"Making the perfect the enemy of the good."

[JHan]

"My identity as an advocate and activist remained important to me as I grew older. When I myself was lobbied and protested as a public official, it was a little like stepping through the looking glass. Whenever I grew frustrated, I'd remind myself how it felt to be on the other side of the table or out in the street with a sign and a megaphone. I'd been there. I knew that the activists giving me a hard time were doing their jobs, trying to drive progress and hold leaders accountable. That kind of pressure is not just important—it’s mission-critical for a healthy democracy. As FDR supposedly told a group of civil rights leaders, "Okay, you've convinced me. Now make me do it."

Still, there was an inherent tension. Some activists and advocates saw their role as putting pressure on people in power, including allies, and they weren't interested in compromise. They didn't have to strike deals with Republicans or worry about winning elections. But I did. There are principles and values we should never compromise, but to be an effective leader in a democracy, you need flexible strategies and tactics, especially under difficult political conditions. I learned that the hard way during our battle for health care reform in the early nineties. Reluctance to compromise can bring about defeat. The forces opposed to change have it easier. They can just say no, again and again, and blame the other side when it doesn't happen. If you want to get something done, you have to find a way to get to yes.

So I've never had much respect for activists who are willing to sit out elections, waste their votes, or tear down well-meaning allies rather than engage constructively. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is shortsighted and counterproductive.

And when someone on the left starts talking about how there's no difference between the two parties or that electing a right-wing Republican might somehow hasten "the revolution," it's just unfathomably wrong."

HRC/WHat Happened

[Amimnoch]

1. Hillary is soooo right on target with this excerpt! nt.

[JHan]

8. Yep, it's a good explanation of game theory in action

[George II]

2. Great excerpt, thanks. Hillary's got it!

[NurseJackie]

115. I believe Hillary was referring to Susan Sarandon...

And when someone on the left starts talking about how there's no difference between the two parties or that electing a right-wing Republican might somehow hasten "the revolution," it's just unfathomably wrong."

And just below is Susan Sarandon getting all giddy and excited at the mere thought of it... totally disgusting!

[Me.]

3. Boy How Often Have We Heard That Lately

I won't even quote the people or threads that would dispute this idea/s.

"So I've never had much respect for activists who are willing to sit out elections, waste their votes, or tear down well-meaning allies rather than engage constructively. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is shortsighted and counterproductive"

KR

[JHan]

6. there are so many good bits in the book.

And unlike what some with agendas have been trying to spin, she does take accountability - almost to the point where she goes out of her way to accept blame.

[Me.]

9. It Will Never Be Enough For Some

But those days are passing...you see it more and more, what has gone on will do so no longer. You want to win... get women and POC behind you. HRC has already proven the numbers are there.

“Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
C'mon talk to me
So you can see
What's going on
Yeah, what's going on
Tell me what's going on
I'll tell you what's going on”

[NurseJackie]

112. Ain't that the truth?! (Great lyrics you quoted, BTW!)

[sheshe2]

4. Wow!

Tell it Hillary!

[ehrnst]

5. Perfectionism/ dualistic thinking are never positive.

This is so on target.

[JHan]

7. ++++++++

[betsuni]

10. K&R

[SunSeeker]

11. K & R

[BainsBane]

12. One disagreement

In my view it's not about the perfect being the enemy of the good. It's about them, their interests and their egos coming before the lives of others, especially the poor and the vulnerable. They not only do not care about those people. They acting very seek to cause them suffering. They are worse than the bankers who constitute their rhetoric but never the target of their actions. They aren't pure. They are sociopaths. That they relish the suffering they helped bring about demonstrates as much.

People can dress up their selfishness and contempt for the poor and marginalized with all kinds of false rhetoric. It doesn't change what they are, and that is revealed through their actions.

[JHan]

15. Some will say you're being harsh but I agree with your assessment.

The progressive agenda was once again threatened at a critical moment last year, and we got the same predictable noise from those wanting to lob bombs from the outside, who never really tangle with "How to get shit done". This is going on at a time when there's a low level of civic engagement and civic knowledge. It's easy now to limit the franchise since many choose to opt out or squander opportunities because they want "change"....

HRC wrestles with this in the book: how to bring about "change", what is the meaning of "change" and how "change" differs every election cycle. She understands the perception that there is both too much change for some and not enough change in other areas- seen in the economic anxiety/cultural anxiety axis which defined 2016 where those who prioritized economic concerns leaned to HRC, while those who were worried about "cultural change" leaned towards Trump. A Trump Virginia voter told her they're tired of the handouts... let's absorb that.. a VIRGINIAN complaining about handouts, I mean really.

[ehrnst]

20. This. (nt)

[betsuni]

31. +1

[justhanginon]

30. A big thumbs up!

[Ken Burch]

13. Obviously, it is wrong to say that there's NO difference between the two parties

or that a right-wing Republican might somehow hasten "the revolution".

At the same time, we can't let "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" be code for "you have no right to expect anything from the people you helped elect", or "it's absurd to think that the election of a Democratic president means that the working and kept-from-working poor should be able to count on not losing any ground".

The path to recovery lies in not only making the differences between our party and the GOP as stark as possible, but in our party deciding to actually, passionately, defend the idea of working for progressive change and to be willing to clearly say "hell yes, we DO think the Right is full of shit on most things and we're PROUD to reject their hateful, stingy, greed-based vision of life".

The need is to be pragmatic, but not dismissive. "Pragmatism" should never mean treating people like they are spoiled children just for having a strong set of personal convictions and for believing that what they support is actually for the greater good.

[Me.]

16. Good Grief Could You Twist Her Words Any More Than You Have JUst Done

"At the same time, we can't let "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" be code for "you have no right to expect anything from the people you helped elect", or "it's absurd to think that the election of a Democratic president means that the working and kept-from-working poor should be able to count on not losing any ground".

[Ken Burch]

17. Not about her-about the way that phrase"don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"-

-has been used, by a lot of folks in the "moderate" wing of the party to close off possibilities of change and to limit debate.

I posted it in response to the reference in the thread title.

Yes, sometimes compromises need to be made, but we need to at least start out by trying to avoid or limit how much we compromise.

It's not a sustainable politics to never work for nothing but half-loaves, to start from the assumption that even when we win an election, we haven't won the argument and have no right to try and set the narrative and the terms of debate.

[ehrnst]

19. Again with the strawmen and hyperbole

Anyone who disagrees with you is clearly unreasonable, and has declared that you "have no right to try and set the narrative and the terms of debate."

Dualistic thinking.

[Ken Burch]

22. NO-and that itself is a strawmen.

And I'm fine with people disagreeing me-it's the usual way of things in the politics I've been involved in, and yet I've worked with people who disagreed with me for years on a level of amity.

But we need to work under the assumption that when we win a presidential election, we have just as much right to set the terms of discussion as a Republican administration would assume it has.

[ehrnst]

24. No, it's not a strawman. It's a response to a strawman....

More specifically, your posts.

You now are moving the fence, and slipping over to "when we win a presidential election," as a qualifier...

Dualistic thinkers don't think that they are dualistic thinkers. They just think that they see the world as it is.

[Ken Burch]

26. It's not as though the only possiblities are being "dualistic"

It's not dualistic to say that we shouldn't campaign OR govern on the assumption that most of the country is to our right, and that that can never be changed. Working under that assumption means giving up on any substantial program of change.

I've always been willing to compromise-but we never need to compromise from a position of having to accept less than half a loaf, of having no choice but to take poison pills in bills to get them passed.

[ehrnst]

27. I think your post just indicated

that you think compromise, any compromise, in the service of efficacy is "half a loaf" or a "poison pill."

Sounds pretty dualistic to me.

Roe v Wade was a compromise, and a lot of women are alive today, and many more were born because of it. Yes, I know it wasn't legislation....

When I hear people saying that compromise on the party platform is neccessary to get people elected, I'll point out your arguments....

[Ken Burch]

35. No, not "any compromise"...I'll clarify

A compromise where what you get is less than half of what you wanted, or in which you have to accept active ugliness in exchange for some of what you wanted.

