More Condescending Words on the Essence of American Politics

I wanted to continue the discussion that began with this post by me and was continued by Ballgame and others over at Ian Welsh's site.  In sum, I concurred with Nathan Newman's view that Obama has done a great deal to further the liberal cause over the last ten months, others suggested that I was a delusional sell out or worse.  

I am writing further not to settle scores (well not entirely) but because I think that this is an incredibly important issue and one that is cosmic in its implications.  I was pretty amazed at the quickness with which some of my fellow lefties are writing off Obama -- some, of course, had written him off in advance, so I guess they are feeling that peculiar form of schadenfreude that has been our specialty for oh, the last forty years or so.   To these folks there is not a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Bush, one is simply a corporate whore with darker skin and smoother rhetoric.  Hope lies only in the prospect that Obama will bring such disaster upon us that the 98% of people who are getting screwed over by Wall Street will wake up, join hands together, sing a chorus of the Internationale, hang the board of directors at Goldman, and proclaim the workers' state.  Being a tepid, incrementalist cynic, I guess I'm not holding my breath -- that and maybe the fact that I've dealt with working class white people every day of my 25-year professional life and have a pretty good sense of how ready they are to man the barricades. 

The question I keep raising with those who are advocating writing off Obama and the Democrats generally is what then?  How do we then go about creating a country where the things we putatively care about can be achieved.  The response to this is that I'm a deluded sell out if I think any of this can be done with Obama.  Okay, I respond -- and how are you going to make it happen?  Well, everything needs to crash and burn and then we will have our moment.  (I always enjoy tragedy being turned into an abstraction.)  Or, well we can work locally on progressive issues and bring about change one step at a time.  Or we can use primary challenges and third party insurgencies to make the Democrats see the error of their ways, with heaven on earth soon to follow. 

These responses demonstrate a kind of self-deluded onanism on an impressive scale, one that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics and power work in the United States.

The U.S. is the very opposite of a parliamentary democracy.  The dispersal of power among the President, the two legislative branches, and the federal judiciary makes any grand programmatic approach to change difficult under the  best of circumstances.  The Senate, where a disciplined minority, representing a small fraction of the country's population, can thwart almost any initiative, is an enormous structural obstacle to progressive change.  Only in circumstances when we have achieved super majorities in that body, from 1932-38 and 1964-66, have liberals been able to push through the defining programs of our limited social democracy.  It is a bit odious to say that we need to not only re-elect the Blanche Lincolns and Ben Nelsons of the world, but that we need a few more (not to mention some pretty decent folks like Paul Hodes, Lee Fisher or Jennifer Brunner, and Robin Carnahan), but it's true.  Third party challenges or insurgent primary campaigns from the left -- a popular suggestion from my true blue brothers -- would be completely self-defeating in states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, Indiana, and Montana, the sources of our dilemma.  (We could imitate the tea baggers success in NY-23.)

Well then -- we can always think purely and act locally.  The only problem with this strategy is that it ignores the essential fact that truly meaningful social democratic policies like universal health care or labor law reform can only be achieved on a federal level.  States and localities have no ability to engage in deficit spending and have limited revenue sources.  Moreover, they have a tendency to be dragged into the kind of beggar thy neighbor strategies -- right to work laws, tax breaks for businesses to relocate, lower or non-existent income or corporate taxes -- that facilitate a race to the bottom, not bold progressive innovation.  Yes, states can do things like enact marriage equality laws, but then they can't provide the full benefits of such recognition, e.g. equal tax treatment, entitlement to pensions and health benefits, etc.

We need programs with the sweep and durability of Social Security and Medicare, bold transforming change that create a decent life for all Americans.  And the irony is, the way to get there is sometimes through the patient cultivation of electoral majorities encouraged by steady, rational, and pragmatic leadership.  It's not all that psychologically satisfying, but then again, the truth seldom is.   

