I wonder why the libertarian right feels it is necessary to challenge the historians about the FDR years in the first place? Oh - back to that hated idea of government and the fiction that it cannot do anything right.

If the massive spending to get ready for WW2 was not a vindicator of the New Deal philosophy then I do not know what was.

The signals emanating from the administration definitely took a turn for the worse over the weekend. Here is hoping that this serves as a wake up call to progressives that volunteered for Obama's campaign that they need to get up and do something. Still, I'd like to hear more specifics about the co-op alternative.

Originally Posted by btl2283

The signals emanating from the administration definitely took a turn for the worse over the weekend. Here is hoping that this serves as a wake up call to progressives that volunteered for Obama's campaign that they need to get up and do something. Still, I'd like to hear more specifics about the co-op alternative.

This political fiasco illustrates a couple of things:

- Touching issues that are currently Boomer-centric is a bad idea, particularly when older generations tended to vote for McCain
- Issues affecting hero generations are the easiest to do something about
- Demonstrated by the G.I.s in issues like home ownership and education and employment around the last 4T and early 1T, and moving into issues like Medicare and other entitlements as that generation got older

If I were Obama, I wouldn't have bothered doing much with healthcare right now other than maybe a couple of specific pieces of legislation, not a broad overhaul. Instead, I'd focus a lot more on issues affecting younger generations, 60% of whom voted for him with the goal of changing their own circumstances. Maybe do more with educational stuff, gay rights (which tend to be more important while you are young and looking to find a non-discriminatory job and get married and somehow procure kids), and so forth. Certainly not health care. What's next, an ill-fated attempt at Social Security reform? Not gonna happen until Millies are getting older - or more specifically, Boomers are disappearing.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

... If I were Obama, I wouldn't have bothered doing much with healthcare right now other than maybe a couple of specific pieces of legislation, not a broad overhaul. Instead, I'd focus a lot more on issues affecting younger generations, 60% of whom voted for him with the goal of changing their own circumstances...

The rapidly growing cost added to the fragile economy was the motivation. The unwillingness to take the issue to the people, and get down in the trenches with the insurance lobbyists to do it, may have doomed the effort. It still needs to be done, so failure now means we'll be back here in the future.

But if meaningful reform fails now, the issue might become the albatross that makes for an austere 1T. It may even push the US out of the first world. A year ago, I wouldn't have believed we might be that stupid, but now, I'm not so sure.

Sigh.. So, we fix this now and everyone benefits.. Boomers still will have a reasonable medicare and those in their 50's and early 60's will who lost their jobs will be able to obtain care... Of course millies will also benefit later in life... Putting this off really screws the xers.. They are the ones who benefit most from doing this now as they are farthest from retirement and late enough in life to need more care. This is further complicated by the large number of short term and contract jobs which xers tend to obtain. Even if we can't do a full scale overhaul at this point at least a partial overhaul which brings costs down a bit and eliminates the preexisting conditions problem seems a good idea and would help a lot! I'd rather they create a simple straight-forward covers-everyone kind of plan now, but I suppose that can wait until later as long as some reform is done at this point...

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

This political fiasco illustrates a couple of things:

- Touching issues that are currently Boomer-centric is a bad idea, particularly when older generations tended to vote for McCain
- Issues affecting hero generations are the easiest to do something about


If I were Obama, I wouldn't have bothered doing much with healthcare right now other than maybe a couple of specific pieces of legislation, not a broad overhaul. Instead, I'd focus a lot more on issues affecting younger generations, 60% of whom voted for him with the goal of changing their own circumstances. Maybe do more with educational stuff, gay rights (which tend to be more important while you are young and looking to find a non-discriminatory job and get married and somehow procure kids), and so forth. Certainly not health care. What's next, an ill-fated attempt at Social Security reform? Not gonna happen until Millies are getting older - or more specifically, Boomers are disappearing.

