I can’t help but observe that the health care “reforms” that the Democratic Party is trying so hard to preserve in Ted Kennedy’s name would be summarily rejected by the voting public in countries that have single payer health care. If any European, Canadian, Australian, South African, South American, or Japanese leader tried to introduce in his/her country what Obama is peddling to us, he/she’d be out of office quickly.
Democrats in Massachusetts like to say that they have single payer health care on their platform, but that hasn’t advanced anything. In fact, we go backwards. Any real step towards single payer would require the immediate repeal of Chapter 58 and legislation known as Obama-care that is closely modeled after Chapter 58.
So why should we support the national “reform” that is modeled after Chapter 58?
I wish there were a Green-Rainbow candidate for whom to cast a vote in the special election. Without one, and without a candidate who is with me on health care, peace, re-localization, and controlling corporate influence in politics, I’m left with casting a vote for none of the above.
If the Obama’s health care reform was such a good thing for ordinary people, ordinary people in Massachusetts who support Chapter 58 should be easy to find. Funny how one doesn’t see these ordinary people promoting it.
I know some Republicans who are planning to vote for Scott Brown primarily to stop the national insurance company welfare plan (aka health reform). Many of these people have been or can be persuaded to support single payer health care after hearing a Green perspective. After all, in countries where single payer exists it is supported by conservatives and progressives, for very good reason (this reality is kept out of the domestive red vs blue debate here). The program that the Democratic Party is pushing is not a step towards single payer.
I admire Ted Kennedy for many things, but he made a wrong turn on the road to bringing world-class universal health care into this country.
Let’s stop being the example to the world of what NOT to do in public policy.
#
There’s a LOT more at stake than single-payer–which, in my opinion, wouldn’t have stood a chance even with bully-pulpitting by Obama and the support of the House and Senate leadership. Whether the current “reform” proposals represent a small step towards or away from single payer, it’s going to be an incremental process, and it’s going to take long-term serious education of the public in advance of creating a serious bill.
But no matter what your opinions of the Democratic Party, supporting adding Republicans to the Senate strikes me as madness. The Democrats may sell out on a regular basis, they continue to disappoint in their lack of spine and in the gulf–the abyss–between their rhetoric and behavior–but they aren’t crazy. Today’s GOP is. The Democrats aren’t going to solve climate change, they aren’t going to immediate withdraw from the wars, they aren’t going to push single payer. They are going to perpetually disappoint–if they weren’t, hell, many of us would be Democrats. But there’s going to be a lot more at stake over the next six years than healthcare bills that were highly unlikely to fly in the first place, and a vote for Brown seems like biting off your nose to spite your face.
If there were a third party challenger worth voting for, that’s where my vote would go. I even understand sitting out or voting “none of the above.”
But casting a positive vote for a Scott Brown simply to reflect dismay over a bill that’s going to be off the floor one way or the other in a matter of weeks? It’s a lousy bill, it solves very little, it’s a corporate handout–but the fate of the republic doesn’t hang on it. Brown could very likely turn out to be the one vote that’s key to obstructing a raft of positive legislation. (And in any case, votes for Brown are NOT going to be interpreted as anti-health bill votes).
Just look at the number of times and and on what issues the Republicans invoked cloture during the ’09 congressional session, and you get a real sense of what the GOP strategy is going to be over the next 3 years–then start lopping off votes from the 60 (admittedly undependable) needed to override filibusters. Once the healthcare reform bill under consideration now is but a hazy memory, the Scott Browns will remain in place to shoot down ANY meaningful legislation. Really want a return to Clinton vs Gingrich?
I’m certainly not going to itemize Coakley’s presumed virtues; but even if Greens can’t vote for her in good conscience, I’d nonetheless urge anyone considering voting for Brown because they’re unhappy over this particular bill to reconsider.
#
In response to my 2 brothers above,
1. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think that Scott is arguing for a vote for Brown.
2. While the leadership of the Republican Party is no doubt crazy, so no doubt in my mind is the leadership of the Democratic Party. (I say leadership instead of membership, because I believe that there are some members of our dominant parties who are more misinformed or lack realistic options than insane.)
Who should GRP members cast their vote-Brown,Coakley or abstain?
I was pretty sure that I was going to abstain. However,it appears that this is a very close race and maybe our votes will matter in choosing the lesser of 2 evils.
The fact that Brown has a serious chance has much less to do with the individual candidates than the larger picture. If Brown wins in MA, it will represent a major NATIONAL repudiation of President Obama and the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
I do not expect that the Democrats are going to pass anything of significance this year that is going to be positive. So, voting for Brown may seem like a good idea. Paralysis might be better than the legislation that will pass this year.
However, I remember what happened after the disatisfaction with Clinton led to the Republicans very quickly taking control of Congress. Clinton moved even more sharply to the right.
