Off with their heads!
July 28, 2009
Well, we done it. We have a place to live. The Boulder rental market heated up, and we were like Kramer on Seinfeld trying to find a seat on the subway. We ended up in Southwest Boulder in a house across from Veile Lake. It’s an older house, not what we wanted, but the market forced us to take it. It’s a beautiful view out the front window, there is lots of open space and many trails nearby. It’s a block away from the recreation center, and of course, it’s Boulder – lots of bikes, dogs, coffee shops, latte liberals and Prius’s. God I’m happy.
While here I’ve been dealing with the two extremes of our narrow, narrow philosophical spectrum – Budge at Electric City Weblog, and Jay at Left in the West. Each presents us with a failing in the American political system.
Budge presents as an intellectual, and puts forth a philosophy that is libertarian/capitalist/objectivist/WTF, and that simply does not work in in this uncooperative world. He thinks that because he works with, and not against, our failings as humans, that his path naturally leads to the best outcomes. If many don’t get to participate in the abundance our planet yields, it cannot be helped. Failure produces desire and makes a body work harder, and we all benefit. Eventually.
So he looks around at fifty million uninsured, and thinks that it’s all going to work out in the end, and in the meantime, it’s government’s fault for interfering with the market. We are just around the corner and the market is this close to delivering our goods. Last week he presented some YouTubes from the 1980’s showing us that blacks were well on the road to equality before LBJ messed them up. They were this close. Soon he’ll be telling us that Venezuelans were this close to solving their poverty problems until Hugo Chavez stepped in.
It’s a special kind of philosophy that he shares with Professor Natelson. They can’t be wrong. There’s no evidence out there that says they are wrong (or right). Whenever the world goes wrong, it’s the goddam government at fault.
Can’t win that one.
Then there’s Jay – anyone who knows me knows that I have a shorter fuse with Democrats than any other creatures. He’s in the process of doing two very important things right now: Rationalizing Max Baucus’s giveaway to the health care to the insurance companies, and Jon Tester’s giveaway of our few remaining roadless lands to the loggers. In each case he supposes that a process that yields less than we want is better than no process at all. Democratic leadership are, after all, leaders who live in a practical world, versus us lefties who are not willing to compromise.
He gives away the store, and then tells us that we are being obtuse when we won’t settle. Where Budge is grounded in an extreme philosophy that cannot be tested, Jay is lost in no philosophy at all, and deals with the frustration of a weak two-party system by internalizing the ineffectiveness of the Democrats as the best we can do in this imperfect world.
He lacks passion. Budge is passionate. Last night, I was pissed at both of them. This morning I wish them on each other. Maybe the middle ground between them is what they both might call “the left”. That’s us illogical passionate do-gooders who wont’ settle, who see the real world and yet want more and better, We are willing to butt heads with power to get it, have no respect for obtuse philosophies or weak panderers and quislings.
If the best that Montana Democrats can offer is Max Baucus, if the best our free market insurance system can yield is fifty milion uninsured and 25 million underinsured, then both Stevens and Budge are staring in the face of utter failure. Better to be passionate, to want more and better, than to be either of them.
Off with their heads!
Note: Jay has expressed strong dissatisfaction at the Senate Finance Committee (Baucus) this morning. But what did he expect? If he is surprised and disappointed, I can only wonder about his lack of incredulity.
July 28, 2009 at 9:54 am
At politicalcompass.org there’s another way of looking at it.
July 28, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Blame it on the Bluedogs.
Everyone else is.
July 28, 2009 at 9:16 pm
As maxine waters reminded us today, the blue dogs were recruited by rahm Emmanuel. This is no accident .
July 28, 2009 at 9:26 pm
“The chickens have come home to roost”.
July 28, 2009 at 10:43 pm
More like the urban chickens went next door to drop guano and instead were eaten by the “He’s never done that before weimeraner at large” the two college students got from the pound last week.
Sort of a Bozeman “chickens have come home to roost” homily, yet still apropos to the subject.
July 28, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Hm, I’m sort of wondering how you came to feel this way about LiTW and me specifically. I mean, I went back and re-read a bunch of posts I had written about health care, and saw that pretty much in every one, I said reform wasn’t worth doing unless we had a robust public option available to all, all spiced with healthy doses of crit for Baucus. Sure, I actually contemplate his proposals and discuss the actual proposals being bandied about…but…you know, isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?
