The end of the Progressive wing

[zipplewrath]

It's dead. The progressive wing of the party is basically dead. At this point, the conclusion can only be that it is impossible to be a progressive and be effective in Washington. In order to participate in the system, one must accept that no real progressive reforms or initiatives will ultimately make it into law. You just have to stand around and decide how much to choose between the "lesser of two evils". People will campaign on our issues, but then they can and will completely switch sides, and if you try to hold them those issues, you'll be an "extremist".

Really, I mean look at this. The magnitude of the defection is hard to quantify. Across the board we are seeing issues, that the candidates campaigned upon, fall by the way side and any criticism is being met with the "unreasonable" response. NAFTA? DADT? This bill? Indefinite detentions? The Patriot Act? Torture Photos? They'll campaign against this stuff, but then they'll treat us like the GOP treats the social conservatives, just ask for more money and more time.

I feel for Dennis. In the end he was standing there with the choice of admitting that the game was over for him, or choosing to go along so that he could merely stay in the game. I'm reminded of the woman whose husband cheats over and over and she thinks one more face lift, one more good weekend, and it can "win him back". He'll get to continue to play, but only so that he can be asked to fail again.

I'm really out of options. There's a realignment coming, I suspect the democratic party will end up on the wrong side of it. But the GOP is a good 15 years away from being anything that a working class progressive could hope for. I've spent the last 16 years wondering when we were going to get back to basic progressive "great society" issues. It is pretty clear the answer is becoming, "not in my lifetime".

Go ahead. Try to make the case that anything that progressive are fighting for are wrong. Practically everything that people in the democratic party are proud of was at one time one of the "liberal fringe" ideas. We integrated the democratic party back when integration was a "bad" word. Progressives had guts back then to do what was "right" before it was politically expedient. Women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, the union movement, social security, medicare, medicaid, WIC, EPA, clean water, clean air, CAFE. We ended a god damn war for goodness sakes. Exactly what have this bunch of DLC loving folks accomplished that anyone will be proud of in 15 years. We spend most of our time running from Clinton's legacy, NAFTA, DADT, AND DOMA. Goodness knows his balanced budgets are gone. Heck, it used to be that the GOP passed OUR ideas. Nixon created the EPA. Now we pass their's and call them "progressive" ideas. The Patriot Act? Really? Telecom immunity? Really? Obama goes over to the CIA and tells the torturers he "has their backs" and that's a GOOD thing? MANDATES? Who was it that campaigned AGAINST mandates? And progressives are being unreasonable? Please.

[readmoreoften]

1. K&R

[aquart]

2. Fine. I'm a liberal myself.

Never could get anyone to give me a definition of "progressive" except for "too chickenshit to call myself a liberal now that conservatives say it's a bad word."

If you cave in on your own name, what won't you cave on?

[closeupready]

16. I agree with both the OP and you

"Progressive" is like "anti-gay" - a conservadem-approved substitute name for things which possess bold, unvarnished truths, and I don't really care to use them. 'Liberal' and 'homophobic' - those are the words, period.

Obviously, you can do what you want, but I feel we should try to find common ground with all people who share our spirit and values, rather than pick fights over small stuff like that.

Peace.

[zipplewrath]

20. Um, liberal post dates "progressive"

Liberal is more of a cultural word. Progressive is a political word. Liberalism came into vogue during the cultural revolution, as a term for left wing politics because the cultural liberals became politically active. Progressives have far longer been associated with politics and to a great degree economic politics. Progressives were supporters of unions and the working class in the 19th century. Their primary association with liberalism in the '50s and '60s was through labor union movements that provided an early avenue for minorities to jobs.

[Ignis]

22. Shh, history is an inconvenient sidenote. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. 'Liberalism' dates from 1819; 'progressivism' from 1855

'liberal' as an adjective relating to politics (meaning "favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy") was first used in English in 1801; 'progressive' ("advocating or working towards change or reform in society, esp. in political or religious matters") in 1830.

All from the OED.

[Ignis]

29. While true, that doesn't reflect the history of US usage.

Far be it from me to contradict the OED, though. :hide:

[billh58]

26. "Liberal" is more of

a New Deal word. Additionally, the Constitution of the United States of America was written based on the Liberal values of the day -- warts and all. American Liberalism has improved the US Constitution throughout its short history.

John F. Kennedy, a self-described liberal, defined a liberal as follows:

“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.

"Progressives," on the other hand, and for lack of a more clear definition of the concept, appear to lean more toward Socialism, pacifism, anti-Capitalism, conspiracy theories, and anti-All Things Government. Progressivism tends to be based on quixotic expectations of an instantly attainable Utopia.

American Liberalism is more pragmatic, and exists in this modern day basically to oppose neoconservatism in all of its ugly incarnations.

[aquart]

111. liberal from the ancient Sumerian libis/lipis

meaning HEART, CORE, ANGER, COURAGE, FAMILY.

Progressive is all Johnny Come Lately Latin.

[county worker]

32. Check out this speach from 1960 way before the cultural wars.

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

[ChiciB1]

83. You Can Also Harken Back To When Ronnie Ray-Guns Made Liberal

a dirty word! I have never backed down when it comes to how I define myself. I'm a Liberal who's willing to go along with Progressive ideas. I'm not stuck in the mud about having it "only" my way, but I DO feel that many Progressives are to the right of me!

