Political capital is an interesting thing. There is an awful lot of it sitting on the table right now. I don't know whose it is. Obama's? I don't think so, rather he is one of the larger bills in the pile. That he looms as an apparent endorser of progress makes him a staunch underwriter, but it is not his to spend. I think that political capital is ours, the progressives.
There are millions who do not engage in politics day to day. It is their right and privilege to be so casual. They aren't stupid, they're just preoccupied. They believe they made their voices heard in November and they want to get back to their lives and they expect the government they elected to address the things that were debated last year. They are the ones and fives laying on that table. They are the political capital. If they are used by us to frivolously bargain with the noisy minority, giving in to their used-car salesman tactics then we will be driving around in a lemon, and trying to explain to our financiers why we got ripped off. They will not care about the details and the minutiae, they will only chortle and make a mental note not to give us any more political capital. That would be the Waterloo that we fear.
In what ought to be a debate between a public option or a single-payer system we are witnessing victory after victory for the hog-minded minority. That single-payer was taken off the table by "pragmatic" dems was the first victory. Now, with the public option firmly established as "the far left" alternative we will watch as mere tweaking of the status quo will be sold as real reform.
In a segment on MSNBC I saw Markos, talking about progressive threats to vote down any bill that compromised too much. When asked what would happen in this scenario he very stridently remarked that (I paraphrase), a progressive backlash and a defeated healthcare bill would become a 2010 campaign issue and we would have to try again with a new congress, presumably with more Democrats.
I think we have to start thinking this way. This should be matter of fact.
Political capital is an interesting thing. There is an awful lot of it sitting on the table right now. I don't know whose it is. Obama's? I don't think so, rather he is one of the larger bills in the pile. That he looms as an apparent endorser of progress makes him a staunch underwriter, but it is not his to spend. I think that political capital is ours, the progressives.
There are millions who do not engage in politics day to day. It is their right and privilege to be so casual. They aren't stupid, they're just preoccupied. They believe they made their voices heard in November and they want to get back to their lives and they expect the government they elected to address the things that were debated last year. They are the ones and fives laying on that table. They are the political capital. If they are used by us to frivolously bargain with the noisy minority, giving in to their used-car salesman tactics then we will be driving around in a lemon, and trying to explain to our financiers why we got ripped off. They will not care about the details and the minutiae, they will only chortle and make a mental note not to give us any more political capital. That would be the Waterloo that we fear.
Conversely, if we were to remain committed to a strong public option (or better yet, a single-payer plan) and it was defeated by 43 senatorial votes, then this would be a Waterloo - for republicans and blue dogs. The average Joes and Janes, who have since November gone back to their own daily concerns, would be re-engaged in a mass WTF moment. The thinking goes that these people would say "see, things never change" and the republicans will have their victory.
I don't think that's how the story would go. These people, now, believe that they paid the price of admission and whoever tells them the show is canceled is going to get a lot of beer bottles hurled in their direction. Suddenly average Joe would learn the names Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and Bill Nelson. They would learn the words cloture, filibuster and blue dog, and the most pertinent query of the day would be why a vote of 57 for and 43 against is a defeat. Honestly, I could even imagine it being the spark that lead to the destruction of the senate all together (as it is a grand misstep on the part of the founding fathers to create such unrepresentative representation in a representative democracy), but i digress....
The point is maybe we should be playing the long game. That political capital seems to be burning a hole in our political pocket. We're going to regret it if we spend it on the first thing they show us. It's not going anywhere. There is an unformed dissatisfaction with many things. It is powerful but not yet awakened. The 2008 election was interesting. It clearly demonstrated the progressive soul of our country but it was not the awakening itself. The silent majority merely rolled over in bed. If we stick to our ideals and get defeated it will not lead to republican victories. It will lead to something that will make 2008 look absolutely quaint.