Nate Silver over at 538 has his 20 question for bill killers post which by now most interested parties have probably read. Most of the time I like the stuff over at 538, but in this instance Mr. Silver has stopped crunching numbers and just picked a side. And his side is the "people-opposed-to-the-bill-are: stupid, Obama-haters, uninformed, petty, vindictive, childish, pick-your-favorite-insult," side.
And BTW, I think it's just great that we're picking sides here, because in this new age of nuance and shades of gray -- for which we ought to give thanks to our lord and savior, our Obama who art most post-partisan from on high, for delivering unto us -- it's good that we've finally moved beyond the bad-old days of Bush era black-and-white "if you're not with us, you're against us" stupidity.
The main thrust of Mr. Silver's post, with its loaded questions and logical fallacies of the excluded middle, is that those of us who are opposed to the bill are opposed solely because we didn't get our way and our opposition is therefore solely motivated by the fact that we are petulant, vindictive, immature assholes who are also completely uninformed and wrong on the issue. And, oh yeah, we're just opposed to it because we hate Joe Lieberman too. (Yes, you read that right, we're solely opposed for various reasons...)
I'll offer an explanation as what I think is motivating the rancor and opposition which is coming from those of us who are the dismissible fringe 'left of the left." And that can be found in the answer to Mr. Silver's eighteenth question:
- Was the public option ever an attainable near-term political goal?
And the answer is, "We'll never know, because Mr. Yes-We-Can, with his decisive popular vote win, and governing majorities in both chambers of Congress never even tried to sell it."
That's what's pissing me off. If President Obama had come out and made a measured, reasoned case in favor of the public option, and lost, I wouldn't be angry at its loss because he would have at least tried.
And that's the point the "the kill-the-bill crowd is the lunatic fringe of the left" side is missing. Those of us who are pissed off about the concessions and compromises in the Senate version of the HCR bill in particular are also pissed off at the Democrats in general for their tactic of "split the difference between the most moderate Blue Dog Democrat and most arch-conservative Republican on the issue and then negotiate from there" approach to governing and legislating.
How about, instead, and I'm just throwing this out there, if the Democrats in Congress started off from the most liberal position imaginable on a bill, and make the Republicans fight and concede and compromise if they want to move the bill more to the ideological center? How about if the President, fierce advocate for so many disenfranchised Americans that he is, actually lived up to his promise and like, you know, advocated for something? But that would require him to stake out a position, which might lead to a political fight (oh! the horror!), and that wouldn't be very post-partisan, now would it?
It's not that we can't handle not getting our way, it's that what we want isn't even being considered, and when we bring up that point, we're called names by people who are ostensibly our own, and told that we're being petty, petulant, and irrational, and that we should STFU and "be grateful the Republicans aren't in charge. And oh yes, give us your money and your votes, but still STFU, you liberals are an embarrassment."
So, of course we're going to oppose bills that we feel are a betrayal of our values.
Of course we're going to talk about primary challenges for Congressmen and the President.
Of course we're going to talk about not contributing to the Democratic Party.
Of course we're going to talk about staying home next election day.
Of course that could all be avoided if you'd treat us like equal members of the Democratic Party, treat our ideas with respect, and fight to give them a fair hearing on the floors of the House and the Senate.
Of course the Democrats aren't going to do that, it's easier to treat us like an inconvenient embarrassment that needs to be handled, managed, and mollified with symbolic BS, and then name calling when that doesn't work.