabee/Palin, Kucinich will run as an independent or as a Green. If that happens, then progressives can make a deal: for every Kucinich supporter in a competitive state (like Virginia) that votes for Obama, an Obama supporter in a safe state (like NY) will vote for Kucinich. That way, Kucinich gets the same number of net votes, but he does not flip a competitive state to the Republicans.
Finally, I want to address another kind of splitting. Among all of us here at Open Left, who care passionately about progressive causes, let's feel free to disagree, but let's avoid name-calling and personal attacks. If we agree upon policy goals (universal health care, green energy, a living wage, less war abroad, and so on), then when we quibble over tactics, let us not forget that the REAL enemy is guys like Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist. A dissenting fellow progressive is, at worst, a misguided friend.
I posted a diary a while back ("Obama is bad"-compared to whom?), and I keep seeing articles that make me want to re-post it.
I do agree that Obama has been disappointing. He is a moderate rather than a Progressive. But I keep seeing the suggestion that progressives should form or support a 3rd party.
"A new party for progressives"? Are you kidding me? Have you forgotten how Nader helped Bush steal the 2000 election from Gore?
I DO agree with Darcy Burner that what America needs is "more and better Democrats". But splitting the Democrates into two pieces is NOT the answer. Splitting equals losing. I would love it if the Republicans would officially split into the Libertarian Social Darwinist party and the Theocratic Christian Taliban party. If they did that, they would lose even more influence.
What we need is a fourfold strategy: First, elect as many real Progressives as possible, in the House, the Senate, and elsewhere. This includes seating Al Franken.
Second, build a strong Progressive movement within the Democratic party. Be willing to primary the DINO's (for example, help Joe Sestak beat Arlen Specter). If we Progressives make it clear to the Democratic leadership that we want them to act like real Democrats, they will be less swayed by the dollars of lobbyists.
Third, we need to remove the Republicans from power. I will do all I can to expand Democratic control of the Senate in 2010, even if it means helping the most Conservative Blue Dog defeat the most liberal Republican. The party of Bush does not deserve to control anything larger than a tiny Alaskan town like Wasilla.
Fourth, we need to change the national dialogue. For years now, "liberal media bias" has been one of the favorite Orwellian labels of the Right. It is true that blatant racism and sexism are unpopular, as they deserve to be. But Big Media is Big Business, and Fox is not the only corporation to regurgitate right-wing talking points about the economy. We need to support progressive media, such as MoveOn, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Air America, and so on.
Once the Democratic Party has more than twice as much membership, and twice as much money, as the Republican Party... once the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is much stronger than the Lieberman/Specter wing, which is much stronger than the entire Republican Party... then and only then can we seriously consider splitting the Progressive Party away from the Democratic Party. If the Democrats win every election for the next decade or two, then I will think about supporting a progressive third party. Until then, do NOT forget what Nader did to Gore in 2000.
$100 billion more in wartime spending. That's what Congress is hellbent on approving despite valiant efforts from a growing number of Progressives led by FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher to derail this legislation's passage in the House. $100 billion, and for what? To bring more troops to Afghanistan without an exit strategy? To further US foreign policy that fails to address the humanitarian needs of the world's third poorest country? To escalate military operations that directly result in Afghan civilian casualties?
Recently, Anand Gopal, who has been covering the war in Afghanistan for The Christian Science Monitor, dispelled the myths about troop escalation at the America's Future Now Conference in Washington, DC. The reality, Gopal grimly assessed, is that more troops will mean more incidents of violence. More troops will also mean the need for more airstikes, which, as you can see in the sobering trailer for part four of Rethink Afghanistan, will mean more civilian casualties.
When Obama declared "empathy" a necessary quality for a Supreme Court justice, the main organs of print and TV media responded in their typically bifurcated way. Liberals praised Obama for understanding the need for a justice who could relate to "everyday people" while conservatives predictably lambasted the president for soft-mided, emotional wishy-washiness. One thing that journalists of all stripes seem to agree on, however, is that Obama's position represents an innovation, yet another example of how this president, for better or worse, thinks "outside the box."
As with every complex and meaningful issue in US social and political life, the MSM has understood the battle over Obama's selection of a new justice in the context of interpersonal rather than social conflict. That Obama's own statements about the meaning of empathy have echoed this tendency to personalize large issues contributes to this confusion.
A look at the history of US jurisprudence suggests that, rather than a sentimental innovation, Obama draws on a well worn body of legal tradition in calling for a justice with empathy. In The Common Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. argues that "the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed." I argue that we need to understand Obama's call for empathy in the context of what Holmes calls "experience."
