Advice For Divided Democrats

[Tristan Scott]

Good Advice from Robert Reich---https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8h8jmxf3MAhUKwGMKHa_JDOwQFggjMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F144976019235&usg=AFQjCNGfg5I0KCuG8pMutdD6GaRtM8Vdjw&sig2=pGfoPvBdT9h8PpXLiXHbXA

Excerpts:

Sanders should stay in the race also because he has attracted a large number of young people and independents. Their passion, excitement, and enthusiasm are critically important to Hillary Clinton’s success, if she’s the nominee, as well the success of other Democrats this year, and, more fundamentally, to the future of American politics.

Some of you (Sanders supporters) agree a Trump presidency would be a disaster but claim it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response.

That’s unlikely. Rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

 

[untermensche]

The problem is the Democratic party has moved so far to the right it has no appeal to people on the left.

So all it can do is use scare tactics to attract them.

That is not a winning strategy.

 

[repoman]

Well, all that the Democrats have left that really (not just lip service) is traditional is identity politics and people are getting burned out on it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, all that the Democrats have left that really (not just lip service) is traditional is identity politics and people are getting burned out on it.

You misspelled Republicans.

 

[repoman]

No, Repubs are up front with kissing the ring of the powerful and wanting low taxes except regressive ones.

Democrats are actually getting closer to that while keeping the old rhetoric. It is almost like they are joining in the sideshow of social issues to get votes to help pilfer the lower and middle classes with the republicans.

If Sanders kept more away from identity politics and stay with his basic economic message and was in the general election he would do better.

He decided to pander (actually just toot his own justified horn) to race and so on after Hillary shellacked him in the South. If Hillary had chained herself to a black woman she would have talked about it a lot. I like how her campaign only mentioned blacks shot by police that were in upcoming states.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Democrats are to the right of center? I can only imagine the most liberal of liberals 40 years ago supporting gay marriage.

We have a National Health Care requirement that has saved many thousands of lives by disallowing insurance companies to refuse patients with pre existing conditions among other important reforms.

We have allowed states to determine their own rules concerning marijuana use - a Democratic President did this. Pretty fucking liberal if you ask me.

The Dream Act. Hopefully will become law, which it will with a Democratic congress.

Liberal and Conservative are terms that sometimes are very hard to identify, and yes, there are still some conservative Democrats, and many moderates in the party, but there are many liberals as well. (However there are no liberal Republicans in national politics and only a handful of moderates.)

The only practical path for liberals to take the center stage again is to be totally involved in the Democratic party.

 

[MarkW]

The problem is the Democratic party has moved so far to the right it has no appeal to people on the left.

So all it can do is use scare tactics to attract them.

That is not a winning strategy.

Really? As far as I can see, the Democratic Party is further to the left than it has been at any time in the last 25-30 years.

 

[untermensche]

The problem is the Democratic party has moved so far to the right it has no appeal to people on the left.

So all it can do is use scare tactics to attract them.

That is not a winning strategy.

Really? As far as I can see, the Democratic Party is further to the left than it has been at any time in the last 25-30 years.

The Democratic Party?

To the left on economic issues?

Do you have any knowledge of the New Deal or Johnson's Great Society?

 

[MarkW]

Really? As far as I can see, the Democratic Party is further to the left than it has been at any time in the last 25-30 years.

The Democratic Party?

To the left on economic issues?

Do you have any knowledge of the New Deal or Johnson's Great Society?

First, neither your initial comment nor my reply were limited to economic issues. Second, I very specifically said the Democrats were further to the left than they had been for 25-30 years. The New Deal and Great Society, which I do in fact know quite a bit about, were enacted roughly 80 and 50 years ago, respectively.

 

[untermensche]

The Democratic Party?

To the left on economic issues?

Do you have any knowledge of the New Deal or Johnson's Great Society?

First, neither your initial comment nor my reply were limited to economic issues. Second, I very specifically said the Democrats were further to the left than they had been for 25-30 years. The New Deal and Great Society, which I do in fact know quite a bit about, were enacted roughly 80 and 50 years ago, respectively.

Specifically how is the Democratic Party more left than it was in 1990 right before Bill Clinton pushed it hard and far to the right?