To achieve a worthwhile compromise, there needs to be at least the introduction of a piece of legislation that does what you we really want done. It's never justifiable to heavily water legislation down before even introducing it-that's largely what the problem of the '93-'94 healthcare bill was-when the proposal was introduced, there was nothing transformational in the bill even at the start.


The ACA was just barely worth signing after what was removed If the pre-existing conditions language had been removed, it wouldn't have been anything that mattered at all.

Roe V. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, btw

[JHan]

46. Come on Ken...

"To achieve a worthwhile compromise, there needs to be at least the introduction of a piece of legislation that does what you we really want done. It's never justifiable to heavily water legislation down before even introducing it-that's largely what the problem of the '93-'94 healthcare bill was-when the proposal was introduced, there was nothing transformational in the bill even at the start. "

you know it's never that simple. What "we" get done in this case is what Ken wants done, and Ken needs to understand that Jhan may want focus in other areas. So we have to meet halfway, and engage in a bit of compromise... and then try to convince those who wouldn't dream of being on the same page with us, to get on board too. And failing that, getting the majorities we need to do what "we" want.

[Ken Burch]

50. You're assuming I only care about what I want, that it's about ego with me.

That's a petty implication to make about such things.

I would never sacrifice the needs of the people out of some sort of inflated sense of self.

And I can't imagine any issue where you and I would be at opposite extremes, so your choice to frame things that way is puzzling. I respect you and would always listen to whatever you had to say.

There isn't anyone in the Republican House or Senate caucuses willing to listen to reason anymore-willing to meet us even close to halfway. Nor will there be again.

Those who came out against Trump's ACA repeal, for exxample did so only because they were forced to due to massive pressure from below, by Indivisible, the labor movement, mainstream women's, LGBTQ and POC groups and activist groups to the left of both working together to hold their feet to the fire.

Today, there are no non-reactionary Republicans. Even the "moderates" are massively to the right of the Goldwater types from fifty years ago. None of them are interested in compromise. They simply want to annihilate everyone even minutely to their left. Look at how they treated Bill Clinton-a man who came into office bragging about how much he agreed with them. He met them halfway from the start and they went scorched-earth anyway.

There aren't any issues where conservatives are going to work with people on our side of the spectrum. They've proved that by the way they went totally steamroller on Bill-a guy who came into office agreeing with their agenda 40% of the time.

I'm FOR negotiation in extreme circumstances...always have been...but it can't be our main strategy for getting things passed. We need, as a party, to be working just as hard as the Right does to actually win the argument in public opinion on the issues of the day. If we lead with that, we will be in a much stronger position to negotiate when we have to.

What is so terrible about at least introducing legislation in an undiluted form and gaging both congressional and public support. That's what was done with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the end, very tiny compromises, compromises that had no actual practical effect, were made, but the bill was brought in in a strong form. If the original bill had been introduced in a deeply compromised form, it wouldn't have ended up being any stronger at all than the Civil Rights Act of 1957...a bill whose passage ended up being totally meaningless.

[JHan]

51. well..

That's a petty implication to make about such things.

I would never sacrifice the needs of the people out of some sort of inflated sense of self.

that's good to know.

[ehrnst]

62. Petty?

And "undiluted" legislation is really a non-existent thing, because most legislation is written by committee, and marked up during the process.

With the exception of Sanders, who has attempted it with his M4A bill, which is undiluted by details on funding mechanisms or input from health policy experts, or likely anyone not on his staff. But that legislation is symbolic, as he has stated, so what is there to lose by refusing to allow anyone else to "dilute it" with improvements that would make it possible to get a reasonable CBO score? Like the "repeal Obamacare" votes during the Obama administration, legislating is easy when you know you won't have to actually put something through the process. Or just jump in afterwards to tack on a pure and undiluted amendment after all the nasty compromising and teamwork has been done by others.

The ACA is much better than what we had. I also know enough to know what I don't know about the process of getting the ACA into existence to judge how extensively "diluted" it was. And I know more than the average person about that, with my health policy background.

Those who came out against Trump's ACA repeal were also pressured by GOP governors, who needed that medicaid funding, and I think that had very, very significant weight. The CBO findings of the number of uninsured in 2020 was very damaging. Also, when you have the health care providers and the insurance industry against you, I think that weighs more in the GOP mindset than LGBTQs or POC - as we have seen in their cabinet member hearings... And hopefully you're reading my post this time... I am not saying grassroots efforts don't make a difference - they do. But as you said in your post, " they simply want to annihilate everyone even minutely to their left," so why do you ascribe so much power to the voices of the left in the decision of McCain, Collins and Murkowski and Rand Paul to vote against the Graham Cassidy Bill? That doesn't add up.

BTW, the 1964 Civil Rights act involved bribing and horse trading - and yes, some important compromises, not "very tiny ones," at least for the LGBTQ community. It wasn't about Johnson and Democrats wagging a finger at the Republicans and yelling, "this is the right thing to do, and go fuck yourself if you don't agree," which is something that many on the far left seem to think is the only ethical way to create legislation now.

Among the important compromises in the bill are exemptions from the employment discrimination prohibition of Title VII for businesses of less than 15 people, and the exemption from the Public Accommodations provision of Title II for small, owner-occupied motels and lodging establishments. Presumably, these exceptions exist for the benefit of racists who grew up in a racist system through no fault of their own. Congress might reasonably have concluded that forcing close contact between racial minorities and these racists might have been more trouble than it was worth. But these exemptions should have been time-limited; at this point, all but the oldest business owners spent their entire lives, or at least their adulthoods, in a nation were discrimination has clearly been against the law and public policy. The case for continued compromise of the policy is not obvious.

Another major gap in the Civil Rights Act is the lack of protection against discrimination of members of the LGBTQ community. Clearly, this was no oversight. The desegregation struggle was to some degree a Cold War propaganda effort. Fair treatment on the basis of race was a “cold war imperative,” and so too was controlling the potentially subversive effects of sexual minorities. Thus, the 1965 Immigration Act, a close cousin of the Civil Rights Act, eliminated discrimination on the basis of race in immigration law, but simultaneously clarified and strengthened a prohibition on gay and lesbian immigration. The Civil Rights Act makes little sense unless it recognizes a fundamental human dignity and equality. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act closed unjustified gaps in the coverage of the original law, and the prohibition on gay immigration is gone. Continuing to allow discrimination against gays and lesbians in the Civil Rights Act is indefensible.

Perhaps the biggest compromise in the Civil Rights Act was its forward-looking, non-remedial nature. Congress recognized that there had been discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and federal programs for decades, at least, and, as a result, vast disparities between racial groups with respect to education, income and wealth. But it addressed that problem by trying to create a level playing field going forward. It expressly did not require affirmative action. And even its levelling of the playing field was incomplete; Title VII immunized “bona fine seniority” systems, even if whites benefitted because of pre-Act discrimination.

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/compromise-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

If you are going to use history as a justification for your arguments, please educate yourself on it first.

[JHan]

74. Very Informative post ++++++

[Ken Burch]

85. I'm well aware that the LGBTQ community were excluded from that act.

That was not a compromise-there was never any point in the process of the 1964 bill at which their inclusion was even proposed. It's comparable to saying that it was a compromise to exclude women and people of color from the franchise when the Constitution was drafted.

And what you're missing is that no Republican is open to compromise anymore. On the ACA, the compromises were with right-wing Dems-nobody on the GOP side, in the '09-'10 era, was going to be open to anything that even theoretically validated the concept of healthcare as a right-they weren't going to accept anything other than the bill being scrapped.

The GOP governors who put pressure on GOP senators did so only because they were under personal political pressure thanks to Indivisible and the other parts of the anti-repeal coalition.

[ehrnst]

59. Because every decision, every piece of legislation has a numerical metric of over or under 50%

Last edited Tue Oct 3, 2017, 08:16 AM - Edit history (2)

And "heavily watered down" is also a quantifiable descriptor.... because you say so, I guess.