Earlier today, these five members of Congress - all of whom are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus - were arrested for civil disobedience protesting the expulsion of aid workers from the Sudan. These are our champions, people who have dedicated their lives to human rights and justice, who are, in every sense of the word, leaders.
I have spent nearly all of my time lately thinking about how as progressives we should approach governing - and these and the other members of the Progressive Caucus are our strongest allies.
The Arkansas Progress Team began organizing three months ago to bring new leadership, ideas, and membership to the Arkansas Young Democrats by focusing on progressive offline and online grassroots organizing. Their three main goals are to increase membership (check this one already), increase fund raising, and increase awareness on the issues important to Young Democrats. On Saturday, April 18th, over 200 Young Democrats turned out to vote at the State Capitol Building and delivered the Arkansas Progress Team a victory.
Left to Right: Eric Bell (Sec/Treas), Jonathan Spinks (Committeeman), and Chris Burks (President)
In the wake of recent equal rights votes in Iowa, Vermont, and DC, Virginia 2009 state delegate candidate (and respected environmental blogger) Miles Grant today boldly proposed Virginia move in the same direction:
“With each passing day, Virginia’s harsh restrictions on marriage and even simple domestic partnerships are cast in deeper contrast to the steady march of progress we’re seeing across America. We take pride in Virginia’s policies that attract world-class businesses. But the best businesses in the world need the top workers in the world. What message are we sending about Virginia’s values when we tell some of those workers they’re not allowed to commit their lives to the person they love and start a family together?"
“It’s time to move our Commonwealth forward by repealing the Marshall-Newman amendment and recognizing full marriage rights for all Virginians. We’re not talking about special protections – these actions would simply ensure that all families receive basic rights, including financial protections, hospital visitation access and ability to adopt and retain custody of their children. As delegate, I’ll make it one of my top priorities to ensure civil liberties for all Virginians.”
Wouldn't it be nice if bold progressive like that actually got elected to office? Well, ahem, they can. Miles is running a great ground game in advance of the June 2009 primary. You can help him resource his campaign by chipping in here.
Miles Grant -- who blogs about environmental issues at TheGreenMiles (and formerly blogged at RaisingKaine), works at the National Wildlife Federation, and is running for Virginia state delegate in NOVA -- is using his campaign bullypulpit and organizing structure to get local activists to pressure Senators Webb and Warner to be strong on the Employee Free Choice Act.
Hey folks, we're going to be back knocking again this weekend but this time with a twist. Before we go and hit the doors a labor organizer from SEIU is going to give us an update on the Employee Free Choice Act. We will write letters to both our US Senators and then go doorknocking. It is vitally important that progressives support each other at all levels of government. We'll end the afternoon at Union Jack's as usual.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (which I co-founded) is putting together a 2009 Virginia trial run in advance of 2010 congressional elections, to hone our model for helping progressive candidates win. Candidates like Miles make life easy.
Miles "gets it" on both a progressive movement level and political campaign level. He knows that campaigning boldly -- including challenging important Democratic politicians to do the right thing on controversial issues -- is the way to run a campaign that inspires people-powered activism. And, smartly, Miles is doing a ton of door knocking with grassroots volunteers.
If Miles wins the open seat Democratic primary in Virginia District 47, he'll likely win the general. If you live in Northen Virginia, consider joining his crew this Saturday.
Regardless of where you live, consider contributing a few bucks to Miles. (In these state legislative races, a few bucks goes a long way...ahem, put another way, a few bucks goes miles.) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
There have been, and will be posts here on openleft, that call for real pressure, strong pressure, on the drive to 'reform' our healthcare system, and what that 'reform' should be.
But there have been no diaries, the frontpage thrust of the debate here at openleft is on the economy, the debates and calls to action, such as the necessary calls to primary those who stand ion the way on necessary legistation are on jobs and laws. There are calls to organize around accuracy in reporting, the history of progressives and Keysian economic plans, calls to reinstate civil rights protection and a threatening survielance society.
But the debate on healthcare is lacking.
That is a shame. This is the time for 'economic, jobs and worker rights progressives' to listen closely to what 'health progressives' are saying, have been saying, will be saying louder and louder in the months and years to come.
The opportunity, the responsibility, right now to act desicively is greater than at any other time in our history. The ongoing lurch of history will beging to have turbulence, the debates about other significant issues will heat up, the situations in other crisis will press for attention. Right NOW is the time.