Comments

[minstrel hussain boy]

i do enjoy being in the company of fellow realistic pragmatists chuck.

obama represents the best we got. and, even for bastard ratfuckers like lieberman, until we can make his vote inconsequential, that motherfucker remains consequential.

more, not less, is what is needed. at all levels. i am a big ass fan of working locally and having my main focus of participation there (mostly on account of i like having some folks here and there in gov't that will give me their cell phone numbers *i almost typed cell number, but where i live that's a real probability too*)

remember how big dog clinton dealt with the guy who was shouting at him in pittsburgh? that sticks with me. a powerful and adept politician had something he wanted to do, something he knew in his heart and soul was the right thing to do *it was about "don't ask, don't tell" getting put in rather than a trumanesque "equality, now, that's an order" statement*, but, he was told in no uncertain terms by the folks in congress that not only would they take down and trash that order they would leave the situation far worse than before he gave it.

there's also the FDR thing of him telling civil rights folks "i fully agree with you. now make me do it."

if we have to drag our congress, kicking and screaming, and in the case of republicans, whining all the way into this fucking century, so. be. it.

if, as kunstler, peter schiff, and some other economic theorists are saying the economy finally and irrecovably going into the shitter makes it all moot, i know some safe places in the mountains on the rez where we can stash ya'll.

tell 'em you're looking for the singing snake. they'll know it's me.

[Eric Wilde]

Although I agree with your basic point, it does seem to me Obama and the Senate Dems are far too timid. The populace wants the Democratic agenda. The Republicans are in disarray and losing their collective minds. We very nearly do have a supermajority in the Senate and could intimidate enough "centrists" in either party to pass some key legislation. Moreover, strong tactics would excite the base as well as pass the legislation most of the populace wants. Then 2010 would NOT be such a concern.

The window of opportunity is closing and the urgency of now is nearly past. Sure there is a long, hard slog ahead of us. That doesn't mean we must take baby steps when a brisk forward stride is possible.

As much as I long for dramatic change in our society, the two avenues open for really dramatic change are non-starters to me. We could rewrite our constitution; but, I have no trust that today's powerbrokers could author a new constitution that is even as good as what we have today. Violent revolution, beyond the horror and bloodshed, most often leaves societies with despotic rulers.

Plus, I question whether the Democratic leadership could possibly keep up enough enthusiasm to keep us going through such a sustained effort. Their too weak themselves.

[riffle]

"Well, everything needs to crash and burn and then we will have our moment."

This sounds like Ralph Nader in November 2000. We got eight years of Bush, and things crashed and burned.

I suppose these people want something worse than that?

[Eric Wilde]

That should be "They're too weak themselves." But you knew that....

[ballgame]

Since I re-ignited the discussion of your original post with my response at Ian's, Sir Charles, and since I'm the only critic you call out by name, I want to point out that many of your points here (and many of your other responses to my comments) are completely inapplicable to me. I didn't write off Obama in advance (I endorsed him);I think there's more than a dime's worth of difference between him and Bush (though I do think Obama is a corporatist); I don't want Obama to bring disaster to the U.S. and would, in fact, love to see things progress incrementally in the way you're projecting; I never called you a sell-out; and I never advocated abandoning the Democratic party for some Nader-style third party candidacy.

Though some of these points might apply to one or two commenters over at Ian's, there is, in fact, more than a little whiff of the strawman in this mythical critic you're knocking down.

I agree that the Senate can be an extraordinarily difficult place in which to make change, and that we need to elect more progressive senators to move our agenda forward. I suspect you're quite wrong about simply re-electing Blanche Lincolns and Ben Nelsons and more like them. In fact, I suspect if you were to fill the Senate with Lincoln and Nelson clones, we wouldn't be much closer to enacting our agenda than we are now (admittedly, I'm not an expert on all their political views).

I do agree with you that the national level is where the important changes need to be made. Unfortunately, just because we need to make those changes there, doesn't mean they'll happen.

Indeed, this 'argument from consequences' seems to have cropped up more than once during this discussion.

Me: Obama is not a progressive, he's a corporatist.

Others: That can't be true, because if that were true, we'd have to turn to a third party or primary challenger to get progressive change. And those never work! Therefore, Obama must be a progressive.

Um, no.

[Corvus9]

Eric, I think describing the problem as the Democrats being far too timid elides over what is really going on. Yes, the American people are ready for the Democratic agenda. And actually, most Senate democrats want to give it to them. Just not all of them. In fact, some, like Nelson and Lieberman, don't actually want the Democratic agenda. And because of the now universal application of the filibuster, that means that the Democrats can't actually pursue their agenda. The problem isn't that the Senate Dems are too timid, it's that the actual, unitimid majority has to keep watering down it's policies to appeal to a supermajority. Honestly, given the present makeup, I bet you could actually get a more progressive health bill coming out of filibusterless Senate than out of the House (it wouldn't have Stupak-Pitts in it at the least, that's for damn sure).

So please don't think of it as the Democrats as timid. That kind of phrasing leads to an incorrect mental image of the unfortunate dynamics that are going on in Congress, and suggests solutions, like thinking you can intimidate them, that would not actually improve the situation. There's no one to intimidate! Most of the Caucus already wants to do more, and the rest see their power and path to reelection coming from pissing off people just like you (and me).