And if you had read my post, rather than giving it cursory skim looking for the points you had a response for, you would have seen that I wrote that I know that the SCOTUS decision Roe v Wade was not legislation, because I knew that you would try to make that into an error in my reasoning.

Try that next time prior to responding to a post.

[betsuni]

60. You didn't read the post you're replying to?

Ehrnst says, "Yes, I know it wasn't legislation" and you come back with "Roe V. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, btw"? I think you should read things before you comment on them.

[ehrnst]

63. We need our victories where we can get them, I suppose.

And some create them when they don't have them.

Is there is a sale on strawmen on Amazon that I haven't heard about?

[betsuni]

64. Big big sale, the biggest. At these prices we're practically giving them away!

[Ken Burch]

82. I did read it. I wanted to clarify that it's not a comparable situation

The legislative process isn't the same thing as a Supreme Court decision.

[ehrnst]

90. Which is why I said that I knew that....in my post.

Do you still think I was unclear on the difference between legislation and a SCOTUS ruling?

If not, why did you say that you wanted to "clarify" it?

The metaphor of "a compromise that is still a historic civil rights milestone" seems to have been unclear to you.

[Me.]

25. Like I Said

You have taken what she said and turned it into some kind of let' get nothing done meme and nothing at all pertaining to what she said or has done. When has she ever worked for a half-loaf? The only people who do that are ones who ignore the greater part of the population as being nothing more than identity politics.

[ehrnst]

66. ..... (nt)

[sheshe2]

77. This+1000

Thank you me!

[ehrnst]

18. It's helpful to avoid false equivalencies and strawmen...

Because I don't think anyone here on DU has ever, ever stated anything like "you have no right to expect anything from the people you helped elect."

Perhaps you can point to a post that did - but otherwise, that sort of hyperbole is anything but credible.

Next we will be decrying someone mentioning the existence of a grey area as "republicanliteneoconshillswhohateprogress!!!"

[Ken Burch]

21. That phrase "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" goes back to the Nineties

in Dem usage-in my experience, it's ALWAYS used cynically and dismissively-I've never heard it as anything but code for "it's silly to think we can actually DO those things".

Look, everybody knows that sometimes compromise needs to happen. Ted Kennedy compromised. Jesse Jackson compromised. Ron Dellums compromised, as did Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm and as still does Bernie, on a regular basis.

My point is that we can't let ourselves get into a place where compromise IS our only organizing principle as a party-to a place where we act like the majority of the country is always to our right and that we can't ever even try for an unqualified victory on any issue.

The country isn't THAT conservative, and we don't have to govern, when we govern, as though a Democratic president is always a junior partner in a center-right coalition government.

We have won the argument many times, and we need to start trying to do so again.

[ehrnst]

23. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" goes back even farther than the '90's

and it still makes sense.

And BTW - don't let perfect be the enemy of the good is a quote that originated with Voltaire, not the Clintons. Voltaire: “The best is the enemy of the good.” Confucius: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without." Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”

And no, saying that "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" doesn't = capitulation, or being "a junior partner in a center-right coalition government."

It means we don't shoot ourselves in the foot when we could be getting something done.

The only people using it dismissively here are the ones who think that compromise means surrender.

[betsuni]

28. +1

[Ken Burch]

29. I know it goes back to Voltaire, but it became a party maxim in the Nineties.

I'm fine with compromise-but is it asking too much to make it clear that the compromise is only temporary, and to immediately encourage the people disappointed with the compromise to go out and start working for win support for more?

And there is such a thing as an intolerable compromise, as something where you have to accept too much ugliness to get a tiny bit of good. The decision to actually sign the '96 welfare bill-something that no one who would even have considered voting to re-elect Bill was insisting on-and to add insult to the betrayal by actually holding a ceremony for the signing and treating it as though it was something a decent human being would applaud, was an intolerable compromise.

There is no indication that any significant number of people voted to re-elect the Clinton-Gore ticket only because that choice was made.

And I'm sorry, but there can't be a greater progressive good that can ever be serve by a betrayal of the poor.

[guillaumeb]

33. Very well said.

And this:

And there is such a thing as an intolerable compromise, as something where you have to accept too much ugliness to get a tiny bit of good. The decision to actually sign the '96 welfare bill-something that no one who would even have considered voting to re-elect Bill was insisting on-and to add insult to the betrayal by actually holding a ceremony for the signing and treating it as though it was something a decent human being would applaud, was an intolerable compromise.

exemplifies the idea that some things do not fall under the heading of compromise. It is surrender to the worst of the GOP, and depressing for some activists who then wonder what the Democrats actually stand for.

[bettyellen]

53. Nonsense, Ken. The same was said about LBJ and FDR in their own times.

[ehrnst]

65. I think you might be very disappointed to learn about the Civil Rights act of 1964

"I'm fine with compromise-but is it asking too much to make it clear that the compromise is only temporary, and to immediately encourage the people disappointed with the compromise to go out and start working for win support for more?"

Among the important compromises in the bill are exemptions from the employment discrimination prohibition of Title VII for businesses of less than 15 people, and the exemption from the Public Accommodations provision of Title II for small, owner-occupied motels and lodging establishments. Presumably, these exceptions exist for the benefit of racists who grew up in a racist system through no fault of their own. Congress might reasonably have concluded that forcing close contact between racial minorities and these racists might have been more trouble than it was worth. But these exemptions should have been time-limited; at this point, all but the oldest business owners spent their entire lives, or at least their adulthoods, in a nation were discrimination has clearly been against the law and public policy. The case for continued compromise of the policy is not obvious.

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/compromise-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

I suppose hammering on Bill Clinton is newly faddish, but no one, and I mean no one, in politics is without the stain of compromise that harms the poor, including those who voted for Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000, which eased regulations on Wall Street, and paved the way for credit default swaps. Despite the good intentions, that created many more who needed public assistance starting in 2008.

And displacing minority low income people in order to move a nuclear waste dump where it was affordable to live, then continuing to profit from it, certainly would be an instance of compromise that harms the poor.

Like I said, there is no politician free of the sin of compromise or self-interest.

[sheshe2]

34. Woah. +1000

brava

[JHan]

105. The politics of the 90's was very different...

B. Clinton triangulated out of necessity, selectively amplifying tough decisions he made that he wasn't happy with and ignoring impactful ways he defended democratic principles don't provide a full picture. Context is lost in easy comparisons between eras.

It’s impossible to understand Bill Clinton’s political strategy without appreciating the desperation of the circumstances he and his party faced when he ran for office. The vaunted New Deal majority built by Franklin Roosevelt had collapsed in the 1960s, and the cause of its death was race — specifically, the perception that the Democratic Party had come to represent black interests at the expense of white ones. Republicans won every presidential election from 1968 through 1988, the sole exception being Jimmy Carter’s razor-thin 1976 victory, propelled by the overhang of the Watergate scandal, and bereft of progressive domestic accomplishment. “These white Democratic defectors express a profound distaste for blacks, a sentiment that pervades almost everything they think about government and politics,” concluded pollster Stanley Greenberg, who met with voters in the Detroit suburb of Macomb County to understand why they had flocked to the Republican Party.

It did not seem at the time that liberalism was merely in the midst of a historical pause between spurts of activism. It seemed that liberalism was completely dead, and Reaganism, which spoke for the growing Sun Belt, owned the future, and the main question in American politics was the speed at which the welfare state would be dismantled.

Greenberg worked for Clinton, who set out to build a party that could continue to represent African-Americans while also winning enough white voters to assemble a majority. That was the message sent by Clinton’s embrace of welfare reform and a crime law, his repudiation of Sister Souljah and his execution of mentally disabled murderer Ricky Ray Rector. Clinton did not fully or even mostly capitulate to racism. He vetoed two previous, more draconian welfare bills before ultimately signing the third, which he deemed “a decent welfare bill wrapped in a sack of shit.” He likewise appointed the most diverse administration in history to that point, and defended affirmative action against Republican attempts to abolish it.