Don't talk to me about the nation as a whole that has moved left on a few social issues like gay marriage and has dragged the Democratic Party with it.

Talk to me specifically about the Democratic Party and it's allegiance to big money.

 

[MarkW]

Specifically how is the Democratic Party more left than it was in 1990 right before Bill Clinton pushed it hard and far to the right?

First, the rightward move of the Democratic Party did not suddenly begin when Clinton was elected President. It has roots that go as far back as the aftermath of McGovern's loss in 1972 and began in earnest in the 1980s.

As to the Democrats moving to the left in recent years, you have only to compare the domestic policy record of President Obama with those of the last two Democrats to hold the Presidency before him. President Obama's signature domestic policy accomplishment is, of course, the Affordable Care Act, to which he adds a number of smaller but still significant accomplishments.

President Clinton's signature domestic policy achievement is welfare "reform," while President Carter is best known for having no significant domestic policy accomplishments.

Dylan Matthews and Michael Grunwald have much more detailed reviews of the Obama Administration's domestic policy record.

 

[untermensche]

the Affordable Care Act

A large tax on many and a huge gift for insurance corporations.

And a Republican plan despite their insane response.

If this is moving left then anything can be described as moving left.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Economically conservative sometimes means economically responsible as far as Democrats are concerned. A balanced budget is very good for the economy, not so good for banks. The only balanced budgets in the last seventy years have occurred during Democratic administrations. That is the largest influence the government has on the economy, other than taxation. Progressive taxes redistribute the wealth and that is something we are long overdue for.

One has to look at the role the government actually plays as far as the economics of the country is concerned. We can blame trade agreements all we want for sending jobs overseas, but that is an extremely naive notion. Jobs go overseas because of greedy capitalists with or without trade agreements, which are merely used in an attempt to target where they will go. In twenty years manufacturing will be done almost exclusively by machine, so whoever has the best infrastructure to support automated factories will do the manufacturing. Government is mostly out of the loop.

 

[MarkW]

the Affordable Care Act

A large tax on many and a huge gift for insurance corporations.

And a Republican plan despite their insane response.

If this is moving left then anything can be described as moving left.

To take your points in order:

First, there is no practical way that health care reform in the US, in the present political environment, is going to eliminate private insurance companies. Therefore, the fact that it gave those insurance companies the "huge gift" of, apparently, not abolishing them, is irrelevant compared with the 15 million or more Americans who now have health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

Second, the Affordable Care Act was not, contrary to a lot of political rhetoric, a "Republican plan." Scott Lemieux dismantles this argument pretty thoroughly. The short version: 1) The ACA was not "the same" as the 1990s Heritage Foundation plan; the two were similar only in having an individual mandate provision, which is a common element in many health care systems worldwide, not something unique to Heritage's fig leaf plan. 2) The Massachusetts health plan widely labeled "Romneycare" was in fact created by a Democratic-controlled legislature. Gov. Romney signed the overall plan, but used his line-item veto on no less than eight major sections of the law; all of his vetoes were then overridden by the Democrats in the legislature.

Third, let's make that last sentence of yours a bit more factually specific:

"If the most significant liberal domestic policy change in over forty years is moving left then anything can be described as moving left."

Does it make sense to say something like that? I think not.

 

[untermensche]

A large tax on many and a huge gift for insurance corporations.

And a Republican plan despite their insane response.

If this is moving left then anything can be described as moving left.

To take your points in order:

First, there is no practical way that health care reform in the US, in the present political environment, is going to eliminate private insurance companies. Therefore, the fact that it gave those insurance companies the "huge gift" of, apparently, not abolishing them, is irrelevant compared with the 15 million or more Americans who now have health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

Have you forgotten about the public option so quickly?

Obama ran on it. Got elected on it. Then abandoned it without a fight.

Because he had no intention in bringing the nation to the left. Because he is not on the left.

1) The ACA was not "the same" as the 1990s Heritage Foundation plan; the two were similar only in having an individual mandate provision, which is a common element in many health care systems worldwide

Which health care systems?

 

[RVonse]

from the OP article "no vote for Hillary will show the Democratic political establishment why it must change its ways.

