What is "too radical" or "too liberal" for America to accept? The bar seems very high here.

[Armstead]

Is it too radical to set up a public system of medical coverage for people who are over the age of 65, or who are unable to work because of disabilities?

Is it too radical to set up a government run retirement income program?

Is it too radical to tell employers they had to pay at least a certain amount to workers per hour? Would it be too radical to actually expect that the minimum wage be raised to a livable wage today?

Was it too radical to abolish child labor? Is it too radical to tell employers that they cannot overwork employees by requiring them to work 90 hours a week or lose their jobs?

Is it too radical to tell business owners that they can't refuse to serve customers based on their race? Is it too radical to tell states they actually have to allow anyone of any race or creed or gender to vote? Is it too radical to actually make white people attend the same schools as black people?

Is it too radical to protect consumer choice and the concept of truly competitive free enterprise with anti-trust laws and prohibitions against monopolistic collusion?

Is it too radical to tell industries that they have to clear up their emissions before belching them into the air?

Jiminy Cricket, I'm beginning to think that is any of these ideas were proposed today, there'd be a lot of opposition from this "side" of the spectrum as being too ideologically pure, unrealistic and bad for America. "We can't do that. America isn't ready yet. You progressives just want your ponies."

[LWolf]

1. It's too radical

to favor any change that might upset those holding power.

[HughMoran]

2. :P

no,

no,

no,

no,

no,

no,

no

And we passed healthcare reform to boot. We're winning.

[NJmaverick]

3. +1

:hi:

[Armstead]

4. It;s easy when they are rhetorical questions

My question is, however, if these had not been done in the past, and were proposed today, how would they be handled and what position would many people here take on them?

Just as a crazy exercise....Suppose there were no minimum wage. No controls over what an employer could pay employees. It was just assumed that any employer could pay the least they coiold get away with and still attract workers.

And suppose a movement arose that said: "This is not fair. We must begin to regulate pay levels. There has to at least be a floor below which hourly pay could not fall."

Would that ever get advanced n the current climate? Would the Democratic Party be willing to make such a break with the accepted status quo, and alienate the business community?

Or would they say "The country isn't ready for this. Maybe someday. You progressives are asking for too much."

Just askin. :shrug:

[HughMoran]

10. Dems passed the biggest healthcare reform bill in the history of this country!

I'm not going to answer rhetorical questions about the minimum wage. Democrats that we support here passed healthcare reform after trying and failing many times over the course of my lifetime (was alive when Kennedy was assassinated).

This one isn't just for kids. This one isn't just for the elderly or incapacitated people. This one is for ALL of us.

It's historical. We got our foot in the door and it will only get better from here. I could be happier about the bill, but I WILL NOT CUT OFF MY NOSE TO SPITE MY FACE!!!!!!

[Armstead]

15. We've been around the block on health care already

and I won't beat any dead horses on that one except to say that in my opinion...cutting our noses off to spite our face is exactly what the current HCR bill is dpoing.

What would have been a parallel to the spirit of those earlier advances listed above would have been to fight for a start towards an actual public social insurance system. Maybe just a first step, but a step in that direction, as WAS done with Social Security. (it was not a privatized investment mandate.)

[mrcheerful]

5. Your leaving out the one factor in all of this, folks since 1980 have had 1 goal and 1

goal only, get everything they can and try to keep someone else from getting it. They will do this even if it means that they cut their own throats in the process of keeping another that they feel is below them from getting what they either have or can't afford. Just look at how divided we are in this side of the spectrum, for christ sake I seen posts in DU saying it was wrong for people on food stamps to use them on soda pop, since when did anyone on this side of the spectrum care how folks used food stamps? From my way of thinking the world has flipped upside down to where it was 30 years ago.