Considering that I am the one who started this thread, this is a painful post.

Near the end of the primary process last year I resigned myself to the reality that we were going to enter our first fully 4T presidentcy with a leader who believed that the comity and compromise of a 1T era was possible in a 4T. We have seen the fruits of this folly played out first on the fact that Obama got no house Republican votes on the stimulus bill and now on what should have been a healthcare reform bill is turning into the Insurance Company Protection Act of 2009.
Without the cost containment inherent in a public option, there is really no reason to pass a bill. What would be the worst possible outcome at this point would be a bill which mandates that all buy crappy insurance. In political terms, it would lead to an electorial debacle next year.

Originally Posted by Digby

In my view the Democrats are playing with fire in the worst way if they institute mandates without offering any option for reasonably priced insurance. In effect, they will be telling all the people who are currently uninsured that unless they buy unaffordable policies upfront (for which they may receive some money back at the end of the year when they file their taxes) that they must not just live in fear of getting sick --- they are now criminals. I can't think of a more politically inflammatory thing to do at a time like this. And the right will demagogue this thing in a way that makes Sicko look subtle by comparison...

...That's certainly how it will be framed by the right --- and I can't see how anyone could argue with them. Insurance "reform" will end up being defined as the government acting in concert with the insurance companies to force Americans to buy their expensive product --- and it will play perfectly into the right wing populist argument that's gaining currency. Without a public plan as a low cost option, this thing looks a lot less like reform and a whole lot more like a shake down. I could see the new Newtie Populist Republicans using that against all these Blue Dogs and Corporate Senators in their districts next time and taking them out. Personally, I'd be hard pressed to say they were wrong.

It's time to pull the plug.

I don't see an electoral debacle next year unless the Republicans are able to eat into the Democrats margin among young people... Do you think this situation would be bad enough to lead to that? Further, keep in mind that with regards to the Senate the 2004 election was quite a good election for the Republicans and occurred before the bulk of the movement to the Democrats. It is going to be a tough year for them to gain any ground in the Senate even if there was movement towards them.

I think people may be misunderstanding Obama here... He does not come off as an aggressive populist in his rhetoric and I think that is causing some to lose faith in him. I think he gets the significance of the issues and moment that we face and understands what the Republicans are trying to do. I think he also has a talent for passing on fighting a battle today to win the war tomorrow. We saw it many times in the campaign when he refused to attack McCain as McCain's attacks got stronger and stronger. Eventually McCain would cross a line (the economy is fundamentally strong! How many houses do I have?) and Obama would merely have to step out of the way and point to get the point across.

I think he sees a similar situation here. Let the Republicans keep attacking, each day they seems a bit more unreasonable and a bit more over the top. Waterloo.. Death panels, death threats to congressmen, crazy mobs at town halls... etc etc... Who seems reasonable here, these people or Obama calmly explaining what he thinks is a good idea?

Plus, when a bill does pass and there are no death panels, no people who die on waiting lists, no enslavement of the entire population etc etc. their already in the toilet credibility will fall even farther!

Consider what happened with regards to the supreme court....He nominated a reasonable center-left judge with an outstanding education and the most experience of any judge recently. First they tried to slow down the nomination by pointing out that she had so much experience and they needed to personally review all of it... Then they tried to peg her a racist with ties to terrorist organizations who had temperament problems! So over the top that even most republicans didn't believe it and the support among latino's for the Republican party fell from 14% to 3% with a disapproval rating of 86%! All in all a disaster for the Republicans and their electoral futures...

I see a similar future with regards to healthcare....

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Considering that I am the one who started this thread, this is a painful post.

Near the end of the primary process last year I resigned myself to the reality that we were going to enter our first fully 4T presidentcy with a leader who believed that the comity and compromise of a 1T era was possible in a 4T. We have seen the fruits of this folly played out first on the fact that Obama got no house Republican votes on the stimulus bill and now on what should have been a healthcare reform bill is turning into the Insurance Company Protection Act of 2009.
Without the cost containment inherent in a public option, there is really no reason to pass a bill. What would be the worst possible outcome at this point would be a bill which mandates that all buy crappy insurance. In political terms, it would lead to an electorial debacle next year.


