Joe Conason: What Democrats must at last learn from the GOP

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/16/change/index.html


What Democrats must at last learn from the GOP

Republicans complain about process, but scorn bipartisan niceties. Democrats should push back with equal force

By Joe Conason


The most troubling aspect of "deemed to have passed" -- the oddball procedure that the House Democratic leadership is considering as an alternative to the normal rules in passing healthcare reform -- is that it gives the Republicans something else to talk about aside from the bill itself and the issues it is designed to address. From the beginning, subtraction by distraction -- whether framed as "death panels" or "backroom deals" -- has been the fundamental Republican strategy. Rarely have the Democrats answered with the forceful scorn that was appropriate.

snip//

The will to stand and fight is the fundamental difference between the parties, which the current struggle over healthcare may yet begin to bring into closer balance. At the moment, too many elected Democrats pay too much heed to David Brooks and the editorial page editors of the Washington Post, whose chief purpose in life is to oppose their interests and objectives. Democrats constantly worry that they won't seem sufficiently "bipartisan" and "responsible" if they employ the legislative and procedural tactics required to achieve their aims and enforce majority rule. Democrats are afraid to look bad.

Republicans think David Brooks is a wuss, to put it politely, but at least he is their wuss. Republicans openly proclaim that bipartisanship is merely another cynical ploy, only to be used and then discarded in their quest to "defeat the left" -- a quest that to them has always meant dismantling the progressive achievements of the past century via permanent one-party rule. Republicans rarely worry whether they look bad to anyone beyond their narrow ideological base.

It's a style that can lead to excess and often does. But the Democrats may at last get something done this week by emulating it. And they may be surprised by the respect they earn from the public -- and from their adversaries -- by standing up with strength for what they claim to believe most deeply.

[Uncle Joe]

1. I disagree with Conason's take on this.

Standing up with strength for what they claim to believe most deeply about is about actually fighting for the substance of their issues, not the style in obtaining a Trojan Horse shell of that issue.

I believe if the Democratic Party passionately advocated for an issue on it's logical, moral and economic merits, the American People would understand and respect that kind of strength, but emulating the Republicans in substance or style will only alienate the people.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.

[babylonsister]

2. Conason is trying to say that Dems need to stand up

for what they believe in but don't do so, or haven't been. That's been fairly evident to me, at least with some of them.

I'd welcome some passion from them, from the gut, fighting for what they believe in, without considering the consequences 'because' they felt they were doing the right thing.

We need more of that.

[CTyankee]

3. I get what you are saying but so many of us are conflicted!

We can't just stand up and cheer for anything. We are appalled at the watering down of this bill, even tho many of us see its merits (albeit not very strong). One cannot feel passion if the passion part has been totally eliminated...

This is really, really hard for me...try to understand...

[babylonsister]

4. I meant Dems who actually have a vote but who are hemming and

hawing about how to vote. We all know it's not perfect, but we also know it can be improved upon, and it's better than nothing, as someone so eloquently put it. And then there's this, from an historical perspective...



Dem Leaders To Rank And File: Public Was Closely Divided On Medicare, Too!


Dem leaders have a message for nervous rank and file Dems: The public was also closely divided on whether to pass Medicare in the 1960s. And now look at how much the public loves it!

In an effort to stiffen Dem spines, senior Dem leadership aides are circulating among House Dems some polling numbers from the 1960s that underscore how controversial Medicare was in the months leading up to its historic passage.

Dem leadership staff is highlighting a series of numbers from 1962 on President John F. Kennedy’s proposal. In July of that year, a Gallup poll found 28% in favor, 24% viewing it unfavorably, and a sizable 33% with no opinion on it — showing an evenly divided public.

A month later, after JFK’s proposal went down, an Opinion Research Corporation poll found 44 percent said it should have been passed, while 37% supported its defeat — also showing an evenly divided public.

Also in that poll, a majority, 54%, said it was a serious problem that “government medical insurance for the aged would be a big step toward socialized medicine.”

After Lyndon Johnson was elected, a Harris poll found only a minority, 46%, supported a Federal plan to extend health care to the aged. Today, of course, Medicare is overwhelmingly popular.

more...

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/dem-leaders-to-rank-and-file-public-was-closely-divided-on-medicare-too/

[Uncle Joe]

5. I agree with you and after rereading Conason much of what he says, but take this paragraph for

example.

"Scarborough also asked, perhaps sincerely, why the insurance companies haven't run their own "Harry and Louise" campaign to kill this bill if they actually hate it and don't secretly see it as a subsidy to them. The answer is that Frank Luntz warned last year against raising the industry's profile in a debate where they are the entities most despised by the public -- and that they have instead run their campaign against reform through other corporate outfits, notably the mammoth U.S. Chamber of Commerce.)"

The most despised industry gets 31 million captured customers, without at least having a strong public option, when Medicare for everyone would have been the most logical, economical and moral choice, I can't square that with strength whether it's pushed through reconciliation or not.

[babylonsister]

6. I won't argue the HC bill with you, because there are a lot of things

in there that could have and should have been stronger. But we need something; if this is what we get, and can build on it, I'm all for it. If it's not passed, how many years will go by before it will be viable? Who would attempt it after this past brutal year? Surely not the rethugs.

I wish the wishy-washy Dems would get a clue instead of impeding any kind of progress.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. K&R!