Poor folks get over on Uncle Sam? Good thing in my youth. Rich assholes getting hit with estate taxes? Another good thing in my youth. In my old age everything that was good is now an evil government take over of the country, unless it benefits the top 1%, then its good government protecting the peoples rights. This is the reality we live in and sadly even todays young folks that grew up in the greed fest are somewhat believers of the give me sickness Reagan infected the country with no matter what side of the spectrum they are on.

[Armstead]

7. As I have said before "What once would have been considered immoral....

economic policy and business behavior is now accepted as business as usual."

tis sad.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. That's right--the world has been turned upside down, and what's scary is

that no one under 30, maybe even 35, remembers any president before Reagan.

The "greed is good," "poor people are lazy if they won't work for sub-subsistence wages and rich people won't work unless they get multi-million dollar bonuses" and "government-always bad (except for the military, police, and spy networks), private sector-always good" ideas have been touted on the airwaves and in the print media their entire conscious lives.

[sandnsea]

6. It was all passed in bits and pieces

because it all was too radical to be passed in one fell swoop. How many times do you have to be told that until you understand how all this social reform happened?

[Armstead]

9. I'm well aware of that. I lived through some of it.

But the difference is that the will to actually make the initial break and keep a stiff back through all the resulting shitstorm seems to be lacking today.

[sandnsea]

19. Right. Because passing the current health reform bill

has been sooooo fucking easy. Speaking of easy, why aren't you in DC getting this done.

[Armstead]

25. Well smartass, I am in the hinterlands in a career where I...

have spent a lifetime working to "get things done" on a greasrtoots level in my own sphere of professional and personal activity.

[sandnsea]

28. bla bla bla

If you'd accomplished anything of substance - you'd have said so.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. I think America in general wouldn't go for legalized and unionized sex workers or

polygamous marriages. You know how weird we are about sex and relationships.

But yeah, I think you are right about trying to get anything really progressive passed these days. It would be a real fight.

[Armstead]

11. Not high on my own proiroty list -- But I'll betcha that...

given a chance to vote in secret, a lot of red-blooded American conservative guys would be happy to see a legal sex trade.

:evilgrin:

[HughMoran]

12. would be?

Are you dismissing the historical healthcare reform bill out of hand?

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Well, my bar for progressive on HCR was Medicare for all or at least a medicare buy in, so

the bill as it currently stands falls short for me of that definition.

[HughMoran]

18. I guess you can't please 'em all

I can't imagine setting the bar in the stratosphere and then wondering why your target wasn't hit. :P

[Armstead]

23. Good one, I must admit

I guess we have a different definition of where the stratosphere starts.

[HughMoran]

26. :o)

Is it not ironic that many of us supporting what was achieved are actually the more cynical here?

[Armstead]

29. If there is one thing the world abounds in ...

it's irony

[RBInMaine]

13. No one is saying those are "radical." What is STUPID is trashing Dems just because they aren't all

as "progressive" as you would like them to be on each and every issue. What is STUPID is being totally uncompromising in the face of blatant political realities.

[Armstead]

20. I'm not trashing all Democrats -- There are a lot of great ones

And I disagree with some of them on the current HCR bill, but I continue to admire and respect them and I know they are going to keep up the fight.

There is a difference between fighting for what you believe in, but knowing "when to hold and when to fold" and starting out from the premise that real change is either not possible or not desirable.

Many Democrats pushed like hell for a better bill. I admire and respect them, even if they decided they had to go along because there was no otehr choice. I wish they'd fought longer, but they are not the type my OP was referring to.

[dionysus]

16. there's a difference between what's too radical for people and what's too radical for

40 republican and a sizeable chunk of dem senators. no one says it's right, but that's how it is.

money has had an undue influence in government, well... ever since governments were invented.

did you really think obama, or any president, can wave a wand and make it go away?

fighting money's influence in government is like the war on terror. it's can never be won, and is an eternal struggle.

did you ever think obama knows he has to deal with these scumbags? that's why single payer only has a handful of votes in the senate. it's not just dlc'er or blue dogs, not all but most dem senators are influenced by various moneyed interests... and ALL of the reublicans.

