Ian Welsh had a couple of relevant things to say about the discorporation of the Oborg over health care and other issues:
...Robert Reich seems to think left wing activists can’t organize, as evidenced by them not doing really coming out for Obama’s health care “plan” (whatever that is). Since left wing activists put together massive marches against the Iraq war, for example, it’s nonsense that they can’t do it. So why haven’t they?
Our real activists, as a group, believe in single payer. They are not going to march, or even show up at Townhalls in large numbers in order to push some wishy -washy bill that has a public option which sucks wind (and none of the bills have a good public option.)
Obama and Democrats deliberately demotivated the base by telling them that single payer was off the table, arrested them when they dared insist on talking about it, and disrespected them in every way possible.
Of course the activists aren’t showing up. Who the hell would expect them to? If Obama or Democrats in general want activists, who by definition are hardcore people who actually believe in liberalism to show up and fight for them, they need to offer liberalism, not warmed over centrist pap.
Republican activists are worked up, and liberal activists are demotivated, and that’s a direct result of Democratic decisions. I’m tired as hell of hearing activists being blamed for decisions made by craven, triangulating politicians.
Message to Obama and other Democratic leadership: Stand for actual liberalism; for actual workable policy; and activists will stand with you. Liberals and progressives stand with liberals and progressives.
That isn’t you...
Responding to some comments, Ian:
...the current elites are very dedicated to keeping the system going as long as possible. It will crash out when it is impossible for it do anything else because they will sell everything, and everybody, including the future of their children and grandchildren, to keep their lifestyle today, rather than taking a hit so that Americans of the not that distant future aren’t impoverished so that a smaller and smaller group of Americans today can live better than they can afford to.
I don’t consider that moral. Nor do I consider it moral to impoverish young people for the benefit of insurance and pharma companies so that a few old people can live a little longer, which is what the current bill does. Perhaps old folks agree, but then they’re the ones who might win the death bet, their children and grandchildren (already living, these aren’t theoretical kids), won’t. If the bill was going to be paid for with a progressive tax, that would be a different matter, but as usual, it’s going to be paid on the backs of people who can’t afford to pay. Who can’t even afford to use the insurance they’re going to be forced to buy.
If the Obama policies are substantially like Bu$hie's iron fist but with a velvet glove on top, what is the difference if the result is the same?
Oh, that's right. We don't have to upset the children when we're United as the Oborg. We can just pull those 150,000 Americans in Iraq out of the cities and let 'em guard the oilfields. Forget the cities. We can just pack Afghanistan with mercenaries- they won't tell the folks at home about the narcotics either.
We can give all the money to the banksters, just like Bu$hie did, and people will just Trust and Believe as the next bubble is blown. We can convince them to reform health care, and make a killing for the banksters who run the insurance corps, too. The Market will love it.
I knew a Shining Path Maoist once who voted for Republicans whenever he could, because he was convinced that the Republicans would down their own Empire the quickest. I'm beginning to think he was wrong, because the same Aristocrats end up screwing each other and everyone else no matter who's installed as the figurehead.
No comments:
Post a Comment