Monday, December 26, 2016
Obama, Netanyahu, the West Bank, Iran, and the sweet taste of settling the score
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Right now HCR has been pushed to the back burner by discussions of just how clueless the Democrats are on the issue of terrorism pushback--not pushback against actual Muslim terrorists but pushback against Republican terrorists. Over at Balloon Juice yesterday there was a good discussion of just how flawed the Democratic response has been to the flurry of right wing hysteria over the crotch bomber. But, as usual, it also degenerated into a discussion of whether Obama bore some, all, or none of the "blame" for failing to get the Public Option. The situation is madly complicated by the fact that by the time push came to shove the "Public Option" we were being offered by either the House or the Senate was a shadow of itself. In addition, as Chris Bowers argues at Open Left there are many pieces of the current bill (s) that amount to an expansion of public option (s) that are not insignificant. That Obama didn't throw his prestige and power, such as it is, publicly behind the gutted capital "P" Public Option at the last minute doesn't mean that he isn't, in fact, going to get some good small "p" public options out of it.
Nevertheless unless Obama and Rahm change their style of governance we are going to see a lot more public triangulating and hedging because that seems to be the way they think they can best get things done. There's a value in just getting things done, of course--and sometimes small structural changes can produce great social and philosophical changes while great philosophical pushes, absent real plans, produce nothing in the way of forward motion. In the case of this health care reform bill its quite possibly the case that, as defenders have argued, just putting the government's hand down on Health Insurance, nationally speaking, is such a moment--like opening the floodgates. I actually agree with that.
One of the biggest complaints on the left is that the stupid "Cadillac tax" is, well, incredibly dumb and, because its not indexed to inflation, will soon hit a huge proportion of the middle class. Does that sound like anything else the government has ever done? How about the AMT? Hideously bad idea, not indexed, leading to bracket creep, punishes middle class/blue state taxpayers with children. Well, in reality, what happens?
For years, Congress has passed one-year patches aimed at minimizing the impact of the tax. For the 2007 tax year, a patch was passed on 12/20/2007, but only after the IRS had already designed its forms for 2007. The IRS had to reprogram its forms to accommodate the law change.[15]Or how about the Medicare Doc Fix. That's the bizarre and stupid problem that absent annual Congressional intervention the amount that Medicare pays its doctors is cut, not raised. Every year, apparently, Congress has funded that on a "patch" basis rather than trying to pay for it all at once, or repeal the ridiculous law and try for a more sensible solution to the problem of rising costs. This year, of course, the Democrats actually tried to fix the fix and were shot down by an alliance of the centrist dems and the republicans.
Sane outsiders would think that passing the best legislation possible is the only sensible option. But its pretty clear that quite bad legislation gets passed all the time and never repealed but always fixed when it is politically unpopular to allow the true harm of the legislation to be felt. Looked at one way--Obama and the Dems know that a bad tax is incredibly hard to repeal--but not to fix or ameliorate. Looked at another way, Obama and the Dems know that a bad tax can be fixed with a "patch" periodically and most people will never have the faintest idea what is going on. That's by way of saying that, ultimately, I think Obama and the Dems--if they get the Health Care Bill at all--will have put the Democrats in as good a position as exists in the real world to try to tinker around the margins and get us most of the way towards the promised land of certain, cost effective, health care for all. That's because the new regulations shifts the focus of people's anger from themselves (I'm too poor to afford Health Insurance) and from the insurance companies (those bastards *&^%) to the government itself. Citizens who are forced to buy Health Insurance are citizens with a vested interest in making sure that they get subidies and or the premiums are lowered. They are not actually citizens who have a vested interest in returning to the current status quo. This means that the bill brings into being millions more potentially angry and activist citizens demanding government intervention in Health Care--a government agency devoted to policing the Insurance Companies? Calls to your AG demanding he investigate your denial of service? Calls to your congressman demanding that your subsidies be raised? These are all way more likely than calls to repeal the entire act. And each of them are more likely to be acted upon, because they are piecemeal "fixes" than just the repeal of the mandate--which is the only objectionable part of the bill from a consumer point of view.
