January 25, 2010

On Grabbing the HCR "Winnings" from the Table

The necessity for the house to pass the senate healthcare bill (no doubt with a companion "fix it" bill that can pass through the reconciliation process) has been argued so by the likes of Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, and nearly every other member of the sensible left, that it's hard to imagine what else one can say to make the obvious more clear. From the perspective of both policy and politics, it's the only sane thing to do--even if house democrats are too insular to get it. But for those who are still holding on the the fantasy of a better, more comprehensive bill sometime in the future, Matt Yglesias and Neil Sinhababu offer a compelling argument as to why that just isn't going to happen:

To try to boil what Neil Sinhababu says here into something snappy, when a left-of-center legislative idea dies in congress that idea comes to define the impossible—”we tried that already and it didn’t work, next time we need to try something less left-wing.” But when a left-of-center legislative idea is enacted into law, that idea comes to define the center—it’s the commonsense status quo that even the government-skeptical American people can embrace.

That’s why an idea that started as a moderate Republican alternative to Clintoncare in 1994 became Obamacare in 2009. But it’s also why neither Scott Brown nor any other Massachusetts Republicans are looking to repeal Commonwealth Care. It’s how we got from the very limited initial version of Social Security to the program we know today. It’s how we got from the toothless Civil Rights Act of 1957 to the real Civil Rights Act of 1964 and on to the Voting Rights Act. \

And, of course, all this assumes that another, future, democratic president with another democratic majority in congress, would judge the effort worth the political risk. Not likely. Should HCR go down this year--the second time in sixteen years--it would be political folly to try again anytime in the next four or five decades.

Posted by stevemack at 09:39 AM | Comments (0)

January 14, 2010

The Wicked Paradox Redux (Repost)

During the August congressional recess, while House Members took the opportunity to listen to their constituents express whatever fears had been excited in them by Insurance company flacks and talk-show nutcases, at least some on the "religious" right took a similar opportunity to piously call for the death of the president. Notable among them, Pastor Steven Anderson. Seems like a good time to revisit my essay on "The Wicked Paradox.":

If there’s any truth to the old adage that religion and (liberal, democratic) politics don’t mix, it isn’t because they are polar opposites—an ideological oil reacting against a metaphysical water. Rather, it’s because they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination. It is not difficult to see why: religious experience and democratic politics make overlapping—and often competing—claims to the deepest meanings we attach to our humanity. First, both make a sacred obsession of the operations of individual conscience. Whether it is in the prayer tower or the voting booth, each pivots on a private, solemn, even mystical moment when the individual summons all the resources of their inner being in a single act of “self-transcendence.” Second, both religion and democracy draw the individual into a larger cosmic or social order—then define obligations that go along with one’s place in that order. Both, in other words, offer a vision of personal identity that is derived from beliefs about how we should relate to everything around us. The struggle between the spiritual and political forces of our imagination is older than such things as red states, the Christian Coalition, or the Moral Majority. It’s been a continuing drama for nearly four hundred years of American history. But following the 2004 reelection of George W. Bush, the old drama acquired a new cast of characters and a snappy new production.

Continue reading "The Wicked Paradox Redux (Repost)"

Posted by stevemack at 12:40 PM | Comments (0)

The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals? (repost)

Partisan politics (mostly) aside, Barack Obama is an intellectual's dream leader. The erudite and cosmopolitan writer who became a real life philosopher-king, Obama exists seemingly to test the proposition that intelligence and a cool reason that does not so much displace passion as it does harness it, are suitable tools for democratic leadership. If it's not lookin' good so far it may have something to do less with Obama's talents than the way we as a nation process the work of intellectuals. Consider this comment, originally posted on August 14, 2007:

Continue reading "The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals? (repost)"

Posted by stevemack at 12:36 PM | Comments (0)