One could make the case that Clinton compromised more than necessary, or that he accomplished too little (those accomplishments include the Family and Medical Leave Act, a more generous Earned-Income Tax Credit and a higher top tax rate, and an economic boom that yielded across-the-board wage gains). The point is that Clinton made those compromises in the face of real pressure. That African-Americans remained his most loyal constituency throughout his presidency attests to Clinton’s success in maintaining his party’s trans-racial appeal even as he reassured dubious whites.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/clinton-and-the-politics-of-90s-racial-backlash.html

[Ken Burch]

106. It was a different time. But for a lot of us, it's a big thing to want to be sure...

...that we never go back to THOSE politics.

And as to the welfare bill, I'll just say I stand with the Edelmans on that.

Yes, the whole welfare structure needs to be changed-one of the dirty secrets of the whole thing was that there were a lot of right-wing Dems in the past who wouldn't vote for federal jobs programs, but WOULD vote for welfare- I could never figure out that mindset, given that the vast majority of the non-working poor have always wanted to work-but Bill should have started out by introducing reform legislation that would address the worst problem of all: the pointless, barbaric insistence that two parent families be barred from receiving public assistance. This was imposed to appease conservatives, and did more to accelerate family breakup than any other measure, from what I've seen. If forced to choose between keeping your marriage together and feeding their kids, in a situation where jobs are totally unavailable due to redlining, people are generally going to choose ending the marriage to be able to feed the kids. Pretty much anyone would make that choice, I think.

A true welfare reform measure, one based on the justified assumption that the poor want to cease being poor, needs to include jobs program in areas where redlining and its aftereffects have created economic dead zones, needs to make training for good-paying jobs easily available, and should subsidize intact families as a good in themselves. It should economically intervene, because "the magic of the market" is never, ever going to work to eradicate poverty-the market needs poverty to much to let it be wiped out.

[JHan]

107. You have to put those challenges in context..it seems you don't want to..

Healthcare reform cost the Democratic Party the majority they had, I am younger than you and I know of the lobbying by the American Medical Association and other bodies against what became known as "hillarycare" . Then the republicans had their "revolution", under Gingrich, and a Democratic President had to work with a Republican Congress. Doesn't this story sound familiar?

What the article hints at as well, is that Bill was triangulating at a certain time where some cultural tension was taking place which was part of the "whitelash" against civil rights- A "Whitelash" lee atwater took advantage of in the 70's and which propelled Republicans into a strong political position for decades.

You're talking about this as if Clinton had grand options as a President with Gingrich, or would you have rather him to have stonewalled and risk a Republican being elected in '96?

[Eliot Rosewater]

108. "Those politics" I dont know whether to laugh or cry

One of the most successful and progressive and liberal administrations, both terms, and NOT good enough of course.

sigh

With ZERO acknowledgment of the power of the "other" and the need to compromise if anything was going to get done.

All I can say is thank GOD it was Bill Clinton in that WH and not some lefty who demanded his way or the highway resulting in ZERO achievements.

[JHan]

110. Selective history but this is what is at the heart of the discontent..

I accept there were mistakes made in the third way approach - but that was 20 years ago, and any analysis that doesn't factor into the unique circumstances of 20 years ago is analysis not worth taking seriously. Curiously, the same rigor isn't applied to the Johnson years and the FDR years.

this is the boilerplate meme you will hear repeated over and over and over again by them:

"Bill Clinton is evil because he signed NAFTA and allowed China too much rank in the WTO and he signed the Crime Bill and he did welfare reform and he was the only one who abandoned WWC, and he abandoned blacks too, and he repealed all of Glass Steagall and he allowed Wall St to fuck over everybody and he is the reason the crash happened in 2008 and then Obama came along and he was Bill Clinton 2.0 because he didn't reinstate all of Glass Steagall and hey let's face it Dems and Repubs are the same cuz they don't care and what we need are outsiders who aren't beholden to anyone because fuck these insiders and their establishment politics and that's why we need populists because people are tired of all these D.C types and centrists FUCK THE THIRD WAY" - Predictable right?

That's what you get.

[ehrnst]

109. That would be hard. (nt)

[Ken Burch]

111. I'm not talking about Bill here as much as I am about the future.

What happened in the Nineties can't be changed. I know that.

But there are things we can do to avoid getting in the situation he was in after 1994 and that Obama was in after 2010 and even more so after 2014

To avoid repeats of that scenario, we need to change several things in how we operate as a party.

1) We need to finally learn how to campaign effectively in mid-terms when we hold the White House. That means actively trying to shape the political narrative before the midterms and then, once the mid-terms are underway, running national campaigns with ads that defend what we've passed and that include people talking about how those measures helped people. These campaigns need to be tough, proud, no apology affairs where we fight just as passionately in defense and support of what we've done as the other party trashes us;

2) If we lose mid-terms, the fightback campaign to retake whichever legislative chambers we've lost needs to start the day after the results are in. If we are compromising with the crazies(assuming anyone on the right will ever be open to compromise again) we need to be getting the message out that, once we've regained our ground, the bad deals will be undone and the poison pills taken out;

3) All aspects of these campaigns must involve grassroots activists and keep them fully in the loop about strategy and proposals. Any victory we win depends on the creation and maintenance of enthusiasm, and actual respect for the grassroots is the only way to get that.

[JHan]

113. Well, I do agree Dems could have done much better to sell H/C legislation to the public..

Instead, the Republicans often framed the narrative. The Republicans pushed a lot of disinformation about the ACA, to this day there's still confusion about the ACA. But beyond that..

One of the many things I like about Hillary's book is how she well she understands the opposition: in some paragraphs before the famous Sanders excerpt which made the rounds on the internet, she explains that it's not *JUST* money in politics we must be worried about. Money is merely a means to an end: The real battle is ideological. Any progress Democrats undertake will be met with well-heeled, synchronized opposition.

This is why comparisons between eras don't help anyone, governance is more transparent these days. There's also a lot more noise and more data. In the vast eco-system of modern media, how do you compete with your opponents and ensure your message penetrates that noise, how do you weaken the efforts of your opponents to weaponize data against you and influence opinion? We're in a meme war, as trivial as that sounds it's true. Republicans can drop little soundbites like "small government" ,"don't let D.C tell you what to do", and every variation of "state dependency" they can find, and they'll know it will appeal to the inherent hyper-individualism embedded in the American psyche, even if their actual policies harm people in the process.

3) All aspects of these campaigns must involve grassroots activists and keep them fully in the loop about strategy and proposals. Any victory we win depends on the creation and maintenance of enthusiasm, and actual respect for the grassroots is the only way to get that.

I don't know which grassroots activists you're thinking off but organized Activists on the ground understand the system and know how to agitate for change. They're the ones doing the hard work. Yes, respect is required all around, and an understanding that you don't tear allies down. Tearing allies down gives ammo to their opponents, who are also your opponents. Calling allies "shills" and "corporatist" "neoliberal" and most ridiculous of all "establishment" doesn't help. In other words, we don't need a repeat of 2016.

[NurseJackie]

114. "Tearing allies down gives ammo to their opponents..." Yes indeed. I'd also add...

Tearing allies down gives ammo to their opponents, who are also your opponents. Calling allies "shills" and "corporatist" "neoliberal" and most ridiculous of all "establishment" doesn't help. In other words, we don't need a repeat of 2016.

Yes indeed. I'd also add that we can do without the cries that Democrats and the Democratic leadership and the Democratic Party are "weak" or "feeble" or "corrupt" or "out of touch" or "ideologically bankrupt".

Thanks, JHan for explaining it so well. You know, it's so tiresome to continually read superficial analysis from inch-deep intellectuals ... and that why it's always a pleasure for me to read your thoughtful analysis and insightful observations.

[Blue_true]

45. Ken.

You are overlaying her words with your own agenda. What you did is shameful.

[NurseJackie]

116. Agreed. Your observation and description are right on target.

[betsuni]

52. For a refreshing change, why not blame Republicans for Republican-majority legislation

and not the Democratic presidents and politicians forced to work with them.

[Ken Burch]

55. There are few if any situations where Democratic presidents HAVE to sign Republican legislation.

Anytime a Dem president faces a GOP congress, that Dem president should use the veto as much as Ford used it against us.

