Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why Liberals Need Radicals
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/24-9The Nation has an interesting cover story this week by a young radical named Bhaskar Sunkara, an editor at In These Times and a founder of Jacobin, a new neo-Marxist magazine.
Sunkara's basic point is hard to argue with and it boils down to this: liberalism won't get far without a radical movement that presses for more fundamental change:
At the peak of the socialist movement, leftists fed off liberal victories. Radicals, in turn, have added coherence and punch to every key liberal struggle and advance of the past century. Such a mutually beneficial alliance could be in the works again.
One might add that the very existence of a worldwide socialist movement through much of the Twentieth Century deeply alarmed U.S. and other Western elites who embraced liberal welfare policies as a way to take the wind out of radical sails and "manage the poor." Norman Thomas received nearly a million votes when he ran for president in 1932. At the same time, he and other advocates of socialism could point to the industrial successes of the Soviet Union as a plausible alernative to capitalism. Overall, a vibrant radicalism made liberalism seem inherently more moderate -- the lesser of two evils on the left.
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
capitalist restoration DO leave tons to be desired for the people. I will defend the original October Revolution, but not what it became after Lenin died and then Trotsky's exile.
Bolshevik-Leninism IS a bottom up, (small "d"
democracy with the power residing in local workplace and neighborhood councils which elect immediately recallable representatives for local, state, regional, and national councils that would democratically plan a new system that benefits all and not just a few. It's a true bottom up, yet still organized, way of changing life for the majority of people for the better.
Unfortunately, since capitalism and the capitalists OWNS not only our economy, but also our political system, Marx's prescription for a revolutionary rather than a reformist change is the only thing that will bring this about.
It's true and the reason is that liberals have a vested interest in preserving the system itself. While socialists and, especially, communists want to change the system. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that a liberal would support a fascist that kept the system in place before they would support a communist that would overthrow the system and replace it with economic democracy.
Liberals are NOT the friend to radicals, ALTHOUGH they do in the current setup benefit from the changes forced by the radicals. They are given the credit for changes that they only reluctantly supported WHILE the struggle was ongoing. And indeed, not just reluctantly supported, but actually tried to slow. The liberal is the one saying, "We can't do too much, too quickly. It's too disruptive."
Personally, I'm a revolutionary. I bypass radical entirely. 
And I'm CERTAINLY not a liberal.
Now the tactics used to defend itself will change and morph and postmodernism is the latest tactic, but from a Marxist perspective, liberalism has ALWAYS been about supporting the system in the crunch of class struggle. SDS had a saying about liberals that I always look to:
The fascists will shoot you.
The conservatives will cheer them on.
Moderates will watch your execution on TV.
And the liberals will cry over your grave. In the dark, when no one's looking after turning you in to the fascists.
Liberals are not to be trusted in the heat of the class war. They can be occasional allies, but they are never to be relied on. The best thing about a liberal is that they occasionally make the change to radical or revolutionary.
BTW, what did you say about me on FB? Do I really want to know?
BTW, what did you say about me on FB? Do I really want to know?
Nothing-- I don't even have an account.
I was mimicking the pushy appeals of Facebook to underscore my point.
from the family.
Has THIS become "Radical"?
"
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can [font size=3]be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.---FDR, SOTU, 1944
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can [font size=3]be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.---FDR, SOTU, 1944
Is the above now "Radical",
because I can remember when these values were Mainstream/Center Democratic Party Values.
I can remember when voting FOR "The Democrat"
was voting FOR the above Values.
Sadly, this is no longer true,
and the "New Democrat Centrist Party" now occupies the spot on the Political Spectrum that was formerly reserved for Conservative Republicans.
So does THAT make the above values "Radical"?
At one time, I was a Mainstream-Center, FDR/LBJ Pro-Working Class, loyal Democrat.
Am I now a "Radical", or "Fringe Leftist" as some of our "Centrists" are fond of labeling me?
I haven't changed.
---bvar22
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
You will know them by their WORKS.
Has THIS become "Radical"?
"
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can [font size=3]be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.---FDR, SOTU, 1944
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can [font size=3]be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.---FDR, SOTU, 1944
Is the above now "Radical",
because I can remember when these values were Mainstream/Center Democratic Party Values.
I can remember when voting FOR "The Democrat"
was voting FOR the above Values.
Sadly, this is no longer true,
and the "New Democrat Centrist Party" now occupies the spot on the Political Spectrum that was formerly reserved for Conservative Republicans.
So does THAT make the above values "Radical"?
At one time, I was a Mainstream-Center, FDR/LBJ Pro-Working Class, loyal Democrat.
Am I now a "Radical", or "Fringe Leftist" as some of our "Centrists" are fond of labeling me?
I haven't changed.
---bvar22
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
You will know them by their WORKS.
what I would offer is the idea that 'radicals' are people advocating making change happen. As opposed to waiting for the Powers That Be to change what they do.