Once again, the Senate Dems are not timid; they are divided.

The House Dems, on the other hand? Yeah, a lot of them are timid.

[Corvus9]

Ballgame, I would very much like to see a coherent, structured argument as to how Obama is a corporatist, as opposed to a progressive,* or what have you. Because personally I think is almost unfailingly liberal, even one who tends to focus on economic concerns over social ones, which is pretty novel when you compare it to the last thirty years of Democratic politics.

*Personally, I don't really consider myself a "progressive," since the word has the stink of retrenchment and wimpiness to me. I am a liberal and a democratic socialist, but progressive? That doesn't even mean anything. It's a word some liberals used because they don't like how the word liberal got tarred in the post-Nixon era, so they bought into the whole framing thing and started acting like they were something else, to escape the stigma.

[Eric Wilde]

Eric, I think describing the problem as the Democrats being far too timid elides over what is really going on.

While I didn't touch upon the real resistance from some Democrats in the Senate, the rhetoric in the Senate is definitely wimpy. And, yes, intimidating them can be a good thing. The response from the populace to stronger rhetoric and arm-twisting the Nelsons of the Senate would be positive for the Democrats, not negative. And I believe that response from the people would change a few minds. At the very least, you wouldn't have so many Democratic activists throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away.

I am a liberal and a democratic socialist, but progressive? That doesn't even mean anything. It's a word some liberals used because they don't like how the word liberal got tarred in the post-Nixon era, so they bought into the whole framing thing and started acting like they were something else, to escape the stigma.

Brands matter. 'Progressive' is a useful brand precisely because the brand 'Liberal' is trashed, much as the brand 'Conservative' is now trashed. Liberals are turning to the label 'Progressive' just like conservatives are turning to the term 'true conservative' or similar. I see no particular utility to trying to polish up the brand 'Liberal'.

Personally I use the term 'Progressive' to describe myself to most people. My politics put me somewhere closer to social libertarian and economic socialist, none of which really mean what most people identify with the brand 'Progressive'.

[Sir Charles]

Ballgame,

I think you mischaracterize the nature of the comments over at Ian's (and those that I have seen crop up on Steve Benen's site). There are a number of people stating just what I have set forth here.

I don't think you have answered a couple of fundamental questions -- how is Obama simply reduced to the label corporatist? What issue positions does he hold that allow you to consign him to this label in such a dismissive fashion? And how the hell would you ever get to 60 votes in the Senate? You folks just keep ignoring this central question. That's not a strawman -- it's the essence of this whole situation.

The consequences of what you are doing in the hands of less subtle minds is to make supporting Obama and his agenda seem meaningless. You can deny that all you want, but I'd ask you to look again at those comments and tell me that that is not the take away message.

I agree, by the way, with Eric, that one way to do this would be to be a bit more aggressive in rhetoric and style, but in the gentlemen's cub that is the U.S. Senate, I don't think you can overplay that hand.

Corvus,

I tend to you progressive and liberal interchangably for reasons Eric also discusses, but I am more accurately a social democrat, one who believes in broad based social programs to ameliorate the distortions and hardship induced by the markets.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

That should have been "view" not you in my response to you -- it was very early.

Ballgame,

I also don't think I "called you out by name." That sounds like there was some glove slapping followed by a series of harumphs and "Good Day Sirs!" I was merely being descriptive in noting that you had taken the discussion we had and posted it at Ian's (with my complete advanced blessing)in an attempt to further this dialogue.

Although I disagree with you on this point, I think my bigger quarrel was with some of the other commenters there who in my view wanted to embrace "beautiful loser" politics rather than dwell in the real world.

Here is the Steve Benen link to which I referred. Many of the comments are of a piece with a lot of what was said at Ian's place -- I find them discouraging to say the least.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021319.php

[big bad wolf]

ballgame, you write "Me: Obama is not a progressive, he's a corporatist.

Others: That can't be true, because if that were true, we'd have to turn to a third party or primary challenger to get progressive change. And those never work! Therefore, Obama must be a progressive.

Um, no."

an ironic ending to a post that begins with you claiming to be misrepresented and whining about strawmen.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I'm glad to get this discussion restarted here, and to see some of the points you raised specifically. The comments you mention at Steve Benen's are why, while he is a must-read, every day, every post, I no longer read most of the comments. But many of them are from writers who, during the campaign, regularly announced how "Obama's blown it, he's lost the election, let's start planning for 2012."

