1965 All Over Again?- The reach of persistent progressivism.

[NJmaverick]

Last week brought a lot of talk about how health-care reform (HCR) was the most sweeping piece of domestic legislation since 1965. That's astonishing when you think about it—nearly half a century with no major bills (welfare reform in 1996 and No Child Left Behind in 2002 weren't nearly as big). Considering that Congress no longer decides if the nation goes to war, this is not much of a record for the world's leading democracy.

Now the same House Democrats who groused about the bill in mid-March are giddy over their role in shaping history. After jumping off a high, scary cliff, they expected to hit rocks, and instead found themselves bathed in warm water, ready to jump again. Achieving, it turned out, felt better than posturing. The question is whether the success of President Obama's emerging governing philosophy—what might be called persistent progressivism—can be extended to realms beyond health care.

Exercising power is like exercising your body—it gets easier as you get in shape. Before HCR, members of Congress were couch potatoes when it came to legislating. Most bills were the product of precut deals by the leadership; they existed to expand or re slice existing services and programs, to work as party-identity badges, or to make the other side look bad in campaigns. This last trick is still common. Witness Sen. Tom Coburn's effort to get Democratic senators trying to complete work on reconciliation to vote against preventing rapists and child molesters from getting government-funded erectile-dysfunction medications in the new health-care ex-changes. You can see the TV ad now: Viagra meets Willie Horton.

Coburn's amendment failed badly, which lends it significance beyond the snickering. Seriousness may be making a comeback in Washington. Goofy stunts in Congress are still a daily occurrence, and the ethically challenged congressman will always be with us. But if Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid can continue to get Democrats to focus on real challenges instead of gesture politics, this could be 1965 all over again. Lyndon Johnson's domestic achievements that year have been overshadowed by Vietnam and slimed by the right. Besides Medicare and civil rights, he pushed through immigration reform and the first federal aid for education. Obama now has a chance for major achievements in those very areas

MORE

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235555

[Coyote_Bandit]

1. "...the most sweeping piece of domestic legislation since 1965..."?

Only for the health insurers.

[NJmaverick]

2. really?!?! 10s of MILLIONS Americans would disagree with you

[Coyote_Bandit]

3. And

10s of millions would disagree with you. Including a substantial number of DUers.

We have a sitting Dem President with majorities in both the House and the Senate. There is simply no acceptable reason why the bastards couldn't have delivered something far better. But they were happy to continually revise their expectations and demands downward. The Obama administration is a lost opportunity. Color me unimpressed.

[NJmaverick]

4. 97% of liberals support the bill according to polls, so you are in a distinct minority

on this issue

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. Sooooooo.......

who gives a shit about polls? Not me. Statistics can always be manipulated.

The fact remains that a sitting Dem President with majorities in both the House and the Senate could have delivered something far better. They didn't. In fact, Congress refused to even consider evidence regarding the viability of all alternatives. Which means the fuckers can't even pretend that their sell out was an informed one.

[NJmaverick]

6. You are ignoring the FACT that the Senate election in MA made passage

of the bill nearly impossible and your preferred bill beyond impossible.

[MadHound]

7. The fact is that it was the Dem's lack of a spine that made passage

Of much of the bill impossible. When we had the necessary supermajority, the Dems couldn't get it done. When they lost that, they still could have dared the 'Pugs to filibuster, and beat them about the head with their obstructivism. Instead the Dems caved on point after point. Hell, virtually every sane commentator and politician, including Obama himself admits that HCR was essentially a heavily 'Pug influenced bill. But hey, time will tell, and when the middle class is going down the tubes due to uncontrolled insurance premiums, don't say you weren't told.

[NJmaverick]

8. The FACT that presidents since Teddy R have tried to pass health reform and failed

makes your statement a really puzzlement

[MadHound]

11. Except that this isn't really health reform, this is insurance reform,

And we have all been handed over to the tender mercies of the insurance industry on a mandated silver platter.