What happens when you mix Tom Geoghegan (running to replace Rahm Emanuel in the House on March 3, who David Sirota calls "one of the greatest living progressives in America") with Robert Greenwald (indisputably one of the greatest progressive film makers in America)? You get this must-watch video:
Did you watch it? If not, push play and watch it! :)
Expanding Social Security? Single-payer health care? Make the banks reduce the debt regular people owe since taxpayers are reducing the debt banks owe? How often do you hear House candidates talk like this?
If we're progressives, we all must do what we can to help Tom Geoghegan win this House seat next month. Candidates like him deserve our support. Here are three things you can do to help Tom -- take your pick:
1) Make 20 calls from your living room for Tom.Click here to sign up. This will be a low-turnout election, so if 100 of us each make 20 calls from home to target voters, those 2,000 calls could seriously make the winning difference. Do it this weekend -- won't take too long.
2) Donate to Tom today. $125,000 has been donated online already -- and now's the time Tom needs money for his ground game. Donate to Tom here.
3) Go to Chicago to help--get free housing. Tom has some great volunteers and field staff on the ground. But he's running against the Chicago machine insiders, so we need to pitch in. Go for the final week, go for a weekend beforehand, go whenever you can before March 3. Email jacob @ geogheganforcongress.com to arrange free housing.
I'm reading a lot of uncertainty everywhere about how progressive both the Obama administration and Congress will turn out to be. Many of us are trying to divine what agendas lie behind the curtain based on cabinet appointments and committee chair posts. Isn't this tea leaf-reading a waste of time?
We have little, if any, influence over these decisions (except, possibly, to raise a big, public stink about a totally unacceptable choice). It seems to me that our goal (as several netroots writers have pointed out) should be to figure out how to influence policy once the new Congress and administration are sworn in.
The people who will be taking power are transitioning from election mode to governing mode. So are the wingnuts, by pushing the "center-right nation" meme. What is the online progressive community doing to manage the same transition? What, exactly should we be doing? Is fretting openly about White House staff appointments the best use of our energy? If not, what is?
It's hard to overstate the transformative moment that we're in as a nation and, particularly, as progressives. In just a few years, we've gone from the high point of conservative power to a stunning rejection of conservative federal leadership and the historic election of a progressive African-American president.
But the electoral sea change is just part of the extraordinary national moment. The financial meltdown and slide toward deep recession have crystallized Americans' anger over deteriorating economic security, stagnant mobility, growing inequality, and policies of isolation instead of connection. Americans are ready for a new social compact and a transformed relationship between the people and our government. They are calling for a new era of big ideas and different values than we've seen over most of the past three decades.
The electorate has shown an unprecedented willingness to overcome racial and ethnic barriers to take on daunting shared challenges. Young people, people of color, and low-income people turned out to register and vote in unprecedented numbers that bode well for a far more participatory and egalitarian democracy going forward.
Even before this year's remarkable events, opinion research showed a historic, progressive shift in Americans' views on issues that (not coincidentally) were barely mentioned in the election. Perhaps most striking is the shift on criminal justice and problems of addiction, where the U.S. public has moved broadly to support rehabilitation and treatment over incarceration and retribution, as well as assistance and integration for people emerging from prison.
But an unprecedented opportunity for progressive values and ideas is not the same as victory for a progressive social and policy vision. The stark challenges of rising inequality, faltering security, and broken systems of health care, immigration, and criminal justice are the same on November 5 as they were on November 4. What's changed is only the chance for transformative change.
History shows that progressives could easily blow this opportunity, just as conservatives blew their transformative moments after the 1994 elections and the attacks of September 11, 2001. A few principles can help progressives move from opportunity to realization in ways that profoundly benefit our country.
I find it very useful to think in terms of the "ideal". Since politics is typically a domain of horrendous compromise, it serves us well to imagine politics without compromise.
Barack Obama's election has given many people renewed hope in the future of this country and the world. I share some of that optimism, but am also gravely familiar with everything that could go wrong. We are already hearing various names that may be under consideration for Obama's cabinet. These names include Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar, Robert Gates and Colin Powell. They also include members of Clinton's cabinet such as Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. This latter pair are directly responsible for much of the deregulation that occurred in the Clinton administration and which paved the way for the current financial crisis.
I hope these names are unfounded in reality, otherwise somebody ought to take Obama to one side and explain to him what "change" means. It certainly does not mean retaining elements of the Bush administration and the most culpable members of Clinton's cabinet.
