Jim D. writes:
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.
I said "socialized medicine" wasn't on the agenda, unlike "single payer"
which health care reformers have been pushing, referencing Canada. You quote
me as saying:
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.
Well, they started out that way. You're in a better position than I to judge
whether they've regrouped behind a public insurer plan - one which they hope
would crowd out the private sector - as the only realizable alternative in
the face of administration and Congressional opposition to single payer.
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).
The devil is in the detail, ie. you, Julio, Shane, and I may attach
different meanings to "making clear" which would be reflected in our
political behaviour.
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?
How is stating "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" an either/or proposition?
In any case, I don't think abstract tactical discussions of this sort have
much value on an email list. They would take on substance if we were in the
same organization with first-hand exposure to the opportunities and
obstacles presented by a struggle in which we were commonly engaged.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
