Me1: So, I see that where you are on the HC legislation is to look for reasons to urge a yes vote by your senators.  Care to elaborate?  

Me2: I understand completely, and pretty much agree right down the line, on the substantive criticisms of the legislation--it's a (expletive deleted) ransome paid to the private insurance industry as Krugman wrote, that even with the subsidies the mandate to purchase private insurance is going to be onerous for many families of ordinary means, the abortion cave-in, the big pharma cavein, the fact that the Obama Administration's expressed "fallback" position (from single-payer) of a robust public option was gutted and buried in the Senate, etc.  

But this is what I don't yet understand: why do some folks who, like me, want to get to a different place on all those issues, apparently assume that this effort, in 2010, is the One and Only Chance to get HC reform?  Why is the assumption that this legislation cannot be, or will not be, built on, moving forward?  

Me1: Oh, I don't know, maybe because the structural impediments--the Senate filibuster in particular--are insuperable?  Maybe because Democrats are likely to take a pasting in November so prospects will be even worse going forward?  Maybe because when you get right down to it, there just isn't enough commitment and courage to take on the private insurance lobby in particular, put in place a robust public option, and do the other things, among enough Democratic members of Congress?   

Me2: Fair points all.  It's entirely possible that could be the way things unfold.  But saying it's entirely possible that that negative scenario becomes the actual scenario is different from saying it's the inevitable scenario, no?  Why the seeming fatalism about that outcome?  From an activist's point of view, where is the long-term commitment to build the political strength--and possibly, preferably, a real, effective movement--to make, or help, the politicians, take the next steps?   

The late philosopher Richard Rorty wrote a 1999 critique of the American academic left called Achieving Our Country.  In it, he lamented what he saw as the decline of the attitude of hope and optimism, and the commitment to organizing and activity, of the old American left.  He urged today's left to again become emotionally engaged in the nation, to experience it as the left's country, too, rather than as something entirely alien and unsusceptible to reformation, even transformation, over time. 

If Rorty wrote this about today's American left in general, and not just the academic left, would he be right?  It seems awfully negative and accusatory out there in many parts of the blogosphere, if that's an accurate indication.   

Me1: Careful.  You've tried to be consistent over the years at the cafe in being faithful to your true views by refusing to draw hard and fast lines among liberals, progressives, leftists, the DLC, the base, etc--and between "reformers" and "revolutionaries" and "radicals".  I hope you'll resist falling into bad and counterproductive habits of thought now.   

If you needed a reminder of how this is an entirely justified point of view, you just finished reading Doug Rossinow's Visions of Progress, which details how liberals, progressives, and the left--self-described reformers and radicals, both--have, on the whole and notwithstanding ever-present and inevitable tension and conflict--reinforced and strengthened one another's efforts in the years since 1880 at least as often as they have thwarted them.  Why could that not become the case again now?   

Me2: Well, ok, granted, that could well happen, of course.  But I have to say that I see a distressing amount of what appear to be ongoing food fights--or is it just one prolonged food fight among self-identified "camps"?  These days one of the popular lines of demarcation is between the DLC and Democratic party's base. 

These attributions correspond to what, exactly, besides hasty judgments about what other individuals are presumed to think and believe based on one or a few remarks they have made at the cafe or elsewhere?  As if people in real life, when they have decisions of consequence to make typically accept, in its entirety, any one particular philosophy or point of view in all its particulars? 

Why do people feel they have to be in one "camp" to the exclusion of another?  Doesn't that reflect a kind of "all or nothing" stance towards packages of points of view that in many cases have not even been developed by oneself, but by others?     

Me1: It will take someone smarter than me to answer those questions.  I'll make one further observation for now, more of a plea, really, which is this: before jumping down someone's throat for being a sellout or a traitor or a gutless wonder or whatever epithet springs to mind, isn't it worth trying to find out, first, before doing that, whether your disagreement with them is one having to do with where you want to get to, versus strategy or tactics on how to get there? 

I'm sure there are some DLC folks who really don't want to see a rejuvenated labor movement or some other movement that would adjust the current lopsided balance of power between large corporations and workers (and communities, and the environment/future, etc...everything else). 

If so, then, if you are someone who feels strongly the other way, at least you know you have a real and pretty fundamental disagreement on where you want to go, what kind of society you are advocating and want to see, on that issue.   