That being said I'm still disappointed in the way the run up to the Bill was handled, and at the limp way the Public Option was sold away so publicly. The rest of this post is a reprint of a comment I posted over at Balloon Juice on a thread about Democratic Disorganization and Public Response:
I hate to enter back into a discussion that is becoming more rarefied and bizarre by the moment—how much blame does Obama get in a tripartite system of government? 1/3, 1/6th? none, all? But I think something that the “excuse Obama/blame Harry Reid” people keep not understanding is this simple, obvious, issue:
Politics is theater. I don’t care how mature and manly and shy and retiring Obama is as a President, or how he thinks of his role as leader—its theater. His voters expected him to act like he cared about the things they cared about—and they expected him to look like he cared enough to fight for those issues. Chief among those issues was some way of bending the cost curve by creating necessary competition with the private insurance industry*. He campaigned on it. It was one of the chief differences between him and Hillary. It was also very good policy.
It was obvious very early on that Obama and his team had decided not to risk any imaginary political capital by pushing too hard for any specifics that they might not be able to get. Obama started getting very vague and leaving things rather up in the air very early. That made sense from a “hoard your capital” point of view. If he believed that he’d never get the public option and that his voters would be more embarrassed by a public failure than a default on his reform promises that was a smart move. But, as it turns out, sometimes its not true that your supporters would rather you save yourself a humiliating public rejection. Sometimes they want to see that you are willing to go to the mat for something. I’m not saying its right or wrong—its a fact of political life and political organizing. And its one the democrats are well aware of since Obama and his team are starting the process of walking back the Public Option and talking up the reforms in order to heal the wounds left by his unwillingness to fight for it publicly.
I think it would have been wiser, politically speaking, for Obama to have fought harder, and uglier, and more publicly for the public option because I think since he didn’t he and the dems have a harder hill to climb convincing voters that they at least did the best job they could under the circumstances. They have to do that because they have to sell the bill emotionally in advance of rolling out its actual benefits.
I think the whole discussion of whether Obama is at fault or not is misplaced—who cares? Its also not a difference between Obama being a mature political actor and a hysterical leftist political actor. All choices were political. All were made with the same goals in mind: get some kind of health care reform, pass some kind of bill, run again on the bill holding his base and getting more center votes.
He had the chance to stride the stage like a colossus and that came with the danger that he’d end up in a pratfall. He chose to be more cautious and retiring and to try to shift the fight and the blame onto Reid and the Democrats in the Senate but without ever demonizing or attacking the most difficult dems. That was as political a choice as fighting harder and maybe getting slapped back publicly. Its all politics. Its all theater.
aimai
Thursday, December 17, 2009
SteveM and I were having this argument somewhere, but I can't find it, about when and how Obama could have used the left to get a better bill. Its not that I thought that Howard Dean was all that, or had any armies or followers, but that the very presence of a strong voice on (as it now turns out, the left) pulls the discussion away from the purely rightist dialogue. It makes a difference whether you have Democrats like Landrieu being forced to fight for the bill against the aggressive left, or whether you have Democrats like Landrieu being courted by the far right. In any event, we know now they didn't use the left to pull the debate left and make Obama's health care reform the "mid point" between socialism and capitalism because they didn't want health care reform to get even that close to a good bill. They preferred to have the battle be between the center and the far right.MSNBC paired Howard Dean with Mary Landrieu on a health care segment last night on Hardball, which had the curious effect of forcing Landrieu -- a red state Dem who's been a hard sell on reform -- to be a staunch advocate of the Senate bill, which Dean wants to see killed for being insufficiently progressive. It made for a very interesting dynamic and compelling TV as a sitting Democratic senator and the previous chair of the DNC hashed it out.
I've given up the woulda/shoulda/coulda debate. I think its very, very, very, clear at this point that, as Jane Hamsher argued, we couldn't have gotten a better bill because Obama and Rahm didn't want a better bill. They wanted the Senate Finance Bill, more or less, and they threw the fight and blew the opportunities they did have, such as they were, to get it. The anger that arises from this realization isn't, as Talking Points Memo's letter would have it "primal" as in "emotional" or somehow not rational--the anger is foundational, embedded in very good understanding of just how terrible this capitulation by our President is for us as a country and as a party and as a people.
