dagblog - Comments for "What is McConnell Thinking?"

There are some interesting

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:09:59 +0000

In reply to What is McConnell Thinking?

There are some interesting big picture comments by Boehner in a WaPo article today by Robert Costa, aside from the main topic of the health care bill:

[....] Boehner went on to tell the group that cutting bipartisan deals in Washington is now all but impossible due to the way negotiations unfold in the media. Any interaction with a Democrat risks being covered by conservative outlets as a potential betrayal of the GOP, he said.

Boehner blamed figures on the right who purchase lists of conservative activists and then position themselves as leaders of a movement. He said talks between party leaders can be ruined by “one person who creates a committee to preserve the Constitution” and can “blast out information quickly.”

“You used to have a little breathing room — 24 hours, 48 hours before it actually got in the press. Well, that’s gone. Everything today is instant,” he said.

Boehner recalled that when he used to visit President Obama, he would frequently “sneak into” the White House to avoid being seen by reporters.

“If I didn’t sneak in, if I went in like I would normally go in, the right-wing press would go crazy. ‘What is Boehner up to?’ The left-wing press would go just as crazy. ‘What is Obama doing? He’s going to let Boehner roll him again.’ You’re dead before you even have an agreement,” he said.

Boehner pointed to the fragmentation of the national media as another reason for the paralysis and what he sees as alarming intensity and partisanship in politics.

“What’s making everything even worse today is because we have so much news, people get to choose where they get their news,” Boehner said. “It used to be we had three big TV networks, five big newspapers, and five big radio stations and whatever they said was the news. Everybody else followed what they do.”

No longer, Boehner lamented.

“They go to places that they agree with, reinforcing the divide that we have in the country already,” he said.

“These radio talk show guys, they carry on, it’s just nonsense,” Boehner said. “Some of these people who run these big blogs, the kind of stuff they put out, I would also disagree with.” [....]

AA, cultural and economic

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:38:37 +0000

In reply to I guess we just differ on the

AA, cultural and economic changes aren't acts of nature. They are social phenomena, and they change when people change them. (Note: when I say people, I don't mean some secret conspiracy of geniuses, I mean it collectively.) Legislation is one way people change their world but no the only way. Journalism, education, collective activism, and economic choice are also mechanisms by which we shape our world.

Unions became strong because people made them strong--by organizing, by writing, by teaching, by voting and legislating. And they have become weak because people made them weak. You and I may disagree on how valuable unions are or were, but regardless, the current status of American unions is not some natural Aristotelian state to which we must inevitably return. It is a collective choice that we have made at this time, and it is a different choice than we made a century ago. The same goes for civil rights, women's rights, etc.

To bring us back to the original question, conservatives have found effective ways to press for the changes they believe in. Right-wing tactics have helped persuade people that unions are dangerous, in the same way that left-wing tactics once helped persuade people that unions were necessary. That's not to say that these folks are operating in a vacuum. There have been other changes to the social/economic fabric that made conservative tactics more compelling and progressive tactics less so. But these tactics are also part of that fabric. They work. That's why people use them.

p.s.Thinking of local

artappraiser — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:36:56 +0000

In reply to I guess we just differ on the

p.s.Thinking of local anecdotals remind where the future is only radical change and nothing to do with a 9 to 5 job working for a large company much less unions. That what we are talking is truly history and only history.

Here in the Bronx, we've have the gig economy more a decade: taking the place of the Teamster's is Angie's List and HomeAdvisor.com. And everyone on it tries as best they can to make sure Angie et.al. get as little "dues" as possible. Also everyone getting work through these entities may present as a plumber or carpenter or mover or handyman, but once they do that job, they assure you that they are also a "contractor", they can do anything for you, because they can round up a posse of people to work together. It's not like they are begging for work, though, cause if they do a decent job, they are very booked.

I've even seen this mindset with millenials extend to things like clerical: hire a millenial for temp work off Craig's List or and Taskrabbit, they will try to sell you their other skills. I don't see how you can put the genie back in the bottle once someone has been released from the 9-to-5, and, though having to think about work 24/7, can also take off when they really really want to go to someone's wedding out of town.

Even in my own hoity-toity biz area we have a revolution where brick and mortar galleries are closing at a rapid pace, being replaced by the "virtual" world of exhibiting at art fairs and growing a brand on Instagram-like sites. So there is zero chance that low paid gallery workers will ever unionize because: they are disappearing! Likewise, everyone can be a temporary museum curator if their idea is good enough.