It's time to pull the plug.

Originally Posted by scotths

So over the top that even most republicans didn't believe it and the support among latino's for the Republican party fell from 14% to 3% with a disapproval rating of 86%! All in all a disaster for the Republicans and their electoral futures...

I hadn't heard that. I guess I did see a headline about that but I guess I didn't read about it... certainly doesn't bode well for the Republicans down the road. Largest minority group overwhemlingly against them, blacks overwhelmingly against them as usual but even moreso because of the Obama factor, suddenly voting young people strongly against them, and what's left? You can't win an election by just appealing to white voters over the age of 30.


Come 1T, I mostly expect the GOP to be in the waste bin of history like Whigs, and the Dems to split at that time into two factions, one more conservative than the other. Given the general attitude toward change in the 1T, I'd expect the conservative wing to be a bit stronger after the split until the 2T, but these two parties would find it much easier to get a thing or two done in Washington than the current set-up.

But who knows what sparks of history we'll encounter on the way? Anything could happen, even the GOP somehow managing to rise up and take over but it looks less likely every day. Maybe some sort of white insurrection in the South but even that would take a lot.

re. whigs... There is a fundamental difference between the Whigs and the Republicans. In the period leading up to the civil war the Democrats were the dominant party, strong pretty much everywhere except New England while the Whigs were an opposition party that ran omnibus type candidates. This to me seems very similar to the 1990's with the Democrats playing the role of the Whigs and the Republicans of the Jacksonian Democrats. The end result was that the Whigs split along a north south line. The new Republicans took the northern part and combined it with growing in the midlands (ie central PA, OH etc.. The areas settled by quakers and German Pietists) to form a new coalition. The Democrats took the southern high and lowlands of course.

To me this looks a lot like what we just saw. The Democrats gave up their strength in Appalachia especially southern Appalachia but gained support in the midlands. Thus, the Democrats transformed themselves in a manner similar to the Whigs to the Republicans. The Republicans are now left with the old Democratic south holding the white vote in the lowland south by a wide margin and making substantial gains in the highland south.

I think the Republicans will survive by consolidating their support as a minority party in the deep south (as the northern democrats did in the 1980's in New England and a few other places). They'll try to win with their version of a Micheal Dukakis or a Walter Mondale, realize that isn't going to work, and begin to moderate their policies. Eventually they'll try an Onmibus candidate by running a moderate conservative from outside their region of strength and maybe have an Eisenhower, Clinton or Wilson like Presidency in which they gain control for a term or 2 but are unable to drastically make changes. Then eventually it will be time for a new realignment in which either they or the Democrats will pull together a new coalition (and it can be the ruling party that pulls it off as the Republicans did in 1896).

I doubt that they die but the ultra conservative ideas they put forth will at least for the time being make them unelectable to national office...

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

I hadn't heard that. I guess I did see a headline about that but I guess I didn't read about it... certainly doesn't bode well for the Republicans down the road. Largest minority group overwhemlingly against them, blacks overwhelmingly against them as usual but even moreso because of the Obama factor, suddenly voting young people strongly against them, and what's left? You can't win an election by just appealing to white voters over the age of 30.


Come 1T, I mostly expect the GOP to be in the waste bin of history like Whigs, and the Dems to split at that time into two factions, one more conservative than the other. Given the general attitude toward change in the 1T, I'd expect the conservative wing to be a bit stronger after the split until the 2T, but these two parties would find it much easier to get a thing or two done in Washington than the current set-up.

But who knows what sparks of history we'll encounter on the way? Anything could happen, even the GOP somehow managing to rise up and take over but it looks less likely every day. Maybe some sort of white insurrection in the South but even that would take a lot.

