I agree, especially when I receive letters of response from my reps. Generally a form letter... that is so full of bs I feel like burning them and I usually write back to tell them how full of shit, condescending, and patronizing their remarks are. And my reps in DC are all democrats.

It's amazing how servile so many people are and I don't mean that as a criticism I don't extend to myself. We've built the rules against the individual so standing up to a policeman, for example, might be a very bad decision even if you're right or are ultimately vindicated. I'm amazed about what we let them put us through just to get on a plane.

But all this translates into docility about the big political issues. Have you noticed that no discussion of Social Security goes without somebody claiming that we need to somehow "cut benefits?" Or how no discussion of health care doesn't rapidly degenerate into even our side promising we're not "creating new entitlements?"

It's as if Americans now lack the will or vision to look around and say "You know what, we work really hard, we deserve better."

Sad, really.

Read this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902425.html

Some of the main reforms would not take place for several years, and even when they do, some observers say, the bill does too little to make sure they would be enforced.

Until 2014, insurance companies could continue to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on people's medical history. Another highly touted reform -- banning annual and lifetime limits on coverage -- would take effect in 2010, but it would permit significant exceptions.

Even with those rules in place, "there's no power to really hold the insurance companies accountable," said consumer advocate Betty Ahrens, executive director of the Iowa Citizen Action Network. "It's toothless."

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said the bill was a compromise. "This is not the legislation we would have written in a perfect world, but Senator Reid believes that this bill has the best chance possible to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster," Manley said.

I knew you'd appreciate it.

I appreciate your voice around here!

The general lack of liberal voices, even on liberal sites it alarming.

Most, I once respected, are becoming little more than cheerleaders, even when the policy is rank with industry giveaway. This is not football.

The fall of the left, such as it was, has been a tragedy. You have documented it well here.

I just wanted to emphasize the union-busting and the stigmatizing of labor that has occurred in conjunction. In my opinion, this is a vital feature to the current landscape. Labor and trade unions were the backbone of the left since Debs. The unions created a formal structure of authority that helped counterbalance the management (corporatist) wing of our society. The ideas of a living wage, universal healthcare, equal rights in the workplace and community, and other foundation elements of liberalism were fought for and pushed through by labor organizers.

This formal structure has been demolished and in its place is an informal structure composed of special interest left lobbies. There is no over-arching strategy to counterbalance the management wing. This is how the right in America is able to set the agenda time and time again. This is how the right always appears lockstep and organized. This is how a dipstick like Karl Rove can be seen as a genius.

The left has no team. The left has a bunch of players who are sometimes good and sometimes bad at the game. Even when we thought we elected a coach, the coach found out that without putting his campaign persona front and center there was still no team. The right has a team. The right has a few wealthy donors who have a collective series of agenda items they want to fill for their side and a strategy for blocking the left's disparate agenda.

Even now, I see cacaphony on the left. Several individuals have a special unicorn they want for Christmas. Some want universal health care, some want an end to these increasingly atrocious occupations in foreign lands. Some want universal employee access to union benefits. Some want gay rights. Some want a return of our civil liberties. And all of these entities want their unicorn now. That is not their fault. They are doing their part as the grassroots. What is missing is the former union structure to fight these battles in a comprehensive manner. What the grassroots liberals want to know is WHEN will their valid concerns be dealt with?

The right knows that their concerns will be handled (except for those few wedge issues which serve as the carrot). The right has only rarely been disappointed and is often given carte blanche. The management wing has triumphed and the class war has a clear loser. The key was breaking the unions.

Anyhow, that is all I wanted to add. Politicians would have a lot more spine if there was a reliable finance and grassroots machine that could turn out votes, volunteers and dollars.

oleeb, thanks so much for making your comments into this blog. It reads even better the second time around!

And of course the comments are wonderful, too. There are so many thoughtful writers in our cafe, you included. I have to wonder if we're looking in the wrong places for the grass roots movement we so long for today. We're looking outside.

We're all here, we're all ready to work, but what we need is some leadership. We need a focus. Yes, there are many important issues, but I don't think the numbers tear us apart, I think they draw us together. Each of those issues--jobs, health care, wars and occupations--have one thing in common: equity.