I do continue to ride my own 'hobbyhorse' -- that Obama and most political commenters were too slow to recognize the major shift in politics that happened in Novemeber. It isn't just that the two parties have become totally ideologically separate -- the Gingrich dream. (Think for a minute. We could elect or accept a Specter, a Snowe, maybe a Collins or a Murkowski as a Democrat, but if any of the Lincolns, Nelsons, or Landrieus tried to become Republicans, they would be totally rejected by the party and Primaried out of the running as being far too 'liberal.' Even Lieberman would probably fail to get the Republican support he received in 06.)

We say the Republicans have become insane -- and we are far righter than we realize. Previously there was a "Chinese Wall" on both sides between the extremists on either side and the 'true crazies.' This has broken down totally on the right -- and what scares me is the cracks I am seeing on the left as well, and this discussion is an example of it at times.

Before this year, 'bi-partisanship' was a possibility. There were always a few Republicans jopining the majority of Democrats, a few Democrats joining the majority of Republicans. (I'd love to see statistics on how few 'party-line votes' there were in previous congresses compared to this one.)

Now, the Democrats offer the Republicans a compromise, or write into a bill a position that Republicans are on record as supporting, and the same Republicans who might have actually introduced a similar bill in the past -- reject it, or accept it and then vote against the bill.

Because we are so slow to realize this, we don't see it as a strength we can use. We don't see that the Democrats can and should pick up seats in the next election -- the way Democrats went from 61 to 70 Senators -- counting the FL -- and 317 to 333 Representatives in the 1934 elections.

How we can do this, and the question of the filibuster belongs in further posts.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C:
I should state that the comments at Steve's I mentioned did not refer to those particular ones. This type of comment has been consistent since Steve went from the Carpetbagger Report to taking over at WaMo. Almost any day since then you can find the same type of statement, though more and more in recent days.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Before I get to the question of using the Republicans' insanity against them, I want to ask some questions about the filibuster. I know that originally there was no cloture provision at all, then there was a 2/3 majority needed, then it got changed to 60%. But were there other changes instituted into the procedure when that last change happened?

Originally, a filibuster brought the Senate to a halt. There was no provision for 'putting the debate aside' and moving to other business. The filibusterers had to keep talking, not yield to anyone who might 'call for the previous question,' A filibuster could not just be threatened, it had to actually occur.

Has this changed? Isn't it possible any more for the Democrats to simply say, 'Go ahead and Filibuster' and let the country see the government being brought to a halt?

And when did cloture votes become 'one and done?' Formerly, during filibusters, you could get a petition for cloture. If it failed, there was a waiting period, then you'd do it again. Is this no longer true?

(While I hope someone has the answers and can save me the work, as I write this I am opening questia.com and checking the available journal articles and books -- one reason along with 'real life stuff' why I may not be as active as usual later today.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sorry for posting so much in a row, but the first journal article on the use of the filibuster I've looked at -- which concludes it is probably unconstitutional in general, and specifically for judicial nominations -- comes from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 27, 2003.

It's author?

John Cornyn.

[janinsanfran]

In addition to whatever ideological positions we may have, the real problem for Democrats is on the ground. In the November governor races, they called it "the enthusiasm gap." Now there's Black apathy confirmed in polling and anecdotally.

It doesn't matter whether we think Obama is a "corporatist" or not. What matters is that the public is concluding the Democrats aren't doing the job they were elected to do. We can't build an incremental strategy off that, despite Nathan's accurate list of Obama's accomplishments. We are going to see major losses unless this malaise (there it is) gets turned around.

Does that mean the first element in an incremental strategy has to be candidates who are more sensitive to ground level sentiment? Is that possible? Would it help since there are over-represented areas where real sentiment is regressive? Real questions.

[ballgame]

I don't have time at the moment to respond in detail to some of the questions put to me here. But to those who reject my perception (and Ian Welsh's) that Obama is a corporatist, maybe you'll believe Robert Kuttner:

I came away even more bewildered and dismayed at the reality that this president, who could have been such an insurgent at a moment demanding insurgency, has been so utterly captured by the Wall Street elite, the health insurance industry elite, and the military elite.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

No, sorry, but in the piece I was going to post next, we can win more definitely by forcing the Republicans -- every Republican incumbent -- to choose between the 'crazy base' or the sensible mainstream. Look at the Inglis example, look at the primary challenges to Lindsey Graham and even to John McCain. We can divide the party and win many elections. Yes, we need to rekindle the enthusiasm -- not just of blacks but of all Democrats, and getting some accomplishments that make headlines can and will help.