The only explanation I can come up with to explain why you’re so p*ssed is that I’m not writing explicitly nasty things about Baucus — or more specifically, I’m not using the same exact words you are to describe him.
Honestly, that’s a weak basis for anger. It’s kind of weird, too.
July 29, 2009 at 8:13 pm
You’re milquetoast. You don’t stand for anything. You don’t fight for what you say you believe in. You’ll let people like Tester and Baucus walk all over you, and still support them.
You’re a Democrat.
July 29, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Seriously. Come on, answer the question. We essentially agree on the principles and the desired outcome. What’s the deal? What is it? Seriously, I can’t figure it out. Is it because I don’t get angry when you call me names?
I don’t know what to say other than your one-note rant isn’t very insulting. It’s really not very accurate either, certainly not if you take about 5 seconds to think about it. But, hey, if you’re into this particular fantasy, go for it.
July 29, 2009 at 9:05 pm
The key to American politics is the two-party system, where Republicans advance a right wing agenda and Democrats cover their backs. When issues like this come to the fore, the role of Democrats is to make sure that nothing comes of it. That’s what Baucus is doing.
For that reason, Democrats are the problem. We can’t get anything done becuase of you and
allmost of the other Democrats. It’s not Republicans that stop us. It’s you.The best advice I’ve had regarding you and Matt is that you are very young and think that politics is what it appears to be. You think that you can get what you want from politicians by playing nicey with them.
So the advice I am given is the same as raising kids – let them fail. It’s the best way to learn. Maybe in 2012 we’ll both be supporting Nader. We who supported him were all Democrats at one time. We’re in recovery.
July 29, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Single-payer is the solution. It’s not that hard to say unless you happen to know what the heck “public option” means. At this moment in time, it has no specific meaning, except we all know what it is not: single-payer.
July 29, 2009 at 7:36 pm
It’s unnerving – they took single payer off the table to limit our choices, to herd us into two options so they could ambush us at the pass. It’s coming, I’m sure. Whatever they mean by public option, I don’t see much of an option. If it were, the insurance companies would not stand for it.
July 29, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Here’s what I don’t get from a lot of single-payer advocates who climb all over the public option. Essentially you’d get the same thing from a strong public option open to all as you’d get from a single payer system. So…why all the fuss?
BTW, mr t, the insurance companies don’t like the public option at all. That’s why (a) the House bill introduced gives only a fraction of Americans access to it, and (b) it appears the Senate Finance Committee gang of six are going to excise it from their bill.
See, here’s a chance to show you’re “principled.” Here’s a chance to show you really! got! the! fight! To stick it to the man! by supporting the public option (Wyden’s bill?).
So…what are you doing about it? I mean, besides being sh*tty to people.
July 29, 2009 at 8:53 pm
You talk as if I don’t already get this – like I don’t understand the concept of a public option or haven’t followed the politics. That’s why drives me nuts – it’s this “whoosh!” as things go by you. You’re not getting this. As ladybug reminds you, what we mean by public option and what they have planned for us are probably two different things.
What they want to do, where you have to be very careful, is to be clear on what you mean – that we all have a choice between a private insurance policy and a government-issued policy. Not a co-op, not something delayed till later, not something designed to avoid price competition or something like MCHA, where we have to be turned down by private insurance companies before we qualify. Rahm has floated trial balloons trying to dump the P.O., without success. But that just drove him underground. (Rahm, in case you haven’t noticed, is a right winger.) The Finance committee did drop it. The Health Committee, with Sherrod Brown aboard, is leaning towards something truly more public. There’s hope, but it is slim.
It’s important to understand that Obama’s words are not as important as Emmanuel’s actions. That’s where the rubber meets the road. Words mean nothing – he’s soothing you. That’s all.
What the House does is not important. They will have their balls cut off in conference. Our only hope there is that the 70-80 people in the Progressive Caucus can stick together and stop a bad bill.
Maybe this is why I get so frustrated – we “single payer advocates” are miles ahead of you, and you act like we don’t get politics.
You are in grave danger of losing everything, and don’t seem to see it.
Please stop referring to us as “single payer advocates”, as if we don’t know the politics, don’t know what is feasible, and are stuck on a dime. That’s not it at all. It’s just that we know politicians, especially Democrats, better than you. We see things that for unknown reasons are in your blind spot.