House backers of public insurance option may yield

[divideetimpera]

as gomer would say, "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!"


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6788387.html


WASHINGTON — Two House Democrats who favor a government insurance plan, a central element of health care legislation passed in their chamber, acknowledged Sunday it might have to be sacrificed as negotiators work out a final agreement with the Senate.

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House and one who had appealed to President Barack Obama not to yield on the public plan, set out conditions for yielding himself.

Asked during rounds on the Sunday news shows whether he could vote for a final bill that does not embrace a public plan, Clyburn said: “Yes, sir, I can.”


.....

[Hannah Bell]

1. nice nick - why'd you choose it?

[divideetimpera]

5. it means divide and conquer

the 'father of the american constitution', james madison, wrote in a letter to jefferson that divide et impera was the way to rule america. In the federalist papers and in the notes on the constitutional convention, madison explained why he favored that strategy. He wrote that the primary goal of his new federal constitution and the federal govt it would create was to preserve wealth inequality and protect the "minority of the opulent" from the majority who wished to take the wealth of the rich aristocrats. Madison wrote that the federal constitution would divide and fragment the unity of the voters by creating more factions via enlarged voting districts. More factions meant less unity so that the majority could not unite and discover their common interest.

Divide et impera by creating factions to lower unity. THe large size of the voting districts (primarily the entire nation for the office of the president and the entire state for the senators) meant that the people would not be able to unite as they did under the articles of confederation, where the voting districts that elected politicians were much smaller. The new and much larger voting districts, madison wrote, would make it much harder for the people to unite and use their own govt against the wealthy.

They would be too divided by the large size of the district to do much to control their own govt. This is the founding principle of the federal union of the USA.

[Hannah Bell]

19. i know. i wondered why you chose it.

[divideetimpera]

35. you knew everything I wrote above?

I don't believe you did.

But as I wrote above, the divide et impera principle is the founding principle of the USA. I know that this is not common knowledge even among those that fancy themselves politically knowledgeable. I think more people should know about this principle. That is why I chose it as my username--to spread the word that divide et impera is the founding principle of the USA.

[Hannah Bell]

42. i knew the meaning & the madison reference. i think, however, your summary misrepresents

the documents somewhat.

[divideetimpera]

43. how so?

??

[Hannah Bell]

44. If then there must be different interests and parties in Society;

and a majority when united by a common interest or passion can not be restrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found in a republican Government, where the majority must ultimately decide, but that of giving such an extent to its sphere, that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit.

In a large Society, the people are broken into so many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a majority of the whole.

The same security seems requisite for the civil as for the religious rights of individuals.
If the same sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed.

Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles.

It must be observed however that this doctrine can only hold within a sphere of a mean extent. As in too small a sphere oppressive combinations may be too easily formed agst. the weaker party; so in too extensive a one, a defensive concert may be rendered too difficult against the oppression of those entrusted with the administration.

The great desideratum in Government is, so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to controul one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controuled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society.

In absolute monarchies, the Prince may be tolerably neutral towards different classes of his subjects, but may sacrifice the happiness of all to his personal ambition or avarice. In small republics, the sovereign will is controuled from such a sacrifice of the entire Society, but is not sufficiently neutral towards the parts composing it.

In the extended Republic of the United States, The General Government would hold a pretty even balance between the parties of particular States, and be at the same time sufficiently restrained by its dependence on the community, from betraying its general interests.

[divideetimpera]

45. OK, let's get it on, if you think you can handle it.

"and a majority when united by a common interest or passion can not be restrained from oppressing the minority"


And what was this minority that he was so interested in protecting from the desires of the majority? Oh, it was the "minority of the opulent." In other words, the rich aristocrats like madison, jefferson etc.

He stated that the primary purpose of his new constitution was to preserve wealth inequality. His words, not mine.


"what remedy can be found in a republican Government, where the majority must ultimately decide, but that of giving such an extent to its sphere, that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit. "


That is called DEMOCRACY. One man's poison is another man's T bone steak. What was happening under the articles of the confederation was that the states had started developing parliamentarian democracies, i.e., governments ruled essentially by a lower house, an assembly, wherein the members of that house were elected from small districts that therefore had few factions, and where the people were more likely to unite. And what happened? Well, under this new thing called DEMOCRACY the majority was passing laws for debt relief and progressive taxation. Oh, the horror! I guess your viewpoint is determined by who is getting gored. The rich aristocrats, like Elbridge Gerry, called it an "excess of democracy." The working class americans however called it democracy. Looks like you have chosen your side, And i have chosen mine.