And every time the GOP wins control of Congress, our first priority for the next election should be to overturn that majority.

I do blast the right. But it's only worth doing that frequently if our party puts a high priority on defeating them at all levels-which means fighting just as hard to win solid congressional and state legislative majorities as on having a Dem president.

[bettyellen]

56. Hillary's strategy was to help senate candidate and gov races....

Never saw you or many others give her credit for that though. Ain't that a kick in the head.

[Ken Burch]

57. I'm not attacking Hillary here, or at all.

I do give her credit for the good she's done. My point in this thread was simply about the phrase "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good".

(btw, I haven't seen the actual book yet, so could you tell me if that phrase actually appears in it?)

We all know that now and then compromise happens. But that phrase(which she didn't invent) goes much, much further than that.

But compromise should only be last-ditch...not an organizing principle, not what we lead with, not a substitute for fighting passionately for core values.

That's all I saying.

If I had beef with Hillary I wouldn't have campaigned for her.

And I agree that nobody should sit out elections, or communicate destructively, or say the parties are the same.

[betsuni]

61. I never know what you're talking about.

[NurseJackie]

117. ###

[emulatorloo]

70. Sorry Ken, your misinterpretation of HRC's point/words seems like a real stretch to me.

[Ken Burch]

93. I did say I agree fully with what she says in the last line quoted in the OP.

Pretty sure everybody here agrees with that as well.

I do think that, when a major party has the kinds of problems uniting the people who should be backing it behind its candidates, that that party has a responsibility to take some look at itself and to be open to the idea that some adjustments need to be made.

Do you see any of that in this book?

[brer cat]

14. Exactly.

K&R

[guillaumeb]

32. This fragment:

"There are principles and values we should never compromise, but to be an effective leader in a democracy, you need flexible strategies and tactics........."

Values and principles differ, but "flexible strategies and tactics" can be read to mean endless compromise on what will achieve the principles and values that we should never compromise.

[JHan]

36. Compromise is not betrayal

If there is no understanding of how this difference plays itself out in less than ideal circumstances, you get nothing done which means you fail your constituency because you lack the political skills to get people who disagree with you to say yes on important legislation to further your agenda.

That's the ugliness of governance, it's partisan, it's conflicting and you have to work with those who have sincere disagreements with you, people you may have to meet halfway.

.....it exists on the left too. I'll use an example: I prioritise k-12 over "free college" - if I were in a position to have influence over priorities in education, I would focus on the former than the latter ...if I had to work with other liberals on education who wish to focus on the latter, I'd have to meet them halfway on education policy that manages to ease debt burden for students, expecting them to also see my point of view in turn. EDIT: And I may also want to focus more on why tuition costs are high, rather than Government continually meeting those costs- would that make me an enemy? Maybe we get to "free college" as some would envision it in the future, but in the interim, you have to prioritise investment. And yeah, I know America's defense budget is bloated to bursting but you won't get the drastic shifts in priorities overnight and you still have this important job to do: meeting the needs of your constituents.

[guillaumeb]

37. But we also have to frame the debate, as the GOP does so well.

Both parties have shifted to the right in the last 40 years even as polling generally shows that the electorate is supportive of more liberal policies.

[JHan]

38. There's very little overlap to the right from Democrats.

This is a myth Jonathan Chait tears apart here:

"This chart indicates that Democrats have not moved right since the New Deal era at all. Indeed, the party has moved somewhat to the left, largely because its conservative Southern wing has disappeared.

Now, the Poole-Rosenthal measure does not end the discussion. No metric can perfectly measure something as inherently abstract as a public philosophy. One obvious limit of this measure is its value over long periods of time, when issue sets change in ways that make comparisons difficult. The Poole-Rosenthal graph has special difficulty comparing the Democratic Party before and after the New Deal. But it does raise the question of why the Democrats’ supposed U-turn away from social democracy does not appear anywhere in the data.

Any remotely close look at the historical record, as opposed to a romanticized memory of uncompromised populists of yore, yields the same conclusion as the numbers. The idea that the Democratic Party used to stand for undiluted economic populism in its New Deal heydey is characteristic of the nostalgia to which the party faithful are prone — no present-day politician can ever live up to the imagined greatness of the statesmen of past.

In reality, the Democratic Party had essentially the same fraught relationship with the left during its supposed golden New Deal era that it does today. The left dismissed the Great Society as “corporate liberalism,” a phrase that connoted in the 1960s almost exactly what “neoliberalism” does today. The distrust ran both ways. Lyndon Johnson supported domestic budget cuts after the disastrous 1966 midterm elections, to the disappointment of liberals who already loathed the Vietnam War. “What’s the difference between a cannibal and a liberal?” Johnson joked during his presidency. “A cannibal doesn’t eat his friends.”

I think specificity is needed here, and the mythologizing of former presidents don't help.

I know the current trend in the streets is to look to FDR ( and even LBJ) as some sort of perfect template, but let's also keep in mind governance than was a lot less transparent than it is now. Times are different.

Where I agree with you though is how to sell liberal ideas. Bear in mind, Democrats are in this situation because they took huge risks on healthcare, and faced well-funded opposition. Dems didn't have an effective response to the rampant conservative ideologues they faced - btw, if centrism held greater sway in the Republican party, the ACA would have been fixed by now. After the dust was settled and the ACA became law, the Dems still lost the meme wars. Ideological Republicans got away with their anti-government memes, even though the ACA was originally the brainchild of their centrists.

Conservative ideologues are good at framing the debate because their rhetoric taps into anti-political attitudes embedded in America's political DNA. It's easy to rail about Government intervention, as HRC says in the quote it's easy to just say "NO". So it's constantly an uphill battle. If Dems want to combat this, controlling the narrative is critical especially in this age of information wars. Tearing down allies and lashing out at your own side is the quickest path to defeat. It also serves the interests of ideological Republicans who serve the interests of capitalist predators to smear those who oppose their efforts through false equivocation. It would help if Liberals not fall into this trap.

[guillaumeb]

40. One counterarguemnt for your citation is the ACA, or "Obamacare" as it is framed.

It was presented by the Democrats but it actually was formulated by the Heritage Foundation. It is and was a right wing solution that was intended mainly to funnel Federal money to private insurers.

[JHan]

41. Yes, and you're right..

And that was Obama at his most idealistic - believing in governance by consensus.

He took a plan that would have improved the existing status quo, that would fit with America's existing healthcare system, thinking it would gain him support from moderates - he didn't grasp there would be a reactionary backlash to this with the rise of the tea party, where Republican centrists were primaried and banished. That tension in the right continued in 2012 when Gingrich relentlessly painted Romney as a centrist sell out - the same Romney behind "RomneyCare" ( as we all know).

[guillaumeb]

43. And the motivation, the root of THAT particular backlash was open racism. eom

[JHan]

44. Definitely, the racism among tea partiers was so obvious.

I think Democrats needed to do a better job at the time though, it felt at times like the President was a man standing alone.

Obstruction was a done deal when Dems lost the 2010 mid terms - a census year.... *Facepalm*

Repubs now know they just need to suppress the vote. Now they have yet another conservative ally on the court to aid these efforts.

[JCanete]

48. yes exactly. It was a a respectable strategy. Now we know it doesn't work. We know there is no

incentive in that for the GOP to compromise. We need to scare the shit out of them by selling the public on big changes. That is what will make them come to the table with an alternative. The only people who can scuttle that kind of an offense are our own blue dogs and other centrists.

[JHan]

49. ok.. so...

Suppose I'm not keen on Single Payer and want an all-payer healthcare system or a multi-payer system? We can't even have a discussion about these things without silly accusations of someone being a shill or a corporatist or a sell-out... I'm in favor of a UBI, but I know a lot of leftists who aren't in favor of it - am I gonna rake them over the coals and see them as the enemy?

What are you going to do with liberals who tell you that instead of " Free college" we should focus on the reasons why tuition costs are high, instead of pushing an expectation those rising costs will always be met? Suppose I want to focus more on k-12????