Originally Posted by scotths

I don't see an electoral debacle next year unless the Republicans are able to eat into the Democrats margin among young people... Do you think this situation would be bad enough to lead to that? Further, keep in mind that with regards to the Senate the 2004 election was quite a good election for the Republicans and occurred before the bulk of the movement to the Democrats. It is going to be a tough year for them to gain any ground in the Senate even if there was movement towards them.

Obama will go to something else after a failure seems the only short-term victory -- a failure that might require people to buy overpriced healthcare insurance from for-profit entities who operate on a cost-plus basis and have no incentive to constrain costs -- or from insurers that offer worthless but profit-laden insurance. Some compromises just aren't worth making, and the 3T idea that "Miracles happen so long as the Right People get what they want" is itself as silly as going for a swim in Lake Superior in November. The Hard Right remains committed to pre-seasonal ideas that blow up if imposed in a 4T.

I think people may be misunderstanding Obama here... He does not come off as an aggressive populist in his rhetoric and I think that is causing some to lose faith in him. I think he gets the significance of the issues and moment that we face and understands what the Republicans are trying to do. I think he also has a talent for passing on fighting a battle today to win the war tomorrow. We saw it many times in the campaign when he refused to attack McCain as McCain's attacks got stronger and stronger. Eventually McCain would cross a line (the economy is fundamentally strong! How many houses do I have?) and Obama would merely have to step out of the way and point to get the point across.

Aggressive populism may be one of the worst approaches in a 4T even if one gets what one wants. Obama has been careful to not attack the health insurance industry directly. It's hard to prove who supports the aggressive right-wing populism of our time, but it has shown its hazards. President Obama never expected to get hit with accusations that his proposed healthcare plan would include "death panels", gut veterans' benefits, or compromise Medicare. He expected his GOP opponents to propose compromises on details instead of offering hysterical scares of unconscionable menaces. He expected to cut deals, and he encountered people unwilling to cut any deal because they expect Barack Obama to be a catastrophic failure as President. He overestimated the ethical values of his opponents this time.

Reagan found ways in which to cut deals with Democrats who didn't gamble everything on the failure of the President. In view of the electoral results of 1984, that seemed a good strategy for political survival for most House and Senate Democrats. Obama tried much the same and got political failure... but failure not his fault.

I think he sees a similar situation here. Let the Republicans keep attacking, each day they seems a bit more unreasonable and a bit more over the top. Waterloo.. Death panels, death threats to congressmen, crazy mobs at town halls... etc etc... Who seems reasonable here, these people or Obama calmly explaining what he thinks is a good idea?

They will show themselves unreasonable and ineffective. The difference between liberals and the Hard Right is that liberals read 60-page PDFs while the Hard Right accepts and relays fevered slogans at face value. (Genuine conservatives also read 15-page PDFs, but there just aren't enough genuine conservatives around to make a difference). Arguments over details in legislation make first-rate politics; invective doesn't.

Plus, when a bill does pass and there are no death panels, no people who die on waiting lists, no enslavement of the entire population etc etc. their already in the toilet credibility will fall even farther!

That will have to wait until at least 2011, sad to say. "Death panels", scary as they are, aren't even Constitutional. Could Obama have anticipated so big a Big Lie from his opponents? Only if he were paranoid.

Consider what happened with regards to the supreme court....He nominated a reasonable center-left judge with an outstanding education and the most experience of any judge recently. First they tried to slow down the nomination by pointing out that she had so much experience and they needed to personally review all of it... Then they tried to peg her a racist with ties to terrorist organizations who had temperament problems! So over the top that even most republicans didn't believe it and the support among latino's for the Republican party fell from 14% to 3% with a disapproval rating of 86%! All in all a disaster for the Republicans and their electoral futures...

