dagblog - Comments for "Twist and Shout: Why the Politics of Rage Makes Me Want to Cry"

BTW, my cousin who read this

Deadman — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:34:26 +0000

In reply to Twist and Shout: Why the Politics of Rage Makes Me Want to Cry

BTW, my cousin who read this post and thought that the politics of rage was nothing new (which was kind of my point, but still) ran across this quote from Richard Nixon during his first inaugural addres and thought it highly reminiscent :

In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words; from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading.

Good quote, and I actually read Nixon's entire speech and found it truly uplifting (if only it wasn't tainted by what we now all know of the man and his deeds). Perhaps the best line - and most appropriate for my post - is this one that came right before the heretomentioned sentence.

The simple things are the ones most needed today if we are to surmount what divides us, and cement what unites us.

To lower our voices would be a simple thing.

Simple, indeed.

This one seems apt in

Nebton — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:49:03 +0000

In reply to I'd just add to your Hannibal

This one seems apt in context:

The Potemkin city of which I wish to speak here is none other than our dear Vienna herself. - Adolf Loos

Make of it what you will…

I'd just add to your Hannibal

acanuck — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:42:58 +0000

In reply to If your narrative is

I'd just add to your Hannibal quote a favorite from Napoleon: "If you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna."

you seriously could (and

Deadman — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:18:48 +0000

In reply to If your narrative is

you seriously could (and probably should) repost this comment into a separate blog post. It's that informative and accurate. really well-stated.

If your narrative is

DF — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:54:13 +0000

In reply to The short answer is NO. The

If your narrative is accurate, then I call it nothing less than the failure of Obama's political pragmatism. As I stated repeatedly last year during the election: Pragmatism is not, itself, a principle. Half a loaf is better than none, true, but you don't start out negotiations by asking for only half a loaf. You take that if that's the best you can get, but you ask for the full loaf from the word "go".

I'm thumbing through my copy of Rules for Radicals right now. Team Obama is getting worked by the Alinsky playbook right now, which I find to be ironic since I thought he knew his Alinsky. In the chapter on tactics, Alinsky writes:

For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if you organization is small in numbers, then do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place. (p.126)

Last year, Obama accomplished (1), but he failed to mobilize them in this effort this year. In absence of his show of power, the opposition appears to have gone with (3), which has been elevated to (2) with the help of the MSM.

The opponents of reform have successfully polarized the debate, another of Alinsky's prescriptions. The discussion is all about socialism and "death panels" and the imminent threat to America posed by its President because, well, we don't trust him.. can't say why exactly... something about him is just different and it makes me afraid....

As Bill Moyers highlighted recently, Obama, just a few short years ago, said that he supported single-payer system, but that we had to take back the congress and the White House first. Well, we did that and he, improbably enough, ended up in the big chair. But now we can't get it done because the majorities aren't big enough. Or because of Blue Dogs. Or because it's just not "politically feasible".

Politics, I am told, is the art of the possible. Who's really willing to put their political ass on the line to see what's really possible, rather than consigning themselves to half a loaf (at best) before the negotiations even begin? I thought it would be Obama, but I still haven't heard him articulate, in a way that I know he is capable of, what specific reforms are needed and why.

All of the talk about getting some half-assed reform done now to get something better later is nonsense. If the Dems can't do it right now, they never will because it's unlikely that they'll have this much consolidated power again in the near future. Ram the reform down the opposition's throat and let them cry about it for the next 40 years like has occurred with Medicare because they won't be able to roll it back once it's out there, just like Bush couldn't roll back Social Security in '05.

On the same page in Alinsky's book that the above quote comes from is a quote from Hannibal: "We will either find a way or make one." Proponents of reform are in desperate need of political leadership with the capacity for imagining what's possible and the tenacity to make it so.

The short answer is NO. The

acanuck — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:49:36 +0000

In reply to The flip side of that

The short answer is NO. The insurance companies just won.

The administration, heeding the bleats of fearful and paid-off congresscritters, has just punted on the public option. Sebelius and Obama have both signaled that non-profit co-ops might do the trick by injecting some competition to the insurance industry. Sure, that might happen!

And if anyone thinks that's a reasonable, Kent Conrad-style compromise, glance at the Drudge Report, where the main art is a white flag. No, this administration is going to settle for the illusion of reform.

The mistake was to not stake out a single-payer system as their starting position, compromising if necessary on a public option. By positing the public option as their initial offer, the Democrats guaranteed the final product would be much, much less.

The need to cover those 40 million-plus is still there. What if they can't even afford co-op rates? Here's how desperate some are:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html

The flip side of that

DF — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:28:00 +0000

In reply to thanks for the reality check.

The flip side of that argument is that the not-good-enough is also the enemy of the good. Saying "let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is fine if your bead is still fixed on the good. If it's an excuse for not-good-enough, then I say it's an exercise in false dichotomy.

I sometimes wonder whether the Dems really believe in their policy prescriptions. If they really believe, as I do, that meaningful healthcare reform would be a net positive for the majority of Americans (by way of being a net positive for the American economy), then why don't they put their backs into it and show some faith in their supposed ideology? Get the right bill passed, used reconciliation if you have to, but if you really believe that it's going to work then there's nothing to fear.

That the reforms will work certainly gives the conservatives reason to fear. This memo, written by Bill Kristol back in 1993, illustrates that a leading conservative believes that one of the greatest threats posed by successful heathlcare reform is that it would prove to people that government can be effective. Do the Dems not believe that this is the case?

thanks so much for the

Deadman — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:39:31 +0000

In reply to Your beautifully written

thanks so much for the compliment. im probably being too negative but some days I just listen to much depressing music.

thanks for the reality check.

Deadman — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:38:28 +0000

In reply to Great post and great

thanks for the reality check. i agree, obama has shown enough competence in his brief career as a candidate and politician that maybe the game plan is working. but if it involves more compromises like the one DF pointed out, will it be worth it?

It does sound easy. It's not

Deadman — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:36:55 +0000

In reply to The political situation

It does sound easy. It's not like there aren't other models out there from which we can take the best and emulate, and scrap or improve the things that don't work. But yeah, I'm afraid our democracy is getting rotten. I had some hope after last fall, but if there's any truth to the compromise you linked to with regard to the pharma industry, i'm even more skeptical. i feel like it's the same thing the administration did with regard to Wall Street bailouts. they take this dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good to an unhealthy extreme i fear.