[Armstead]

22. I didn't say anyone can wave a wand

But I do believe there could have been a lot harder push on that pendulum to get it swinging in the other direction.

[dionysus]

27. i agree but many here seem to think that obama would somehow be able to end most corruption in govt,

and that's rather naive.
i'm not doing to disagree that more can be done.

[depakid]

17. As far as I can tell, there aren't any issues that center right Dems won't sell out

for some perceived short term expediency (even at the expense of longer term political gain and effective public policy).

Moreover, there isn't any such action that their sycophants and apologists won't try to promote as necessary for some reason or another, even when the contrary is demonstrably the case.

Easier these days to accede to, assuage and attempt to appease the corporate right (both in their own party- and across the aisle) than it is to stand up and fight for traditional Democratic values.

[JohnnyLib2]

21. Great points.

I have pretty clear memories of friends of my D-parents forever bashing "that awful FDR" and his socialistic ideas. After which, my folks would quietly explain how people in need were helped.

It probably wouldn't take much research to find the similarities in the resistance-to-change themes between then and now. I'm old enough to know that fewer are as visibly and desperately in need now.

[Armstead]

24. What I wish is...

that more people would recognize that the reason there are few peopel in desperate need now is because of those "radical" steps taken in the past.

In my darker moments, I fear we are backsliding, rather than building on those earlier steps.

[sandnsea]

30. So why didn't he pass social security for widows and the disabled?

Why didn't he pass health care for all, or even children? Or food stamps? Or housing and energy subsidies? Why didn't he implement single payer for chrissake?

He was clearly a corporate sell-out because he didn't fix everything when he had almost free rein to do anything he wanted.

That's how completely STUPID this OP is, and half of DU rightnow. STUPID whiney fucking babies.

[dionysus]

33. why don't you tell us how you really feel?

:P

[SpartanDem]

31. You leave out some minor facts

That medical coverage for those over 65 only came about after an attempt to cover everyone had failed decades earlier, retirement income program started off not covering half the population and was particularly discriminatory toward women and minorities. The law that established the minimum wage had many more exemptions if you didn't have the right kind of job you weren't covered. It took decades of protest, fighting in the courts to slowly change this county's civil rights laws. All thing the things that you site started off as highly flawed, but progressives fought to make them better they didn't reject the initial reforms because they didn't go far enough.

[Armstead]

32. But you leave out a major fact

You are correct that most of these things were dragged through the system among much kicking and screaming. And most were limited and flawed at the beginning and were only expanded over time.

But -- the basic concepts remained the basis of those improvements. They all required an initial "radical break" from the conventional wisdom of the time.

Social Security was a radical break from the "everyone fend for themselves no matter how old or feeble and broke they are." It may have initially been discriminatory and wrongly limited -- But it was a first step that took major backbone to make. And it did not start out as forcing people to buy private investments.

Likewise with the minmimum wage. It required a major break from the status quo, and a major challenge to the business elites, to even talk about the government having any role in what people were paid.

[SpartanDem]

34. You're right they were radical

but so is HCR for the federal government is going guarantee health coverage, through a big expansion of government regulatory power and oversight, to everyone. Given the status quo that there are no national standards for insurance and if you're not poor or old the government says "you're on your own." That this creation of a universal health care system is being done through private providers doesn't make it less radical and though what we're proposing now is not as strong as countries with similar systems, that is something for progressives to strive to fix. It doesn't mean we should reject the inital reform even though it doesn't go as far we'd like.

[Armstead]

40. the problem is its hard to recreate something once it's been set in stone

think of what would've happened if SS had been started on a similarly privatuized basis and even more people (who actyually have to depend on those checks) had gotten wiped out last fall.

It could not have been fixed.

My position on this is pretty simple. WE could do what we can now, and if we can't set the basic foundation for a true public program yet, at least let's not set a foiundation for privatization that will make it even harder to alter later.