Had I been a GOP bigwig I would have examined her record and found the fight over Sonia Sotomayor the wrong one. Wise people may prepare themselves for likely fights with effective training if such fights are unavoidable, but as a rule they don't pick fights on the streets with unpredictable consequences. Given the chance, wise people call the cops when a brawl breaks out.

I see a similar future with regards to healthcare....

In 2011 a shrunken GOP in the House and Senate will probably beg to participate in the legislative process that gets America a worthy system of healthcare.

The DailyKos hired Research2000 to do a weekly tracking poll of the President and others support. Of note, this poll is being done by a 3rd party organization and other such polls were accurate in the lead up to the election (for those who may assume bias here). The nice thing about these polls is that they release the entire internals of the poll allowing quite a detailed picture what is going on. From this weeks poll (general info here and full crosstabs here)

A few highlights.. First republicans party support by age, race and region...

Favorable / Unfavorable (Republican Party)

WHITE 24/66
BLACK 3/94
LATINO 3/86
OTHER/REF 3/86

18-29 4/90
30-44 29/58
45-59 13/77
60+ 14/76

NORTHEAST 4/93
SOUTH 41/46
MIDWEST 8/83
WEST 9/79

Interestingly by age the largest pocket of Republican support is in generation X, though still only 29%. Note that by far support for the party seems strongest in the south with even the west and midwest posting single digit numbers here...

Favorable / Unfavorable (Obama)

WHITE 53/44
BLACK 91/5
LATINO 70/24
OTHER/REF 70/24

18-29 82/14
30-44 50/45
45-59 66/30
60+ 47/49

NORTHEAST 85/10
SOUTH 32/64
MIDWEST 67/29
WEST 65/32

What is interesting is to note that Generation X has relatively low rating for Obama, and also correspondingly higher ratings for the Republican party. While the Silents are showing lower Obama ratings but also extremely low ratings for the Republicans. Also, note that by region the Republicans are popular in the south while a substantial number in the west and Midwest like neither Obama nor the Republicans. By race it seems to be only the whites who are at all happy with the Republicans. To me this seems to be defining the door the Republicans can walk through at this point and not completely wither away. Southern white conservatives especially gen. xers. I suspect that the policies and rhetoric that results will help push other groups, especially the remaining latino's into the democratic party...

The full cross tabs also include separately the leaders of each party, each parties congressional delegation and a generic congressional ballot.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

I hadn't heard that. I guess I did see a headline about that but I guess I didn't read about it... certainly doesn't bode well for the Republicans down the road. Largest minority group overwhemlingly against them, blacks overwhelmingly against them as usual but even moreso because of the Obama factor, suddenly voting young people strongly against them, and what's left? You can't win an election by just appealing to white voters over the age of 30.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Considering that I am the one who started this thread, this is a painful post.

Near the end of the primary process last year I resigned myself to the reality that we were going to enter our first fully 4T presidentcy with a leader who believed that the comity and compromise of a 1T era was possible in a 4T. We have seen the fruits of this folly played out first on the fact that Obama got no house Republican votes on the stimulus bill and now on what should have been a healthcare reform bill is turning into the Insurance Company Protection Act of 2009.
Without the cost containment inherent in a public option, there is really no reason to pass a bill. What would be the worst possible outcome at this point would be a bill which mandates that all buy crappy insurance. In political terms, it would lead to an electorial debacle next year.


It's time to pull the plug.

This is reminding me of FDR in his first year in office trying to please both business and labor and ending up pissing off both with corporatist debacles like the NRA. The the pattern fits this healthcare debacle will force Obama to the left.

We also have to remember that the 4T is still young. If Kurt is right then the public mood won't break into Lower-Left territory until 2012. aAt the very end of the last 4T we came SO close to have universal healthcare, when the public mood was at the Lower-Left.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is reminding me of FDR in his first year in office trying to please both business and labor and ending up pissing off both with corporatist debacles like the NRA. The the pattern fits this healthcare debacle will force Obama to the left.