But the Republicans are busily committing suicid3e, let's hand them the ropes to do it with.

[ballgame]

Actually, FTR, I'm not sure Ian uses the label "corporatist," but it's clear he rejects the notion that Obama is a progressive.

[oddjob]

In light of this post & discussion I link to something Sully posted last night that is an intriguing bit of coincidence.

[Sir Charles]

janinsanfran,

I think the biggest problem right now in terms of enthusiasm is unemployment, which is hitting inner city neighborhoods at a really devastating clip. Here in DC we have over 11% unemployment, but that doesn't really tell the whole tale. Among young black men here the unemployment rate is creeping towards 50%. Not good in any number of ways.

I think that some quick, concerted effort at creating jobs now is essential. And then I think, appropos of oddjobs'link, a variety of ills will take care of themselves. Reagan was more unpopular in 1982 than Obama is now because of unemployment -- He won 49 states in 1984. (Unfortunately, this recession is a lot more complicated than that endured under Reagan.)

I am not arguing for an incremental strategy in that sense. I am suggesting that we need to win multiple electoral battles over the next two or three election cycles to be able to really push forward with a lot of the more ambitious projects we'd like to see. But the way to win these battles is in part to show tangible results. Hence the need for a jobs program.

Ballgame,

I like and respect Kutner. I think his article is slightly more nuanced than simply labeling Obama a corporatist and I think he also doesn't really grapple with the problem of the Senate, which is a recurring one in all of these matters.

Why the conservative Dem Senators don't fully grasp what they are doing is the subject of another lengthy post. I blame them for much of our current problems (and really despise them by the way) but as long as they hold the balance of power, they have to be dealt with in some way.

Jim,

The Republican 180 on the filibuster is remarkable in its brazen, Orwellian way. I was in favor of letting them go with the nuclear option back in 2004 and get rid of the filibuster -- it's always hurt liberals a lot more than it helped them.

Unfortunately the propsects for the Senate revising the rules to allow for an easier invocation of cloture -- say 55 votes -- is not going to happen. The Blue Dog Dems would be giving up a ridiculous amount of power if they gave in on that and that's the last thing they will do. One gets the sense that people like Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu and Lieberman all really relish being able to screw things up.

[Joe]

Sir C, I think you are eliding two arguments and two problems in your initial post. One: Obama is a problem; and Two: the Senate is a problem. Like you, I think Obama is the best we're going to get (although hopefully, he'll eventually see the error of his ways with Summers, Geithner, Bernanke).

However, I do think you are understating the need for primaries and other concerted action against the likes of Lieberman, Landrieu, Lincoln, and other Blue Dog Democratic Senators. The Conservatives have shown how effective a Senate Caucus can be when there is proper fear of the base. Mark Kirk, Rob Simmons, Judd Gregg are all running and winning in true blue states on Teabagger talking points. Senators have a lot of ideological "wiggle room." Witness Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley representing the same state. We need to make sure that our senators wiggle left.

If Lincoln is taken out by a primary challenge and Reid goes down because of lack of base enthusiasm, the next Senate Majority Leader may realize that he/she needs to get tough with the Senate Parliamentarian and circumscribe the fillibuster. And the Blue Dog Senators may realize that screwing the progressive base isn't pure gravy.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Agreed with many of your points, Sir Charles, but I want to point out that a lot of people, including ballgame, are falling into the easy dichotomy of 'bad corporations' against 'virtuous people.' In my lifetime, it's rarely been that simple, particularly in therms of civil rights, civil liberties, and 'the social issues.'

In fact, the last holdout against black civil rights weren't corporations -- in Atlanta, the reason for the peaceful sucess of integration was the fact the business community -- for selfish reasons, yes -- supported it and kept the lid on the racists. It was the unions, or many of them, particularly the 'hard hats' that were the opposition.

There aren't many corporate opponents of gay rights, and the money for the campaigns opposing them -- and, sadly the majority votes against them -- came from the 'people' through the churches. And what corporations were in the forefront of the anti-abortion movement?

I'm not saying the reverse either, just that the situation is so nuanced, so complex that a mere dichotomy, or a mere yelling of 'corportist' gets in the way of forming the coalitions we need.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I am not reflexively opposed to primary campaigns. It has worked wonders with Arlen Specter a/k/a Mr. Democrat now.

I will mortgage my home if need be to make the maximum contribution to whomever is the candidate against Lieberman.