But I'm sure there are some DLC folks (take that as a stand-in for people who are literally associated with the DLC as well as others who do not identify with the Democratic party's current base of activists, whether they self-identify as Democrats, independents, moderates, or even as one of the 178 remaining liberal or moderate Republicans) who either favor that or are open to that.   

Among those who favor it, if they favor a different specific decision or course of action, this may just be a difference in tactics or strategy, in which case, isn't it unnecessary and counterproductive to alienate them by casting broad aspersions on them based on what it is assumed they think and want?  How about, instead, actually talking to and listening to them, seriously exploring whether there are possibilities for working together to advance specific constructive proposals?   

In any case, these labels that are used as shorthand epithets are worse than useless--they are destructive of opportunities for what may be real, important, and necessary alliances.  They obscure more than they reveal.  What they sometimes reveal is the narrow-mindedness of the people who use them and make attributions and judgments on that basis that may or may not be accurate.    

Me2: Do you think there are simply too many progressive activists who, so to speak, only know how to score runs with home runs, or touchdowns with deep passes, if you prefer a different cliched sports analogy? 

If that is the case, doesn't that betray something of a lack of faith in future possibilities that could be fatal to efforts to grow a movement, if you believe that effective movements cannot be solely animated by grievance but must have at least some sense of possibility that a better future is possible in what may be more than a single step?  

Me1: Well, again, it will take someone smarter than me to answer those questions.  My response would be a simple one: it depends.  It depends on what decisions individual people make, because the decisions each individual makes about what they will do, including non-decisions which may be the most important decisions that are made, are what matters. 

Martin Luther King once wrote words to the effect that the reason cooperation and love are necessary is because people are interdependent upon one another.  He said this did not reflect a philosophical view he had but rather was simply a fact about the world as he saw it. 

I think he was right.    The world is radically contingent in this respect.  The future belongs to those with the spirit, the smarts, the enterprise, the commitment, to create it.  I don't feel sure of very much else. 

The individual attitudinal "trick", if that's what it is--is to find a way to suspend the fatalism, the cynicism, the disbelief anything really good could happen, if you are skeptical by disposition.  You don't need to think pie in the sky is just around the corner--you just need to suspend judgment on that, and do as many of the small actions that can help bring about those good things as you can find time and energy to.  You don't necessarily need to believe.  You just need to act, put one foot in front of the other, and suspend the disbelief and the assumption of pre-ordained futility. 

If you need intellectual backup to reinforce those feelings, read A History of Hope or some similiar book.  Other people in other times have overcome obstacles that seemed insuperable, hopeless. 

That's how we have to think about things these days--for the sake of a better world and indeed even the survival of the one we have.  We didn't get into the mess we're in overnight, and we're not going to get out of it overnight, either.     

Me2: So it sounds as though, notwithstanding the voiced desire to avoid labels, you come down with the "pragmatists" who are willing to settle for half a loaf, no?  

Me1: No, not necessarily.  It depends on the specific context.  I think there is a critical need to push for measures that will really be adequate to the problems we face.  If global warming really does "get us" 60 or 80 years from now, it won't matter a hoot what half or quarter-measures we did take. 

I say make the case directly, forcefully, unapologetically, to the public, for what is actually necessary to deal with the problems. Invite and challenge the people of our country and world, possessed of truly mind-boggling ingenuity, to give their best efforts to rise to the occasion and help us figure out how to do what we know is necessary.  Try acting as though you really mean it.   

Start there, rather than with an already-inadequate proposal.  The public might surprise you--if you make the case well.  Don't underestimate the potential power of an unequivocal affirmation of the future. 

Sometimes, even if you lose the first skirmish, you can help generate momentum towards mobilization that will lead to measures that are adequate not too far into the future.  That's been known to happen. 

If, as will happen, some people say you are radical, tell them that if the most radical thing in the world is the thing that works, then, yes, you sure are a radical.  (Actually, no, don't say that.)  Challenge them to defend their case that inaction, or measures that are transparently inadequate, are worth fighting for, or about.  Make them look like the small-minded, defeatist naysayers they are, whose views and actions do and will result in human beings and humankind being thrown to the wolves.  And then press on, head held high. 

At least you'll know inside that you didn't go down without a fight.  Something about a good conscience being the only sure reward.