Actually the pattern like this made Bill Clinton more Moderate. He was forced to with a Republican Congress (1994, Obama 2010).

Originally Posted by scotths

The DailyKos hired Research2000 to do a weekly tracking poll of the President and others support. Of note, this poll is being done by a 3rd party organization and other such polls were accurate in the lead up to the election (for those who may assume bias here). The nice thing about these polls is that they release the entire internals of the poll allowing quite a detailed picture what is going on. From this weeks poll (general info here and full crosstabs here)

A few highlights.. First republicans party support by age, race and region...

Favorable / Unfavorable (Republican Party)

WHITE 24/66
BLACK 3/94
LATINO 3/86
OTHER/REF 3/86

18-29 4/90
30-44 29/58
45-59 13/77
60+ 14/76

NORTHEAST 4/93
SOUTH 41/46
MIDWEST 8/83
WEST 9/79

Interestingly by age the largest pocket of Republican support is in generation X, though still only 29%. Note that by far support for the party seems strongest in the south with even the west and midwest posting single digit numbers here...

Favorable / Unfavorable (Obama)

WHITE 53/44
BLACK 91/5
LATINO 70/24
OTHER/REF 70/24

18-29 82/14
30-44 50/45
45-59 66/30
60+ 47/49

NORTHEAST 85/10
SOUTH 32/64
MIDWEST 67/29
WEST 65/32

What is interesting is to note that Generation X has relatively low rating for Obama, and also correspondingly higher ratings for the Republican party. While the Silents are showing lower Obama ratings but also extremely low ratings for the Republicans. Also, note that by region the Republicans are popular in the south while a substantial number in the west and Midwest like neither Obama nor the Republicans. By race it seems to be only the whites who are at all happy with the Republicans. To me this seems to be defining the door the Republicans can walk through at this point and not completely wither away. Southern white conservatives especially gen. xers. I suspect that the policies and rhetoric that results will help push other groups, especially the remaining latino's into the democratic party...

The full cross tabs also include separately the leaders of each party, each parties congressional delegation and a generic congressional ballot.

Nice analysis, Scott.

I find that break at 59/60 startling. That 60+ cohort has some Boomers in it; I'd like to see how the numbers split between Silents and that Boomer set.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Actually the pattern like this made Bill Clinton more Moderate. He was forced to with a Republican Congress (1994, Obama 2010).

Different turning. And check out the "political archetypes" thread in the "Book and Theories of History" sub-forum. The popular mood was going from Left to Right, passing through "True Bottom" Tipper-Gore-bashing-violent-video-games nanny-statism in the process. Now things are going in the opposite direction.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is reminding me of FDR in his first year in office trying to please both business and labor and ending up pissing off both with corporatist debacles like the NRA. [If] the pattern fits, this health care debacle will force Obama to the left.

Or, potentially, see Obama replaced by someone more radical.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Or, potentially, see Obama replaced by someone more radical.

Like a Huey Long scenario?

The network of Dems (w/money) that I know really got fed up over this past weekend and are now pushing for hard ball.

This may have tipped things at the WH and they may have just sent out a shot across the bow -

BREAKING: CNN reporting Dems going it ALONE on health care

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002065/

I say let's get it on!

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

You know, getting a national health plan passed that would ensure that everyone had access to medical care if they needed it is pretty simple. In fact it's simpler than any public plan, co-op, or even my favorite voucher plan.

Just expand Medicaid to cover anyone under a certain income level, preferably staggered, and throw in some reforms. If they reforms save money, then use it to expand the coverage.

Of course this is not Universal Healthcare. While both cover the uninsured, Universal HC is a lot more ambitious and seeks a greater set of agendas. However a social safety net is a lot more focused on imeadiate problem of the uninsured, is less threatening, and requires a lot less red tape. As long as it's available to everyone who finds themselves under a certain income level(s), it gives universal coverage only when needed.