The tension today is not between the left and right, it's between the pragmatists and the ideologues. It's why there's so much screaming and not enough listening. The problem then wasn't Obama's approach, it was the vindictiveness and ideological warfare Conservatives waged, not caring if their constituents suffered. I don't want to see the Democratic Party devolve in a similar fashion.

[JCanete]

54. One of the problems we face often is our politicians suggesting to us

that they really want those biggest things but that the climate isn't right. Want to have an actual discussion on these subjects? Hell yes, I'm for that, and I will certainly pick a different candidate in the primaries. I want people to tell me what they actually want, not what they have to go for because it is " the practical option today." They have to campaign on their beliefs. Did Clinton stop believing in Single Payer, or did she just decide it was politically unfeasible to continue to advocate for it?

Don't get me wrong, there are points in history where honesty will lose you the game. I may not be happy about it, but I get why Bill Clinton weaseled for "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and why Obama started from a position of advocating only for Civil Unions. I have never held a grudge against politicians trying to find that line...but in this climate? That was not the issue. Populist ideas will NOT kill a campaign right now, obviously. I mean, sure, if it starts looking like an actual possibility, it's probably a safe bet to say the hounds will be unleashed like nothing we've seen to date, even compared to what was done to Clinton or Obama. But the power of social media is something that didn't used to exist as a counter-weight to corporate propaganda. The possibilities are different than they were previously.

Another problem is that you can't pretend this is solely an arena where the best ideas win. You can't pretend that Dems advocating for less dramatic change don't have a disproportionate amount of corporate support that amplifies their message over those who have no big industry friends, or worse, draw the ire of one lobby or another. There is a reason why we want our leaders to not do big corporate fundraisers. We don't want that influence to overpower other influence. And just to be clear, who cares whether the politician in question's views are being bought or whether a seat is being bought for a politician with certain views? Either way, money is speaking too damn loud.


But you have certainly gotten to the heart of the issue once the bullshit and obfuscation gets stripped away(not yours personally). Our own disagreements. If Republicans have gotten to a point where they will not budge towards anything that helps the American people, then this is no longer an issue of whether or not we need to reach across the aisle to any of them. That ship has sailed. This is an issue of whether or not we can get our own damn party behind something, and you said it...its within our own ranks that we are conflicted on what we want...so any argument about how the Republicans will never go for..."insert plan here" is an argument we can dispense with as entirely moot, and bogus, because they will never go for anything no matter how diplomatic the offer, UNLESS we change the climate. So lets be honest about it. Pragmatism is not about finding something that can win over republicans. That's some unicorn shit right there. Pragmatism is about what some of our own democrats will allow to happen. What will those democrats stand in the way of because of their beliefs....not because of the big bad republicans.

See, it is just as pragmatic for them to come on board a more left-wing platform as it is for the lefties to come on board a more centrist platform, if both are in the service of defeating republicans, since republicans are clearly not part of the equation. Except that the argument is always framed as if its those people who won't budge in the middle who are the pragmatic ones, and its those lefties who refuse to move to the middle who must be the ideologues. Granted, the difference is who got to the top of the ticket, but that goes back to who the money helped to get there, and that goes to why there is justified distrust if not in motives, certainly in direction.

As to whether or not you would then make the case that their approach is more pragmatic because it gets them to the top of the ticket, its only more pragmatic if getting to the top of the ticket is the end-game. Its highly questionable whether it helps us get elected in the GE and whether this approach has moved us left as a nation over the last 30 years.

[emulatorloo]

69. ACA is not 'the same' as Heritage. "The Heritage Plan *Was* The Conservative Alternate to the ACA"

THE HERITAGE PLAN *WAS* THE CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TO THE ACA. IT WAS MUCH WORSE THAN THE AHCA.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/03/heritage-plan-conservative-alternative-aca-much-worse-ahca

To summarize, the Heritage Plan was to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system, end Medicaid and phase out employer-based insurance, and require everyone not eligible to Medicare to purchase largely de-regulated catastrophic insurance with ungenerous subsidies. It is, in other words, radically different than the ACA. Saying the ACA is “based on” the Heritage Plan is like saying George W. Bush’s plan to privitize Social Security was “based on” FDR’s Social Security legislation. The only thing they have in common is the requirement to carry insurance, a banal recognition that insurance requires a broad pool to work that was hardly invented at Heritage.

[JHan]

75. Thanks for that correction and the clarification!

[guillaumeb]

84. The Heritage plan came first. It was embodied in Romneycare.

And the effective result of the ACA does indeed funnel money, tax dollars, to private, for profit insurers.

[emulatorloo]

97. Did the ACA kill Medicaid or turn Medicare into a voucher system? No

Medicare and Medicaid as you know are government run healthcare programs.

You can say ACA = Heritage Plan until you are blue in the face. Doesn't make it true.

[guillaumeb]

98. The ACA was built on a Heritage Foundation model.

And that is correct.

[emulatorloo]

101. "Built on" does not mean "teh same"

I can't help you if you aren't able to distinguish significant difference between the ACA and Heritage and ACHA.

This is a historical discussion we're having, ACA is not our future as it is.

However when discussing history I tend to go with facts.

[guillaumeb]

102. I never said that they were identical in scope or intent.

But the ACA subsidizes the insurance industry, and a failing business model of providing healthcare, with Federal money.

[emulatorloo]

104. Who said the ACA didn't subsidize the insurance industry?

Not me. Did I say that was a good thing? No. Did I say the ACA as it is is our future? No.

I am just tired of the zombie meme that the "ACA is the Republican Plan". I've posted the charts showing the vast differences between the ACA and the Republican Plan.

But once more the highlights:

--Republican Plan was to destroy Medicaid and Medicare (vouchers)

--ACA vastly expanded Medicaid and saved Medicare.

I'll again remind you that Medicare and Medicaid are government programs. Republicans want to destroy those. The ACA expanded and preserved them

So any time someone glibly says "The ACA is the Republican Plan" insinuates that Dems Plan wanted to destroy Medicaid and Medicare.

Sorry that is just not factual. Nor will it ever be.

[Ken Burch]

86. Nobody on the left is actually against fixing K-12. It's just that by itself, that isn't enough.

The question there is, what good does it do to just fix K-12 if university education remains a luxury for the few?

How much difference does it make to have better grade schools, middle schools/junior highs/high schools if the poor are largely going to be economically blocked from going to college? Don't improved K-12 and real university affordability naturally go together?

It would do a lot for women, people of color and LGBTQ people for the cost of a university education to be reduced-it would do more for people in those groups than it would for white males.

BTW...as you see it, why ARE tuition costs high? What would you change?

[LanternWaste]

87. You believe a lack of college education renders secondary and primary education irrelevant?

"The question there is, what good does it do to just fix K-12 if university education remains a luxury for the few? "

You believe a lack of college education renders an effective and efficient secondary and primary education irrelevant or without purpose or merit? What specifically do you predicate that conclusion on?

Good Christ. Bias really does deny rational thought in far too many cases.

[Ken Burch]

91. A good primary and secondary education is of value.

But if that's where it gets cut off for most people-and if we're in a situation where even the costs of post-secondary trade school is kept prohibitive, there's a limit to what it gives people a chance to do.

My "bias" is towards everyone being able to make as much use of the minds and their powers of creativity as is possible, and towards education never being treated as a privilege or a luxury-and for people to be encouraged to keep furthering their education throughout their lives, because I believe that when people do so it is purely to the good of us all.

I also have a bias towards the idea that we should be a society in which no one is forced to discard their ideals to survive.

How are any of those "biases" a bad thing?

I recognize that some people do fine with a high school education, that some have no choice but to end their education after high school and wish that everyone be free to make whatever choices they make at that stage of their lives.

The tragedy I see is that, in a lot of cases, if people get a high school education, have the potential to do far more with their gifts if only they can reach the post-secondary or post-graduate level, and are unable to afford anything beyond that, the possibilities in their lives are diminished or sometimes lost.

[JHan]

88. I never argued that anyone on the left is against fixing k-12.....

I'm making a nuanced argument. Yeah..nuance, that thing which has become lost in political discourse.