When my father indoctrinated me into politics when I was around 11, the Democratic Party was a COMPLETELY different party! And we WERE PROUD DEMOCRATS!! I had bumper stickers on my car for many years saying exactly that. But as the years have gone by, people would take them off, or make nasty comments to me!

Now, I have only one on my car that says STUPIDITY SHOULD BE A CRIME & PUNISHMENT! Was just commenting on this last night!

Many of my fellow Liberal friends are feeling the same way as we do, but then we're BOOMERS! Now, for some, even being called a BOOMER is a bad thing!!

I COULD go on, but have an appointment! Good Post!
:toast:

[Hannah Bell]

105. unfortunately, it used to mean something a little different. i.e. free-trader.

[readmoreoften]

112. And it still does in many countries.

[Brickbat]

41. Marry me.

I've been saying the same thing for years.

[Javaman]

3. K&R nt

[Lerkfish]

4. happy to reccomend, plus you saved me from having to type all that

eloquent, and too true.

[Greyhound]

39. +01

[Marr]

5. I would agree. Your choice is between a fast descent and a slow one.

That's where we are right now. The system is so out of balance and corrupted that little else will be possible until the general population decides they've had enough, and starts really demanding improvements. And by "demanding", I don't mean voting out one corporate sell-out and replacing him with a new one. I also don't mean having a nice little parade.

Until people are willing to shut the system down, take the brunt of violence their government will dish out, and then repeat the process, nothing's going to change. And I don't think we're anywhere near that point, personally. We may never get there, in fact. The national character seems to be one of subservience and passive acceptance these days.

[Echo In Light]

9. +1

[bvar22]

6. THIS was the "Death Blow".

The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


For a while, I believed that Liberals would at least have a voice in the Obama White House.
When he said "All sides will have a seat at the table", I thought he was including "Liberals", but I was wrong.

There may be a good outcome.
This could catalyze the birth of a Party that represents Americans who Work for a Living.
Vacuums WILL be filled, and there in No Party representing the majority of Americans now.
Problem is, the sharks will keep feeding on the Carcass of the Working Class until we can get something up and running.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Wednesdays]

73. Sorry, wayyy OT, but when you said "vacuums will be filled"

I couldn't help but think,




:hide:

[PassingFair]

76. +1

I love the floating definition of "Progressives" around here.

:rofl:

A "Progressive", and I certainly identify as a Progressive,
is a Democrat who supports: Unions, Public Schools, National Health Care,
and works AGAINST Wars of Choice.

We are fighting against corporate-owned Democrats and all Republicans.

This speech pretty much woke me up and got me on my feet
as an "activist" within the party. I FELT this way, but
no one was saying it in PUBLIC. It's why I still support
DFA.

"What I Want To Know"

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/deansacramentospeech2003.mp3

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I gave up playing in the fixed "Where will you go?" game in 1968.

I vote issues not politicians or party. If politicians want my vote they have to earn it.

I'm a "lesser of two evils" Democrat who owes no fealty to the party. I will not "waste" my vote on people who don't, or won't, represent what I believe in.

[Mari333]

8. +1000000000000000

hell, today just showed me one thing . I was wrong to think I will still live in a democracy of any kind.

[Individualist]

31. ++

[CrispyQ]

43. The two party system is a facade to lull the People into believing that someone is fighting for them

No one is fighting for us. Our government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate state & does it's bidding.

When we vote for the 'lesser of two evils' we send the message that we are ok with our party shifting further & further to the right.

I'm done wasting my vote too.

[readmoreoften]

113. +1. The Democratic Party jumped the shark completely.

I'm even going to have a tough time voting for my local congresscritter--although he is definitely a lesser of two evils. I'll probably vote for him, unless someone is running to the left of him. Unless a third party offers a left candidate, I won't vote in the presidential election. Either way it'll be some new fresh hell.

[bigtree]

10. each of us work to advance our issues into action or law using the best vehicle available

. . . which, in our present system, is still the Democratic party.

[Lost4words]

63. no offense but, Have you been paying full attention lately?

[bigtree]

85. I'm 49 years old

I pay attention. Congress has NEVER been accommodating to progressives or liberals. If you have been paying attention to the voters, you would realize that the access and support progressives get in Congress reflects the attention and support progressives get from the general public. We are still challenged to keep pressing our agenda. It makes no sense at all to dwell on the negative reception from Congress to progressive initiatives - we need to double, triple our efforts and keep working to influence policy. I'm not much for a lot of despair, and I'm certainly not going to declare my chances in our political system dead. We may be faltering, but I still believe in our system of government enough to keep working. In that effort the Democratic party is the ONLY vehicle which affords any chance at all for our ideas and initiatives to be considered for advancement into action or law. When folks can point to another party which is in the position to positively affect policy for progressives, let me know. Right now, the Democratic party is the ONLY game in town, like it or not. No one says it's an easy prospect, but we have absolutely no chance at all in realizing our progressive potential if we are content to declare our chances dead without a fight.

[zipplewrath]

95. And what was the last progressive move?

I mean really, looking back over the last 40 years or so, what are the progressive advancements? Especially any that basically aren't just building upon the Great Society advancements of the '60s?

Welfare "reform"?
DADT?
NAFTA?
The Patriot Act?
DOMA?
Anything about the Supreme Court?
The Hyde amendment?
regressive direction of our tax code including capital gains taxes?
The DLC?
The destruction of the union movement and PATCO?
The privatization of profit and publicitization of risk?
"Free" market captialism in general?
The imperilization of our foreign policy? (okay, even LBJ was in on that).