We want what's fair. That's what binds us, and that's what keeps us going. It's the reason our constitution and Bill of Rights were written the way they were. Because ultimately we want a country where. . .okay, all citizens are created equal. That doesn't mean socialism or communism--where no one can forge ahead--it means a fair playing field, where opportunities are accessible without sabotage or ambush with greed as a motive.

Zipperupus said it well. When the unions were strong they supported the candidates who would work hardest for them and they gave them enough funding so they didn't have to go to corporations for it. I hate the way campaigns are financed, but there it is, and it's not going to go away. Every year they get more and more expensive. (There's apparently no grass roots when it comes to campaigns.)

I'm all for supporting the unions and making them strong again. That would be my focus. Nothing lasting will ever come to us without a strong labor force. Jobs with livable wages have to come first. We can't do anything until that inequity is taken care of.

I said nothing about pure or zealotry

nor incrementalism or compromise

nor anything about you.

it is safe to say I don't know what your point is.

I did say, most liberal voices are turning out to be little more than cheerleaders, quick to give up positions, and even lose ground for a win. Okay, I expanded it a bit here. Eitherway...

If you are implying something about the senate bill, or house bill as far as HCR, okay, but what is your point?

You have to actually state an opinion instead of a slogan like incrementalism! compromise! If you support this industry giveaway, as it is, and as it will be further watered down, then yes, I am more liberal than you.

Most of us have been brainwashed by the right. The DLC bought the absurd idea that you can sell progressive policies wrapped in a conservative message. No way! All you do is affirm every right-wing think tank that's been selling that message for more than 30 years. Worse yet, you bring their thought process into your party and so constrain the parameters of "conventional wisdom" that there is no way to discuss any issue outside of the tiny box designed by Club for Growth.

Incrementalism only works well when all parties use and incremental approach. What many progressives don't seem to grasp is that During the past three Republican Presidencies dramatic, rar reaching policy changes were implemented.

Where incrementalism might change the course of policy by 5 degrees here or there the radical right wingers have gone in and pushed everything as far to the right as possible and not in modest increments. So, instead of small, step by step changes we get the tax code yanked hard in order to tilt things dramatically upward and shovel money to the rich and thus turn a gigantic surplus into the biggest hemmorahging deficit in world history. Instead of step by step measures in foregin policy we explode the defense budget, doubling it in about 5 years, we invade two countries (one with some justificiation the other with none at all), we summarily withdraw from treaties that have served us well for decades like the ABM treaty, we adopt policies that reverse our longstanding support for international law declaring the US a law unto it's own, we dispense with our longstanding policy of international cooperation and alliances and adopt a belligerent, bullying posture of "you're either for us or against us". Suddenly, the ship of state that was on a steady course is no longer headed for the same destination and in order to return to a point where incrementalism once again makes any sense, we must first have dramatic changes to reverse the radical, nonincremental foolishness of the Repubilcan years. The failure of so many Democrats, progressives and others to realize that incrementalism in response to extremist right wing changes doesn't get us back to where we ought to be: it keeps us on an extremist right wing course that is destined to create more disasters like the ones we are attempting to cope with now. Incrementalism has it's place, but it will take centuries for liberal incrementalism to get our country back on the responsible steady course it was on prior to the rise of the right wing extremists, most notably the criminal neocons of the Bush/Cheney regime.

In short, after the captain has gone berserk and change the course of ship by 180 degrees, it is not enough to tack back by 5 degrees to get back on course. Incrementalism simply is not an appropriate response to the numerous crises created by the years of radical right wing irresonsibility.

It would also help if intelligent liberals like oleeb didn't jump ship at the first twinge of disappointment.

David Plouffe (I know, I know, corporatist DLC hack) was on The Daily Show last month. He kept emphasizing that Obama was taking the "long view." It would be nice if the liberals who voted for him a mere year ago could do the same, instead of petulantly rejecting politics as they must be practiced in America, and helping enact the teabaggers' agenda by default.

I've been on the ship for decades. This is far from the first disappointment. It's more like the last straw.

But if we refuse to fight and continue to accept crumbs from the table of the rich and powerful we will certainly get nothing.

