If you have "no place to go," come here!

It gets tiring after awhile

[2012-12-9 Oh lord. Time to move this to the top again, I guess. --lambert]


Ezra's analysis yesterday was a dispassionate look at the political strategies of both Parties to explain where this argument would logically lead. And the upshot is that the GOP would be smart to get onboard with Obamacare if they want to destroy Medicare because otherwise the crazy liberals will somehow ram through single payer. (Why he thinks that's going to happen, I don't know. The last I heard from all the Very Serious People was that the ACA was the last chance for health care reform for a generation.

Ezra's arguing that if Obamacare works great everyone will want to extend it to Medicare. My feeling is that in this political environment it's far more likely that everyone will just extend Obamacare to Medicare, regardless of whether it works well.

Indeed (March 26). Granted, I wasn't cynical enough to imagine the legacy parties would use [Romney|Obama]Care to destroy Medicare, but then I don't know if anybody was. We more more innocent in 2009.

It gets tiring. Ya know, there were blogs, back in the day, who did everything they knew how to support single payer: Massive postings, commentary, daily updates on single payer news, interviews with single payer organizers and activists, critical analysis of alternative policies, including shredding the studies, and especially the Dartmouth study....

And then there were blogs that ran interference for Obama, that pushed the "savvy" public option scam that Obama had meant to betray from the very beginning, whose owners mocked, censored, and banned single payer advocates, and imposed a news blackout on their cause, even though all agreed single payer was the best policy. Dr. Margaret Flowers got herself arrested in Max Baucus's hearing room because single payer wasn't on the table, and couldn't buy a link from these blogs, let alone a post or an interview.

All I can say is that I know which of the two kinds of blog Corrente was.

And here we are today, about to become even worse off than before. Nobody could have predicted.

NOTE Yeah, yeah. Single payer would have passed if only lambert weren't such an asshole. Feh. Hat tip to Vast Left for the link.

No votes yet


Submitted by hipparchia on

thank you, thank you, thank you, for being the right kind of blog!

Granted, I wasn't cynical enough to imagine the legacy parties would use [Romney|Obama]Care to destroy Medicare, but then I don't know if anybody was.

wellll.... *i* was that cynical. i left it out of my swiffercare post, but in the swiss system, everybody buys private insurance, even the old people. no government health insurance for them!

with all the "liberal" hype about how we were going to model our new system on the swiss, i did wonder how many of the "liberal" cheerleaders knew that adopting the swiss system wholesale would mean destroying medicare as we know it. but the health whatever reform debate was a target-rich environment and there was so much other stuff to write about.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm not sure that success was there to be had, and it is true that the campaign really forged some strong relationships (yes, it's possible online, and that's how).... But opportunity cost?

And what are the lessons learned for the next campaign? (Which is something along the lines of replacing the legacy party system with a parallel structure...)

UPDATE Adding... Non-violently. It strikes me that if political parties were abolished, the Constitution might look a lot better....

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

parties, they would have made it unconstitutional.

Jefferson and Adams were already forming parties when Washington stepped down after his second term.

Now, a constitutional amendment banning political parties might make things more interesting in this country.

Submitted by hipparchia on

would you rather have shilled for the public option? what's the cost of selling your soul to the devil?

I'm not sure that success was there to be had

we don't have medicare for all yet....

Which is something along the lines of replacing the legacy party system with a parallel structure...

can't necessarily say i agree.

i prefer your 'bold, persistent experimentation' outlook, which in my view ought to include third parties, socialists and other lefties running as independents, lefties taking over the existing legacy parties, and mass rioting in the streets [yes, i'm okay with allowing/ignoring the small fringe that wants to smash windows; i see attempting to control them as a huge opportunity cost], along with just plain talking to your friends and neighbors face-to-face and visiting your congresscritters in person.

And what are the lessons learned for the next campaign?

you can gather and/or disseminate a lot of information via the intertoobz, but probably the single biggest lesson to learn from occupy, whether you're a statist trying to petition your govt or an anarchist trying to overthrow your govt, is that civic engagement, whatever the issue, happens in person, on the ground, and en masse. that, and it helps if you can get adbusters to design a nice poster and a catchy, pithy slogan for you. ;)

it is true that the campaign really forged some strong relationships (yes, it's possible online

you bet your sweet bippy it is!

Submitted by jawbone on

What she said, especially about mass gatherings. With staying power.

One day, one weekend's worth of hundreds of thousands, millions nation or worldwide, on their feet, marching, protesting, can be rushed down the memory hole. But groups staying in an accessible place can force the media's attention to be paid to them and to their ideas.

Which is why Bloomberg is letting Ray Kelly go somewhat apeshit crazy with the somewhat small groups assembling in Lower Manhattan: They know they have to stop them NOW to keep them from gaining traction in a location in order to keep their ideas amorphous and ignorable.

zot23's picture
Submitted by zot23 on

Conservatives are great at this tactic. They are willing to lose every battle, and lose badly, if it moves the greater argument in their direction. They are willing to piss on the half loaf offered and giggle while they tighten their belts waiting for the next fight. Look at how close they are today at restricting womens' rights to proper (and cheap) birth control. Unimaginable, right up until it is possible - they simply never gave up on it.

We actually even have massive advantages over the conservatives at playing this game. They are trying to push wildly unpopular viewpoints, swimming against the tide of modern culture. Progressive platforms are incredibly popular when explained clearly, especially with younger people.

What we should be steeling ourselves for now is the next HCR fight, setting the ground work for a Medicare For All (or nothing!) fight. The key is we need to convince enough Congress people that we WILL end their careers if they cross us on this issue, and then be willing to actually do it (and kill the legislation) if we don't get what we want.

We weren't there yet for the last fight, we should start getting "there" for the net time. Regardless of what the SCOTUS decides, we'll be doing this again sooner or later.