Taking it back to the real and now: the minimum wage thing is very smart on the part of the Dems. It has enormous support in poll after poll. People see the future and they want government rules and enforcement to level the playing field. They don't see unions in the picture, all the young here seem to have a small business mindset whether they do home health care, plumbing, cleaning, accounting or legal.

The only big business left seems to be medical! And yes including pharma. And conglomerates like Amazon. Did I mention that in a decade you may not go to a large grocery store anymore? Like with malls, they will be specialziing and downsizing? No more Sears or J.C.Penny's to have a strike against.

I guess we just differ on the

artappraiser — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:50:01 +0000

In reply to AA, the see-saw isn't evenly

I guess we just differ on the history. I see race and gender parity as having happened mainly through culture change, not through being forced by law. It's the other way around, the laws happened when the people were ready for it, prepped as it were, by cultural zeitgeist, whether via protests or influence of "Hollywood".

As to the labor union movement, my feelings are complicated and difficult for me to express, but I suspect we disagree that the values inherent are a natural part of this country's makeup. What you see as steady movement towards more socialism from the Progressive movement through FDR and LBJ, I see as a temporary blip to balance the excesses of the Gilded Age and then an emergency caused by the Great Depression. Where the majority was just grateful for anything anyone trying to help, not buying into one ideology or another. After that the enormous upset of returning from WWII and things like GI Bill set up a huge middle class of nuclear families in suburbs that was not the natural state of things.

I don't think that kind of (union) progressivism syncs with this country's culture. It is made up of people who come here to hopefully "work for themselves" and not be bothered too much by the union man nor the government telling them what to do. Yes, the pioneer spirit, they think they can go it alone, no "solidarity." It's deep in our culture. They still come for that. I grew up in a lower working class midwest neighborhood in the supposed glory years and my huge extended family background is solid working class except for the one GI Bill college degree, my father. Who went to work for the government for the pension but hated every minute of it, and dreamed of making it big selling real estate or whatever, or having a family business where the kids could work. And he wasn't even an immigrant, his grandparents were. The other side of the family farmed while working a union job, I hear passed-down stories of union "thugs" from that.

I never met or knew a single proud union man. They all complained about the union about one thing or another as much as about the government. Only knew of such animals from literature or movies or tv.

I don't think it was any different on the East Coast. When moms used to say the wished their sons to be a doctor or lawyer, what they really were dreaming of is that they would be working for themselves, not subject to a boss nor a union. Thus the Reagan Dem thing never surprised me. Neither did things like the hatred of the Teachers unions from such folks, nor of welfare recipients who supposedly could work. In actuality, I think the this attitude puts more onus on government to "even the playing field" as opposed to private entities like unions, everybody follows the rules, then a "rising tide lifts all boats." When the latter is in effect, very few are jealous of something the dot com wealth in the late 90's, rather most coveted it happening to them.

The glory days of unionization died in the 70's when individuals were finally given the tools to play in the capitalist game the wealthy always had been able to: credit cards, certificates of deposits and IRA's, mortgages without massive down payments. The Greatest Generation retired not just on union-provided pensions, but on cashing out the value of their homes when they downsized.

And then there's this: surely now the millennials of the world with the internet in their makeup will figure out a totally new different way to replace what unions did.

AA, the see-saw isn't evenly

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:39:00 +0000

In reply to Michael,

AA, the see-saw isn't evenly balanced. In the mid-20th century, it tilted more to the left. Democrats' fortunes waxed and waned, but they mostly held majorities in Congress and the states. Since the 1980s, the see-saw has tilted more to the right. Yes, Republicans suffered a throw-the-bums out moment in 2006-2008, but it didn't last. They have dominated Congress and the states for most of the last 30 years.

Moreover, party dominance does not tightly track the evolution of American ideology. On social equality issues, both Democrats and Republicans have moved left. Most Americans now take the idea of race and gender parity for granted, even if we disagree about how to achieve it. But on economic issues, both parties have moved right. The result has been a devolution of 20th century progressive achievements. Taxes have become more regressive--leading to greater economic disparity. Unions have been weakened--undermining wages and workers quality of life. Regulations have been gutted or under-enforced, and corporate consolidation has been allowed to proceed almost unhindered, not to mention Citizens United. These are real consequences, not just political games, and they have hit millions of Americans very hard--even if many of them aren't sure what hit them.

File under "what fresh horror

jollyroger — Sun, 23 Jul 2017 19:26:10 +0000

In reply to Jolly, so true. He also

File under "what fresh horror?"