One of the major problems with the current debate is that it is confusing three issues, making it an all or nothing proposition. First there is the issue of providing healthcare to those who need it. Second is reforming various problems and cost in the medical\insurance field, and experimental procedures in a national health plan and economy.

Washington Post showed a review of the Coverage between both the Senate/ House plans as is, and we will still have up to 20 mil to 50 mil uninsured.

I doubt that Obama loses to someone more radical... Keep in mind how deep Obama's support is among the civic generation, they chose him a good 6 months to a year before the primaries even started and pushed him through every step of the way. I don't think that this support among the civics is accidental, they picked him over others who might have been considerably more radical in the blue sense.

Further, I think we need to keep in mind that this saeculum is likely to be quite different than the one preceding it. This previous saecelum has been referred to as a mega-high and as in a high society was largely unified and relatively undivided. When the crisis hit the country quickly pulled together across idealogical lines and divisions in the country seems to fade away. The focus was on improving the system to accommodate more people in a better fashion rather then questioning the foundation. Thus, leadership could be more clear and decisive, moral questions could be thrust aside and the focus could easily be on pragmatic questions.

This saecelum has been called a mega-awakening and as in an awakening I think that the end result will be essentially an agreement to disagree. I think the relativistic ideas will dominate and our country will remain divided. People have focused some on the Puritan culture of the Glorious revolution, but it should be noted that the Glorious revolution also gave us the beginning of the southern slave holding society. The end result of that crisis in a mega-awakening was an increasingly divided society developed around different ideals.

I think one difficulty in analyzing this can be determining which ideas and movements should be associated with the mega-saecelum and which should be associated with the saecelum itself. The ideas associated with the saecelum should exert themselves across all of society by the end of the saecelum and those associated with the mega-saecelum most likely won't. In this case I think the specific movements (spiritual and otherwise) arising in our nation will likely remain past the crisis leaving us a much more divided county than we have been since prior to the civil war. They will develop through the mega-unraveling and one will come to dominate in the mega-crisis.

I think the mistake some are making here is to confuse ideas of the blue awakening with ideas likely to be accepted by the society at large. Thus, some are looking for a blue profit to impose the blue awakening ideas on the country. The portion of the red side that says we should go back to a morally unified country around traditional values will ultimately lose out, though the traditional values themselves may remain in the same way that a medievalist hierarchical society based on the traditional structure of earlier British society remained but no longer dominated everywhere.

I believe Obama understands this and it comes through in much of his rhetoric. He speaks of a world with different cultures and ideas living side by side. He doesn't seek to tear down any group or resolve any such internal conflict (ie. no Lincolnesque "A union divided cannot stand" type statement). He is looking for ways an increasingly divided country can function productively despite our differences. I believe that health care, improvements in our energy usage etc. are things that can cross cultural and regional lines and are thus very doable at this time as long as he can convince people that this isn't an imposition of a scary new value system. Thus, Obama can do it, not likely someone more radical.

On another note.. A book coming out soon by Steven Pinkus attempts he claims to put the Glorious revolution in a broader context and show the far reaching effects that this revolution had on the world using sources that hadn't previously been accessed.. I think it could be quite interesting given the comparisons people are making between our times and the time of the glorious revolution. The book is: 1688: The first modern revolution.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Or, potentially, see Obama replaced by someone more radical.

Originally Posted by Odin

Cigna "Death Panel" pulls the plug on 17 year old cancer patient because of costs.

-Cigna denied the liver transplant to Nataline because it was an experimental procedure; your beloved Obamacare would have been even more likely to have done what Cigna did, since it would might have been the waste of a perfectly good rationed liver. Do any research on the European welfare state monstrosities, and you'll hug Cigna.

Again, why would you want to put the government in that position?

Originally Posted by independent

...A politician kills your kin, they'll lose some votes. A corporation kills your kin, and they'll earn a higher profit next quarter. I don't think that's the right incentive system.