For the really depressed among us, go read thereisnospoon, and then come back. Did you read it? Because it basically lays it out--from now on it has to be war to the knife with Obama and the corporatist Dems. I'm not recommending leaving the party. And I'm not recommending not voting. We have to do both. But we have to go back to Dean's fifty state strategy--his "get yourself elected dogcatcher" and "member of the school board" strategy. Because there isn't going to be any hero riding in on a wave of popular enthusiasm and actually doing anything for the people. I think Obama has made that abundantly clear. Either he can't, or he won't. Either way the big discussion about who or what Obama really is has to stop--what matters going forward is what we can force him, the Senate, and the House to do for us. And that begins, as thereisnospoon argues, with creating parallel organizations, voices, and propaganda outlets to push our policies until they become inevitable.*
*Steve and I and others have had ongoing discussions about whether "the Democrats" as in the entire party could have done more to shift the public dialogue to make a good public option, or medicare for all, an unstoppable part of this bill. I really believe they could have--they just didn't bother because they didn't want to. Things that they should have done, and could have done for very little money (really, very little all things considered) would be to have sponsored *all through the summer and august* free health clinics around the country, filmed them, passed out voter registration cards, collected names, and put together a pressure group of people without insurance, or with fragile insurance to fight for the bill publicly with their local representatives.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
BUFFY: No! You guys are going to have a prom. The kind of prom that everyone should have. I'm going to give you all a nice, fun, normal evening if I have to kill every single person on the face of the earth to do it.
XANDER: Yay?
I'm too old to get excited and happy watching my president throw good lives and money after doomed to save Afghanistan from the Afghans. Fafblog had it about right.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Yesterday, apparently, President Obama began to give hints that he might consider taking “none of the above” as his approach to America's latest quagmire in Afghanistan. Forgive me if I'm not too hopeful. I believe that Obama is smart enough to grasp that America's confused love affair with its abusive husband, Aggressive War, is not going to be ended easily and without more therapeutic intervention than one President can offer. If Obama were willing to take one for the team and have a single term in office he could get up tomorrow and explain directly to a sobbing populace that war is never going to change, and never going to be able to make us happy, and never going to stop killing people, and never stop destroying. In real speak: that the only way to get out of Afghanistan is to...well...leave. We can achieve nothing there in the long or the short term and that we could better use the money at home. Then he would just do it, and devil take the hindmost. Of course it would be bad for his electoral prospects in 2012. No one ever likes the friend who steps forward and explains that the relationship is not working out. And it might be bad for the Democratic Party who will be blamed for being so weak and faithless and not having the will to win. But it wouldn't be a bad bargain with history or with the American people (or, if we are counting them, the Afghan people).
I don't really expect that level of self sacrifice from Obama. No one gets to the White House without an extra-ordinary sense of their own importance in the scheme of things. And Obama and a democratic president are important in the scheme of things. There are so many big and little fires to put out. So much work to be done. But life by life and death by death? If that's in the accounting I'm not sure that being the man to end two wars wouldn't outweigh those imagined future goods.
But what I think doesn't really matter—what Obama thinks is what is important. And here its clear that none of us, certainly not our leaders, can escape the myopia induced by the narrow focus of the day to day decisions. In The Day The Earth Stood Still Hollywood proposed a situation in which a direct and apparent threat to humanity—in the form of the end of electrical and other power—would bring about a changed consciousness that would enable political actors to transcend petty differences of viewpoint (language, culture, history, politics, interest). The other thing that forced local actors to think beyond petty local considerations was the immediacy, the primacy, of the threat.
War, as it turns out, is not such a threat. And neither is mass death. The everyday, grinding, political realities of the big board and negotiations among “important” political figures always take precedence over the little lives and the petty suffering of ordinary civilians and soldiers. This is nowhere more clear than in reading the account of the intersection between an “important” war and an important plague—World War I and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918. It turns out to be the case that despite a massive, short, sharp, crisis of international proportions and gruesome local fall out that the war machine kept grinding on. The political necessities of winning the war far exceeded the ability of any of its participants to call even a truce to consider whether in the light of the crisis among civilians and troops perhaps war itself was not a viable activity?
