Scarecrow provides us a great example of “giving the game away thinking” in a new blog entry. He provides an account of “Democratic Strategist” Steve McMahon’s thinking on what the Democrats ought to do to get a health care reform bill. McMahon’s prescription is perfect for shrinking Democratic majorities in 2010, and for paving the way for making Barack Obama a one-term President.
Why? Because everyone involved in passing the kind of bill McMahon advocates will tell people that it’s real reform, and they’ll run on that. And the divergence from perceived and felt reality will be dramatic. So while they strut around proudly enjoying their Government-funded single-payer health plan, and telling their constituents just how much they’ve done for them, their constituents will continue to get screwed by the insurance companies, and it will be obvious to their constituents that the Democratic Party has, once again, sold them out to the monied interests, and then lied about it.
If Congress passes a McMahon type of compromise, the legislation should contain a provision ending the current Congressional Health Plan, and replacing it with the toothless public option that will, undoubtedly, emerge from such a cursed compromise. And if such a provision passes, those of us who are disappointed with the politics of giving the game away ought to recognize that there are really three “parties” in American politics and not two: the wingnut right; the centrist defenders of the status quo; and the progressives. And then we ought to begin to lay our plans to found a New Progressive Party that is anxious, when it gets a majority, to keep its promises to the people, no matter the changes in Congressional procedure, tax policy, the executive branch, and the Judiciary that may be required to make that possible.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Stephen Bounds // Jun 13, 2009 at 2:55 am
Hi Joe,
I feel your frustration keenly, and am only too aware how lucky I am to be living in a country (Australia) where free emergency medical care is taken for granted.
No voting system is perfect, but my observation is that the strongest democracies allow the registration of a preferred option that doesn’t prejudice against people getting their “least worst” (viable) option elected.
This means allowing 1-2 voting at a minimum, and full preferential voting as a better option.
This way, even if it takes 10 or 20 years for your hypothetical “New Progressive Party” to get its vote up to a level where it might start winning seats, you don’t have the Nader problem of splitting votes from the Democrats which advantages the Republican party.
2 Joe // Jun 13, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your very good comment. It would be wonderful if the US were to adopt a preferential voting system. Progressives here have really suffered from an oppressive two-party system that washes out our preferences most of the time, and also makes it very difficult for the American political system to solve long-standing problems.
Sometimes I reflect on the history of attempts to get national health care here and on what it has cost Americans not to have that care. Currently, for example, there’s a three year gap between the US and Australia in life expectancy, and a two year gap with New Zealand. There are also important differences in other health care outcomes. Also, Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders don’t go into bankruptcy, or get their homes foreclosed, or commit suicide due to their inability to pay bills for health care. The stubbornness of the American public in refusing to succumb to “socialized medicine” is a monumental example of failure to adapt, a victory of ideological fanaticism over simple common sense. It reminds me of the Polish Diet in the 18th century and earlier which insisted on unanimous consent before it would take action on any matter regardless of the seriousness of gathering international threats emanating from Russia and Prussia. The result was the partition of Poland.