I mean, it's been 40 years or so since medicare passed and THIS is how far we've come?

[Lost4words]

114. I'm 56 and I feel like I am trying to hitch a dead horse to a wagon.

The Democrats depend on us believing they are the only game in town, that we have nowhere else to go.

And I am totally angry that George W Bush was able to deliver for his base in a way that no Democratic administration has for their base since FDR, at a substantial cost to our nation. We are still in Ws phony fuc*ing war, and still no jobs, WTF.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. It is really killing me.

The Democratic Party has been my home for a whole lotta years, since 1979, and I have been a proud party loyalist.

But not anymore. :cry:

The Dems actions (and lack of actions) during the Bush years just broken my heart. To see it all continue and be amplified during the O year really makes me sick. :puke:

I am a proud LIBERAL and the Democratic Party has incresingly failed to represent me or my interests.

If this health insurance bill passes as is, and is not radically improved immediately, I am signing the papers to change my voter registration to Green or Social Democrat.

I will not allow myself to continue to be fucked over again by my own party.

[Lorien]

52. +1.

I won't be an enabler of the corporate elite, the military industrial complex, or the Theocrats.

[SandWalker1984]

90. You forgot the biggest group -- the Business Roundtable

One of Obama's most frequent guests at the White House has been the head of the Business Roundtable.

The group played a huge part in the framing of the pro-business, TARP for insurance corporations bill they have labeled health care reform.

Rahm and the DLC (Deceivers Loving Corporations) bunch have taken over the Democratic Party and thrown us under the bus.

[Lost4words]

64. it really is a feeling of betrayal

it mostly just hurts.

[msongs]

12. conservative democrat president + conservative control of congress. oh well nt

[kctim]

13. I don't get all this

are you saying you will take none because you are unwilling to share some? Like a person who refuses sirloin because they demanded ribeye?

[zipplewrath]

15. No, I refuse to call black, white.

He campaigned on Sirloin and now is advocating Veganism.

The real point is there is no "some" here. He isn't "meeting progressives halfway". He isn't meeting them at all. He is saying take it or leave it and if you leave it, you're "retarded".

On issue after issue it isn't "some", it is "opposite". There is no legislative issue here upon which the White House has taken the lead that can be considered "progressive" at all, and in fact is virtually the opposite. Congress has ultimately capiluated on every single progressive issue in the bill. Mandates? That's not "some" that's exactly what they campaigned AGAINST. No negotiation power for medicare part D? That's not "some" that's "opposite". Health INSURANCE reform instead of health CARE reform? That's not some at all. Progressives were asked to "give" on single payer (and arrested in congress) because of the political expediency of the "public option". Then they either gave up, or negotiated away, that fetaure last July.

[kctim]

24. He may not be meeting

progressives halfway, but the very existence of this type of bill is proof that your statement "he isn't meeting them at all," is false.

As progressives and most Democrats wanted, the issue of health care is being addressed. That right there shows that the White House has taken the lead on what some would consider to be a progressive idea. Ignoring it would have been what you call the 'opposite.'

Congress is made up of progressives AND Democrats. Those two sides must work together and reach a compromise before taking it to the next step. "Every single progressive issue" was NOT capitulated on, they were blended together with more moderate positions in order to get the votes to pass.

I agree with about the mandates. I think it was wrong to campaign against mandates and then have them end up in this bill.

No negotiation for Medicare, but there are rebates or something like that. That is compromise, not the opposite.

In my opinion, progressives are so pissed because an absolute progressive solution (a forced single-payer mandate or public option mandate) was not the end result. A result which is impossible in todays US.

[zipplewrath]

27. A 15 year old GOP bill is "meeting half way"?

That's an amazing bit of spin to claim that taking up a 15 year old GOP bill on health insurance reform is somehow "addressing health care". It's an INSURANCE reform bill. We could have had that kind of reform with BUSH for goodness sakes.

I'm not sure how you twist campaigning FOR drug price negotiation and then advocating AGAINST it, as well as pushing to prevent importation of drugs from Canada, as "compromise". That's FLIPPING for goodness sakes.

Every single progessive issue" was DROPPED from the bill. Every single one. In every single case it was REPLACED with something that was specifically intended to PREVENT the progressive idea. That's not "blending".

And your "opinion" flies in the face of the fact that progressives were "on board" with the compromise that we WOULDN'T do single payer, because we compromised and accepted a Public Option. We STAYED on board as the watered it down from 129 million folks to 6 million folks. That's hardly being pissed because an "absolute progressive solution" wasn't reached.

That's alot of spin ya got there to support your opinion.

[kctim]

34. It is spin to claim

reforming health insurance does not address health care in any way.

I did not say or 'twist' drug price negotiation. What I said was that they probably saw they did not have the support to get it so they went for rebates or something in order to help with prices. That is compromise.

I agree with you about campaigning on one thing and not doing it. Valid point.

Many claim the issue itself is a progressive issue and it has not been dropped. It, and the 'progressive issues' in it, were compromised on in order to get something done. Of course some were replaced or dropped, we can't all get everything. But to suggest it was all done in order to 'prevent' the progressive idea is to deny the probability that they stood no chance at all.

You did not accept a public option mandate as a compromise to a single payer mandate because a single payer mandate was never an option. Thats not spin, thats the reality.