"In a large Society, the people are broken into so many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a majority of the whole."

Exactly what I have been saying was the divide et impera tactic used by the rich founding fathers to thwart and disable democracy. You are making my argument for me. Thanks!


"The same security seems requisite for the civil as for the religious rights of individuals. "

Translation: Oh, my god, this new democracy thing means the majority working class is going to take away our wealth! We gotta do something! Let's try forming a federal govt where the voters are jammed into large districts that contain many factions so that they cannot unite against us and tax us.



"If the same sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed. "

Yeah, madison et al were really concerned about one sect in particular--the sect of the rich, e.g., madison, washington, hamilton etc. What a coinky-dink!




"Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles."


One man's "just principles" is another man's nightmare. The rich people like madisonn thought it would be "just" to thwart democracy by enlarging political districts so that the majority cold not "unite and discover their common interest."

There is more to it than just that, but one step at at time....




"The great desideratum in Government is, so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to controul one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controuled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society. "

Again, it depends on your point of view. In my viewpoint, the federal govt and its enlarged districts thwarts democracy and creates a power vacuum, which is filled by Big MOney. Witness the fact that all the other western nations (which are parliaments, with one exception) have national healthcare, while we, with our non parliamentarian govt, do not.

If you think you can get your teeth into this and want to actually understand this idea, google the phrases "woody holton" and "excess of democracy." Start there....

[Hannah Bell]

46. it may be that madison's concern was "the sect of the rich". but that's not what the letter says.

the context was the example of religion (read the previous section) & that's what "sect" refers to directly.

yes, all things depend on pov. but the words in the letter don't literally state what you're inferring, nor what you stated in your original summary.

my point was: you misrepresent the document as *literally* containing what you're *inferring*. it doesn't.

[divideetimpera]

47. more than one document

he specifically said that the primary goal of his governmental structure was to maintain wealth inequality. He specifically said that he intended to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." His words, not mine. There is more than one document. Google the phrases from above that I asked you to google. There is more to it than just what is written in this thread. The best document explaining this is something Dr Holton wrote that is now longer totally available on the net, unless you pay for it. I could email you a copy of it if you really want it. But it is really long. Best to first read the document written by holton that you can access by googling the two phrases I quoted for you above.

Basically, these things I have touched upon here were major political issues of the day over 200 years ago.


Read and learn.

[Hannah Bell]

48. i'm not interested in debating the whole of the founding documents

with you, as it's too wide a debate for this forum.

however, i think you also misinterpret the "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" somewhat as well.

Please note the arguments of other participants & the context:

"We are now to determine whether the republican form shall be the basis of our government. -I admit there is weight in the objection of the gentleman from South Carolina; but no plan can steer clear of objections...

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government?

In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."


He's not saying something quite so simple as you say. In the context he's talking about conflict between different kinds of wealth (e.g. land-based/agricultural v. manufacturing) & economic factions, not strictly about property v. propertylessness.

You might ask too, what he means by "an agrarian law". Tom Paine:

"Nothing could be more unjust than agrarian law in a country improved by cultivation; for though every man, as an inhabitant of the earth, is a joint proprietor of it in its natural state, it does not follow that he is a joint proprietor of cultivated earth. The additional value made by cultivation, after the system was admitted, became the property of those who did it, or who inherited it from them, or who purchased it. It had originally no owner.

While, therefore, I advocate the right, and interest myself in the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his."



The context isn't as simple as you make it.

[andym]

49. Thanks for posting Madison's letter

It is refreshing to read primary documents. My reading is that you are correct, and the letter does not connote the the protection of the "opulent" (which is not in this particular letter) so much as a far more sophisticated and general discussion of how to protect the political interests of various groups from each other.

Although some modern historians such as Woody Horton ascribe the inclusion of the "Bill of Rights," (and he is no doubt at least partially correct) as the natural effect of various farmers' rebellions, Madison did himself write them and the roots of justification for a bill of rights can be seen in the federalist letter you posted.

[divideetimpera]

50. LOL

you can lead a horse to water, etc.

[divideetimpera]

52. and right in the middle of what should be the ultimate teachable moment

DUers are all over this senatorial disemboweling of national healthcare. Yet you cannot see the senate for what it is.

