Can Jane Hamsher or Howard Dean be wrong on the substance of policy issues? Of course!!! I don't think they often are, but recently there have been many progressives who have thought so. These were reasonable disagreements and everyone was within their full right to think Dean or Hamsher might not have gotten the balance right on any particular issue.
So, why can't they be wrong?
Because even if you disagree with them, they're doing you a huge favor. If you're a strong progressive and you think Howard Dean has gone out too far left on health care reform or Jane Hamsher has attacked President Obama too hard from the left -- then, fantastic, you are now officially a moderate!
And more importantly, so is Obama.
Why is this so important? I'm not sure you particularly want to be moderate, and I'm certainly not sure you are one. But that's not the point. The point is that the mainstream media loves people who they can call "moderates." If Joe Lieberman is somewhere between Obama and Cheney, no matter how far to the right he is, he gets to be called a moderate. Why? Because there's someone to the right of him.
Now, you have someone to the left of you. Congratulations, you made it! You're now part of the cool crowd in DC, the only people that the establishment media care about or give any credence to -- moderates.
I get thrown into the Hamsher category because I believe in attacking hard from the left. Some have started to call this the Uygur Doctrine, which, of course, I love. The reality is I'm a political moderate who until about a month ago believed we should stay longer in Afghanistan and that single payer was not the way to go. But it's not my positions that matter as much as my attitude. We have to, have to, have to attack Obama from the left. If we don't, he is seen as the far left and the whole spectrum shifts even further right than it already is.
If Obama is seen as the middle that helps him. So, even if you think Jane is crazy to team up with Grover Norquist and her attacks have no merit (you would be wrong on that, by the way), you have to send her a thank you note for making Obama look centrist. Rahm might not be happy about their target, but he has to be happy with how the politics of it plays out for the president.
But much more importantly, this isn't about Obama. This is about moving the spectrum. If there is no real and credible left-wing that fights back, then the entire political landscape gets pushed down to the right. This has huge policy implications, as we just saw in the health care fight.
Besides which, what do we have to lose? We lost the public option. We're going to lose on climate change (nearly a foregone conclusion at this point). Financial reform is terribly watered down and getting weaker by the minute. The war in Afghanistan has already been escalated, twice. Do I need to go on? This is what you get when there is no credible threat from the left.
Worst case scenario, Dean and Hamsher lose (I understand their tactics are entirely different, and in some ways I hate to lump them in together, but I do because they are among the few making real noise on the left), and they move the spectrum left and make other progressives look moderate. Best case scenario, they win! Dare we dream?
I know what some of you are thinking -- that's not the worst case scenario. The worst case is somehow their attacks on Obama help Republicans win. But if you buy into that, then you have to pack your bags and go home. That means you are never willing to forcefully challenge Obama out of the fear that it might somehow hurt him. While I'm sure he appreciates that, I can guarantee you that he will thank you by completely ignoring you (and your policy priorities). Asking politely is obviously not getting the job done.
Real political pressure by definition involves the possibility of real political pain. If you're not willing to go that far, then in my humble opinion you are too risk averse to have any consequential role to play in current day politics. Politics is about power, if you don't ever wield it, then you're not really in the game.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Cenk Ugyer, Jane Hamsher, and Howared Dean.
Political pressure ALWAYS works. In fact, it's our job as citizens in a democracy. Without it there would not have been a New Deal and without it there will be no health care reform.
See -
http://www.correntewire.com/the_overton_window_illustrated
Though I look forward to your perspectives, your "Hamsher and Dean can't be wrong" notion is wrongheaded. It might be true that a better bill - still yet to be determined but it appears the final bill will be softer than many of us would have liked - could have been written for Obama. However, saving lives and resources of millions of Americans has to be the bottom line: I'm sure those with pre-existing conditions and those that will eventually be covered are thankful that a bill will be passed.
Dean, Hamsher, you and many other people arguing for a "better bill" aren't immediately worried about health insurance.
An OK bill today is much better than a perfect bill in 20 years.
Stop being so gullible. We have a weak president who is not even interested in Main Streeters.
Obviously the lobbyists are prevailing again.
Of course, labels do change over time. I considered myself a moderate back in the '60s and did not find the concept of 'tax and spend liberals' particularly laughable. Ted Kennedy was noticeably to the left of where I felt comfortable back then and remained so throughout his career, even though I felt that his heart was in the right place.
Many of today's 'moderates', by contrast, would have been much more comfortable in the Goldwater camp back then, with many of today's 'progressives' resembling more run-of-the-mill '60s Republicans. But since the 'liberal' label got tarnished there seem to be a lot of people who'd like to think of themselves as 'progressive' without actually walking the walk that such a label used to imply.
Which is probably why Obama gets such an easy gentleman's C from that contingent. As for me, I'd be much happier if he could even manage to move as far to the left as Nixon was - but I'm not holding my breath, since (as you so clearly understand) I don't see any significant base willing to push him there.
REALLY? Your President must be different from mine, because mine -- while making pretty speeches CLAIMING he wanted the public option -- twisted not a single Blue Dog, Republican, or "moderate" arm to make it happen. On the contrary, he (through Rahm) rained down hellfire and brimstone on the progressives who had the temerity to ask him to keep his promises.