[zipplewrath]

35. That's how it was presented

"You did not accept a public option mandate as a compromise to a single payer mandate because a single payer mandate was never an option."

That's how it was sold to the progressives. We may have been duped, but that's EXACTLY how it was sold to us to gain our support.

And they did not " they did not have the support to get it", Rahm sold it to Big Pharma as part of a deal to get them to come on board. That was back in FEBRUARY when the first started. It wasn't compromise, it was capitulation on the very first day. This is something they campaigned upon.

Mandated health insurance is not a progressive issue. That's what this bill is. Progressives wanted health care ACCESS. This bill DOES NOT address that at all. You can have insurance, required to have insurance, and you still have no right to health CARE. That is not spin, that's a FACT of this legislation.

[kctim]

40. Really? Wow.

I NEVER heard single payer being sold as a viable option. I am not a progressive and I will admit I may just not have heard it that way.

No matter what Rahm said or did, the fact of the matter is that the American people are not yet willing to embrace a single payer mandate, so it was never a real option. The time will come, but it is not now.

A single payer mandate that covers everybody is a progressive idea and is no different than insurance.
Everybody already has ACCESS to health care and this bill is purported to address the costs of the bumbling way we do it now.

This is not about whether health care is a right or not. Right now, we have a right to have ACCESS to health care and yes, that means we use the ER, qualify for a govt program or pay for it ourselves. Right or wrong, like it or not, that is how it is and its not going to change any time soon. So you are correct, a fact of this legislation is that it does not make health care a right through a single payer mandate as you desire and yes, that means it was a progressive idea that was dropped from the very beginning.

[zipplewrath]

58. This bill does not extend your right to ACCESS

Be very careful here. Nothing in this bill enhances anyones right to access to healthcare. You'll have no more right to access after this is passed than before. You'll have a requirement to have health insurance, but no one is particularly required to accept that insurance. No one is required to charge ONLY what the insurance pays. The bill does not particularly subsidize co-pays, deductibles or uncovered expenses. There are current laws compelling certain providers to offer medical services without ensurance of compensation.

That actually is ANOTHER failing of this bill. It leaves this important issue completely "off the table". This bill does not particularly address the fundamental right to access to health CARE.

[zipplewrath]

36. And now we get this

"The brand name prescription drug lobby PhRMA has been holding back on further support for health care reform until they are sure the final reconciliation package is still to the liking of the drug industry. The announcement that PhRMA plans to drop $6 million in a final round of pro-reform ads is a good indication that they received strong assurances that their secret deals with the Obama administration will be protected. "

But no, it's a progressive bill. That's why Big Pharma opposes it so.... Oh, wait....

[kctim]

65. I did not say

it was a progressive bill. What I said was that some consider this type of health care reform a progressive issue and that this bill has morphed into what it is, in order to pass because the progressive solution would not pass.

[zipplewrath]

67. It did not "morph"

You can't dump perscription drug negotiations on day 1 and call that "morphing". You can't dump the public option in July and call that "morphing". You can't arrest single payer advocates to prevent them from getting into the room and call that "morphing".

The president himself said he "rejected" progressive ideas. That's not morphing and that's not "addressing progressive issues". You can't make rejection be cooperation.

He is rejecting the progressives. He is declaring them "retarded". There is nothing about that which suggests that he is interested in progressive issues AT ALL.

[sabrina 1]

103. They had the support that matters most of all

And if the support of the American People is not what drives them, then who IS driving them? Are they not Representatives of the People? That's what I thought they were.

The bill was written to find ways to save the failing (profits only) Health Insurance Industry. Everything that was a threat to the profits of that industry, expanded Medicare, a Public Option, Drug Inportation, The States' having the right to institute their own Single Payer system, was ripped out of the bill as quickly as possible.
No discussions, just gone. Dorgan wasn't even informed by the WH about the removal of his amendment.

And no meetings with liberal groups to even hear their opinions. They were excluded completely from the process and worse, told to STFU about it. To ignore these blatant actions and try to argue that the American People were ever considered in the writing of this bill, is hard to understand.

Yes, they threw in a few things that look 'good', but in every case, it is the Insurance Corps that stand to profit the most, even from those few crumbs. Such as subsidies. Even if they were going to work perfectly, those subsidies, OUR tax dollars, will now be funneled to the same corrupt industry that is the main cause of our problems. And out of those donations from the tax-payers, the corrupt industry will continue to use as much of them as possible for profit rather than health care. With so many loopholes in the bill, and so many experts at scamming the system on their payroll, they will use OUR money to find ways to take as much advantage as possible of those loopholes.

Fines? Who gets that money? And the cheap policies that those who are just above the line to make them eligilbe for subsidies, will have huge co-pays and deductibles which will continue the problem of people not seeking care when they need it. More profits for the Insurance Corps and still no care when it is needed for those with cheap coverage. It is discriminatory to not provide equal health care to all Americans. And this from the Democratic Party?

If the subsidies came directly from a Medicare-like system, only about 3% of them would to to overhead. Why are they going throught these corrupt middlemen?

This is a continuation of the discriminatory, immoral for-profit system that sets this country apart, and not in a good way, from every other civilized country in the world. There is simply no defending it imo. At least not for a real Democrat.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. ROMNEYCARE on steroids is "meeting progressives halfway"?

Ah, the tyranny of low expectations.