To give you a sense of the scope of the crisis:
“In four years, three months, and five days, World War I claimed some ten million lives. In ten months, Spanish influenza killed between twenty-one and forty million people.” (Influenza 1918:204)
Second, the nature of the deaths:
“Men were choking to death, gagging on the bloody regurgitations of their fluid-filled lungs. Faces turned grey, purple, then brown. Labored breathing produced a weird, duck-like quack...the blood of the dying soldier was black and gummy, as viscous as tar...The pain began behind the eyes, spread to the ears, the neck, the spine, and the legs. A soaring fever, chills, and delirium made for a painful, mind numbing, ordeal...”
“Doctors often could not diagnose the mysterious disease, let alone cure it. The first cases at Camp Devens were treated as cerebrospinal meningitis; the illness was simply too explosive, and too violent, for “flu.” From all over the world—Australia, Russia, India, South America—reports were coming in of weird, sinister complications. Influenza patients were developing cataracts, vertigo, enlarged spleens, gangrene of the sexual organs. Purple blisters appeared on blue, oxygen-starved skin. Some autopsies revealed the cause of death as asphyxia of the alveoli: bloody lungs had literally suffocated from lack of oxygen. There were other findings too, pathologic findings never before associated with influenza: leucopenia—where the blood becomes deficient in white cells; deafness; blindness; and coma.” (Influenza 1918:50)
Thirdly: the location and demographic scope of the deaths. Its not surprising that the fact that men were dying in record numbers in the field should escape attention or concern. Once in the field soldiers are merely numbers, after all. But the deaths from Influenza on the various home fronts and around the world were of an entirely different order. Whole families died, and within days of catching the disease. Towns closed down to all "outsiders" and people still died--because their postal clerks delivered mail and the disease on their rounds. Pregnant women died, by the score. People died so rapidly that theft of coffins became common—even after they'd been used. Young people could be married the morning and dead at night. It was impossible to dig private graves in many cases. Bodies were described as “stacked like cordwood.”
This was all happening in a time of war—and not just in a time of war, but because of the war. The draft, the movement of young men and women from the hinterland to the city/camp/port--the close quarters of military life, and the places where military life crossed the civilian world (railways, ports, restaurants, military celebrations, public weddings, public funerals) were all locations where the disease throve and spread.
Eventually the reality of the death toll in the US among soldiers crashed right into the needs of the Allied War Machine:
“Now, an invisible enemy—the shadowy Spanish Lady—was proving deadlier even that Erich von Ludendorff's dogged German legions. In one week in the Argonne alone, sixteen thousand American soldiers had come down with influenza, joining the seventy thousand already sick. German troops, decimated by influenza's spring wave, seemed, for the moment, immune to this more lethal, fall strain, a strain which was devastating Pershing's fresh American divisions. Still, Marshal Foch continued to pressure Pershing. More doughboys were needed. Only fresh, energetic American troops could smash through the Hindenburg Line and secure an Allied victory. Pershing cabled Washington: “Influenza exists in epidemic form amongst our troops. Request fifteen thousand members of Army Nurse Corps. RUSH RUSH RUSH.” Then he cabled for more men. But this time, Pershing's plea hit a stone wall.”
Why the stone wall? Because the troop boats themselves were a vector for the illness--bringing it to the US, and then back to Europe:
Meanwhile “Cables from Brest, France, tersely accouned that American convoys were arriving with overwhelming numbers of sick and dead.” (Influenza 1918: 57) “On October 7, the Leviathan, America's mightiest transport, arrived in Brest with an equivalent number of corpses...seven hundred fell sick on the Leviathan after only a single day at sea...the number of sick swelled above two thousand...orderlies picked among the dying for the dead...when the vessel arrived in France 969 influenza victims were taken to Brest's already crammed hospitals. For two hundred doughboys, the Atlantic journey on America's mightiest troopship ended in a French cemetery in Labezellec...” (Influenza 1918: 98).