....in policy discussions it's always about allocation of resources, and what you choose to emphasize. Free college is not a fix all.

I will requote myself from another thread..

Generally, the neediest of society, those who are functionally illiterate and didn't finish high school, will not be eligible to receive "free college" . The beneficiaries will be young people who hope to make more than median wage on their first day at the job.

The catch is most degrees will not net you more than the median wage on the first day. How many degrees are worth taking yourself out of the workforce for 4 years when you could have gained experience had you started work right out of high school? Take Germany for example: grossly simplistic comparisons are made between the the U.S. and Germany - but there's a difference, in germany there are jobs you can get without a university degree - jobs that require a degree in the U.S - and there's a focus on vocational training. Treating free college as a fixall puts pressure on administrative university costs, especially if you're taking a degree which isn't terribly productive - ergo a degree society isn't lining up for and demanding. (I'd also suggest you read the Federal Reserve Study that came out in 2015 which looked at rising tuition costs and what has caused it , you'll find it with a simple google search. )

And let's say someone takes up a degree that society IS lining up for, why can't that person cover the costs of their tuition? There are already state taxes aimed at keeping state colleges affordable, federal research grants, land grants, scholarship aid etc,so it's not that society doesn't pay anything at the moment.

And as for "unproductive" degrees, "free college" encourages students to pursue these degrees when they might be better off pursuing something more lucrative if their aim is to get a degree to make themselves competitive in the market......... I'll be clear here: I am not arguing that Students shouldn't pursue degrees that aren't high in demand, personal education is valuable regardless. I also believe the humanities shouldn't be dismissed or ignored, and I won't mind a change in the way we value and assess certain degrees, but the obsession with degrees has actually resulted in an approach to higher education as simply a means to get a job rather than the pursuit of higher knowledge for sake of it.

What free college does is give funds to literate high school graduates who only have to choose a sensible major and they're set for life.

Which is why I favor greater emphasis on k-12. Greater emphasis on infancy health and nutrition plans for vulnerable mothers, particularly if those mothers are homeless, barely literate and live in communities with decrepit infrastructure. I want less talk about "free college" and more talk about literacy and numeracy rates in the United States and how to address the effects of poverty on access to education.

I am also not arguing that students shouldn't receive some form of student debt relief, but I'd also rather look at reasons why costs are high instead of assuming free college would be some magical fix.

[Ken Burch]

92. I guess what bothers me(and I'm sorry if my response was harsh in tone)

is that this is often framed as "either/or", as if we somehow have to choose-or as if people who support low tuition or tuition-free college don't give a damn about the problems in K-12. To move forward, even the suggestion of that really needs to be put to rest.

Improving K-12 is an absolutely valid goal.

There are a lot of things we could do to free up the funds needed for both university affordability and improved K-12.

And we could tie at least one to debt relief-we could vastly expand the type of program that forgives student loans in exchange for community service(in this case, literacy and STEM tutoring for at-risk students) for a period of time. Expanding that would make a massive difference at little cost-and would free up state and local educational funding for hiring more teachers and upgrading classroom materials and facilities.

We could make additional funds available by finally pushing for significant cuts in the war budget.

The Cold War is over and we no longer need to be either "the world's policeman" or to perpetually be prepared to fight a two-front war or two war at once.

It's not as though our defense policy has to be "bear any burden, fight any foe/the boys'll be home by Christmas" for the rest of eternity.

I asked upthread but will ask again...what do you see as the reasons university costs are high and what would you do about that?

[JHan]

95. I mentioned the 2015 fed reserve study, it's worth reading...adding to that tho..

In many of the responses to you in this thread there is objection to either/or arguments. Compromise is the antithesis of the dualistic approach of Either/Or.

I'm not a policy expert, just a layman trying to make sense of the trends:

These links are a good overview of the study in question.

This link also provides supplementary data from other research looking into tuition costs https://www.forbes.com/sites/akelly/2015/10/08/does-federal-student-aid-cause-tuition-increases-it-certainly-enables-them/

Vox also looked at the study , and there's some refutation of the claims being made . I particularly like the analogy of car loans and car prices. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/8/12/9130157/financial-aid-tuition-bennett-hypothesis

This covers the pesky business of fees, another layer of expense :https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/01/how-university-costs-keep-rising-despite-tuition-freezes/512036/

But my skepticism has more to do with the idea that degrees are a magical solution to income disparity.

From Income Inequality and Education Richard Breen,Inkwan Chung ( University of Oxford & Yale University ) https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/volume-2/august/SocSci_v2_454to477.pdf

From the abstract :

" Many commentators have seen the growing gap in earnings and income between those with a college education and those without as a major cause of increasing inequality in the United States and elsewhere. In this article we investigate the extent to which increasing the educational attainment of the US population might ameliorate inequality. We use data from NLSY79 and carry out a three-level decomposition of total inequality into within-person, between-person and between- education parts. We find that the between-education contribution to inequality is small, even when we consider only adjusted inequality that omits the within-person component. We carry out a number of simulations to gauge the likely impact on inequality of changes in the distribution of education and of a narrowing of the differences in average incomes between those with different levels of education. We find that any feasible educational policy is likely to have only a minor impact on income inequality."

Take note of figure 3 on pg 13 which this section references:

Figure 3 illustrates why education accounts for relatively little inequality. These kernel density plots show the distributions of respondents’ mean income (aver- aged over the entire period of roughly 20 years) according to education. While it is immediately evident that the densities for higher educational categories lie further to the right, it is equally apparent that there is substantial overlap between categories. In the older cohort, for example, almost 23 percent of respondents in the college category have an average income less than the median for respondents in the high school category. In the younger cohort the figure is 13 percent, reflecting the impression in Figure 3 that the overlap in income is less among those born 1962–4.

It might be objected that education explains only a small share of inequality because the educational groupings we are using are not sufficiently discriminating: the category “college” for example, puts together graduates from different colleges and from different majors and also includes people with post-graduate degrees. Perhaps if we had a finer categorization of education we could explain more; some of the within-education inequality would then become between-education inequality. We repeated our analyses with six categories of education: “less than high school” “GED” “high school diploma” “some college” “completed college” and “advanced degree (MA, PhD or professional qualification)” This had little impact on the share of inequality explained by education.

For example, if we consider only the results for the entire period, the original four categories of education accounted for 0.044/(0.044 + 0.122) = 26.5 percent of total adjusted (for within-person volatility) inequality in the older cohort and 27.4 percent in the younger cohort. Using the six categories these percentages change to 27 percent and 27.8 percent. The additional contributions from the use of the finer categorization to between-group inequality in each of the sub-periods are similarly very small."

Which is why I questioned the sense of a high school graduate taking themselves out of the market for 4 years, to pursue an unproductive degree according to market demands, for the purpose of netting an above-median wage only to then be disappointed.

And my focus on k-12 is the direct link it has on generational wealth: poor education in formative years puts you out of the loop permanently. Literacy and numeracy rates are alarming enough in a country that is the richest and most powerful in the world.

[Ken Burch]

96. Thank you. I will go to the links and read that.

n/t.

[emulatorloo]

68. Q: Where does the book say that? A: It doesn't.

[guillaumeb]

83. From the original post:

Still, there was an inherent tension. Some activists and advocates saw their role as putting pressure on people in power, including allies, and they weren't interested in compromise. They didn't have to strike deals with Republicans or worry about winning elections. But I did. There are principles and values we should never compromise, but to be an effective leader in a democracy, you need flexible strategies and tactics, especially under difficult political conditions. I learned that the hard way during our battle for health care reform in the early nineties. Reluctance to compromise can bring about defeat. The forces opposed to change have it easier. They can just say no, again and again, and blame the other side when it doesn't happen. If you want to get something done, you have to find a way to get to yes.

So if the original post is not correct, my answer reflects that.

[emulatorloo]

99. Your "spin" has little to do with the quote.

[guillaumeb]

100. aAnd your attempt at framing my response is noted.

But if the quote is accurate, (and you appeared at first reply to say that it was not), feel free to explain it.

