Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Nicely Played
I have nothing to really say about Dennis Kucinich voting yes...it's one vote, which means that it's one more vote that Pelosi won't have to get from a marginal district, and that's about it. But I am impressed that all three cable networks took his statement live. Plus he apparently got four meetings with the president, and a rally in his district with the president...all in all, Kucinich managed to use this to really move himself up, at least in the press's eyes, as a major figure on the loony left -- despite the truth, which is that he appears to be totally isolated. After all, he didn't bring a single vote with him, nor did he (as far as I know) even bring any support with him outside Congress; MoveOn was already strongly supportive of the bill while Kucinich was still claiming to be a no, and I very much doubt if any leftist individuals or groups out there still opposed to the bill will switch as a result of Kucinich's switch. In other words, he is in no sense an actual leader of the loony left, but he got treated by the cable nets as if he was. So, nicely played, Dennis Kucinich.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Professor,
ReplyDeleteWhen/if you set out to write on the history (realize you're not a historian) of this effort, what do you think you will have to say about why a final bill was not produced that could more easily pass the House of Representatives with Democrats providing a comfortable majority from within their caucus (if not providing a unanimous caucus)? Even the pre-Senate version was a squeaker. Apparently, the Dem's position on health-care is not nearly as objectively pro-reform as they have claimed for years. Or is there another explanation?
Remember when Kucinich vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq? OMG what a loon! Not like those sane, reasonable moderates who all supported it.
ReplyDeleteMichael - let's just say that if this bill didn't produce a "comfortable majority," then perhaps no bill could have done so. The bill, as it is, is neither progressive enough for lefty liberals to vote for, nor is it conservative enough for those democrats who are facing re-election in November to vote for. Blame liberal petulance and "big-babyism" for the first problem, and blame Republican obstructionism and fear-mongering for the second. But, in no way could this bill have been crafted to avoid this situation - that is, if it were more progressive, fewer moderate Democrats would vote for it (although they would want to!) and if it were more conservative, more progressive senators would refuse to vote for it (and they'd likely have good reason to expect more!).
ReplyDeleteInsofar as Kucinich's self-interest is concerned, I wholeheartedly agree.
ReplyDeleteBut can we be so sure this will have no impact? Remember this is the MSM which has not shone the spotlight on the MoveOn example you cite, but which most certainly has managed to confuse the shanizzle out of the public with their inability to articulate what reconciliation actually is, and how it has been considered to be used. (And this prior to deem-and-pass, which is surely going to obfuscate matters further.)
In other words, I would reckon that this may have a positive impact on the passage of HCR if only by the MSM mistaking the reality for the symbol.
@Anon 2:41pm
ReplyDeleteThere were 126 Dems in the House who voted against the Iraq resolution. Including Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman, who are both proponents of the HCR bill. You know who else voted against the Iraq war resolution? Bart Stupak.
There were a lot of Democrats opposed to going to war with Iraq, including quite a few of the "reasonable moderates" you have such contempt for.
Of course, Kucinich couldn't resist reiterating his support for "alternate" medicine during his statement.
ReplyDeleteDoc, my chakra hurts!
Point taken -- I shouldn't have used the word "all."
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, you can't deny that there is a false equivalency drawn between the far right and the far left, whereby those centrists in between the two extremes are perceived to be the most reasonable/least loony, regardless of how often the "loony" left has a valid point.
15 years ago, someone who supported the repeal of DADT, gay marriage, strict financial regulation, marijuana decriminalization, strict environmental policy, and universal health care would've been deemed a member of the "loony left." Now these seem like sensible, reasonable ideas. That's all I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the problem of perception in all of this is looking at HCR in its current incarnation as a static law, rather than as a giant step in the right direction, to be followed by other steps that will address the flaws of this legislation, each being easier then the initial HCR passage because the argument is no longer about HCR v. No-HCR but about taking HCR, which is the law of the land, and imporving it be adding in a public option when the lack of competition and abusive charges for coverage force the issue. This is the start, not the end, of HCR. Obama correctly recognized that the most important thing was getting something relatively far-reaching passed. Much easier to change what you already to make it better than deal with the open-ended criticism one always faces in proposing something far-reaching and entirely new.
ReplyDeleteI think reading this from the point of view of Kucinich's bid to gain popularity is wrong headed. To begin with, the man almost always votes his conscience without compromise; that's one of the major reasons he is so isolated. Secondly, his seat is very, very safe. He openly believes in ufos, puts his name on little legislation, and is still returned term after term; I doubt there's anything an angry national party, particularly during a doubtful election season, can do to him. Thirdly, he is not a perennial publicity seeker. Accusing him of such is just as wrong-headed as Ms. Madow's recent attacks on Stupak as a publicity hound when, for the vast majority of his career, he's been perfectly happy being a nondescript backbencher. Getting publicity doesn't mean one wants it.