Just as madison said it would do, the senate is what preserves wealth inequality. And it has done it again just a few days ago with HCR, and yet still DUers cannot see the fed govt for what it is--the ultimate tool of the rich. Right in front of your faces, too. Amazing.

So much for teachable moments.

What is really appalling and sad is your failure to observe the differences between american govt structure and every other western nation, all of which DO have national healthcare, and all of which DO have parliamentarian governments.


And now the rich have created the EU, modeled in part on the american federalist system, which has done wonders for the rich here in America, and which the european rich has exploited in europe. Already the EU is americanizing western europe to a degree. All happening right in front of your faces. You should be all over this. But you are not.

Where are the DUer analysts posting and comparing and contrasting our style of govt with theirs, and asking why the difference in outcomes and how the governmental structure explains it, as I have done here? Hmmm? Nowhere to be found. Which says a lot about political activists and their ability to really do anything original.

You political activists here on DU are all letting down america. You fail to do anything original, anything truly analytical. There are only just the barest shards of true analysis and originality here on DU and other activists sites. A shame....

[Hannah Bell]

53. there was a reaon i asked about your nick. your unwillingness to actually

engage with the texts & immediate resort to personal denigration leads me to think i wasn't far off base.

[divideetimpera]

54. And yet again my detractors refuse to address my points

I am not speaking now to my detractors, but just to some possible Reader, some possible DUer out there who might actually not have integrated into their being the pro-constitution religion that the rich have made a part of american culture.

Are you out there? I see glimmerings on this site from time to time that one or two of you DUers might have a clue. Just maybe.

I have laid out the basics for you in this thread. Take it, possible person, and run with it!

[Hannah Bell]

55. your detractors *have* addressed your points (which are not, as you imagine,

un-heard-of & radical, but simplistic boilerplate -- the founders were rich people who set up a government protective of their general interests -- duh.) -- with reference to the texts you claim to be expert on.

you haven't addressed theirs:

1. it's not quite as simple as you say.
2. you misrepresent the texts.
3. your tone is unnecessarily personally demeaning. no one attacked you.

[Hannah Bell]

51. btw, your tone is unnecessarily rude.

"If you think you can get your teeth into this and want to actually understand this idea"

"if you think you can handle it"

[derby378]

2. Now seeking primary challengers for James Clyburn...

:mad:

[liberal_at_heart]

6. +1

[WeDidIt]

8. Ridiculous. n/t

[Vinca]

3. So who was under the impression the citizens might get what they want?

Most of us can't write giant checks to campaigns.

[Frances]

7. Unfortunately, citizens are getting what they want

Michelle Bachman, for example, is very popular in her district

[divideetimpera]

9. polls show that american want single payer

so how is this new healthcare reform going to be what the people want? It is not.

[WeDidIt]

10. The polls that count say they don't

If they did, there would be a Senate with 60 votes to pass single payer.

[divideetimpera]

11. the people want it. period

but they are not getting it because the USA is not a democracy.

[WeDidIt]

14. No, the people do NOT want it

If they wanted it, there would be 60 Senators willing to vote for it.

The only polls that count happen every two years and it takes three cycle to get what you want. If the Americna people want single payer, we'll have sixty senators willing to vote for single payer in January of 2011, otherwise the American people DO NOT WANT IT!

[divideetimpera]

15. again, the USA is not a democracy

the people want it, but because america is not a democracy, the will of the people is mostly irrelevant.

[WeDidIt]

17. The people had their chance to get it over three election cycles

They chose not to.

[Hannah Bell]

20. the "people" didn't get their chance to choose jack shit. & contrary to your assertion, a

majority have favored single payer since fdr.

[WeDidIt]

22. If that was true, we would have it.

All it takes are 60 votes in the Senate.

If you can't figure that out, I can't help you.

[Hannah Bell]

24. "votes" = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

if you can't figure that out, can't help you.

[WeDidIt]

27. Bullshit

People don't give a shit about single payer, or else no matter how much money was spent on campaigns, it wouldn't mean shit.

[Hannah Bell]

31. wow. people don't give a shit about it, eh?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

whores. from the pols to their media people.

[WeDidIt]

36. Yes, people don't give a shit about it

Hell, half the eligible voters don't bother to vote, so yeah, people in this country just don't give a flying fuck.

[Hannah Bell]

38. whatever you say.

[divideetimpera]

33. america is not a democracy

....