But it's all about where the battle is to be joined -- I am not sure that we could produce winning Democrats in any of the States where the Blue Dog senators reside who would be superior -- maybe in Montana, but that's hardly a given.

I don't see the upside though with someone like Lincoln or Ben Nelson, much as I dislike them (especially the latter). What's the upside to knocking them off and electing a Republican. We actually get the votes of folks like Lincoln and Nelson more often than any Republicans, including Snowe and Collins. It seems self-defeating.

And if Harry Reid loses it will not be a good thing for us. I am not his biggest fan, but Reid has a target on his back not for being too conservative, but because he is the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.

I think it is a mistake for the Dems to pick their leaders from marginal states like Nevada and South Dakota -- but I really want Reid to win so as to deny the Republicans such a high profile scalp.

There is nothing any majority leader (or the Senate Parliamentarian) can do about the filibuster, absent a filibuster proof support for such a change, so I am not quite sure what you have in mind here.

Ultimately, a diminished Democratic majority is not a good thing for us.

[low-tech cyclist]

I was pretty amazed at the quickness with which some of my fellow lefties are writing off Obama -- some, of course, had written him off in advance, so I guess they are feeling that peculiar form of schadenfreude that has been our specialty for oh, the last forty years or so. To these folks there is not a dimes worth of difference between Obama and Bush, one is simply a corporate whore with darker skin and smoother rhetoric. Hope lies only in the prospect that Obama will bring such disaster upon us that the 98% of people who are getting screwed over by Wall Street will wake up, join hands together, sing a chorus of the Internationale, hang the board of directors at Goldman, and proclaim the workers' state.

Sir Charles - aside from a handful of nutcase commenters at various blogs, who are these people? Anyone with a following? Any evidence that their numbers aren't down in the white noise?

I'm not arguing that 'these folks' don't exist. What I'm wondering is how we know their existence is an issue worth more than a passing few seconds' worth of attention.

[ballgame]

Jane Hamsher writes a post making the same point that Ian, Kuttner, and I are making.

[Joe]

Sir C, the Senate Parliamentarian can: (1) define budget matters broadly,thus requiring only a 50 (+ Biden) vote majority to pass that legislation; and (2) rule that the filibuster is unconstitutional on some or all aspects of legislation, "the nuclear option."

Certainly, Reid could pass health reform w/o a public option today, and simply introduce the public option through the budget process tomorrow, and pass it with 50 Democratic senators. That would require: (1) a majority leader with toughness- somebody like Kyl or Cornyn; or (2) who fears the loss of the base.

I think you're underestimating the need for Democratic Senators to fear us. That fear could very well pay off much more that one or two ineffectual senators.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

I understand that anecdote is not the same as data, but I feel like I've seen a lot more of these kinds of comments on the lefty blogs -- the why did you think Obama would ever do anything except sell your children to Wall Street for medical experiments kind of thing.

I don't see this sort of thing from major lefty bloggers, who generally I think take the same posture as we do here -- a willingness to criticize Obama on specific policy issues without feeling the need to trash him or to fail to understand the incredible number of difficult battles that he faces.

So at the moment, I don't think it is an overwhelming number of people and by and large they don't seem to have a huge megaphone with which to convey their message. However I am concerned that when coupled with the economic difficulties we are facing that if this general world view catches fire in the blogosphere it could have a very bad impact on the 2010 mid-terms, which will actually be pretty disastrous for us.

Prup,

I think for "corporations" one should probably substitue "Wall Street" -- I think most of the ire is focused there and on the health insurance industry. Not without reason by the way.

[big bad wolf]

nuance is for sellouts.

primary challenges work in places, such as pennsylvania, where a larger percentage of the democrats, not likely anything close to a majority, but perhaps a critical mass of primary voters, are liberal or nearly so. no way a primary challenge against landrieu, does anything but get us another republican senator in louisisana. it didn't even work in connecticut in 2006, though that was a good and justified challenge. in new hampshire, which, thankfully, is not meldrim thompson's new hampshire anymore, but is light blue at best, the democrats probably benefit from not running someone too liberal and playing off against the republican's insanity. it may be that obama using the bully pulpit more and liberal groups flooding congressional offices with messages is the better tactic for the near term.

i think unemployment does contribute to the lack of enthusiasm out there, but i think there are two other, related factors. the republicans over the last 30 years successfully took the community and joy out of politics and government. their objective was to make people uninterested in or hostile to government and politics and they largely succeeded (aided, both intentionally and unintentionally by expanding technology). worse, the people who do still pay attention are all too often those with economic interests in legislation and each success they have compounds the sense in ordinary folks that they don't matter. still---and here i go blaming the victim---people have got to care more and have got to stop believing that because they liked a candidate the world was going to change if that person got elected. political change is a slog, at best. turning away because no miracle cure appeared says as much about the one turning away as the person turned away from.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

Look at the post by Jane Hamsher that Ballgame cites and the comments to that. I believe that would be Exhibit A to my concerns.