Back at home:
The Provost Marshall General of the Army, General Enoch Crowder, had spent much of the month of September charged with the onerous task of identifying and rounding up draft dodgers. Spanish influenza, however, soon eclipsed even the compelling, thorny issue of America's “slackers.” Nearly all army camps in the United States were under quarantine. Conditions in Europe were even worse. Only a few weeks earlier, the Chief Surgeon of the Port of New York had declared, “We can't stop this war on account of Spanish or any other kind of influenza.” He turned out to be wrong. Influenza now had higher priority than the war. On October 7, Crowder canceled the army's October draft for 142,000 new recruits. An additional draft of 78,000 men, scheduled for late October, was canceled as well.
But the War itself was at an inflection point:
President Woodrow Wilson faced a crucial and agonizing decision. On October 6, Max, Prince of Baden and Imperial Chancellor of Germany, had appealed to the President to begin negotiations for an armistice. Neither Marshal Foch nor General Pershing nor Wilson himself trusted the efficacy of Max's plea. Germany was in turmoil. Could an imperial ruler guarantee the response of the German people? Was it consistent or even correct for Wilson—democracy's most vocal and eloquent advocate—to deal with a government which was not a government of the people? Like Foch and Pershing, Wilson sensed only a decisive military victory was a truly secure one. On the other hand, the war was fueling the deadly pandemic. To consign fresh recruits to army camps or crowded troopships would mean sending thousands of men to their deaths. A few days earlier, Dr. Victor Heiser, an eminent sanitarian had stated, “It is more dangerous to be a soldier in the peaceful United States than to have been in the firing-line in France. Is there a military or other emergency that would justify so great a sacrifice of life?” The numbers were truly staggering. At U.S. Army camps, one in every four soldiers was sick. On the day Crowder canceled the October draft, 6, 139 more soldiers fell ill. In Hoboken, New Jersey, and other ports of embarkation for Europe, deaths from influenza-related pneumonia had reached a stunning 20 percent...
At 9:40 P.M. on Tuesday, October 8 [Wilson made the decision.]...Everything possible was being done to control the spread of the disease. “Despite all this,” [Army Chief of Staff Payton] March conceded, soldiers continued to get sick. “But,” he affirmed, “every such soldier who has died [on board ship] has just as surely played his part as his comrade who has died in France.” March continued: “In the face of the German Chancellor's appeal, think of the effect on a weakening enemy if they learned that American divisions and replacements were no longer reaching Pershing.” Every American who could bear arms must be shipped to Europe “as a show of strength.” “The shipment of troops should not be stopped for any cause,” the General concluded emphatically.
Years later, Paton March remembered: “President Wilson turned in his chair and gazed out the window. The sacrifice of the lives of all these fine Americans distressed him to the soul. He gave a faint sigh and nodded. Then his eyes twinkled and he said 'General, I wonder if you have heard this limerick: 'I had a little bird and its name was Enza...'” (ellipses in the original.)
Wilson made his decision. Shipments of troops to Europe would continue. March cabled Pershing: “If we are not stopped on account of influenza, which has passed the 200,000 mark, you will get replacements by 30 November.” (Influenza 1918: 102-104.)
Well, we “won” the First World War, so perhaps it was the right call? I can't say. I don't think its necessary to say. But essentially this is the decision that Obama and our Generals face right now. Not because of any pandemic, but because the stark choice always remains the same. Fight on with casualties abroad (among the fighters and the civilians in the war zone) and at home (among those neglected and impoverished by the war) in order to conclusively “win” a given war. Or shut down the war machine and tend to our own dead and dying at home.
Some wars are so necessary that we can't afford that choice. I don't think that WWI was that necessary—and I'm really sure that Afghanistan isn't. Sometimes the choice is so stark that it becomes obvious that we simply can't sustain the military losses. Again, Afghanistan isn't one of those wars. And neither is the obvious parallel to the 1918 pandemic: our broken health care system, our damaged economy, our dying ecology. There's really no clear gallows hanging nearby, no piled up American corpses at home or abroad so high and so vast as to make that choice stark enough for Obama and his advisors. And when there was such a gallows “concentrating his mind” Wilson found himself believing that the end justified the means or at least that we were too far gone—too many sunk costs—to count the cost further.
Hard to see how this ends well.