So this blog writer app on my phone doesn't have support for drafts or edits! Continuing from my previous thoughts:
Case in point: today I was riding around with a conservative fellow who is the pro-business, former executive for a health insurance giant, has multiple homes and fancy cars type. He is talking about how Obama is in trouble because now the Left is hating on him for the health care situation.
On the road we passed a beat up pickup truck with an NRA bumper sticker that says "when you pry it from my cold dead hands".
Both the Mercedes driving former health insurance exec and the pickup truck arms bearer are supposedly in the same political party, but it's pretty hard to believe. Whereas the disagreers on the Left seem miles closer by comparison.
At least on the left our sub-factions don't have diametrically opposed desires. What do you think a real Libertarian would say about abortion rights or gay marriage? The isolationist preferences of a social conservative don't jive at all with the interventionist tendencies of a neocon.
Compare that to the Left's pragmatist vs. the idealist. They still both want the same things, they just have different ideas about how to achieve them.
Now, at a certain point you do see some fractures on the left. There's much discussion recently of the "third way" - using private enterprise to pursue the public good, largely through subsidies. And that can run counter to the hardcore socialist condemnation of the profit motive as a drain on public goods.
And again I come back to the question of "where am I on this spectrum?" I certainly am highly suspicious of private sector involvement in public goods. I don't trust private enterprise with public parks, national defense, firefighting or public safety, and I don't see why I should trust them with health care.
However I can be convinced that with proper (heavy) regulation and subsidies, health care reform can be achieved. And perhaps that is a more realistic way of getting there. But I don't think, all other things being equal, that the private sector path is preferable. And I would be surprised to hear a Democrat argue that losing the public option is the 'better' choice in any sense other than increasing the chances of passing reform.
If anything, I feel like my political energies are best spent pushing for better regulation to protect citizens from the private sector than worrying about the purity of how health care is reformed. And that I think is something that falls in the old "80% of things we can agree on" category, and it doesn't really cost anything.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
A different kind of civil war
My health care reform reading of late has had a lot of mentions and examples of a so-called split amongst progressives aka liberals aka democrats (the whole big tent for the sake of discussion).
Several different terms have been tossed around as appellations for the two sides, but it's probably better to just describe them.
On one side we have the people disappointed with the compromises made to the likes of Lieberman and Nelson. People like Howard Dean who are really ticked off at how 'real' reform has been sold out to expedience.
On the other had you have people who are willing to accept the cutting of deals and who view the 'bill-killers' and public option die-hards as naive. This group could broadly be said to feel that even a modest amount of progress is still progress, and that shouldn't be jeopardized by idealism.
And to start I think that's the least loaded way to describe them. Some might call them idealists and pragmatists, though I think even those words might be a little loaded (since idealism usually implies an unattainable goal).
But what I found interesting about this split is that since I'm a progressive/liberal/Democrat, I must fall into one of these camps, yes? And yet I struggle to identify firmly with either one, and even to find a firm dividing line between them.
Looking at the republican situation there is a much clearer split between the three subgroups of conservatives: neocons, libertarians and the religious right.
Several different terms have been tossed around as appellations for the two sides, but it's probably better to just describe them.
On one side we have the people disappointed with the compromises made to the likes of Lieberman and Nelson. People like Howard Dean who are really ticked off at how 'real' reform has been sold out to expedience.
On the other had you have people who are willing to accept the cutting of deals and who view the 'bill-killers' and public option die-hards as naive. This group could broadly be said to feel that even a modest amount of progress is still progress, and that shouldn't be jeopardized by idealism.
And to start I think that's the least loaded way to describe them. Some might call them idealists and pragmatists, though I think even those words might be a little loaded (since idealism usually implies an unattainable goal).
But what I found interesting about this split is that since I'm a progressive/liberal/Democrat, I must fall into one of these camps, yes? And yet I struggle to identify firmly with either one, and even to find a firm dividing line between them.
Looking at the republican situation there is a much clearer split between the three subgroups of conservatives: neocons, libertarians and the religious right.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
F U Joe Lieberman
Dear Joe,
You are an unprincipled shill for the insurance industry that pays your wife's salary. How much money will you make from dicking over health care reform? Thanks for putting the interests of your bank account so blatantly ahead of those of the citizens of this country.
You've made it pretty clear on the record that the only criteria for determining what is a good or a bad idea in health care reform is whether it will result in your insurance company friends increasing their profits.
Mandating that 30 million citizens have to buy insurance from private companies? You think that's swell.
Doing anything about the cost of health insurance? Well that just won't do, for an ever-changing set of reasons, none of which make any sense.
You are an unprincipled shill for the insurance industry that pays your wife's salary. How much money will you make from dicking over health care reform? Thanks for putting the interests of your bank account so blatantly ahead of those of the citizens of this country.
You've made it pretty clear on the record that the only criteria for determining what is a good or a bad idea in health care reform is whether it will result in your insurance company friends increasing their profits.
Mandating that 30 million citizens have to buy insurance from private companies? You think that's swell.
Doing anything about the cost of health insurance? Well that just won't do, for an ever-changing set of reasons, none of which make any sense.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/joe_lieberman_lets_not_make_a.html
Your lack of moral fiber makes me want to puke. Just quit the senate and go pick up the insurance industry job that is waiting for you, and take Evan Bayh with you. Actual representatives of American citezens have real work to do.
Your lack of moral fiber makes me want to puke. Just quit the senate and go pick up the insurance industry job that is waiting for you, and take Evan Bayh with you. Actual representatives of American citezens have real work to do.
Friday, December 11, 2009
A conversation on facebook
I will (probably never) get around to reformatting this later, but in the interests of preserving some discussion about the internet:
John Gates The internet is a cesspool. Human discourse is doomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)