Sigh, we don't really have registration by party in Minnesota, and we have a couple of decent Dems, and our Greens are an ill-assorted mess of stealth Republicans (since a Republican can't get elected dog catcher in Minneapolis), but I feel as if I don't have a political home, or even a tent in the backyard.

[Lorien]

50. You aren't alone Lydia. I don't know where to go from here

I truly believed after the last election-at least for a little while-that Obama would unite us all and usher in a new "decade of the Democrats". That all the bad BushCo policies would be swept away and that we would have a new beginning as a Nation. I never could have imagined being in the place we are today. It's utterly heartbreaking. Knowing that so few in office are on our side gives me little hope for our future. Will we just fade away with a whimper? I hope not. We have to continue to fight the corporate takeover and organize on the grassroots level in whatever way we can.

[Lost4words]

61. smoke and mirrors IMO, we have phony wars also! nt

[Raineyb]

19. Share?

I hope you're not talking about about the monstrosity that's in the process of passing. The only people being forced to "share" are the poor snooks on the bottom. The insurance companies aren't "sharing" a damn thing.

[Dragonfli]

14. The End of the progressive wing (they no longer represent us either it seems) and

The end of any working class pro-human party.

There is no where left to even try, the worst betrayal of all was the progressive caucus.
I knew Obama was a corporate puppet, but if our so called representatives had stuck together and not joined him, they could have been a check on the more grievous sell-outs to the already rich that are now allowed to steal even the pennies from our eyes.

They betrayed us, all of them

Every damn one of them.

There is nothing left for us but open rebellion, perhaps I shall see some of you there, but my health is fading fast, and I may not be there for the quixotic last try, however doomed to failure it will be.

I would have liked to go out fighting even if the battle is already lost.

[Mari333]

17. hugs. huge hugs.

[krabigirl]

18. Obama is just Clinton, part 2, without the kickass economy.

[Lost4words]

62. yup, hell its almost Ws third term, rather than BC II

phony wars torture, rendition, job less recovery, I am so sick of all of this I could pull my hair out!

[HughBeaumont]

21. I asked earlier what we would be more likely to see in our lifetimes:

a. A female President
b. A Hispanic President
c. A progressive President
d. A or B

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. true, but the actual liberal/progressive wing pretty much came to an end in the 1970's

Sure there has been significant moves toward social-liberalism since then on issues like gay rights, womens rights, pro-choice and other issues that are not directly economic or foreign policy related issues.

But when it comes to economics - any major move or campaign within the Democratic Party for major and sweeping public initiatives that would mean real change in the New Deal or Great Society sense - the Democratic Party pretty much abandoned that by the late 1970's. Even 26 years ago by the time Walter Mondale, who had a background as a strong liberal New Dealer, became the Democratic nominee, if one actually took a look at his specific proposals and the specific proposals of the Democratic platform by that time - the Democratic Party and even most old liberals had already essentially abandoned the New Deal and Great Society tradition of public initiatives and sweeping reform in favor of highly watered down public initiative mixed with private, "market incentive" approaches.

Both parties can pretty much say, "we are all Reaganites now" - and have been able to say so at least since that dark, dark night in November of 1980.

By some strange "coincidence" the wealth gap and social-economic stratification of American society has also highly increased since then.

[zipplewrath]

30. Yes, I'm slow

Looking back, one can clearly see. When the "Reagan democrats" rose up, it was the beginning of the end. Some of us lived on thinking it was a temporary diversion. When Clinton got into office, we slowly began to realize we had been screwed by the DLC, but thought it was a temporary shift. Gore was a very sore spot in 2000. But really, I'm wondering now just how far right he might have shifted after 9/11 seeing how the Obama has confirmed so much of what they did.

In our defense, they literally had to kill us off. I do wonder, if Bobby had lived, if Martin were alive, if Jack hadn't been murdered, where would liberal/progressivism be today? They literally murdered our "movement". Think of where the right would be today if Reagan/Newt/Robertson had all been assasinated. I'm not advocating that they should have, but imagine the impact on the right to have lost those leaders at those times.

[CrispyQ]

44. A very thought provoking post.

They literally murdered our "movement". Think of where the right would be today if Reagan/Newt/Robertson had all been assasinated. I'm not advocating that they should have, but imagine the impact on the right to have lost those leaders at those times.

Indeed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. personally I think it has a lot to do with the increased power of capital

Following the removal of the dollar from the Brentwood agreement in 1971, American economy and much of the world economy shifted from being production oriented and labor intensive to speculative oriented. Enormous amounts of fast money was being made hand over fist; first on currency speculation, then land speculation and then speculating on the stock market, commodities and everything and any anything - including the whole new world of derivatives which largely changed the stock market into one huge casino. Although there were a number of vast fortunes made by many lucky individuals - the over all effect on society lead to a very raw and ruthless form of capitalism and less sense of community.

"When I was a boy" even most Republicans - even those who were defined as conservative -at least believed in principle with the idea that those who genuinely cannot help themselves should be provided some assistance at public expense. It is hard to imagine now, but the school lunch program and the food stamp program was largely written with the help of Bob Dole and George McGovern working together to produce the legislation.

Sometime in the 1970's with this new economy taking shape, this consensus of at least some sense of community responsibility fell apart and was largely replaced with a worldview that market capitalism alone will solve all of societies ills. Although the Republicans embraced most enthusiastically, this new from of capitalism and the belief that raw capitalism would correct societies ills - the Democrats went along with this world view as well - offering only weak resistance to the power of almost unrestricted and speculative oriented capitalism. After all many, probably most Democratic politicians and professional operatives were also people who benefited in financial terms from this developing new economy in which making money was the one absolute moral principle.