Frum has a tweet that ties this particular Trump delusion to the Gerber Kid's Life Insurance advertisement that carries an annual premium of ...(wait for it....) $12.00

Precious Blood of The Sweet Baby Jesus, this must be someone's idea of a joke or seriously hating on the world.

Michael,

artappraiser — Sun, 23 Jul 2017 16:25:55 +0000

In reply to Sorry for the late reply,

Michael,

I didn't expect any reply at all, so thanks for your input. I just saw this analysis by an academic @ WaPo, recommending it just as a thought-provoker for you.

Repeal-and-replace is probably doomed. Congress rarely works along party lines.

By Frances Lee July 21

Frances Lee is professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland and author of "Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign."

What it did for me is make me realize what I am getting into here is that winning campaigns is a different thing than results at governing once they win. The way I see recent history, my lifetime, is a constant seesaw of "throw the bums out, try the other bums" where you clearly see a general overall move to the right. I think that the rightward movement is not necessarily real as to results, policy and governing. To see that, one does have to move away from the national discourse affected by mass media, especially Fox et. al., and the kabuki that has been the U.S. Congress and go to state government, especially governors. But then you probably already know my feelings about political campaign periods not being reality. And I realize that you might believe political campaigning is an important inspirational part of democracy.

Unfortunately right now we have a president who wants the national discourse to be continual campaign based on personality and not policy. And that really messes with figuring anything out and I sitll feel the end results may very well be revolutionary as to the whole thing we are talking about.

Sorry for the late reply,

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 22 Jul 2017 14:59:58 +0000

In reply to I disagree that they can gain

Sorry for the late reply, busy day yesterday. So, the strategy is a little more subtle than that. The insurgents have made the repeal vote a litmus test. They exploit health care votes the same way they have used other litmus tests over the years, primarily to attack Republicans who are insufficiently conservative in their eyes.

Many have warned that these purges will hurt the party losing mainstream voters, but these predictions have been wrong, repeatedly, for decades. Whenever the GOP moves right, the mainstream moves right too, and the Republican majority grows. Speaking of Tea Parties, think of James Carville in 2009, predicting a 40-year Democratic majority as he mocked the Tea Parties. "There were a bunch of, like, 75-year-old cranky white guys mad at everything. It just couldn't have been a better event for the Democratic Party. I hope they come back and tea bag some more." One year later, those cranky white guys helped Republicans crush Obama's majority. Seven years later, they made Trump president.

That said, I agree with you that repealing health care is losing its potency, but the strategy of driving out the moderates is smarter than people think.

Jolly, so true. He also

CVille Dem — Sat, 22 Jul 2017 13:31:30 +0000

In reply to Here she is in person, the

Jolly, so true. He also thinks insurance costs $12 a year. Oh, well--CARP A DIEM

I disagree that they can gain

artappraiser — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:51:52 +0000

In reply to I wouldn't put it that way.

I disagree that they can gain anything by doing it on the issue of health insurance! This is third rail stuff. They are threatening to primary based on repeal and don't replace, is idiocy because: the districts that really truly wanted repeal of Obamacare and back to the way things were have already elected them. There's no more districts like that. What other people wanted, like Trump voters, is improvement over Obamacare, that's what he promised. Meanwhile, as people learn more about what the GOP has to offer as the promised alternative is not so good, Obamacare is starting to not look so bad in comparison with these folks. I don't care if they promised it, it's not what like purple districts and even many red districts want anymore. Many voters liked the kabuki of it all when they were a minority fighting "the liberals", but now they are expecting everyone to be insured better, like Trump promised on the trail.

I think they are really going to hurt themselves on this. Some of them may lose their own seats next time, they shouldn't be worrying about primarying others because the Koch Bros. will pay for a loser to be put in a primary in a district that wants them to fix the health insurance situation.

Remember the Tea Partiers that used to carry signs "don't touch my Medicare"? Or how Medicare was always called a "third rail"? This is really going to hurt them. The ones that are saying "fuck the repeal promise" are going to be the winners. People's health and lives are on the line. Sad as it is, the smartest thing politically for them to do is not repeal and get lax on administration and regulation and then things start to fall apart and they can blame Obama and the Dems.

And if they do the latter, we are headed into a period like just before Bill Clinton was elected, where the news channels and newspapers are filled with tales of woe about health problems not being covered, Mom's with kids with cancer begging for treatments, CEO's complaining about the rising costs, etc. And whoever makes the best hay out of that will win.