But the “Democratic political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people, many of them big donors and fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions, who won’t even be aware that you’ve decided to sit it out – unless Hillary loses to Donald Trump"

If the democratic establishment is so fucked up they aren't even aware of what their constituents want....then they need to go away one way or the other anyway.

 

[untermensche]

from the OP article "no vote for Hillary will show the Democratic political establishment why it must change its ways.

But the “Democratic political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people, many of them big donors and fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions, who won’t even be aware that you’ve decided to sit it out – unless Hillary loses to Donald Trump"

If the democratic establishment is so fucked up they aren't even aware of what their constituents want....then they need to go away one way or the other anyway.

Nader said this in 2000.

The Democratic leadership is in the hip pocket of extreme wealth.

It isn't going anywhere until money is taken out of elections.

 

[MarkW]

To take your points in order:

First, there is no practical way that health care reform in the US, in the present political environment, is going to eliminate private insurance companies. Therefore, the fact that it gave those insurance companies the "huge gift" of, apparently, not abolishing them, is irrelevant compared with the 15 million or more Americans who now have health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

Have you forgotten about the public option so quickly?

Obama ran on it. Got elected on it. Then abandoned it without a fight.

...

That's not accurate.

The public option was included in the version of the ACA that was passed by the House of Representatives in November 2009. However, when it came up for consideration in the Senate, Senator Joe Lieberman said that he would never support a bill that included even the weakest possible public option. Without his support, the Democrats would not have had enough votes to break the Republican filibuster and vote on the ACA. The choice that the White House and Democratic leadership faced was then between 1) insisting on the public option, ensuring that no version of the ACA would pass at all, and 2) removing the public option so that the ACA could pass, ultimately to the benefit, as I noted previously, of over 15 million Americans. They chose the second, politically realistic option, as I would have done.

1) The ACA was not "the same" as the 1990s Heritage Foundation plan; the two were similar only in having an individual mandate provision, which is a common element in many health care systems worldwide

Which health care systems?

Japan, the Netherlands and Switzerland are three that I am aware of without doing any detailed research.

 

[laughing dog]

from the OP article "no vote for Hillary will show the Democratic political establishment why it must change its ways.

But the “Democratic political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people, many of them big donors and fundraisers occupying comfortable and privileged positions, who won’t even be aware that you’ve decided to sit it out – unless Hillary loses to Donald Trump"

If the democratic establishment is so fucked up they aren't even aware of what their constituents want....then they need to go away one way or the other anyway.

Democrats are a diverse group. Sanders supporters are a minority within that group - at least from the primary results. Moreover, I think the "democratic establishment" is not deaf, dumb and blind - they have a good idea what the Sanders supporters want.

 

[untermensche]

Have you forgotten about the public option so quickly?

Obama ran on it. Got elected on it. Then abandoned it without a fight.

...

That's not accurate.

The public option was included in the version of the ACA that was passed by the House of Representatives in November 2009. However, when it came up for consideration in the Senate, Senator Joe Lieberman said that he would never support a bill that included even the weakest possible public option. Without his support, the Democrats would not have had enough votes to break the Republican filibuster and vote on the ACA. The choice that the White House and Democratic leadership faced was then between 1) insisting on the public option, ensuring that no version of the ACA would pass at all, and 2) removing the public option so that the ACA could pass, ultimately to the benefit, as I noted previously, of over 15 million Americans. They chose the second, politically realistic option, as I would have done.

1) The ACA was not "the same" as the 1990s Heritage Foundation plan; the two were similar only in having an individual mandate provision, which is a common element in many health care systems worldwide

Which health care systems?

Japan, the Netherlands and Switzerland are three that I am aware of without doing any detailed research.

The public option was the key.

It was the only thing that put a check on the insurance corporations in terms of costs.

Without it the Bill was mostly a gift to insurance corporations and a large tax on many Americans.

And Japan has a public option. The Dutch system is a split where people have to buy inexpensive "basic insurance" for short term care and they only have to pay 45% of the cost. To say this is like the ACA is a stretch. And in Switzerland people have to buy basic insurance as well but insurers are not allowed to make a profit.

The ACA is just forcing people to pay what the insurance corporations demand. It is an insurance corporations wet dream.