They will never do that and truth be told, if I was one of them I probably wouldn't either. I think Chairman Mao was correct when he said 'political power springs from the barrel of a gun '
Of course we know what that represents, and that is the fly in the ointment.
Therefore when people are labeled 'radical', left or right, it is implied there will be violence and destruction. And who wants that? 
From the OP link:
The American left remained strong into the mid-20th century amid historic conditions that were quite unique: the huge crises of the Great Depression and World War II, along with the apparent success of socialist experiments abroad. In turn, the radicalism of the 1960s reached a zenith amid some of the greatest internal conflict in America since the Civil War and the least popular foreign intervention in U.S. history.
The "American left" during the Great Depression:
While the New Deal did much to lessen the worst affects of the Great Depression, its measures were not sweeping enough to restore the nation to full employment. Critics of FDR's policies, on both the right and the left, use this fact as a reason to condemn it. Conservatives argue, for example, that it went too far, and brought too much government intervention in the economy, while those on the left argue that it did not go far enough, and that in order to be truly effective, the Roosevelt Administration should have engaged in a far more comprehensive program of direct federal aid to the poor and unemployed. But the New Deal's greatest achievements transcend mere economic statistics, for in a world where democracy was under siege, and the exponents of fascism and communism flourished, the New Deal offered hope and restored the faith of the American people in their representative institutions. It also transformed the federal government into an active instrument of social justice and established a network of laws and institutions designed to protect the American economy from the worst excesses of liberal capitalism.
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideasroosevelt-historyfdr/new-deal
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideasroosevelt-historyfdr/new-deal
<...>
http://books.google.com/books?id=vC5HJloBWugC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false
Occupy the SEC Sues Fed, SEC, OCC, CFTC, FDIC, Treasury Due To Failure To Implement Volcker Rule
by bobswern
Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (“OSEC”), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, “We don’t make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule,” we’re now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that “Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.”
First, here’s the link to Wednesday’s story, directly from the OSEC blog: “Occupy the SEC Sues Federal Reserve, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and U.S. Treasury Over Volcker Rule Delays.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190410/-Occupy-the-SEC-Sues-Fed-SEC-OCC-CFTC-FDIC-Treasury-Due-To-Failure-To-Implement-Volcker-Rule
by bobswern
Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (“OSEC”), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, “We don’t make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule,” we’re now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that “Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.”
First, here’s the link to Wednesday’s story, directly from the OSEC blog: “Occupy the SEC Sues Federal Reserve, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and U.S. Treasury Over Volcker Rule Delays.”
Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against six federal agencies, over those agencies’ delay in promulgating a Final Rulemaking in connection with the “Volcker Rule” (Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010).- more -
Congress passed the Volcker Rule in July 2010 in order to re-orient deposit-taking banks towards safe, traditional activities (like offering checking accounts and loans to individuals and businesses), and away from the speculative “proprietary” trading that has imperiled deposited funds as well as the global economy at large in recent years. Simply put, the Volcker Rule seeks to limit the ability of banks to gamble with the average person’s checking account, or with public money offered by the Federal Reserve.
Almost three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, these agencies have yet to finalize regulations implementing the Volcker Rule. Section 619(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act set a mandatory deadline for the finalization of the Volcker regulations. That deadline passed over a year. Despite this fact, the federal agencies charged with finalizing the Rule have yet to do so. In fact, senior officials at the agencies have indicated that they do not intend to finalize the Volcker Rule anytime soon.
The longer the agencies delay in finalizing the Rule, the longer that banks can continue to gamble with depositors’ money and virtually interest-free loans from the Federal Reserve’s discount window. The financial crisis of 2008 has taught us that the global economy can no longer tolerate such unrestrained speculative activity. Consequently, OSEC has filed a lawsuit against the agencies, seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief in the form of a court order compelling them to finalize the Volcker Rule within a timeframe specified by the court…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190410/-Occupy-the-SEC-Sues-Fed-SEC-OCC-CFTC-FDIC-Treasury-Due-To-Failure-To-Implement-Volcker-Rule
Occupy Movement Files Lawsuit Against Every Federal Regulator of Wall Street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022444086
Report: Wall Street’s Opposition to Dodd-Frank Reforms Echoes Its Resistance to New Deal Financial Safeguards
Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as ‘Exceedingly Dangerous,’ ‘Monstrous Systems’ That Would ‘Cripple’ the Economy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.
In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.
“The business community’s wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and author of the report. “If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.”
<...>
In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDIC’s authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.
- more -
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0
Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as ‘Exceedingly Dangerous,’ ‘Monstrous Systems’ That Would ‘Cripple’ the Economy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.
In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.
“The business community’s wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and author of the report. “If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.”
<...>
In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDIC’s authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.
- more -
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0
Constructive criticism is good. The hyperbole isn't new, but the ultimate goal of constructive criticism should be progress, even when it doesn't go far enough in the eyes of the critics, it's still progress. The forces for positive change should never join with those who seek to reverse or stand in the way of progress.