-False.

If a corporation allows your kin to die, then people will stop buying that plan, and then that lowers their profits for the next twenty quarters (Cigna seems to have lost far more money after people left their plan, than they saved);

OTOH:

The "politicians" won't allow your kin to die, a bureaucrat following the law will; the politicians will be shielded (again, see the European welfare states), and if you raise a fuss, they'll remind you that you're just being "selfish".

Haymarket railing against myths":

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

1- Hoover did not cause the Depression - FDR did...

1) No one "caused" the Great Depression per se;

2) Hoover & FDR's actions extended the Great Depression longer than almost any other depression in US history (the one starting in 1873 may have been an exception, depending on your definition and standards).

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

2- Hoover is the source of the New Deal - not FDR...

-Hoover started "Progressive" style policies, but FDR greatly expanded them. The fact that Hoover would do that shouldn't be a shock, since both Hoover & FDR were alumni of the Wilson administration. The irony which many people forget, is that FDR ran against Hoover by claiming that Hoover was profligate spender, and that he (FDR) would be a cost cutter.

Define "irony".

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

3- The New Deal did not work and if it did it was due to Hoover...

1) I'm not aware of any libertarian claiming that the FDR was anything other than counter-productive;

2) Again, most US depressions only lasted 2 or 3 years, and then the USA roared on better than before (the post-WWI Depression is an example).

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

4 -Proof of the failure of FDR's New Deal (I know, its a contradiction but go with it) is the 1937 recession...

-As well as the continued 10% unemployment right up until 1941.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

...Coughlin was a terrible anti-Semite...

-DUH.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Coughlin was an early ally of FDR in the early Thirties. He turned against FDR in 1934...

...because FDR wasn't anti-capitalist enough.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I wonder why the libertarian right feels it is necessary to challenge the historians about the FDR years in the first place...

-The libertarians doing the challenging are historians; they're simply doing a more complete and accurate job.

From KIA:

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

...The New Deal didn't bring us out of the Great Depression. World War II actually brought us out of the Great Depression...

Haymarket's reply:

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

If the massive spending to get ready for WW2 was not a vindicator of the New Deal philosophy then I do not know what was.

...actually, both statements are a little off. Historically, when do people start spending again in a manner which isn't inflationary? When they see goods & services which are higher quality than before, yet inexpensive. This requires innovation (by inventors & entrepeneuers), AND capital investment, both of which take 2-3 years.

The New Deal stifled innovation, and didn't do much to help capital investment, either.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is reminding me of FDR in his first year in office trying to please both business and labor and ending up pissing off both with corporatist debacles like the NRA...

-A good proportion of the so-called "Corporate Fat Cats" got along with FDR, since the NIRA was designed to prop them up against competition from small companies; it was the small entrepeneur who had reason to hate FDR's guts (look at who the NIRA usually picked on).


...and, BTW Odin (since Haymarket brought up Father Coughlin), you still haven't let us in on how you could have been so sadly mis-informed on FDR's erstwhile buddy Father Coughlin:

1) What book?

2) What are the quotes?

3) Sources?

...I hope my tax dollars didn't pay to send you to college...

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Like a Huey Long scenario?

Without Long's dictatorial tendencies, I hope.

Glick, the book is The Great Depression: America 1929-1941 by Robert McElvaine. Look it up yourself, I'm not your slave.

"Why have a mammogram, if you can't afford the cancer?"


A zinger:

MSNBC just interviewed a woman who said that.

Unfortunately she's not alone. If a doctor "finds something", and the insurance company decides to cancel you, what have you really gained?

Health insurance is like lending someone with an umbrella for a fee and then demanding the umbrella back when it starts raining.

Originally Posted by Odin

Health insurance is like lending someone with an umbrella for a fee and then demanding the umbrella back when it starts raining.

The same concept is used with car insurance.