dagblog - Comments for "The Dallas Mavericks show the Left that the Team is the thing"

I took your agreement with

Cho — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:23:45 +0000

I took your agreement with A-man pre-emptively blaming 'assholes' people on the left for Obama's election loss as ... blaming the left.

I don't know about the effects of these policies - in political terms. The stimulus and by extension Keynesian economics have lost all credibility with the public because the labor market has not improved at all since '09. All they see is bumper corporate profits and ... no jobs. And rightly feel screwed. If it had worked, i.e. produced visible improvement in the labor market, then I think it would be more popular, and it would be easier to argue for more of the same.

Of course if you don't believe in progressive economics, then that's a perfectly valid scientific argument. If the current deficit reduction policy creates jobs over the next year, then I'll revise my economics and become a conservative. My problem with Obama is that his economic policy is conservative by design (and not by necessity - due to a lack of votes), Geithner's design as it turns out. And my problem is that I don't think conservative economics works. But if it works, I don't think Obama should, or will, be punished for it. People just want results.

We may be talking at

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:05:42 +0000

In reply to We've been through this

We may be talking at cross-purposes...and perhaps with different time lines.

Economic policies get evaluated at election time not on the ideology expressed, but on their consequences.

This was somewhat my point in looking back. Those candidates proposed standard liberal policies and lost at election time. Their policies never had a chance to be evaluated based on how well they worked. In fact, many people felt they had already, and for a long time, given traditional Democratic policies time to work, understood what they were, and felt they didn't work.

Similarly, Clinton pursued liberal policies out of the gate and found himself with a Republican congress two years later. I'm not sure being MORE liberal or progressive would have helped Clinton, and I'm not sure it would have helped Obama politically.

There's an assumption here, I think, that these policies would be working well right now and would be helping Obama and, even perhaps, with these policies in place, he wouldn't have lost the House in 2010. Maybe.

(Please try to keep this distinction: I'm not arguing about the substance of policies, but more about the politics which, of course, is what gives policies the opportunity they need to work. But it's also true that, even as I support certain positions, I retain a certain skepticism that keeps me from being a true believer.)

It's hard to say, looking at the health care debate, that he only went for an easy shot he couldn't miss. He almost missed that one, and he has a whole lot of people hating him for "his success" from all sides and ends of the spectrum. I think an argument could be made that he could have passed single payer or a public option--they would have been easier to understand--there are arguments to be made for it--but given the obstacles he faced and Pelosi faced with the current bill, it's hard for me to say that a more progressive bill would have made it through.

I guess the last thing is...I'm not "blaming the left" at all or for anything. For one thing, I voted and worked for all those people.

We've been through this

Cho — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:25:43 +0000

In reply to he'll have to get "Sharon

We've been through this before (under another pseudonym), but I think it's worth emphasizing that it's wrong to view economic progressives' argument in terms appropriate to social issues. Social policies get evaluated at election time on their intrinsic value - on the values being expressed by those policies. Economic policies get evaluated at election time not on the ideology expressed, but on their consequences. The argument for stimulus or front-loading Medicaid expansion, say, is not that people love the 'idea' of stimulus or single-payer. The argument is that, despite short term wailing from the right, they would have had positive consequences. More people would see their grandparents and kids have health care coverage. More people would have jobs. And the general sense that things were improving. It would have been a perhaps more high-risk strategy, he might have failed on one or the other, but as always, unless you take risks you can't get the benefits.

By only going for the shots he couldn't miss, he has a great scoring percentage, but he only scores ten points and loses the game. Obama is like James - hiding from the ball in the corner, hoping someone else will take the important shots instead of taking charge, taking risks.

The economy is tanking again, Medicaid rolls are getting cut across the country, private insurance rates are inflating at an unprecedented rate, the employment/population rate is stuck at 58%, and Obama is proposing ... what?

Nothing.

It's not a winning strategy. And it seems misguided to blame the left.

If we are counting from the

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:10:18 +0000

In reply to They aren't. Or, at least,

If we are counting from the fall of 2008 to now, the economy is definitely better.

he'll have to get "Sharon

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:03:29 +0000

In reply to While the left may consider

he'll have to get "Sharon Angled" to lose

At this point, I think he could definitely lose to Romney. Romney will have enough money, too.

You have an interesting perspective KG. I wouldn't agree that the "left" (as I understand the term) is the most loyal of Democrats. I think it's the folks who put in all the scut work that goes into running for office at all levels. I don't disregard the "left" or demean their contribution, but I think it comes in bursts. They aren't "party" people, really.

