I'm no great fan of Greenwald, haven't made that any secret, and I must admit that I generally skip diaries that simply parrot his columns. (And yes, I realize that writing a diary about something Greenwald has posted, in the face of that admission, is ironic, (or perhaps moronic), but then I am not merely parroting). But when someone is right, they are right. You see, Greenwald is right in his online column today discussing The Underlying Divisions in the Healthcare Debate.
Oh I don't know so much about Greenwald being right about all that corporatism stuff. I mean, it sounds great if the parameters of one's experience is a Poli-Sci graduate seminar or something, where all the evils of the world can be solved by waking up the sheep to the truth about their corporate overlords or something. Then we can all have utopia, like when the animals overthrew Farmer Jones.
Okay, seriously, I do think Greenwald even has a point about the too-cozy relationship between both major political parties and powerful mega-corporations. I am not so sure however, that that point can be stretched to fit his argument that the underlying divisions in the healthcare debate, that opposition or support for the compromise version of the bill now being debated in the Senate (which I will point out is itself far from the final product that will land on the President's desk), devolve to pro- or anti-corporatist attitudes. Greenwald's characterization of opponents of the healthcare compromise as opponents of corporatism, and accordingly of supporters of the same as supporters of corporatism is a self-serving oversimplification, i.e., unless you agree with me you're a corporate shill. Ah, but that's not really what I'm talking about either. That's not why Greenwald is right.
No, what I'm talking about is this:
There are many reasons for the progressive division on the health care bill. There are differences over the narrow question of health care policy, with some believing the bill does more harm than good just on that ground alone. Some of it has to do with broader questions of political power: if progressives always announce that they are willing to accept whatever miniscule benefits are tossed at them (on the ground that it's better than nothing) and unfailingly support Democratic initiatives (on the ground that the GOP is worse), then they will (and should) always be ignored when it comes time to negotiate; nobody takes seriously the demands of those who announce they'll go along with whatever the final outcome is.
Greenwald is right that "nobody takes seriously the demands of those who announce they'll go along with whatever the final outcome is." Greenwald is right that "if progressives always announce that they are willing to accept whatever miniscule benefits are tossed at them (on the ground that it's better than nothing) and unfailingly support Democratic initiatives (on the ground that the GOP is worse), then they will (and should) always be ignored when it comes time to negotiate."
Purportedly, although not crystal clear from his column, Greenwald would have progressives (I suppose the real progressives that are opposed to corporatism in all its terrible forms) oppose the Senate bill. Kill the Bill! That'll show the corporatist dogs we're a force to reckoned with. Umm, no, that's not right.
If Greenwald is right, and he is, that the Villagers will never take progressives seriously until they stop rolling over on command, then the time and place to play hardball on health care reform is not on the health care reform legislation. Huh?
You heard me right. The conservadems and the Blue Dogs and the all-powerful killing machine that is Rahmbo know that progressive threats to kill the bill are ridiculous. Because they know its a bluff. Just like the CPC is going to fold on the public option when the conference report is raised in the Hosue for a vote. Oh a few diehards will vote no, secure in the knowledge that the bill will pass anyway. It's a bluff because the DLC'ers and triangulators don't really care if health care reform passes. Health care reform is merely a vehicle for them to give another handout to another set of powerful corporations (to that extent Greenwald is right again, but I'm trying to ignore that--it causes too much cognitive dissonance); and that is why it's the progressives that have done all the compromising. In the end, we're the only ones who care if it passes.
Now, here's how to really play hardball over healthcare. Hold up something that the Conservadems do want, something they want so badly that they'll be willing to negotiate. There are many targets. The only thing I would say is off limits is defense appropriations, but everything else should be game. Take the annual billion dollar giveaways to farmers. Most of the Conservadems come from rural or semi-rural districts; most progressives do not. Fuck with them on that, on their bread and butter, and they will despise you but also respect you. Whining and crying about how Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and crew were meanies and made us give up stuff we wanted get's nothing done. Progressives moaning and crying is music to their ears, but tell them the special interests that they shill for will get screwed too and you get their attention. So put an amendment on the next corporate welfare bill, an amendment that restores the public option, and make it stick.
Blah, blah, blah egghead stuff about corporatism dominating the government gets us nowhere. What we need are hardnosed politicians who happen to be progressives.
And Pigs Fly . . .
UPDATE: Case in point, look at what happened just last night with Feingold and the defense appropriations bill. Everyone held their breath because he was an unknown, but he backed down because health care was too important to him. Now personally, I would not cause a showdown over the troops (that's a loser) but pick anything else the party leadership really really wants and twist their nuts over it. That's how to negotiate. Progressives are too interested in playing nice. They need to learn how to play chicken, and win. Joe "Fuck the Democrats" Lieberman stared down 59 other Senators and the President. Think about that for a minute. Why? Because in the end he didn't care if he lost. That is what it takes to win.