[winyanstaz]

35. In case the Obama pom pom wavers missed it...

There are several areas where it is written into this bill that Congress CANNOT change or "improve" it.
This bill attempts to make these changes permanent.
This is written ..not to be a "foot in the door" but to be forever if they can get away with it.
I bet most of you have not even read the dang bill.
No, I am NOT going to go point it out for you...
Do your own dang homework.

[ProSense]

37. In case the critics missed it

bullshit opinions are not facts.

[winyanstaz]

39. then read the bill and get back to me..sheesh

[HughMoran]

51. Bye

Anybody who starts a phrase with 'cheerleader' or 'pom pom waiver' or similar is automatically put on ignore.

Learn to behave like you're at least 15 years old before posting.

Bye.

[boppers]

36. Is it too radical to...

Give away all of our nuclear weapons to our enemies?

Seize the bank accounts and property of everyone who has more than a million dollars?

Imprison doctors who refuse to see their patients for free?

Your argument about past progress made does not mean that all current ideas are reasonable, and not "too radical".

[Armstead]

41. Did I ever suggest that all radical ideas are good?

And I think you missed the irony in my use of the word radical.

[boppers]

43. You complained about the bar being set too high.

The bar is set at "what will make it through Congress". Anything more is too radical, by practical definition.

[WeDidIt]

38. I reject your assumptions

It's not so much what is "too radical" or "too liberal" for America to accept?

It's all a matter of what is "too radical" or "too liberal" for the Senate to accept?

The Senate is generally four to six years behind the rest of the nation.

[Armstead]

42. It was ultimately the Congres and the President who did many of those things listedf

yes it took awhile. But at various points someone in power had to take the bull byu the horns and say "dammit this is the right thing to do.. Let's get moving on this"

[Vidar]

44. K&R.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kaleva]

46. The debate isn't about the goals. It's about the process.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. A lot of the defenders of the Obama administration appear to have

consciously or unconsciously swallowed the major principles of Reaganism:

1. Government bad, private good

2. Poor people are lazy because they refuse to work for non-living wages; rich people won't work unless they're paid millions

3. Everything that is for the benefit of ordinary people is "too expensive"; while military expenditures don't count as adding to the deficit

4. This is a conservative country and anything that helps ordinary people is "too far left"--unless it's something that yuppies and yuppie wannabes can benefit from, too, like anti-discrimination laws.

[Kaleva]

49. I think you'd be hard pressed producing examples supporting your statements.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Huh, I've seen plenty of examples on DU:

A whole slew of people who are trying to convince us that making the American people hostage to the insurance industry is "one of the greatest pieces of legislation since the New Deal," and many of the same people also think that things like reducing the defense budget and spending it on human needs or having real health care reform are "too far left" and that only elephants in donkey jackets can win in rural areas, even as they support anti-discrimination, abortion rights, and gay rights. These two groups overlap A LOT, and they're the people a mod once warned me against accusing of being DLC operatives, so that's all I'll say on that subject.

[Kaleva]

53. We already were hostage to the insurance industry

I prefer a single payer system and have e-mailed and called my Senators and Representative asking them to support Bernie Sanders and John Conyers bills. However, I doubt that I'll ever see a single payer system implemented in my lifetime and I believe what will be passed by Congress will be a big improvement over what we have now and is a step in the right direction.

As for liberals representing rural areas, I can't think of one in Congress that does. Maybe there are but none come to mind.

[treestar]

50. It depends on the entire spectrum

For this country, some things are too radically left for most of the population, even if not for say, DU.

[saltpoint]

54. If you ask a Democratic Party chairperson in say, Indiana, she might

tell you that Evan Bayh is as liberal as it gets because _____________________.

In the blank goes the actual reason in response to your question. Indiana voters tossed out the more liberal Birch Bayh for Dan Quayle. While Obama carried Indiana by a close margin in 2008 the state's voting trend remains solidly red. Richard Lugar ran unopposed by any Democratic candidate in his last Senate race.