ReplyDeleteA more accurate reading would either be that he buckled under all the pressure, or he struck a deal; giving it his vote now for guarantees regarding the amendment process later. After all, the dems still plan to amend this bill heavily once it becomes law; that's what deem and pass is all about. Given that he does not bring any coalition of law-makers with him, I'd say striking a deal regarding amendments is unlikely, (how would he enforce it?) but you never know, and that's the scuttlebutt I've heard (though Congressional rumors aren't worth much).
Anon at 3:03: I would agree, but for different reasons. When lefties cagey of the bill see Kucinich cast his vote for it, they're going to say to themselves, "well, if he's ok with it, who never supports anything vaguely corporate, then it can't be all that bad." It may not win support, but I think hearing about his switch on the subject will win them the ambivalence they need to give the project a chance, and driving down the negatives in the short term. Colbert and Daily Show watchers love this guy.
Anon at 3:10: Yup, and yet most leftists remember Kucinich's opposition a heck of a lot better. That should tell you something about his reputation among dedicated anti-party libs and the hipster set. Having a serial party-bucker like him back the bill is not insignificant.
This is a step in the right direction. the only problem is is that it is a small step. and a smaller step than the one that would have been taken in 1993 which was smaller than the one that would have been taken in 1974 which was smaller than the one that would have been taken in 1948.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing worst than this post's use of the phrase loony left, was the fact that I wasted my time in reading it and then posted this response.
ReplyDeleteBernstein's post reads like that of the right if you repeat yourself enough no matter the junk it will somehow become true. Loud and repeat. Loud and repeat. And somehow the public is convinced.
Bravo.
>I very much doubt if any leftist individuals or groups out there still opposed to the bill will switch as a result of Kucinich's switch
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't bet against any left-wing individuals being swayed by his switch, and I think he is more of a leader on the left than you're suggesting. Still, the natural disposition of these sorts of people, based on what I've seen, is simply to feel betrayed when one of their "leaders" does something like this. (I haven't checked Daily Kos in a while, where I sometimes post, but I would be shocked if there weren't a ton of diaries bitterly attacking Kucinich as a sellout.)
"This is a step in the right direction. the only problem is is that it is a small step. and a smaller step than the one that would have been taken in 1993 which was smaller than the one that would have been taken in 1974 which was smaller than the one that would have been taken in 1948."
ReplyDeleteBut a larger step than the one that might be taken in 2031
What "loony left"? Did I miss some communist hippies being elected to Congress?
ReplyDeleteLet me try to handle several of these in one shot...
ReplyDeleteAnons 12:41, 3:24, 3:42, and 4:54
The reason I used "loony left" is because there's a non-loony left, as well. I'm not calling, say, Bernie Sanders or others who are in his general group a loony left, because they seem to be serious political players, who take issues seriously. I don't think Kucinich does. It's not how *far* left he is; it's how (un)serious he is about it. I do have to respond to this:
"15 years ago, someone who supported the repeal of DADT, gay marriage, strict financial regulation, marijuana decriminalization, strict environmental policy, and universal health care would've been deemed a member of the "loony left."
Actually, other than marriage and weed, that's not far from what Clinton ran on in 1993. No one thought he was loony left then (yes, one can argue about financial regulation).
> http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/nicely-played.html?showComment=1268854896922#
ReplyDeleteExactly how I've felt about Sullivan, you (Bernstein), and others have been going after Kucinich. Does he not have a major role in big legislations? Yes, because his positions are too progressive for most of the corporatist congress people.
The following two comments sum up how I feel about this whole deal. One guy has the conviction to stand up to his principles, and he is happy to explain them without scare-mongering, etc. and other disgraceful and dishonest tactics (like the right wing morons do), and he is a loon? This false
"centrism" is driving me crazy. Mediocrity is a term that summarizes the situation better.
> http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/nicely-played.html?showComment=1268857491350#c1137319877328892146
> http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/nicely-played.html?showComment=1268858569591#c1732622418966417612
-ag
Julian,
ReplyDeleteWe'll have to disagree about Kucinich. I agree with you (mostly) about Stupak, but Kucinich? People who run vanity races for president are, like it or not, publicity seekers. And as for voting his beliefs...well, he's hardly the only person who had an abortion conversion before running for president, but I think it's hard to take any of them seriously as people who are just stating their true beliefs.
> http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/nicely-played.html?showComment=1268864598288#c7030625693292813169
ReplyDeleteI think you posted this comment right as I was posting my previous one.
In this comment, you define loony left vs. left based on how serious a congress person is. Fair enough. Perhaps Kucinich is perceivably less serious than Sanders (a debate for another day, I suppose) but based on that context, you have a point. My point about mediocrity or false centrism that is not based on valid points still is valid IMO. -ag
Michael,
ReplyDeleteHey! I've actually written on that question:
http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-it-rests-on-one-vote.html