Joe,

The Senate Parliamentarian cannot declare anything unconstitutional. He is an employee of the Senate who rules on parliamentary points of order. Only the senators themselves can vote to change the rules on the filibuster. And passing things through reconciliation is much more complex than you'd imagine. I've discussed this very point with a number of people in the progressive community who are far more savvy about senate procedures than I am and everyone of them thought that reconiciliation was not a viable approach to health care reform.

Ballgame,

And Jane Hamsher fails to answer the same question you resolutely avoid. Where the fuck are the 60 votes? Where? Because with HCR or EFCA or anything else we want, that's what we need.

[Sir Charles]

Ballgame,

I am also curious what campaign promises Jane Hamsher is alleging that Obama broke. I don't see any of them enumerated in her post.

Like it or not (and I'm not sure I do), Obama indicated that he would commit more troops in Afghanistan. He continues to support EFCA. He is trying to get HCR through. He got through a stimulus bill that was the biggest domestic initative that has come out of Washington in an awfully long time. What exactly is the betrayal that has you all so ready to primary him. (I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I write that.)him.

[low-tech cyclist]

Look at the post by Jane Hamsher that Ballgame cites and the comments to that. I believe that would be Exhibit A to my concerns.

Nice exhibit, counselor! Feels almost like an episode of Perry Mason, where the key witness or piece of evidence shows up right in the middle of the trial.

Seriously, that makes your point, at least as far as I'm concerned. A lot of people listen to Hamsher. "Anyone with a following?" I asked. She's got a pretty considerable following.

[Joe]

Sir C, how did Kyl threaten the nuclear option in regard to Alito ? He simply threatened to motion before the parliamentarian (and the Repbulicans fired two parliamentarians prior to the threat)and the parliamentarian would rule that the use of filibusters in judicial confirmations was unconstitutional. Alito's nomination would have then proceeded on a majority vote.

Moreover, I understand that healthcare overall could not be done through budget reconciliation. But the public option alone could be completed through reconciliation. This would require Reid actually passing HCR without a public option, and then introducing the public option through during budget reconciliation. That would require a confrontation with the Centrist Senators. But it would show that the Centrists simply could not simply thumb their nose at the majority of Democratic Senators.

Again, I think your underestimating the effect of discipline in the Democratic caucus which could be much more important than the 60 vote threshhold. These procedural hoops can be eliminated if majority leader has the will to do so.

[big bad wolf]

well, those hamsher comments sure are something. they present another laugh-or-cry moment, or perhaps laugh-and-cry, since i already laughed. a serious question: when one says she has a substantial following what sort of readership are we talking about? and are there numbers that sort out the stats-inflating repeat visitors (like me here) from the once-a-day information/opinion visitors.

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

Firedoglake is a seriously big blog. I would imagine that it is in the top ten of lefty sites and probably gets a few hundred thousand visitors a week.

I shared a cab with Jane Hamsher in Pittsburgh -- being the man about town that I am I picked up the tab. She was very nice. Hamsher was one of the driving forces behind the Lamont challenge to Joe Lieberman. I've also seen her on either Maddow or Olbermann in the last couple of months.

In short, she matters.

l-t c,

That was a bit eerie.

[oddjob]

She's been on Maddow for sure because I've seen her there.

[ballgame]

Sir Charles: You do not need 60 votes to keep your promise about not extending immunity to telecoms who violated citizens' privacy rights. You do not need 60 votes to repudiate the outrageous legal doctrines of Bush which effectively put the president above the law. You do not need 60 votes to get out of the way of citizens attempting to uncover the abuses of Bush and to allow the country to fully grasp the horrors of that administration. You do not need 60 votes to refrain from gutting Sarbanes-Oxley (as Hamsher pointed out). You do not need 60 votes to refrain from pushing for ACTA.

[ballgame]

Sir Charles: You do not need 60 votes to keep your promise about not extending immunity to telecoms who violated citizens' privacy rights. You do not need 60 votes to repudiate the outrageous legal doctrines of Bush which effectively put the president above the law. You do not need 60 votes to get out of the way of citizens attempting to uncover the abuses of Bush and to allow the country to fully grasp the horrors of that administration. You do not need 60 votes to refrain from gutting Sarbanes-Oxley (as Hamsher pointed out). You do not need 60 votes to refrain from pushing for ACTA.