[leftstreet]

12. Can you post a link to those?

[WeDidIt]

13. Sure

Read the Senate election results for the past three election cycles:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

When you get 60 Senators willing to pass single payer, then the only polls that count will say the Americna people want single payer.

[leftstreet]

16. No, the polls 'that count' saying Americans don't want single payer n/t

[WeDidIt]

18. There is one poll every other year that counts

Happens in November.

It's the election for federal offices.

Surely, you've heard of this.

[Hannah Bell]

21. which candidate was it who came out for single payer, favored by a majority of the public since fdr?

"polls that count" =

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


some, such as yourself, apparently believe that's ok.

[WeDidIt]

23. Again, you're full of shit,

If the public TRULY wanted single payer, it would have it.

Sixty Senators, that's all it takes.

[Hannah Bell]

26. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[WeDidIt]

28. Money doesn't mean shit if people gave a damn

PEople don't give a damn or else one candidate couls spend $10 on a campaign and the other spends $10,000,000 and the guy who spent $10 would still win because he promised what the people wanted.

The people just plain don't give a shit.

[Hannah Bell]

32. even the filing fee is more than $10. the guy with $10 won't win, because he won't even be known.

your post = full of stupid.

[WeDidIt]

39. Funny, when I ran for public office, the filing fee was $10

And I had a host of fora to participate in and get my name out that didn't cost me a dime.

I took a third of the vote, too.

[Hannah Bell]

41. did you run for congress? did the office you ran for have input into national health care policy?

right. pile of crap.

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/demorrep.shtml

TX: county surveyor: $75, US rep: $3175

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:gGbBJUbZZJwJ:www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/clerk/pdf/FILING%2520FEES.pdf+filing+fee+election&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTPr9tBZk7choMBFWCa3w3rXNRYQg

Siskyou County, california

County supervisor: $353, sheriff $1114

King county, wash:

A filing fee equal to 1% of the annual salary of the office at the time of filing shall accompany each Declaration of Candidacy for any office with an annual salary of more than $1,000. (Reference RCW 29A.24)

http://www.kingcounty.gov/elections/referenceresources/candidatefiling.aspx


your contention is stupid.

[Blue_In_AK]

30. Do you REALLY believe that the senators represent

the will of the majority of ordinary people when they have to bow to the giant corporations to even get their campaigns financed?

None of this will be solved until we have real campaign finance reform. Elections should be publicly funded. As long as corporate interests can buy our elected officials, the ordinary people will have NO voice.

[WeDidIt]

37. No, they represnet the will of the fringe that gets them elected

Most people don't give enough of a shit to even vote.

We have precisely the government and precisely the health care system we deserve collectively.

[mmonk]

29. And Republicans like Bush can get 51 to break the laws of the US,

put rightwingers in our court systems, get permanent tax cuts, medicare part D, etc.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. yeah there's a big shocker

I don't expect the democrats to fight for anything anymore except maybe their corporate lobbyists and their own re-election of course.

[laughingliberal]

25. At this point, sadly, talk of preserving the PO in conference is a distraction

Not saying we can't write in support of it but, right now, I would advise getting more active about preserving the funding mechanisms in the House version as well as their community ratings model. A fight over PO, at this point, will inevitably fail (and people think I'm not a pragmatist). Limiting the damage this bill does to working and middle class Americans will be best served now by laser focusing on pushing the House versions of funding and community rating. It is, indeed, conspicuous that this is not where the focus is right now. My belief is talk of preserving the PO is meant to distract us so the more corporate friendly parts of the Senate bill slip silently by and become law.

[SoCalDem]

34. Actually, at this point, Pelosi should pull a fast one, and just send the bill, as is, to Obama

The no-good-niks in the senate are counting on getting it punted back to them so they can spend the next many months trashing it, and eventually killing it..

She should call their bluff and just send it on....( of course in cauvus, she could also vow to keep tweaking it, once it's law.)

[thotzRthingz]

40. I saw that news article... but

Rep. James Clyburn does not speak for SIXTY House members who PLEDGED their unwavering support for a public option. Yes, some of those might flip, but we only need a handful to KILL any bill which does not include a public option. I think there are at least a half-dozen (if not many more than that) who would love for their NAME to go down in HISTORY as the primary reason that Health Care Reform, including a PUBLIC OPTION, was signed into law by President Obama.

...just my 2cents