David Sirota:The Long-Term Value of Insisting The Health Bill Is Not Enough

[andym]

David Sirota posts a very interesting opinion piece about why criticism from the left is essential.

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-long-term-value-of-in_b_398531.html
..........
In the short term, the progressive critique is creating the possibility that the final post-conference bill that is passed into law is as good as it can be under these awful political circumstances. And it is working - notice that Harry Reid's manager's amendment yesterday made some improvements.

In the long-term, the progressive critique today is helping to increase the chance that Congress will, in fact, revisit health care to make the improvements the bill's backers acknowledge will need to be made in the future. If there is no critique today, we will allow the idea to be baked into in the political discourse that this health care bill fixed everything and Congress doesn't need to touch health care again for a generation. But with the critique, we are laying down markers for what still needs to be improved. It's the dynamic we have, in the past, failed to create, as evidenced by this exchange between then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and President Bill Clinton, as recounted by OpenLeft's Chris Bowers:

I recently heard an interesting anecdote about the 1993 budget fight. While it is probably the most progressive piece of sizable legislation to pass into law in two decades, it was a grueling fight--passing both branches of Congress by a single vote--and it still could have been better. At the signing ceremony, President Clinton found then Representative Bernie Sanders, and told Sanders that he, Sanders, should have made a much bigger public display of how he, Clinton, wasn't giving enough to liberals in the new budget. Such a public display would have provided Clinton more room to maneuver on the left.

I've heard talk from folks that the super secret plan among congressional Democrats is to pass the current Senate bill into law and then after the Liebermans and Nelsons can't finagle with that bill, do a reconciliation vote on a public option or Medicare buy-in. This may, indeed, happen - but not because the congressional Democratic leadership will want to out of the goodness of its own heart. If power concedes nothing without demand, Democrats will only pursue that future course of action because there was such a furor over the failure to pass those measures in the original bill that they will feel forced to allow such a reconciliation vote.

So that gets back to the progressive strategy. If we are truly going to be a movement and not merely the arm of a political party, then progressives have to understand the different roles we all play. Politicians in Washington have one role - they are predisposed to try to get anything done no matter what it is. We have another role - and right now, our role should be to continue demanding improvements with as cutthroat and as intense the tactics that the insurance industry is using (and, I know some people differ with me on this, but my own opinion is that means working right now to kill the Senate version of this bill). Because if we don't demand those improvements and show we're really willing to play hardball now, those improvements will never be made....
---------------
Sirota makes some great points. read the whole article. The Clinton/Bernie Sanders anecdote is instructive.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Very interesting article! Thanks for posting.

So while the politicos play their games, we must remain gadflies and keep up the stinging and goading in order to get anything worthwhile done.

[still_one]

2. Dissent is essentially, and I agree, it will only improve the odds for an amendment to the bill

if it becomes law

[RainDog]

3. agreed n/t

[chill_wind]

4. Smart man, that progressive David Sirota.

"In other words, if you are a Democrat, wherever you come down on the "pass the Lieberman-gutted bill" or "don't pass the Lieberman-gutted bill" divide, it should be clear the fight we're having right now over the Lieberman-gutted Senate bill is a fight worth having not just for this particular bill. It's a fight worth having for the overall cause of genuine health care reform. The progressive movement backing the president and/or the Democrats because of party affiliation, falling in line out of some obligation to unity, and even using our limited resources to praise this bill as "a good step forward" fails to appreciate how a movement is different than a party or a set of politicians. It fails to maximize what movements need to do to make sure parties and politicians deliver the most they can in the short-term and follow through in the long-term.

Mind you, conservatives want to use right-wing arguments to make this bill as painful as possible to pass, so that Democrats never come back to health care again, and if they do, only to enact conservative (read: destructive) reforms. Progressives must fight that fire with our own fire - we have to use progressive arguments to make this bill as painful as possible to pass (if it does pass), so that Democrats feel forced to come back to health care again so as to make the health care system better.

The fight we're having may be unpleasant and uncomfortable. It may make politicians, pundits and the Professional Political Class angry (I've gotten my share of blowback, believe me). But it is a fight that increases the chances that health care is ultimately reformed, whether today or in the future."


