What do the whiners want?

[jpgray]

I can't speak for everyone, but I want our leaders to -try-. 'Scuse me while I reach into the FDR grab bag. The first part aptly describes the very real and enormous difficulties we face in getting anything passed. The rest describes what we should be doing about that:

It is toward that objective that we must move if we are to profit by our recent experiences. Probably few will disagree that the goal is desirable. Yet many, of faint heart, fearful of change, sitting tightly on the roof-tops in the flood, will sternly resist striking out for it, lest they fail to attain it. Even among those who are ready to attempt the journey there will be violent differences of opinion as to how it should be made. So complex, so widely distributed over our whole society are the problems which confront us that men and women of common aim do not agree upon the method of attacking them. Such disagreement leads to doing nothing, to drifting. Agreement may come too late.

Let us not confuse objectives with methods. Too many so-called leaders of the Nation fail to see the forest because of the trees. Too many of them fail to recognize the vital necessity of planning for definite objectives. True leadership calls for the setting forth of the objectives and the rallying of public opinion in support of these objectives.

Do not confuse objectives with methods. When the Nation becomes substantially united in favor of planning the broad objectives of civilization, then true leadership must unite thought behind definite methods.

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.

We need enthusiasm, imagination and the ability to face facts, even unpleasant ones, bravely. We need to correct, by drastic means if necessary, the faults in our economic system from which we now suffer. We need the courage of the young. Yours is not the task of making your way in the world, but the task of remaking the world which you will find before you. May every one of us be granted the courage, the faith and the vision to give the best that is in us to that remaking!

The administration and Democratic caucus have been solid in setting forth good and popular broad objectives. They have been lackluster in the extreme when it comes to rallying public support for -definite methods-. There are always excuses not to try, not to push for anything definite. If you only push for a broad objective, then -anything- which passes under that banner can be called success. If you push for something definite, anything less risks failure, and the leadership to brave that risk is in short supply within our party.

As an example, consider health care reform. I'm not unhappy simply because the public option didn't make it in--what worries me is that it was never tried; that it was never defined clearly or vigorously sold to the public. Fear of failure was behind the deals with industry; fear that their powerful lobbies and wealthy interests would shatter any hope of passing anything. These are reasonable fears, but are they an excuse to compromise before any public debate? Despite the anemic public debate, polling showed consistent majority support behind the public option--imagine if it had been clearly defined, strongly presented, and argued publicly at every opportunity.

The hands-off approach on specific measures has its political uses. I know Rahm has been described as wanting almost anything that could be called health care reform, whatever was in it. His likely worry was that the Clinton health care failure would be repeated--after all, he was there to see it. Yet that is exactly the focus on popular objectives and total abdication of leadership on definite measures that has defined this party for too long--so long as what gets passed is called by the name of our objectives, we pretend to have satisfied the needs of the country. Never mind if the definite measures' bright spots are blighted by a hellscape of graft and subsidy for the wealthy and corporations.

If we -tried- to enact more progressive measures, I'd be far less upset if they never find their way into a bill.

[Catherina]

1. Whoops, Reread,. Ignore previous comment, n/t

[treestar]

2. Sounds to me like a leader should just brainwash us all

Maybe back in that day people were not as informed and not inclined to think for themselves.

It's the leader's responsibility to get the people to agree with him? By using "methods?" That sounds a bit dangerous. I don't like it. Glad those days are gone.

[jpgray]

3. I can't tell if you're being serious.

You mean that arguing for more definite measures, as opposed to just broad objectives, is brainwashing?

[Hydra]

4. He's trying to argue that there isn't any consensus currently

Which he could be serious about, but he'd be wrong.

I may not like my fellow Republican sucker citizens, but they know what they need too- Social Security, Real Healthcare and Jobs(living wage type). We have more in common with the Reds than they think- they're scared of us mostly because they're told to be. Their politicians pickpocket them and then they say it was the Left's fault.

Oh, wait. That's what our own leadership does now too!

Regardless, Treestar would probably like us to think it was impossible to get a real bill. It was only impossible because we've enshrined greed as our national virtue, and sensible action as the greatest sin.

[jpgray]

5. Which is exactly the point FDR was trying to get across

There -is- broad agreement in the country about our objectives. We see it in poll after poll on health care, the war in Afghanistan, protecting Social Security, infrastructure spending, etc. Where there is disagreement (at times) is in the definite measures needed to achieve those objectives, and that is precisely where our leadership is almost wholly absent in driving the debate. There is sort of an inertial passivity that avoids strong commitment to specific measures, like the public option, or negotiation on drug prices, or defending Social Security, or on the tax cuts.

What we have instead is support for broad objectives, like "protecting" Social Security, or "reforming" health care. These objectives may be admirable as rhetoric, but they will only be admirable as policy if the specific measures that make up the legislation are admirable. So why not try everything possible to improve them? That ought to include rallying the public at the -earliest- possible date.

[Hydra]

6. Right, but that presupposes the rhetoric lines up with actual goals

Which given the admissions that have come out lately, would be a bad presumption.

As I posted to one of our more well known members OP a few days ago, the people arguing methods are actually arguing AGAINST the principles using the supposed lack of options as an excuse.

President Obama decided he needed a Republican-based insurance system, for whatever reason. He set the goal, and at that point, his job was to guide us all to that point, which for too many people, he was able to.

The fracture here and in the real world isn't one of methods or rhetoric, it's one of goals. The haves mores have goals that aren't in accord with most other people's. As long as that is the case and they control the purse strings, there are going to be problems.