So your "he wanted the PO and he tried, really tried! It's just that durned Congress..." argument is a fine sounding one except for all that pesky, you know, reality contradicting it.
Read the actual news sometime, not just the OFA press releases.
It presumes that the Conservadems that have obstructed progressive health care reform will all be defeated in their respective re-electioin campaigns. That somehow the winds of change will blow more fierce when it becomes woefully apparent how inept this bill is.
What part of NO PUBLIC OPTION....NO MANDATE don't you understand?
E.g., in 2000 Gore lost Florida and the presidency by less than 500 votes. Nader got 2%, thereby entirely undermining his legacy; because Dubya inflicted so much damage in the next two terms that no one, not BO, Hillary, Biden, Sanders, Feingold, or even Kucinich, our ultimate hero, could possibly undo it all, even given equal time.
Yet, here we are - amidst a Dubya-launched DEPRESSION - already re-contemplating hara kiri! If you sit out 2010/2012 forcing BO out of office and/or let the Repubs drown Congress, just what do you think will happen - other than HELL?
As it stands, BO can't even fix SCOTUS because Ginsberg's sick and Stevens is 89. So, his next two appointments will change nothing. So, the Bush I/II-stacked SCOTUS is about to vote 5/4 to make corporations people - with free speech/bribery rights - so Congress will remain interminably corrupt. Just one tiny outcome of Nader's little run. Beware the unintended consequences.
High-mindedness is individually a fine thing. If BO is ahead by 10 pts, then fine, vote Nader or Kucinich, whatever. But if it's really close, keeping your conscience clean with a moral victory can amount to throwing all of us to the wolves. There's no turning back the page of history.
No, I refuse to buy it this time. I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, but this time around, I will. When both choices are equally repugnant, what does it matter if your vote is purely symbolic? At least make it one you can be proud of.
Scream and whine now all you want to push congress and BO as far left as possible. BUT when it comes time to vote, if it's really a choice between BO and someone like Palin, don't be stupid.
What we do need --- what we have always needed --- are vocal, visible progressive public demonstrations, with our feet on the street and some new statement or new action reported in each and every daily news cycle.
Presidents can't threaten unless they have something to threaten with; LBJ was only able to push JFK's civil rights legislation thru in part because there was strong and increasing public pressure behind him. Without such public pressure, our current President has little to work with.
President Obama did not "do your bidding", so you want to throw *him* out, hmm?
If folks like you had paid attention prior to 2008, we might have Progressive majorities in the House and Senate, and progressive legislation would glide thru.
And if folks like you had paid attention in civics class, you'd know that Presidents don't make the law --- Congress does. The President has a veto, which he can use when the legislation comes his way.
Real progressives will support President Obama, and put pressure on our elected officials in Congress, because that's the way to make *progress*. Pseudo-progressive poseurs who posture and draw lines in the sand are the zombies --- i.e., beings whose actions are entirely disconnected from their own intention.
Benign non-"winning at all costs": Well, we gave up on single payer, we gave up on public option, we're gonna give a pass to expanding existing entitlements or really regulating insurance too, "universal healthcare" now means everyone buys insurance at whatever price the insurance company sees fit, and we're giving $600 out of $800 million dollars earmarked for healthcare reform straight to the guys we just spent months bitching about the total lack of business ethics of, but we're GONNA PASS SOME KIND OF BILL WE'LL CALL HEALTHCARE REFORM IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS OR ELSE!
I'm sorry, why you voted for him in 2008 -- and I voted for him too -- and why you might vote for him again in 2012 are two separate things.
I voted for him in 2008, and there's simply no way in HELL I'll vote for him again in 2012 unless he makes some serious course-corrections (which is sort of Cenk's point).
That's not Jane or Howard's fault. That's Barack's fault.
Excellent, well stated, Cenk. Your commentary at www.TheYoungTurks.com is now the best, hardest-hitting, most insightful commentary anywhere in America today (at least regarding genuinely Democratic party & policy issues) - and you do it with your calm, understated, never excited style at that.
(As compared to, for example, Max Keiser, who starts shouting "THROW THE FINANICAL TERRORISTS IN THE HAGUE!" (www.MaxKeiser.com), or even Ed Schultz, who will freely admit that his blood pressure is rising as he recounts the TRAITOR "Democrat" obstructionists, and Dick Cheney's back-stabbing, blaming Democrats for HIS 9-11 dereliction of duty (treason).
Keep up the great work, Golddamn-Sachs IS NOT a "Democratic" company, now matter how much the pay in bribes to the "Democrat" Party & current White House, and American NEEDS and DESERVES a party NOT BEHOLDEN to the Right-WIng financiers.
Not so Rahm et al can dismiss us as the radical left.
Would the healthcare bill been better if congress were closer to a 50/50 balance instead of the heavily dominant fragmented democratic party. I believe so. Not that we would exactly seen statesman ship but maybe we would not have seen the selling of votes.
I would even go so far as to say American would have been better off by controlling one house or the other but just by a couple of votes.
I'm not saying blindly tout the party-line, but what I am saying is choose your battles wisely.