[ballgame]

Sorry about the double post. My first comment didn't show (even after giving it a minute), so I assumed it was because of the three hyperlinks.

[Corvus9]

However, you do need 60 votes to reform healthcare, save the planet, guarantee more rights for the working class, or regulate the financial industry.

[ballgame]

… or regulate the financial industry.

But as I just pointed out, you don't need 60 votes to refrain from deregulating it, and since that's exactly what Obama did, that, to me, tends to provide evidence against the hypothesis that, "Obama is a progressive who is only prevented from enacting progressive legislation by the absence of 60 reliable progressive senators."

[ari]

Where's Stephen? Is he okay?

[Sir Charles]

Ballgame,

Any article that describes exempting public traded companies with a market cap of less than $75 million from Sarbanes Oxley as gutting financial regulation because these entities represent over half of all publicly traded companies is written in bad faith. Such companies are located between "micro-cap" and "nano-cap" stocks and are rarely the kinds of investments made by either amateur or institutional investors. The notion that it is illegitimate to weigh the relative burden of the costs of such regulation versus the benefits in this context is ridiculous.

These are small, low volume stocks, forming a small percentage of indices like the Wilshire 5000 and the Russell 2000. Sarbanes Oxley audit requirements are pretty intense for companies of this size.

[Sir Charles]

ari,

As I understand it, he's just very, very busy between work and family.

Fortunately I am a slacker at work and neglectful at home, so the Cogblog keeps chugging.

Time to walk the dog. Some things cannot be neglected.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

So too -- though I make no claim of bad faith -- with 'telecom immunity.' The telecoms already had immunity, through a previously passed law -- and it couldn't be taken away from them without an (unConstitutional) ex post facto law. The problem was that to claim the immunity, they'd have to testify about what the Bush Administration had told them, which opened up the possibility of further discovery, which the Bushies were scared shitless about.

The provision in the FISA Act which was in dispute would have granted them the immunity without requiring that testimony, just that. Obama opposed that, argued and voted against it, but felt that the improvements in the FISA bill were important enough he wouldn't support a filibuster. (That's arguable, yes, but it is considerably different from how it was presented. And, of course, the samed people who are opposing filibusters under any circumstances are mad at him for not engaging in one -- during the campaign, btw, not after his election.)

And a word on filibusters. I support the Lieberman-Harkin bill -- introduced in 1995 -- which would have allowed filibusters, but had a series of steps for cloture, each vote requiring less to pass, starting with 60, then 57, then 54, then 51, then a majority. I also, as I've stated, wish Democratic Senators would 'demand the regular order' and force the Republicans to actually filibuster -- shutting down all other business while they were doing so -- instead of merely threatening to do so.

[ballgame]

Sir Charles, I only have your word that this particular deregulation of companies of less than $75 million was reasonable. I'm not an expert on them. The 'excessive governmental bureaucracy' complaint by the right wing is generally just bullshit to facilitate the unfettered hand of big business, but I recognize that it's not always without merit, so I'll keep an open mind about this particular issue. I think it's a little extreme, though, to presume bad faith and not mere error (assuming, of course, that you're right about the issue).

[big bad wolf]

he has only your word, SC. i know the huffington post and you, SC, are no huffington post. you've too much breath when you write.

[Eric Wilde]

I also, as I've stated, wish Democratic Senators would 'demand the regular order' and force the Republicans to actually filibuster -- shutting down all other business while they were doing so -- instead of merely threatening to do so.

Word.

[ikl]

Ballgame, you have my word too that $75 mil is a small market cap for a public company.

I don't know enough about Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) to have a point of view on whether this was a good idea (although if I had to guess, I'd say that it is), but either way exempting corporations that small is hardly gutting SOX.

[Corvus9]

As I understand from reading some blog post somewhere (probably at Yglesias', though it might have been Ezra) it was during one of Byrd's terms as as majority leader that it became allowed that other matters could be pursued while a filibuster was in effect on another piece of legislation. So before, a filibuster basically shut down the Senate and made the filibusterer look like an asshole, but after multiple items of business were allowed to continue, it allowed a bill to basically dispear into the ether upon being filibustered. This wasn't the actual intent, since at the time the filibuster was rarely used.

Basically, Byrd is responsible for everything that is crappy about the Senate.