[NJmaverick]

13. To those with pre-existing conditions, or those that couldn't afford insurance

which numbers in the 10s of millions as well as 97% of liberals they see it has health care reform.

[laughingliberal]

24. "they see it has health care reform."

No one denies the PR job was effective. At some point, though,the actual bill will kick in.

[laughingliberal]

9. They weren't planning to pass our preferred bill before that

There was a little tweaking of the Senate bill going on in negotiations between the House and Senate but we were never going to have a public option.

[NJmaverick]

12. You don't know what would have come out of the reconciliation process

so you can't make that statement.

[laughingliberal]

14. I know I followed the negotiations closely and didn't hear it mentioned

Actually, once Scott Brown won, it would have been easier to have a public option because we went the route of reconciliation and didn't have to have 60 votes to end debate on the bill. If we were ever to have it that would have been the time to put it in.

[Coyote_Bandit]

17. Of course we weren't

because our Dem leaders didn't have the guts to even pretend to fight for a public option.

Funny how that works. Folks generally don't get what they desire unless they ask for it and work for it and put forth a real effort to achieve and obtain what they desire.

Instead our leaders just laid down and settled for less. And less. And less. Until the only thing they accomplished was fucking INSURANCE reform.

[laughingliberal]

20. I still believe what Russ Feingold said after Lieberman killed the Medicare expansion

He said this was the bill the President wanted all along. I also remember Schumer saying at the beginning of the debate that the President could have anything he wanted in his health care reform bill. I think we really do have to face, at some point, that this was the bill the President wanted.

[NJmaverick]

25. How did Russ Feingold vote? For or against the bill?????

[laughingliberal]

27. That does not negate what he said in the least

As I've said I think a lot of people 'support' the bill on the basis of it's this or nothing. I highly doubt he'd try to sell us on this being the best way to reform our health care system.

[NJmaverick]

29. If you support Russ's judgment to post his beliefs and opinions you have

to acknowledge the same person supports the bill.

[laughingliberal]

30. What I know is he voted for the bill so, for whatever reason, he felt it was better than nothing

As opposed to nothing? Obviously, he saw some value in voting for the bill. Quite a few of the people who voted for it did so as taking a first step. I don't think that indicates they thought this was a good bill but they felt something needed to pass. And, it does not change the fact that he told us that this (and by 'this' he meant the Senate bill) was the bill the President always wanted. And he did not mean that as a compliment. I'm convinced Russ Feingold wanted a better bill and was not happy with the President over this. Like many of them, they saw a political downside to passing nothing and the hope of adding some better programs to it later.

And, btw, what the hell happened to passing the bill so we can start to make it better? All I see is a bunch of people who are still trying to convince others of the wondrous wonderment of this 'historic' bill. I heard a whole lot of people here urging people to support passage as a 'first step' before it passed. And I'm assuming that was the thought of some of the liberal lawmakers who voted for it. Now, I see no talk of this from those here who were selling that 'first step' meme. I think it may be the bill they always wanted, too.

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. Say what you want

Think what you want.

Simple fact is that the next time Obama's name appears on my ballot he will not be getting my vote. Meaningful healthcare reform was and remains my line in the sand. Obama didn't deliver. Didn't really even try. Sorry, I will not be voting for the better of two bad candidates. Consequences be damned. After all, there really isn't a hell of a lot of difference between a Dem that does not serve to advance and protect my interests and desires and a Puke that does likewise. And right now there isn't a whole hell of a lot of difference between Dems and Pukes. Both are corporatists.

This legislation is a clusterfuck. We ought not to pretend otherwise. It does very little to reform healthcare but it sure as hell serves the interests of the health insurers.

[NJmaverick]

16. My father who is a hard core Republican will not be voting for President Obama either

so what's your point? In fact I am sure he would be quite happy to hear you are not voting for President Obama.

As for your "we" it's a pretty small number considering you make up only 3% of liberals

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. Ummmm......