To a large degree, I believe political ideology that puts complete faith in "market based solutions" and "economic initiative" are largely a cynical justification given that the purity of the free market is quickly discarded when it conflicts with more fast money. Still largely this sophistry followed an economic process that was already well under way. The claims of this ideology simply dominates both political parties - albeit to a more extreme level in the GOP. On domestic economic matters, Richard Nixon would be denounced as a socialist by current Republican Party standards. The so-called "moderate Democrats" are simply filling the political space once held by the Nixon/Ford Republicans - although on economic matters, the so-called moderates are probably slightly to the right of Nixon/Ford Republicans.

[KharmaTrain]

33. Then There's A Need To Elect More Progressives

The way you get leverage at the table is by numbers. Not 50 or 100, but 150 or 200...and definitely not by walking away cause you didn't get what you wanted.

Politics is a messy business...always has been, always will be. People have tried to beat the system from outside and gone down in flame. Beating from within takes learning not only to play the game but become a master of it. Progressives aren't there yet...thus the need to elect and support those who hold progressive values and build up power from within...and with the power comes the change.

[CrispyQ]

45. The game is rigged. They own the voting machines.

And the dems have been strangely quiet on this critical issue.

Hmmmm...

[DCBob]

37. You can work towards progressive goals but still be willing to compromise...

when the full goal is unattainable. I really dont get this all or nothing attitude from some progressives. That seldom works in US politics... especially now.

[zipplewrath]

59. Be honest, we get nothing

I could handle compromise. There's no compromise here. It isn't compromise to pass 15 year old GOP ideas. DADT was signed by a DEMOCRAT. Gitmo is still open because of democrats. Really, the whole point of the orignal post, and of many responses, is that this is not a sudden occurance. There's been no "progressivism" in the democratic party since LBJ. Some of us have been hanging around waiting for it's appearance, but it has never arrived.

[whatchamacallit]

38. It means nothing to be a democrat these days

Just the flip-side of a bad penny.

[freddie mertz]

42. This is terribly sad, but also undeniably true.

I do not know where my political home will be in the future.

But I know where it will NOT be now.

An utter tragedy.

[Mithreal]

46. The President is positioning the party to fill the gap created by the Republican party?

There is a re-alignment coming of that I have no doubt.

There are ways to restore the Republican brand but I doubt they will choose those paths.

The Party currently known as Republican is really the Batshit Crazy Party. We all know it. They are incapable of restoring themselves to their former glory, you know, pre-Nixon.

When all the refugees came over to our side, we greeted them with open arms, that's sorta the kind of people we are. But we didn't ask them to change, we instead allowed them to change us, even welcomed it and found every excuse and rationalization for abandoning principles if some of us had even ever had them.

When the Republican Party is truly dead, that re-alignment will probably occur naturally and I can't help but think Rahm and his ilk worry that it might happen prematurely at least for them.

I know, these are crazy thoughts I think late at night best kept to myself until I can fully justify.

[CrispyQ]

72. I don't think your thoughts are crazy at all.

I agree completely that what's going to happen is that the sane, true conservatives will realize they cannot win by aligning themselves with the batshit crazy wing of their party. There will be only one viable place for them to go - the democratic party, which has shifted so far to the right that it won't really be that difficult for the old time conservatives to do. Liberals will either have to splinter off & form their own party or we will be left with no representation - not unlike it is today.

Your statement:

When all the refugees came over to our side, we greeted them with open arms, that's sorta the kind of people we are. But we didn't ask them to change, we instead allowed them to change us, even welcomed it and found every excuse and rationalization for abandoning principles if some of us had even ever had them.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: I have not abandoned the Democratic Party - it has abandoned me. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do in 2010 & 2012, but I do know the 'lesser of two evils' argument has no wieght with me anymore. Everytime we fall for that & vote them in based on that, they shift even further to the right.

[newspeak]

81. I think you hit it!!!

More so-called moderate Republicans have been moving to the DLC side of the house. After all, they have more in common, especially their ideas on little regulation for business (pro-corporate) and privatizing. Remember the Whig party went bye-bye--if the Republican Party disappears or becomes too batshite crazy, then the Democratic Party becomes a strong vehicle for corporate rule. If more and more people become too disillusioned in regards to the stripping of civil liberties, labor, and more fekking by the corporations, will a new party emerge?

[troubledamerican]

48. I'm done

When you can't count on Dennis, it's over.

[amborin]

49. sad truth for now, but not

permanent necessarily

progressives believed O's empty rhetoric; next time, we'll be more careful before supporting a candidate

the DLC twisted everyone's arm, including Dennis's; he was emotionally blackmailed and made into a public spectacle, disgusting;

[Lord Helmet]

51. Speak for yourself -- My money is on Kucinich + Sanders.

Both Kucinich and Sanders have pledged to continue the fight, and they now will have a bill that is amenable to changes through the reconciliation process over and over for as long as it takes.

[grahamhgreen]

53. Awesome

[Ean Juan]

54. Masterful post, thanks n/t

[warm regards]

56. Nothing is dead. It's just that nothing can get done in the current political environment.

Nothing worthwhile anyway.