Elizabeth Warren Slams ‘Dangerous’ Legislation That Would Weaken Wall Street Reform
By Travis Waldron
A week after a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly approved a rollback of certain financial reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, one of the Senate’s biggest consumer advocates is pushing back.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) came out swinging against the repeal of new rules meant to regulate derivatives, the complex financial instruments that were at “the center of the storm” that caused the financial crisis. The rules shouldn’t be weakened or repealed just because big banks want to see them eliminated, Warren argued Thursday, The Hill reports:
One rule the package of legislation advanced by the House committee would eliminate is a “push out” provision that would limit derivatives trading at banks that receive federal backing. Similar to the Volcker Rule, another provision Wall Street largely opposes, it is aimed at making taxpayer-backed banks safer to avoid crises similar to the one that thrust the United States into a recession and led to a bailout of major banks in 2008.
Warren isn’t alone in her opposition to the rollback. The Obama administration has long opposed the repeal of the derivatives rules, and former Federal Deposit Insurance Commission chair Sheila Bair has said the swaps and derivatives rules need to be strengthened rather than weakened. Whether the rules will face a repeal vote in the Senate isn’t clear: the House passed similar legislation in 2012, only to see it die in the Senate without a vote.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/17/2029651/elizabeth-warren-slams-dangerous-legislation-that-would-weaken-wall-street-reform/
By Travis Waldron
A week after a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly approved a rollback of certain financial reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, one of the Senate’s biggest consumer advocates is pushing back.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) came out swinging against the repeal of new rules meant to regulate derivatives, the complex financial instruments that were at “the center of the storm” that caused the financial crisis. The rules shouldn’t be weakened or repealed just because big banks want to see them eliminated, Warren argued Thursday, The Hill reports:
“The big banks won some battles and lost some battles during the financial regulatory debate in 2009 and 2010, but their tune never changed and their lobbying never let up,” she said. “It is dangerous for Congress to amend the derivatives provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act without at the same time taking accompanying steps to strengthen reform and maintain the law’s equilibrium.”
One rule the package of legislation advanced by the House committee would eliminate is a “push out” provision that would limit derivatives trading at banks that receive federal backing. Similar to the Volcker Rule, another provision Wall Street largely opposes, it is aimed at making taxpayer-backed banks safer to avoid crises similar to the one that thrust the United States into a recession and led to a bailout of major banks in 2008.
Warren isn’t alone in her opposition to the rollback. The Obama administration has long opposed the repeal of the derivatives rules, and former Federal Deposit Insurance Commission chair Sheila Bair has said the swaps and derivatives rules need to be strengthened rather than weakened. Whether the rules will face a repeal vote in the Senate isn’t clear: the House passed similar legislation in 2012, only to see it die in the Senate without a vote.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/17/2029651/elizabeth-warren-slams-dangerous-legislation-that-would-weaken-wall-street-reform/
Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform
by Richard Kirsch
It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.
Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.
My enjoyment of the MLB playoffs last month was interrupted by ads run by Karl Rove’s Crossroads front group against upstate New York Rep. Scott Murphy, who was defeated last Tuesday. Rove’s ads rained accusations on Murphy, including the charge of a “government takeover of health care.” Some might have thought that once the public option was removed from the health care legislation, Republicans couldn’t make that charge. But it was never tied to the public option or any other specific reform. Republicans and their allies, following the advice of message guru Frank Luntz, were going to call whatever Democrats proposed a government takeover.
There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”
<...>
President Obama and Democrats in Congress understood the historical importance and profound moral underpinnings of the new health care law when they enacted it earlier this year. And they knew that the right-wing attack had soured the public in swing Congressional districts and states on reform. They stood up then. They will have to stand up again, understanding that if they give way to Republicans, they lose more than the expansion of health coverage. They lose the best opportunity in half a century to prove to Americans that government can be a force for the common good.
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/why-republicans-are-so-intent-killing-health-care-reform
by Richard Kirsch
It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.
Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.
My enjoyment of the MLB playoffs last month was interrupted by ads run by Karl Rove’s Crossroads front group against upstate New York Rep. Scott Murphy, who was defeated last Tuesday. Rove’s ads rained accusations on Murphy, including the charge of a “government takeover of health care.” Some might have thought that once the public option was removed from the health care legislation, Republicans couldn’t make that charge. But it was never tied to the public option or any other specific reform. Republicans and their allies, following the advice of message guru Frank Luntz, were going to call whatever Democrats proposed a government takeover.
There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”
<...>
President Obama and Democrats in Congress understood the historical importance and profound moral underpinnings of the new health care law when they enacted it earlier this year. And they knew that the right-wing attack had soured the public in swing Congressional districts and states on reform. They stood up then. They will have to stand up again, understanding that if they give way to Republicans, they lose more than the expansion of health coverage. They lose the best opportunity in half a century to prove to Americans that government can be a force for the common good.
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/why-republicans-are-so-intent-killing-health-care-reform