We've had this discussion before, but one more time won't hurt. Humphrey. McGovern. Mondale. Dukakis (maybe). Gore. All of these guys believed in the traditional platform of government action. Mondale PROMISED to raise taxes. They all got hammered. Of course, they got hammered for lots of reasons, but still.

Clinton ran along the same lines, but almost immediately got hammered when Congress changed hands. And now Obama. Perhaps if Obama had gone for a single payer or a public option, the bill would have gotten through more easily. Perhaps if Obama had asked for 1.3 trillion, he would have gotten in it easily. I don't know. There's sense in speculating he could and should have hit them hard and fast when his brand was shining and new.

But it's somehow hard to imagine all those "non-liberals" flocking to a big fat stimulus and Medicare For All. Maybe. It certainly would have been worth a try.

I think a lot of those people

rmrd0000 — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:02:09 +0000

In reply to While the left may consider

I think a lot of those people you label "not liberal" are also dedicated and cast votes for Democrats just as frequently as you do. The "pure" Left seems to offer few political candidates, but does have a lot of criticism for Democrats that do get elected. There seem to be a lot more people on the "left" side who are stating that they won't be voting for Democrats in 2012. So much for being "the base".

In the last election cycle Russ Feingold and Alan Grrayson lost re-election bids and Joyce Elliot could not get elected to replace Vic Snyder. It was not a rosy time for Progressives.

While the left may consider

kgb999 — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:35:45 +0000

In reply to What team are we discussing?

While the left may consider the Democrats worthless ... the rest of us unquestionably do.

It is amazing how low the bar for what is considered realistic drops when Democrats are in charge. I'm pretty sure if a republican went on Fox and said "I DON'T LIKE PANTS," Democrats would start arriving to congress in their skivvies; declaring nobody understands the political realities involved with getting dressed in the morning.

My theory is you folks enjoy yelling at "The Left" (who are the most consistently loyal and active Democrats of any Demographic; it really is THEIR party) because they are the only bleeding-heart idiots remaining in America who haven't gotten to the point of just looking you in your face and telling you the current batch of "Democrats" (as you have defined them) should go fuck themselves.

Me, I'm no liberal: the current batch of Democrats can go fuck themselves. And that's your real problem. Not-liberals hate what you have narrowly defined as "Democrat" more than liberals do. Corporations are buying this for Obama; he'll have to get "Sharon Angled" to lose ... but what about the rest of 'em? Who's going to elect your candidates with "Democrat" defined thus? Nobody. You'll never win an election on a desire to see a Democrat in office on merit .... it'll be backlash votes against a GOPer or gerrymandering.

Sure wish Democrats could put the same energy into achieving something other than workforce-killing pro-corporatist shit policy as they do tearing down people on your own side still pushing for what used to make Democrats worthwhile. Nope. Those folks aren't "democrats" anymore ... they are "the left" ... wholly not a part of the Democratic party. Nice big tent you guys have rolling.

They aren't. Or, at least,

Dan Kervick — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:11:41 +0000

In reply to In my book, success

They aren't. Or, at least, while I don't know about you, my own life is significantly worse now than it was three years ago. And that doesn't have anything to do with odd, quirky things that have happened to me personally, but is based almost entirely on the fact that I and many others have the misfortune of enduring the do-nothing Hooverism of the Obama economy.

Glad I made the quip since it

we are stardust — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:11:39 +0000

In reply to Well I think of it more as

Glad I made the quip since it produced such a nice mini-essay, Dreamer. I will say I've never looked at success the way most Americans do, but I like the energy with which you remind us that it doesn't depend on employment. I was reading about hunger and unemployment earlier, so both lunch and a job looked like a measure of success. Still does, no matter how much good fortune, luck, skill goes into it; but I do take your higher point.

The MSN homepage had up a quote where Obama was saying that he wasn't sanguine about unemployment or the People's Economy or something; I couldn't even click it to find out the context. Doesn't matter much at the moment. Looks like states and communities will need to innovate, maybe state banks and more.

Thanks for the Coxey's Army March and the L Frank Baum Oz info; didn't know that. He and Disney both had some rotten parts, didn't they?

The October 6 folks are trying hard to generate a March, too, and I hope they expand it nationally to waaaaay more locations, times and travel expenses being what they are.

If we 'don't figure out how to do a better job of that', all bets are off, IMO. We're the frogs slowly blanching in the not-quite-boiling kettle, but there are signs many are about to leap out.

And I am very glad you still have a job...and lunch. Have a nice walk out; maybe you'll stop at a falafel stand. ;o)

A bit on the Coxey's Army

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:24:46 +0000

In reply to Well I think of it more as

A bit on the Coxey's Army story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxey's_Army