Yup! I've posted it more then a couple of times and the question still remains, Why did we celebrate trickle down? When did we concede that a trickle was all we ever wanted? And where' IS my trickle anyway?

That is right Ramona. I hereby render unto you the Knightly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site given to all of you from all of me for this gem:

When the unions were strong they supported the candidates who would work hardest for them and they gave them enough funding so they didn't have to go to corporations for it. I hate the way campaigns are financed, but there it is, and it's not going to go away

We must not forget however, that at least our President received half of his money from the Web in smaller denominations. THIS WAS A BIG THING.

But unions made this country strong. Unions were a force for management to deal with every day during the class struggle in this nation.

S. 36-1. Legislative frustration. A legislature at work is conscious of legal limitations on legislative power, butr is more conscious of real-life restraints on what it can do about the problems of society. Public disillusionment with the institution is often based on a misunderstanding of what the legislature can accomplish. Failures are blamed on an absence of good intentions, rather than an absence of practical ideas. While critics condemn the lack of response to particular problems, those same critics fail to help the legislature overcome barriers to effective action. Legislators are frustrated by their inability to meet society's expectations and also by the public cynicism that greets this inability. Legislative Law and Process in a Nutshell (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing co., paper, 1986), Jack Davies, at 229.

S. 29-8. Trailer bills. . . . . The phenomenon of the trailer bill reveals another tactic relevant to bill packaging. Bills establishing large new programs often include an effective date that puts off the start of the program for many months. The delayed effective date is a particularly effective way to deal with technical objections and claims of infeasibility. The sponsoring organization promises to prepare before the distant effective date a faultless trailer bill to cure all claimed defects. The program, in effect, is offered as a two-bill package, the initial bill which is being harshly examined and a yet-to-be drafted trailer bill of pledged perfection. Id., at 203.

I basically agree with your assessment. But the corporatists have made it extremely difficult to rebuild a strong labor movement. You want to unionize? Fine. We're moving to ____________(pick a country).

Besides inflicting serious damage on the union movement, conservatives outflanked labor with all the various "free trade" agreements that are now considered sacrosanct in the doctrine of capitalism. When unions were strong, we also had tariffs that protected domestic industries.

Multi-national corporations don't give a rat's ass about "domestic" industries. They can simply go where production costs are lowest and pay no penalty to import. Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the country, yet they have 700 factories in China. You can be a cashier or shelf stocker, but you cannot actually manufacture the products they sell.

The conservatives had/have a game plan. And they have implemented it well.

so you are saying you have no argument to offer. That's what I thought.

TJ, you're absolutely right. We lost the battle and any chance of winning when corporations were allowed to take their operations offshore and still call themselves "American".

I have to say, never in my wildest nightmares would I have believed that a country as strong as ours would allow ourselves to be sold out by the very corporations that built their wealth on our backs.

And the worst part of it is that they're not the pariahs--the American workers are! We demand too much, we expect safety regulations, we expect equity, we have the nerve to form unions. . .

We were supposed to know that we would never be equal and when we went on too long overstepping our bounds, we got knocked down but good.

And what happened to the corporations that destroyed us? They're doing better than they ever did. They're wined and dined and encouraged to live the lives of royalty. The government (that's us) kowtows to them, does their bidding, and accepts their dirty money, only to turn it back to them happily, merrily, with no strings.

Unless there is a real, grass-roots revolt by us peasants, nothing is going to change. We have no power base except our vast numbers. But think of it--we brought an unlikely candidate like Barack Obama into power. If we can perform a modern miracle such as that, we should be able to regroup and do anything.

But will we?

so true; I grew up about twenty miles from Ames, Iowa, and the only way we ever saw anyone "different" was every year at Thanksgiving my mother would invite a young couple of another race, Vietnamese one year, South African one year, I think she tried to cover as much geography and racial diversity as possible over the few years we were still living there.

She did it intentionally to expose us to a reality much greater than our isolated enclave hiding in the cornstalks.

Unfortunately, she was considered something of a local pariah for doing it, some of our neighbors were intolerant to the point of hostility. I had always been under the assumption that those folks were somehow the majority, and until quite recently they may well have been.