[leveymg]

57. Progressives aren't dead. Nor is the Right-wing. The Two-Party System just died. Maybe that's good

It's really the Right and Left wings of the populist movement against the Corporate Centrists, anyway. So, let's make it official. Split both parties. The Rethugs already have their TEA which is organized enough to primary and win the GOP slate in some races.

Really, enough of being the battered spouse. Let's divorce Bubba Blue Dog. He's been an unfaithful, lying son of a bitch and doesn't bring home the bacon. Just lipstick on his collar from screwing around with Big Pharma. Fuck him.

[PassingFair]

60. I'm not giving up. The take-down of Joe Lieberman was a warning shot.

The PTB in DC managed to override the wishes of
rank and file Democrats in Connecticut and keep
the bastard installed, but the PEOPLE crow-barred
him out of the party.

There will be primaries. Stupak's race will be
one to watch. I predict that he won't run for
re-election once he sees what he's up against.

We have always known that we would have a battle
on our hands once wrested control from the Puglicans.
I'll put my money on people like Schakowsky and Grayson
and Feingold over the Vichy dems and Blue Dogs any day.

We have to demand it, or it won't happen.

[zipplewrath]

68. After 50 years, I don't see the point of the fight

I mean really, we haven't had a progressive democratic party since LBJ. That was basically 50 years ago. About the only way I see out is for a major realignment of the two parties.

[PassingFair]

69. Everything we do keeps the pressure on the ruling classes.

We really have no choice but to keep fighting the good fight.
It's the only thing that keeps that "moral arc" trending towards
justice.

[sybylla]

71. And giving up will get you what you want?

Jeezy Creezy. Everyone around here bitches about politicians not having a spine and then when something happens they don't like they fold up like a squid.

[zipplewrath]

75. It's not folding

It's facing reality. I'm not going to just "keep doing what I've been doing". After 50 years, one has to begin to realize that what you're doing isn't working.

[JohnnyBoots]

66. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated....

[sybylla]

70. Yeah, cuz all us progressives are magically going away.

It's not the healthcare bill I wanted, but I want a god damned healthcare bill. I'm not sitting around crying in my diaper cuz life ain't what I wanted. I plan to work my tail off in this year's elections so that all the changes we'd like to see might just happen.

[zipplewrath]

78. Unlike the past 4 decades?

So your plan is going to be to keep doing what you've been doing so you can get more people who will publicly claim to reject your ideas, and implement 15 year old GOP ideas? How's that plan be working so far? I want a health care bill too. However, I want one in more than name only. I want a health CARE bill, not a Health Insurance Industry Stimulus Package.

[tomp]

91. you wear diapers?

try leaving out the insults.

[Common Sense Party]

74. Perhaps the Progressive wing needs to learn to communicate more

persuasively.

You have to win people over to your way of thinking; you can't just assume that your ideas are so wonderful that moderates, conservatives, or anyone else will just jump on board.

Don't ask me how. That's what the Progressive wing needs to figure out.

[zipplewrath]

77. 87% support a public option

How much more persuasive do I need to be?

[Common Sense Party]

79. Depends on which poll you use.

About 50% don't want to pay for a public option in some polls.

[GreenArrow]

80. Deader 'n a doornail.

The party is run by corporatist creeps.

[pundaint]

82. Gawd, a pissing contest as to whether we're Liberal or Progressive! We are toast.

The only label that's appropriate is Loser - if we return anybody to office because of party affiliation and not voting pattern. We need a revolution, the People have lost control of their government. WE need to fire government. I believe that it is more important to replace the old guard more than it is to have any brand in power. More votes behind this Republican president wont make anything better for any People. Take action, vote Congress out - nothing will change if we don't change it.

[ProSense]

84. Complete fallacy.

Progressives kept this bill alive despite those Democrats who sided with the RW.

Women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, the union movement, social security, medicare, medicaid, WIC, EPA, clean water, clean air, CAFE.

The progressives of today who denounce the health care bill as a step forward would have voted down those bills, claiming they didn't go far enough.

• Civil Rights Act of 1964
  
  
• National Voting Rights Act of 1965
  
  
• Civil Rights Act of 1968
  
  
• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
  
  
• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

Kill the bill? The health care bill is a huge step forward: non-profit plan, state single payer, end to rescission, expand Medicaid, etc.

[zipplewrath]

93. This is NOT a huge step forward

Obama himself stated it was a collection of 15 year old GOP ideas. Those ideas were created by Dole and Baker to BLOCK real health CARE reform. This plan will do exactly that.

[ProSense]

100. Nonsense.

Expanding Medicaid, changing the MLR, lifetime spending caps, subsidies, funding Medicare, etc. are not "15 year old GOP ideas"

[zipplewrath]

101. yes, they are

Obama himself tried to tell you so. This is very similar to a proposal that Dole and Baker put together 15 years ago as an effort to BLOCK Clinton's health care reform. Obama stood in front of the cameras and the GOP and said as much.

[ProSense]

102. No, they are not. n/t

[zipplewrath]

104. So Obama lied to the GOP?

It was in all the papers. I'm surprised the GOP didn't pick up on that.

[ProSense]

106. Is that question supposed to change the fact that

the measures mentioned have nothing to do with old "GOP" ideas?

Nothing!

[zipplewrath]

107. It is suppose to suggest that your claim is false.

You're claiming this isn't a collection of old GOP ideas and Obama is claiming the opposite. Who am I to believe?