My point is that the President and Dem leaders of Congress were not willing to fight for meaningful healthcare reform. Instead the sorry bastards settled for fucking INSURANCE reform. They failed to deliver on the single issue that is most important to me. Not only did they fail to deliver they didn't even fucking put up an effort. They continually revised their expectations downward.

That tells me that:
(1) they lack the leadership and political skills to accomplish real reform; and/or
(2) they lack the personal commitment to doing so and desired only the political capital from appearing to put forth an effort; and/or
(3) they are far more interested in serving the existing corporate healthcare industry than in serving the interests of flesh and blood citizens; and/or
(4) they are utterly lacking in the ambition, desire, discipline and courage required to overcome and achieve great things.

None of which recommend they retain their position. Fuck 'em.

[NJmaverick]

22. By "em" you mean the American people

who you apparently are willing to leave to the tender loving mercies of the Republicans and their teabagger base.

[Coyote_Bandit]

31. Guess what?

When I walk into a voting booth only my opinion counts. Not yours. Not some poll somewhere. Not the words of some lying politician.

If there were a Dem primary today, a progressive challenger to Obama would get my vote. If there were a general election today, a progressive third party candidate would get my vote. I've got no use for Dems that do not serve to advance and protect my needs and interests - and those of millions more like me.

When I say "fuck em" I am refering to all the spineless Dems who were unwilling to fight for real meaningful healthcare reform and were all too happy to settle for fucking INSURANCE reform. I want nothing to do with them. They do not represent my needs, desires and interests. There is no reason for me to want to retain them in office.

There is simply no acceptable reason why a sitting Dem President with majorities in both the House and Senate could not have delivered meaningful healthcare reform as opposed to some clusterfuck piece of shit legislation that produces little more than INSURANCE reform. Bottom line is that they - that includes Congresscritters as well as the President - didn't want to.

They didn't want to deliver something that is a priority to me and millions of others. No reason why I should want to retain the sorry bastards in office.

It really doesnt matter to me whether you agree with my conclusion. Like my vote, my views do not require your validation or approval.

[laughingliberal]

10. Kind of reminds you of your mother's old question. If 97% of liberals jumped off a cliff....nt

[JHB]

18. 90% of Americans supported George Bush (both of them)...

...unless you looked at the fine details of that "support". I.e., only 20-something% would support the actual course the Bushes were pushing, but when asked "Do you support the President" they'd get a 90% "yes" in the lead-up to their respective wars.

A similar dynamic is at work here. Just because the poll you're citing may say there is 97% "support" for the bill (if, in fact, the poll actually does say that), that does not translate into 97% satisfaction with it.

That much should be obvious from past polling and political fights. To pretend those differences have collapsed into near-universal solidarity behind the present bill doesn't exactly strike me as "pragmatism".

[laughingliberal]

21. That's an interesting point. I'm certain 97% of liberals would not say this is the bill they wanted

They may have become 'persuaded' it was the best they were going to get and, therefore, better than nothing. But I highly doubt there's anything there which would make a liberal stand up and say it's what they wanted or even close to what they envisioned we would get with Democrats controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House.

[NJmaverick]

23. what poll are you citing?

[JHB]

26. Sorry, mav, it might take a while to dredge up poll coverage from 2002 and 1990...

...although that observation was hardly a secret nor unique to me. In the meantime why don't you provide the link to the poll that you cite?

[laughingliberal]

28. I really don't think I need a poll to prove that most liberals wanted a better bill than this

and saying they support this bill means little unless we're polling on 'as opposed to what?' As opposed to nothing? I think that's what the choice came down to. It was, 'you get this or you get nothing.' Do you know any liberals who would have chosen this bill over one that gave us a choice of a public option or included a Medicare expansion? Are you really trying to sell the idea that 97& of liberals would support this bill over one with those policies in it?

If I've been 3 days without food or drink and someone offers me bread and water or nothing, I'll take the bread and water. Would that then be proof that laughingliberal loves bread and water cause she ate the bread and drank the water?