K & R.

[KoKo]

5. Sirota makes some good points...if Snowe is going to fillibuster to slow Bill down...maybe

it's a good thing to do. Rushing this mess forward with a "Christmas Break" dealine reminds me of Iraq War hearings and Invasion and the "Pass Bank Bailouts..Because Whole World will Implode."

At some point we need to slow things down. Those who keep crying "Fire!!!" in a Crowded Theater" are like those who "CRY WOLF" too many times.

Let's slow it down. Maybe if we do we can get a Public Option and the Oversite/Regulation of the Health Insurers that Dr. Dean pointed out is lacking in the Senate Bill...and not enough in the House Bill.

The bill (as it comes from Senate) is such a give away to the Insurance Lobbyists...how can it be something that will help millions of Americans who are having problems or not even part of the Health Care System?

AND...Nothing takes effect until 2012 or '14 except Childrens Coverage which could have been expanded by Congress with SCHIP Inclusivity. The whole Bill is a Mess and a Give Away to Health Insurers and deals with Big Pharma.

Slow it down...work on it!

[mzmolly]

6. Absolutely, which makes me think Howard Dean's strong language is politically calculating.

Hell, perhaps he's even working WITH the White House? ;)

[Demeter]

7. Not a Chance

Howard Dean is working for us. the White House isn't.

Quixotic of Dean, but that's what I find so endearing.

[mzmolly]

9. Oh bologna.

The WH is working for us as well, and they're getting done what they can.

Dean said he's in regular contact with Axelrod. That said, I'm probably stretching it a bit to say that this is a joint effort.

[andym]

8. I doubt it, but Sirota argues that Dr. Dean's criticisms

are constructive in both the short and long term.

From the article:

" But what Dean and progressives are doing is actually increasing the chances that the final outcome will be better - both in the short term and the long term."

[mzmolly]

10. I fully agree on that. I just think that many don't get what Dean is trying

to accomplish (moderates and liberals alike). We need to dial it back a notch or two.

[CRH]

11. Two cents ...

Progressives should work to kill this bill, if possible, if offers very little and changes nothing in the current system that has resulted in this crisis.

With the same insurance and pharmaceutical masters, what will change, except for increasing government mandated subsidies paid by who? That's right, you.

The republicans have received nearly everything they have wanted while giving nothing, they have succeeded in stripping every part of the legislation the left has championed, by simply refusing their vote. They have muddied the waters with pro life causes that should have no bearing on a national health care policy or legislation. It is time progressives respond in kind, by refusing to support what is now, the republican and center rights's bill.

Kill the bill, make them come back to the table with real reform.

[andym]

12. I think Sirota would agree with you

What I like about his thinking is that there is a way for progressives to win, independent of whether it is possible to kill the bill.

[CRH]

13. Hope so, ...

I don't think Sirota would shed tears, if but one progressive refused to vote for cloture. 60 votes is 60 votes, it doesn't matter which side puts their foot in the door.

If Lieberman and Nelson can determined the final language, then so can Sanders. At this point the left has nothing to lose, all that is dear to them has already been gutted. I think their real victory would be bringing this turkey right back to the table, and not allow this holiday hurried strong arming to work. Because next this tactic will be used for climate legislation, financial reform, and whatever else they can tug to the right.

[andym]

14. Sirota: There's one caveat: the WH should not frame this as too "bold"

Basically, the white house shouldn't make exaggerated claims about the bill's progressive nature, because it weakens subsequent change.

From David Sirota in mondays blog post:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16618/are-progressives-special-interests-whove-prevented-health-care-reform-for-decades

"As I said in a post yesterday, fulfilling the short-term goal of making this final bill better and the long-term goal of forcing Congress to come back and fix whatever passes requires progressives to mount as much progressive opposition to this bill, so as to create political pressure for progressive reforms. But if this bill is successfully framed as some bold, populist taking-on-the-special-interests success, it will make that progressive political pressure harder to mount because the country will be led to believe we've already "stood up to the special interests" - when, in fact, if you apply the real definition of "special interests" (ie. corporate interests) and not the fake one (special interests=progressives), exactly the opposite happened."