[Mari333]

86. Obama does not want us anyway....

he has made that pretty clear now.

okie dokie. come November, I will be relaxin jackson.

[mdmc]

87. I'm a liberal and know full well that our wing of the party has been dead

for like 30 years or so..

[branders seine]

88. this is no country for liberals.

this will be a larger version of Mexico soon.

[TheFarseer]

89. We should just merge he parties at this rate

and call it the "Corporate Party" There are a few good people left, but the party in general has totally abandoned us and the GOP has been gone for years. Here's what kills me about the Democrats - They're not doing anything that I can tell to get our manufacturing jobs back or at least keeping any more from leaving, but they keep unemployment benefits going forever so not as mnay people will notice. People don't want damned unemployment benefits!! They want a damn job!!! I know it's easier said than done to get the jobs back but we're not even trying! Christ sake, Reagan has a better record on this. At least he signed into law the quota system that prompted Japanese car manufacturers to manufacture cars here in the states. We need to get our sh*t together and soon.

[Bluebear]

92. Truly, it would save a lot of time and energy.

[treestar]

94. Nothing like that is ever dead.

Exaggeration fail.

[zipplewrath]

96. You'd prefer coma?

Are you arguing against the hyperbole, or the underlying fact?

[rbilick]

97. Response to Progressive demise...

Being that this is my first post and have read and responded over the years, I just want to add my opinion this issue.
First, I consider myself a progressive. I will never give up that belief and goal.
Secondly, After reviewing the health care reform (really an insurance reform) of fixing our situation, I don't believe that it is possible to attain the ultimate goal of single payer out of the box.
Medicare has seen a number of revisions over the years and will continue to be revised for the better.
Trying to look at this from a realistic goal passing the current Health care overall is a start and should be passed. The next step should be to push for a single payer option. Why give up on your goals and be discouraged when in the long term you might be able to see that accomplishment realized in the next few years?

[Fire1]

98. Then we better get somebody in there who has the wealth and

can't be bought.

[skeptical cynic]

99. I see a bigger difference between the progressive and

conservative wings of the Democratic Party than between the Democratic and Republican parties themselves.

I don't know if the the people in the Democratic Party moved to the Right over the past few decades, or if the party has been polluted by former Republicans looking for a refuge as their own party went insane, or maybe both, but the end result is that the Democratic Party is no longer an comfortable place for progressives.

It's time we cut ourselves loose from the militarism and free market ideologies that have polluted the party and find someplace else to reside politically. I've been an Independent for some time now, but I'm thinking that registering as Green might help create the alternative to the status quo that this country so badly needs. There is no progress possible with the two status quo parties running things. There will be no progress until their choke-hold is loosened. Voting "pragmatically" for the lesser of two evils just guarantees some form of evil will continue. Choosing between the two parties is like deciding whether to let yourself be bit by a rabid pit bull or a rabid chihuahua--it might seem different in the short-term, but the long-term result is the same.

I won't be voting for a Republican in 2010. But I also don't see myself supporting a party that no longer represents me. I don't understand how anyone can support a party that has sold itself to corporate interests and still call themselves a "democratic voter." I'll be sticking to my principles and seeking a candidate that shares them.

The Democratic Party believes it no longer needs progressives. I don't believe that hubris reflects reality in a time when where elections and legislation are decided by such small margins, but let's let the party test that belief in 2010 and 2012. If it works for them, then we can go our separate ways. If it doesn't, let's see what they have to offer to get us back.

Our vote is the only power we have. If it's cast solely on the basis of party loyalty, then we'll get more of what we've had: illegal wars; extra-judicial assassinations; loss of civil liberties; pseudo-reform; and all the other stuff that makes the Clinton/Bush/Obama Era seem like one homogeneous nightmare.

(BTW: Progressive is the opposite of Conservative; liberal is the opposite of fascist.)

[zipplewrath]

108. Structure demands 2 parties

Multiple parties don't work in our system. Our system forces everyone into one or the other parties, which is how Bloomberg and Arnold are in the GOP.

Re-alignment however does occur. Going through history, you'll find a long line of switches where the parties seem to swap roles. But it is really more of a case of each side reforming around a new collection of coalitions.

Lately, the "Rockefeller republicans" have been drifting into the demmocratic party. Alternately, the "Reagan Democrats" have been shifting back and forth between the two.
A major shift is coming, I'm just not sure who's going to land where.

[skeptical cynic]

109. The two-party system evolved

Past parties either evolved or went extinct.

There's nothing but political inertia to prevent they system from evolving further.

Evolution is a response to the environment. If the mood and conversations at my local "liberal" coffee shop are any indication, the environment is changing. Rather than a gradual evolution, something akin to a political asteroid impact might be in the making. I believe 2010 is going to be painful for the Democratic Party. They've alienated a constituency that, in their hubris, they claim not to need. They're about to test that claim.

But, at this point in time, the only major shift I see, in the absence of that "political asteroid" (e.g. a progressive backlash, and massive civil disobedience by the growing peasant class when they have little left to lose), or maybe because of it, is a fusion of the two parties that reflects their common and unifying allegiance to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

I admit, this is just a bit of speculating and, where the political asteroid is concerned, wishful thinking. The future is hard to predict.

[Kltpzyxm]

110. Not dead

bt certainly on life support.

Keep fighting against those enabling the status quo.

:hippie: