The Insidious Myth of Reconciliation

[BzaDem]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/insidious-myth-of-reconciliation.html

"Jon Walker at has a new post up at Firedoglake entitled thusly: The Insidious Myth Of The Progressive Bill Killers. The post argues that wonks like me have greatly mischaracterized the position of the bill-killers. They don't really think the bill is worse than nothing, Jon says. They just think a better bill can be achieved through reconciliation or some other filibuster-breaking strategy.

Really? I appreciate that Jon is injecting some subtlety into the debate. It's been sorely lacking from most (although not all) of the kill-billers, who have unironically grabbed from a patchwork of right-wing frames to make their case. If there's been a post from Jane Hamsher saying: "You know, actually this bill represents a lot of progress in comparison to the status quo, but it's not all we hoped for, and I think we can afford to gamble a bit on making it better via reconciliation", then I must have missed it. Certainly, this more nuanced case has been made by some players in the debate -- it's very close to the position statements put out by the unions, for example -- but it's generally not the one we've seen from the activist/online left, which is the group that I and others have been specifically critical of."

..snip..

"The failure to use reconciliation does not reveal any lack of courage on behalf of Harry Reid or the White House. It is, rather, a reflection of reality. The more unadorned, straightforward versions of reconciliation -- like Strategy 2 -- might not work and would probably result in objectively worse policy than the bill that the Senate is considering now. The more exotic versions, like Strategy 3, might or might not result in better policy, but almost certainly wouldn't work."

[Political Heretic]

1. *I* know the bill is worse than nothing.

It sets up a mandated consumer base without sufficient competition, without sufficient regulation, without sufficient price controls, without sufficient subsidies for the poor, without meaningful benefits for the next five years, and with a ton of corporate giveaways that will guarantee that the US remains dead last among the top twenty industrialized nations in the world when it comes to quality of health care, and first when it comes to $ spend on health care.

Ordinary poor and working class Americans will see long term losses, not gains, as corporations do what they always do and game the system. Upper middle class white people however, will probably make out OK, and the rich certainly have nothing to worry about.... And that's what it really comes down to, isn't it?

[BzaDem]

2. You disagree with all progressives in the Senate (from Bernie Sanders to Sherrod Brown)

and ultimately almost every single progressive in the House, since almost every single progressive in the House is going to vote for this bill.

A rational progressive would think "Hmm. Even the most liberal member of the Senate and almost all progressives in the House disagree with me. Let me re-evaluate my position. Maybe, instead of every liberal elected official being wrong, it is I who is wrong."

[GreenArrow]

3. Wasn't Feingold the only Senator who

voted against the Patriot Act (sic)? He was right to do so. I guess for the health care bill, the knee jerk partisan idiocy will be unanimous. The "progressives" aren't doing themselves any favors here.

[Political Heretic]

4. Appeal to the masses is no appeal. Esepcially when you are selective.

First, I never said I was a "progressive."

Second, every "progressive" in the house and senate knows that passing this bill makes political sense to them. If the bill doesn't pass it will hurt Democrats. Nothing motivates their "this isn't all we want, but its a start" sort of half-assed endorsements more than that.

You also conveniently left out scores of "progressives" - including Howard Dean who aren't politicians trying to get reelected - who feel left with no choice but to oppose a bill that does more harm to poor and working class Americans in the long run than it does good.

[BzaDem]

5. I'm including progressives who are in safe seats and have little incentive to worry about politics.

Bernie Sanders is going to be re-elected in Vermont whether this bill passes or fails.

I think the fact that the main opposition comes from UNELECTED progressives is THE POINT. These unelected progressives who are not in Congress do not understand what is possible to get out of Congress NEARLY as well as the people in Congress. There is a difference between backseat driving on a talk show and actually trying to write the best bill that can be enacted.

Your argument would have more sway if even a small portion (say 15% or 20%) of the progressives in the House, Senate, or both were to vote against the bill. Many of them are from safe seats and don't have to worry about their next election or campaign contributions.

Some analogize this bill to the IWR vote. Well the MAJORITY of Democrats voted against the IWR resolution in the House, and 42% of them voted against it in the Senate. In this case, not ONE will vote against it in the Senate and at most a low single digit number of progressives are going to vote against it in the House.

Whether you see this now or not, the people against this bill now (progressives and Republicans) are going to be embarrassed in a decade or so when the bill becomes unrepealable because it is so popular.

[Political Heretic]

6. Every politician worries about politics. Not just personal politics but party politics.

My argument doesn't rest on what politicians in washington think or don't think. Their opinions are worthless. Virtually every politician in the house and senate believe it is better to pass something for a political victory than oppose your own "side's" bills. That's how its always been, that's how it is right now, that's how it likely will be in the future for as long as this ridiculous national political system can endure.

Think for a second - your entire argument is based on a mass appeal. Hundreds of other people can't be wrong! Well guess what - yes they can. Especially when they have an agenda that is different than that of poor people.

What is more interesting are "progressives" who don't hold elected office and don't answer to congressional leadership or corporate lobbyists....

Claiming that outside the beltway there's some sort of "universal agreement" that this is a bill that should be passed is a lie.

And frankly, the idea that somehow because all the democrats in congress rallied around themselves to support their own bill rather than electing to oppose their own bill - with the obvious negative political implications that would have for their party politics - is not a very compelling argument at all. Of course that would happen. That's how the beltway works.