View Story | 89 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
direction is not to demonize the other side. Polarizing the country doesn't shift the ratio of progressives to conservatives at all; it makes progressives more progressive and conservatives more conservative, and it turns off a huge number of people who aren't tied to an ideology from even participating in politics at all. "Fighting" the conservatives won't give us a larger progressive majority, unless we actually kill them or take away their right to vote, and I'm pretty sure not even Edwards is proposing that. The only non-genocidal way to shift the country to the left is to persuade people issue-by-issue that progressive policies are better.
Obama's style of bipartisanship is brilliant in that context. To really understand his strategy and why it's so effective, check out this must-read Propect article: http://www.prospect.org/...
--- "If Obama is the nominee, we are doomed." -Rush Limbaugh "Always speak before Barack Obama, not after Barack Obama." -Olbermann
by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:10:59 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Must read Ezra Klein
(Without getting deep into discussion over budget reconciliation strategies, many health wonks believe it's possible to force budgetary matters in a straight up-or-down vote, bypassing the filibuster. But in the past, Sen. Robert Byrd has disallowed the strategy.) The actual theory behind the ballot initiative process is applicable to national health reform. Americans don't vote on legislation, but they can pressure legislators. Reagan understood that in 1983, when he exhorted voters to flood their congressmen's offices with calls and letters in favor of his tax cuts. The people did as Reagan asked, and few congressmen dared deny their wishes. Conversely, the 1994 health reforms were an inside strategy that relied on cutting a deal with senators of goodwill, not channeling public sentiment to pressure them into support. Indeed, it was quite the opposite, as the anti-reform forces channeled public sentiment to unsettle supporters.
(Without getting deep into discussion over budget reconciliation strategies, many health wonks believe it's possible to force budgetary matters in a straight up-or-down vote, bypassing the filibuster. But in the past, Sen. Robert Byrd has disallowed the strategy.) The actual theory behind the ballot initiative process is applicable to national health reform. Americans don't vote on legislation, but they can pressure legislators.
Reagan understood that in 1983, when he exhorted voters to flood their congressmen's offices with calls and letters in favor of his tax cuts. The people did as Reagan asked, and few congressmen dared deny their wishes. Conversely, the 1994 health reforms were an inside strategy that relied on cutting a deal with senators of goodwill, not channeling public sentiment to pressure them into support. Indeed, it was quite the opposite, as the anti-reform forces channeled public sentiment to unsettle supporters.
The exact approach Edwards talks about when he says he will out everyone who votes against UHC, and use the bully pulpit to help defeat them.
Edwards Democrats ActBlue
by LaEscapee on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 09:33:46 PM PDT
but people don't. If Edwards is that heroic, he should "use the bully pulpit" to enact a single payer system.
Evan Bayh is a McCain/Lieberman clone.
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:43:49 PM PDT
That article makes the point that making a health care plan very popular will result in negative political consequences for those who oppose it, and that's how it will gain political support. Ezra says that's the Edwards strategy. So it is. Good for him. But it's also the Obama strategy.
Where they differ is in how they'll muster this overwhelming public support for their plans. Edwards seems to want to do it with fiery populist rhetoric. This appeals to hardcore Democrats as evidenced on dKos, but those aren't the people who need to be convinced to support a Dem health care proposal. To build overwhelming public support, our guy's going to have to sell the Republican and independent voters on his idea. Obama's popularity among those groups in spite of his superior progressive voting record indicates that he's very well-situated to do just that.
It's a question of who's going to have the stronger bully pulpit: the newly minted liberal firebrand, or the inspirational post-partisan pragmatic progressive. I think it'll be Obama.
Your quote mentions Reagan's success creating a bunch of "Reagan Democrats" who supported him and gave him a strong bully pulpit. The question is, who's our best anti-Reagan, the guy who can create that same massive public shift but in the opposite direction? Considering how many "Obama Republicans" there are (have you ever even heard of an Edwards Republican?) I think Obama's clearly the one in the best position to win converts back to our side.
by Troutnut on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:58:10 PM PDT
by LaEscapee on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:30:33 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 89 comments