me: > 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).
Marv Gandall wrote: > I don't think this is the issue. Of course, the left should be pushing > single payer - in fact, pushing for socialized medicine, but the latter is > unfortunately not part of the public debate in present circumstances. it isn't on the agenda? You could have fooled me. Of course, what is "on the agenda" is a matter of opinion. If single-payer isn't on the agenda, Obama has a lot to do with it. > In any > event, my impression is that most health care campaigners inside and outside > the Democratic party are already resolutely for single payer and are only > grudgingly accepting of an (authentic) "public option" in preference to no > reform at all. I hope you're tight about the first part. > The issue raised by Shane, as I understood it, was whether to rally and join > with those campaigners against the right-wing offensive, as Julio suggested, > or to ignore them and the counter-campaign of the right in favour of public > criticism of the Obama administration. How does one "join with those campaigners against the right-wing offensive" beyond denouncing them? (should we get into brawls with them?) does that involve abstaining from criticizing Obamacare? (shut up and follow?) If people on the left are going to side with Obama, IMHO, they must make it very clear to everyone that this is a "lesser of two evils" choice (and that without the public option, Obamacare does not really change anything). > Based on my own experience in other settings - and I'm certain this is true > of most everyone on the list - criticism of a leadership's failed policy and > strategy is both necessary and possible, but is only effective when it > occurs within the context of a struggle rather than outside of it. From here > it seems to be as though the town hall meetings served as the focal point of > that struggle, and for anyone on the left to have gone to those meetings and > joined in the clamour against the DP politicians who were coming under fire > from the right, rather than taking on the right's arguments against any form > of public health care, would have been suicidal in terms of working with the > liberal constituencies whose political consciousness the left has always > tried to further develop. Now there's a new premise snuck in: the opposite of "taking on the right's arguments" is "joining the clamor against the DP politicians." Either/or? There are no other choices? Why not do stuff like saying that the right used to be totally in favor of "civility" but now they're being the opposite (pointing to an internal contradiction within the right's world-view) and then politely saying we really need single-payer (in an effort to pushing Obamacare to the left -- or rather slowing its slide to the right). I am sure there are other things that can be done with a little imagination. But imagination is stifled by either/or thinking. -- 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