[emulatorloo]

103. Of course the quote is accurate. Your "spin" is a logical leap you've made that is not

grounded in the meaning of the quote. It distorts the meaning.

[lapucelle]

39. I think HRC might have a unique perspective on the matter.

The media kept telling us she was a "flawed" candidate. So was every other person who has ever run for political office.

"Perfection" was the standard for one candidate alone.

[JHan]

42. the flawed thing was nonsense..

peel apart the claims and they were all double standards.

[JCanete]

47. It should be acknowledged though, that there is a distinction between compromising

with the enemy to get all we can get at a given moment, and compromising before we even get to the table to accept a far less ambitious agenda from our allies. That is the ANTITHESIS of making anyone do it. That is certainly not scaring the GOP into finding a measure that both sides can agree on. Remember back in the day when the ACA WAS a Republican plan? Because at that time the GOP actually had to offer something in-between extremes. Now they can just say no to their compromise plan, and if it passes, they got their compromise. If it didn't, they didn't have to give up shit. It is our own people in our own party standing in the way of greater progressive legislation. We passed the ACA on party lines. Why do we have to compromise with ourselves again?

[emulatorloo]

67. American Prospect: "No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal"

If the ACA was a Republican proposal, Republicans would have voted for it and the Koch Bros would have saved their billions lying about it. DINO Joe Lieberman would not have killed the Public Option and the proposed alternative Medicare for 55 and above.



The only thing similar to Heritage was the mandate.

However the "conventional wisdom" that the ACA is "the same" as the Heritage Plan doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
http://prospect.org/article/no-obamacare-wasnt-republican-proposal

<snip>

The presence of a mandate is where the similarities between the ACA and the Heritage Plan end, and the massive remaining differences reveal the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans about the importance of access to health care for the nonaffluent. The ACA substantially tightens regulations on the health-care industry and requires that plans provide medical service while limiting out-of-pocket expenses. The Heritage Plan mandated only catastrophic plans that wouldn't cover basic medical treatment and would still entail huge expenditures for people afflicted by a medical emergency. The Affordable Care Act contained a historic expansion of Medicaid that will extend medical coverage to millions (and would have covered much more were it not for the Supreme Court), while the Heritage Plan would have diminished the federal role in Medicaid. The ACA preserves Medicare; the Heritage Plan, like the Paul Ryan plan favored by House Republicans, would have destroyed Medicare by replacing it with a voucher system.

<snip>

THE ACA V. THE HERITAGE PLAN: A COMPARISON IN CHART FORM
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form

Similarities:



Dissimilarities:



----------

[JCanete]

71. Interesting, thanks. That is absolutely a distinction. I'd assumed it was worse than Obamacare, but

not that bad...hell, its the Heritage Foundation...I can probably take that side-by-side at face value. I assume that proposal differed by some degrees from RomneyCare.

[ehrnst]

73. Thank you for educating people here on the ACA vs Heritage Foundation Plan.

It's much needed here on DU.

[JHan]

76. Yep, even I forgot . There's enough misinformation about the ACA out there already

[ehrnst]

72. Well, perhaps your definition of "compromise" is the real issue.

It seems to be synonymous with "letting someone else take the whole loaf" or some such measurable idea.

We have two options for governance, politics or brute force.

Only brute force avoids compromise.

You made an assumption that there was much, much less compromise on the Heritage Foundation plan to get to the ACA. It's good to know that you don't always know.

[JCanete]

78. I certainly don't always know. Sometimes I'm wrong. I'm not interested in going to the grave being

wrong either, just to try to win a pissing contest. When I recognize that I'm wrong I will absolutely cop to that fact.

I made an assumption that the plans were similar, and that one of the things Obama and Dems were trying to do was to go for a proposal that Republicans in another decade might have voted for. Turns out we'd need to go far further back to find sane, statesmen republicans...maybe to Nixon and Eisenhower. Well there was Romney's Romneycare, so maybe I'm being overly harsh.

As to brute force, I don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is advocating a coup or bloody revolution here. I'm advocating that we use our platform to inspire the public with big, clear ideas...not esoteric tweaks, not careful language that both offends and inspires as few people as possible...like "we're going to work with so and so to get something we all want..."

Because we need it to be the public who puts the pressure on Congress. Without that, there is absolutely no incentive for the GOP to do anything it isn't already doing, and there's little incentive for blue-dog dems to risk the wrath of the power-brokers in their states to bring to the people something they aren't even clamoring for and aren't even aware of could be done. There is no such thing as compromise with people who stand to lose nothing for refusing to compromise. All that looks like at the end of the day is appeasement. Giving up less to not give up more. It wins us nothing. It moves us in the wrong direction as a nation.

[ehrnst]

79. Again with the strawmen...

I wasn't saying anyone advocates for a coup. Seriously?

I was saying that the only governance where you are guaranteed "undiluted" uncompromised laws is in an authoritarian regime, and we don't have that. We have politics, and compromise comes with that - it's never "undiluted....."

Yes, the public needs to put pressure on Congress, and specifically we need to put pressure on our Democratic reps. But don't think that's the one thing that got the GOP repeal stopped, because it wasn't.

Not trying to harsh anyone's buzz, but the next time all that pressure from the people comes to fore, and it still doesn't get the GOP in line (see also Betsy Devos' nomination) don't heap the blame on Dem reps for being "weak" because the Graham-Cassidy bill was defeated when we pressed on them last time, so why didn't it this time? Because the insurance industry, the medical community and the governors were all pressing, and Graham-Cassidy barely got defeated....

Pressure gives Dems reasons to bring things to the table. I have worked in not-for-profit progressive orgs, and I know exactly what happens to signers of "petitions" as opposed to people contacting reps directly. Reps would come to us and say, "I have been getting way more pressure to pass this (anti-progressive) law than to fight it. Get people to contact my office, so I can say that my constituents want this."

So, don't waste time "signing petitions" for PACs, contact reps directly. Yes, if massive numbers of GOP constituents contact them, they will worry about keeping their jobs.

[JCanete]

80. I wasn't saying you were actually saying anybody was advocating for a coup. I was saying

I don't know what brute force you are talking about, so of course I'm also advocating for change within the system, not from without. I don't think that qualifies as a straw-man. I did get the impression(because I've heard it before, but maybe not from you) that you were suggesting that people on the left were trying to strong-arm people into submission. Even thinking you meant that, my coup statement was just to suggest that such an argument isn't legitimate because the left has to get the people behind their message to get any change to happen and are hardly advocating brute force as a solution to pushing an agenda.

But it looks like I did misunderstand your point. yes, we have to work within the system. Yes, we have no choice but to compromise. There is still a difference between compromising on the final plan and compromising on the ideal. Campaign on the good stuff. Get the compromise. Don't campaign on the compromise and get nothing.

And as you've stated, and I totally agree with, the GOP is getting huge pressure from their donors to bring home some big fucking wins. Worse, most of them have such gerrymandered districts and are reaping such huge dividends from voter suppression, that they don't fear the people at all. They are not, nor do they need to be, in a compromising state of mind. We cannot work with them.

Which is why we should be finding common causes that slap their constituents in the face with prizes so glowy that even they wake the fuck up and either shift their allegiences or pressure their legislators to start compromising.

[ehrnst]

81. I appreciate your candor.

Last edited Tue Oct 3, 2017, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I will add that we will not wake the fuck up as long as we are basing our advocacy on less than factual information.

Like I said, I don't see Climate Change as a Democrat-socialist-anti-capitalism/pro-business-GOP issue, I see it as a scientific one, as such think that neutral, independent climate scientists should be the source of data to drive policy, not politicians, especially when politicians are contradicting them.

I don't see universal health care coverage or reproductive health care access as a "lefty or centrist" or "pro/anti- Bernie issues, I see them as health policy issues and as such think that neutral, independent Health policy analysts should be the source of data to drive policy, not politicians, especially when politicians are contradicting them.

[JHan]

94. Yep..data driven policy , based on evidence.

Unfortunately a novel idea these days.

[Jamaal510]

58. K&R

[Gothmog]

89. K&R