That is what I think that President Obama will eventually do after the disastrous results of the November election later this year. If Brown wins, I think that he will turn to the right much more quickly.
If Brown wins, he will demonstrate to much of the public that Republicans are worse than Democrats. I think that this will make it more difficult for our team of candidates this year. Far better for our candidates if we can focus on being the best alternative for 2010 than for the public to think that they’re better off with the lesser of two evils.
I don’t think much about Attorney General Coakley. However, she has done 2 things recently that I think are important to remember:
1. On principle (?), she said that Mr. Kennedy had to be included in the debates solely because he got enough signatures to be on the ballot. We can use this kind of thinking in future campaigns.
2. She broke with the President about the war in Afghanistan. We should not read too much into this, but I think that it does have some significance.
I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Ms. Coakley.
Mike Heichman
#
Sorry, Mike (and Scott) if my comments were construed as suggesting that SL was arguing in favor of a vote for Brown–I realize he was simply noting that there were arguments in favor of the same being advanced by disgruntled progressives. Just feel it’s hard to cast anything in the way of a protest vote that won’t be misinterpreted, since there aren’t any candidates who reflect Green values in any wholesale or meaningful way. Maybe next time? I do fear the kinds of mischief a Brown–and the others who’ll follow in his wake–might be capable of over the next six years.
I DO believe that there is a degree of genuine madness at the top of the GOP lacking in the Democrats. The latter may at times appear to be craven, venal, and spineless, and lacking the willingness to address, in what we’d consider to be substantive ways, what we consider to be the most pressing issues, but I’ve been wrong often enough in my time that I’m loathe to damn those Democrats with whom I disagree, whoever vehemently, as deranged. But the GOP is another matter : can you identify anyone, on the Democratic side, as seriously batshit as Michelle Bachmann and James Inhofe? And consider that these two aren’t bush-leaguers–they’re real champions to a large and growing segment of the Republican Party, and there are a lot of hints that Brown shares more than a few of the sentiments and behaviors associated with that teabagging element. The Democrats don’t address reality the way we think they should; a hell of a lot of Republicans don’t even acknowledge it.
I don’t feel strongly enough to urge Greens to vote for Coakley. Everyone knows what’s at stake, and we all probably have different views as to how much it really matters–many of us WILL join you in holding our noses, pulling the lever, and going home to work as twice as hard to get OUR candidates on the ballot. Others have been so disgusted after being sold out for so long that they’ll stay home. Can’t blame either group.
Like you, Mike, I’m pleased to see Coakley making noise about Afghanistan, even if it turns out to be nothing but noise. But there is a growing movement among congressional Democrats to withhold support for Obama’s wars, enough that he’s VERY likely going to have to go to the GOP for support. In that eventuality, might be better to have as many antiwar Democrats at the table as possible.
The upshot is, though, that very real cracks are appearing in the Democratic Party; so far it’s within the rank-and-file, but we’re likely to see maverick Democratic leaders making them even more obvious. We’ve been talking a lot about dissatisfaction in a more or less abstract sense–here’s our solid, concrete proof that voters, and a hell of a lot of them, really are rejecting the DP. Who wins, or how each of votes in the special, doesn’t change that; what each of us does over the ensuing months as result–ahhh, now that could matter big time!
#
Michael,
Once again, I do make a distinction between members of the Democratic Party and those who are largely responsible for enacting policy.
Let’s look at one Democrat, the President of the US. Now if the President were sane, he would be doing the best job that he could to serve the people of the US, and as the leader of the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, he would be a force for peace and justice. Barack Obama may be one of the healthiest and intelligent people ever to become President. At the same time, his behavior demonstrates to me that he is a lunatic.
A small number of examples:
1.As President of the US, he aggressively supports the American Empire, which is the strongest force in the world-wide system that is terrorizing our planet and brings misery to billions of people. He is waging war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places; he is a murderer.
2. As President of the US, he turned over management of the economy to those who already had born a great deal of responsibility for our current economic crisis. Under his leadership, he has turned over trillions to bail out Wall Street while tolerating millions more being added to the unemployment/underemployment lines and has tolerated the increasing number of people who are loosing their homes.
3. While our planet burns, President Obama plays the fiddle.
4. Before he was elected to the US Senate, he said that he supported Single Payer. To get Single Payer, he said that we would need to have a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress. As President, he got what he wished and promptly changed his “mind”.
When I say crazy/insane, I do not mean that the President is the same as Sarah Palin or the 2 people that you mention above or most Republicans. I find that their brand of insanity seems bizarre. While I at times feel more “comfortable” with the President and often find him to have admirable personal qualities, the policies that he supports promotes misery and disease.
The GRP has more than “policy differences” with the Democrats. For me, choosing to be sane and working for a sane world tt represents the alternative that we offer to the public instead of the insane system that the two dominant parties provides its political support.
Mike