If I understand Shane correctly, I agree with him. The key thing is that if the left pushed even harder for a better alternative (such as single-payer) to the Obama/Congress plans rather than allying with O/C, it would _weaken_ the right (all else constant). An O/C plan would then be seen more as a "compromise" and would be more likely to pass. More importantly, but the actual implementation of the O/C plan would be more likely be better. Currently, what's happening is that almost all -- or all -- of the modifications of the O/C plan are to keep the right happy. If the left were stronger, more united, and more resolute, they'd throw us a few bones. For example, the "public option" would be more likely to show up in the final implementation of an O/C plan if we could push more strongly for single-payer.
By the way, one reason for the emotions involved in the right-wing opposition to O/C is simple opposition to change (perhaps intensified by the big changes that have already happened, such as the bail-out of banks and the steep recession). It's like college students I once encountered who objected vociferously to a switch from the quarter system to semesters; even such a trivial change can be seen as hard to handle. Also, the different members of the group encourage each other, escalating emotions. Then the insurance companies and other corporate enemies of O/C (and single-payer) exploit this anger for their own purposes. oops, I'm late for my "death panel" meeting. We have a lot of grannies to give thumbs down to. On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Marv Gandall<[email protected]> wrote: > > Shane writes: > >> On Aug 12, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Julio Huato wrote: > > [...] > >>> ...by not coming out and confronting the right wingers, the >>> liberal left and the left overall may be shooting themselves in the >>> foot. >> >> This is 100% wrong. It is by not coming out and confronting the Obama/ >> Clinton health scam even more vocally than the stupid right that the >> "left" are "shooting themselves in the foot." > > ========================================== > I can think of many historical instances where the left allied with liberals > in opposing assaults from the right. I can't recall any, however, where > Marxists, left wing social democrats, and others counselled that the best > defence in these confrontations was to turn their fire on a hesitating > leadership. Can Shane? They considered they could best expose the > shortcomings of their leaders in action, by doing what the latter would or > could not, by rallying others in the fight against reaction. In this way, > their ideas would not fall on deaf ears. This is Julio's point. How is it > different this time? > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