Which is why I was so proud of Iowa when they proved me wrong and voted for Obama.

If you really want to DO something about it, Oleeb, volunteer to work for a local progressive who is running for office.

I'll be doing it soon, I'll keep you all posted, it will be the 7th campaign I have volunteered to help, since Bush got elected.

So let me just add, it is easy to complain and offer criticism, but actually doing something about it is wholly different.

Talk is cheap.

If you really want to make a difference, then help a progressive run for office, regardless of their chance to win.

And one last complaint; stop trying to lump our nation of individuals into one big victim. The subtle subterfuge that lulled so many into their current state of confusion was no accident, and those of us who stayed above it shouldn't be so quick to condemn the whole of or nation, when it was really a pernicious minority misleading a stupified majority into political perdition.

"We chose this subjugation"

Speak for yourself.

I have fought it every inch of the way.

"A bad bill is worse than no bill."

In this case, just for the cracking of an eggshell that has never been cracked, I would simply disagree.

I would suggest that ANY bill with the name "Health Care Reform" represents a victory, it isn't what they start with that matters it is what it becomes after all the tweaking and amending and revising, and until there's something on the books to add to or take from, there's no foot in the door.

"We must get Americans to quit thinking like starved peasants thankful for any crumb..."

"WE?"

And how are "WE" planning to do that?

Seriously, what do you propose "we" do to magically change the status quo.

Snap our liberal fingers?

If not for their union workers, few of those billionaire robber barrons who hate unions so would be wealthy in the first place. Unions are the only instrument outside the ballot box that gives the middle class at least a modicum of control over their work situation.

But I think unions missed an opportunity in the past 50 years to help their members gain ownership of their own workplace.

Seriously, imagine how hard it would have been to move some of those companies offshore if a big portion of their shares were owned by their employees, who would lose their jobs if they voted to move.

I realize there are a lot of Grovers out there who consider employee ownership tantamount to communism, but theya are the corporate fascists,

The fact is, employees who own substantial shares in their own companies tend to be less likely to strike if they know that it would adversely influence their bottom line, and at the same time would be positioned to convince the other shareholders raise wages when the times are good.

But that would be an answer, not a complaint, and that is what we do her, right, complain?

Seriously, for all the grousing, I still haven't read any ideas to astually try ti fix it, just a lot of "WE need to fix this, cuz our government won't do it."

"quick to give up positions, and even lose ground for a win."

Oxymoronish...

when you win, you are in a much better position to make those changes you had to compromise to get that win.

Again, "lets just snap our liberal fingers and everything will be as it should.."

And again, also, questions without answers.

Every "win" against the right, no matter how much was compromised to achieve it positions someone to make some real changes, and not just sit on the sidelines crying about it.

"Most of us have been brainwashed by the right."

If you mean the majority of Americans, OK, I agree, but that "most of us" just doesn't hold true for the people who lurk about TPM.

They wouldn't even be here if they were among the brainwashed mob.

Unless, of course, they are a troll for that mob.

"Our subjagation has been, of course, voluntary."

Sorry, but this is a lot of grousing with no answers.

The entire piece is prdcicated on all of us dumbly accepting this one statement of Oleeb untimate truth that can not be questioned..

"Our subjagation has been, of course, voluntary."

Not hardly. The subtle subterfuge that a pernicious few used to lead a stupified mob into political perdition was so sophisticated and so thoroughly managed, and so under-the-public-radar, only hindsight can recognize it's growing influence.

Many of us who voted for Obama don't feel as if we are yet subjugated, you can call us dupes for feeling that way, but you can't accuse us of being right wing lemmings, even if you think Obama is one.

I'm growing more concerned that we have some very well organized concern trolls working this blog, trying to discourage Democrats from taking part in the 2010 election.

If you really are the liberals you claim to be, consider your actions and the alternatives, both. If you are just here as posers, we'll root it out.

More on that soon...

Those quotes were in response to the comment above it.

The CBO says the bill will result in reductions in the costs to consumers.

Meanwhile, it is wise to learn how legislatures function so you don't frustrate yourself by beating your head against your false assumptions on that point.