StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) Because the people have been convinced that deficits are what is causing the stagnant economy. They've been convinced of that because both parties have agreed, said so repeatedly and constantly for 6 months, and because virtually no public figure has stood up and said that the deficit is the only thing keeping us from falling back into recession. Exactly. By validating the Republicans' view that the deficit is our problem, they've cemented the idea that the stimulus was ineffective at best or even detrimental and undermined any future potential for another stimulus. Adopting conservative policy narratives and then working to make them slightly less conservative than the Tea Party would like doesn't exactly warrant a lot of support from liberals. Which is all my original point was: there's good reason to be disaffected right now.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) Yes, this deal will probably hurt the recession, not as much as default, however. But my point is that narrative stood less of a chance if liberals didn't repeatedly remove themselves out of the process. What did you think was going to happen when they didn't vote in 2010, at all, and a wave of "the debt will kill us all" came in? Liberals don't organize unless they are in the minority, but they'll only put in enough work to get into the majority and then stop doing ANYTHING worth a damn. Obama and Congressional Dems could not be giant cowards* and actually fight back against the rhetoric, thus getting their liberal base re-charged? Anything but "adopt far-right economic views and promote contractionary policies in the midst of a terrible recession that's way, way worse than we originally thought?" How, exactly, is that supposed to get the liberals out there and supporting their Democrats? *They're a bunch of neoliberals who actually embrace this policy which is a stronger reason not to vote for them than 'republicans made them do it!' or blaming liberals for failing to force Democrats to enact good policy that are ostensibly party planks.

The easy counter-point here is still "look at the Republicans." Tea Party doesn't represent a majority of Americans. Most Americans want entitlements left alone and want taxes raised on the wealthy/corporations. Even if the Democrats mysteriously have to adopt Republican economic views that say government deficits are stalling our economy and advocate for them often and loudly, why do they need to advocate for a plan that's farther to the right of the general public?

DADT was dead judicially either way. DOMA could likewise be doomed and we're to the point of Republicans passing gay marriage laws. These are victories that are in line with liberal policy, sure, but they're mostly moderate or centrist victories as a majority of the country supports them. You seem to be framing it as "anything not right-wing" is good enough. Politicians can explain why Republicans are wrong instead of adopting their viewpoints and working to come up with bad policy to implement terrible ideology. People were more concerned about jobs, but Democrats never pushed back on the framing. ACA is likely the only major healthcare reform we'll get for decades, and it's largely a pro-private insurance patchwork. Yes, there are benefits here. Yes, Obama's been better than McCain-Palin would have been, undoubtedly. But he's still been a bad President for liberal policy. If anything, liberal economic policy has only been damaged by him. His foreign policy has been a disaster; his record on civil rights in this area worse. When do you say "enough" and stop supporting Democrats just because they're not Republicans?

Well, if the best reason you can give a liberal or a leftist to vote for Democrats who don't hold any of their principles is "they're not Republicans (but they'll adopt their narratives and pass conservative legislation with little or no fight)," then I won't buy what you're selling.

I posted this elsewhere but it fits here nicely: If Obama doesn't cave, he'll take a beating politically. If he did that, there's no way he wins next year and that means we'll have a Republican in the White House. Can you imagine that?! Think of all the spending cuts they'll enact! They might even muster up enough strength to threaten Medicare or Medicaid! And there's no way they'd let the Bush tax cuts expire! And they certainly wouldn't have ended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or closed Guantanamo, and who knows how many Muslim countries they'd be bombing right now.

Also this from Glenn In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals' beliefs or how much they squawk, because we'll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That's the Democratic Party's core calculation: from "hope" in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November. Democrats do not give a s*** about their base. They take them for granted. Continuing to vote for them just because they're not Republicans only reinforces this behavior. Challenge them in primaries, and if the more liberal candidate doesn't win, don't vote for the conservative Democrat.

You just keep conceding that all political discourse in this country can only be framed in conservative narratives and that it's a-ok for Obama to continually adopt those narratives. Every time he does that, he reaffirms the validity of their economic views instead of challenging it. The flip side to that, which is my position now, is that Obama's just another neoliberal. He's not challenging them because he really does accept the way they frame policy. He fully supports an austerity package. http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/08/email-to-john-cole.html

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) Because he knew it had no chance of passing? Why waste the political capital by pissing off moderate dems? It would legitimize it as a valid viewpoint in healthcare discourse. Republicans always propose far-right ideas that make center-right ideas look centrist or moderate in comparison. When nobody argues for single-payer, then public exchanges get held up as an idea of crazy far-left socialist Marxists.

Obama actually laid out general policy guidelines in the summer of 2009 for HCR, and it notably did not include single-payer. He could have promoted that idea then. Why not?

You really don't think there's anything more that Obama could have done to press a liberal agenda? edit: "Obama sits on sidelines, gets s*** 'compromise' from conservatives" is kinda the story of his presidency. edit2: Obama actually laid out general policy guidelines in the summer of 2009 for HCR, and it notably did not include single-payer. He could have promoted that idea then. Why not? Are democrats incapable of seeing Republicans succeed repeatedly in pulling discourse to their viewpoints?

Why did Obama immediately rule out single-payer? Even if it's not a current possibility, there's still value in pushing for these positions, value you recognize yourself. It's something that Republicans are immensely more skilled at, and it's unrelated to their current insanity tactics.

Debt Deal Relief Rally!

It's reflecting the slew of terrible economic data lately.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 09:03 AM) And that's still more specific than a "Universal" system. Ok, then he never made the case for single-payer or nationalized health care. Instead he want straight to private insurance mandates.

Britain's a fully-nationalized health care system. That's different than a single-payer insurance system, like Canada.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) But he started with universal healthcare and ended up coming back to the middle, "pulling" his position more to the left than what the country wanted, which was no additional government coverage. He never started with universal healthcare. Single-payer was off the table from the very start of the debate.

owns.

"in the future, a routine operation to deal with a stupid procedural functionality will be used as hostage against selling the country out to our s*** agenda" this is probably the worst outcome.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 06:42 PM) Your killing me smalls!!!!!!! Does what he's saying about market spreads (there's several more posts by him in the past several days on the same issue if you're at all curious) make sense?

Krugman's been saying to keep an eye on Italy, too!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:53 PM) I'd also add that while I find your guys' view interesting, seems to me you're ignoring the part where the majority of the country considers itself moderate. To a certain extent Obama HAS to be moderate to gain reelection. A small minority of people want the government to be progressive, a small minority wants the country to be ubber conservative. In reality the vast majority want business as usual with little to know change in their personal lives. I've not said it explicitly but the problem there (from my perspective) is that lack of advocacy for a liberal position. I'm no political science expert, but I generally accept the theory behind the Overton Window. When Obama immediately caves to the conservative economic narrative, it means the entire mainstream political discourse in the country gets shifted to the right. Since this is already a center-right country, it only makes it that much harder to make a case against austerity packages or for universal healthcare or any other liberal positions that have been thrown under the bus by Obama.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/d...my-falters.html

Funny how all of a sudden the media is noticing that austerity budgets in the middle of a stalled recession are actually a bad thing. Too bad they never bothered to press politicians on this over the last two months.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) Why is "The deficit is causing unemployment" an easier argument to make than "We need to hire people to do stuff!" People are only worried about the deficit because both parties have come together and agreed that it is the problem that is causing unemployment and needs to be dealt with. Until this deficit hysteria started, no one was worried about the deficit, nor should they have been...they were worried about being jobless. People are more than willing to make the 2nd argument...it just gets consigned to the sidelines. Unless the person with the bully pulpit makes it, no one listens. Exactly. There was no reason that the Democrats had to instantly adopt the rhetorical positions of the Republicans. If neither party will push back again the "ZOMG deficits! CUT CUT CUT!" hysteria (or insert any other liberal positions Democrats refused to advocate), how on earth are you supposed to organize a legitimate liberal primary challenge?