Is Kucinich's support of health insurance reform based on wishful thinking and twisted logic?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/kuci-m19.shtml

Kucinich throws his support behind Obama health care bill
By David Walsh
19 March 2010

<edit>

The Obama administration, in the guise of “reform,” has crafted a measure that will enable the health insurance companies to rake in untold revenues from millions of new customers forced to purchase bare-bones health coverage. Moreover, hundreds of billions of dollars will be cut from Medicare, the program for the elderly and disabled. There is nothing progressive about the health care measure; it is not a step or half-step forward. It represents a full-scale social regression.

<edit>

Kucinich’s endorsement of the bill, as it turns out, amounts to little more than an act of public wishful thinking: “If my vote is to be counted, let it now count for passage of the bill, hopefully in the direction of comprehensive health care reform.” In other words, he wants his “yes” on the bill to be considered support for something actually rejected by the bill, and, as he said himself, toward which it is not even “a first step.” How pathetic!

At his press conference, Kucinich expanded on his reasoning. According to the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, Kucinich justified his vote for the rotten bill on the grounds that a “defeat on the legislation would destroy Obama’s presidency.” Kucinich told the media that an effort was underfoot “to try to delegitimize his presidency. That hurts the nation when that happens.”

He asserted, “We have to be very careful” that “President Obama’s presidency not be destroyed by this debate… Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there’s something much bigger at stake here for America.”

The twisted logic here is extraordinary. A bill that is harmful to the American people must be supported because to do otherwise would damage a presidency that is carrying out policies harmful to the American people! The “something much bigger at stake here for America” is…what? Kucinich’s career? The illusion that Obama is a progressive? The threadbare lie that the Democratic Party speaks for “the people?” Probably all three.

The utterly false premise from which Kucinich and the left-liberal circles to which he belongs—including the Nation magazine and the like—proceed is that the Obama administration represents something progressive that needs to be defended from the ultra-right. But this is a right-wing government, a representative of the financial aristocracy, in both its imperialist foreign policy and its assault on the jobs and living standards of the population in the US.

more...

[Mari333]

1. I think he thinks he has a chance to further this bill along with a PO

wishful thinking.

[ShortnFiery]

2. As soon as Kucinich said the following on DemocracyNow.org, I felt a shiver go up my spine ...

He asserted, “We have to be very careful” that “President Obama’s presidency not be destroyed by this debate… Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there’s something much bigger at stake here for America.”

IMO, if it's come down to hanging everything on The Obama Presidency, then we've already LOST because President Obama is an unabashed Corporatist.

Dennis really disappointed me by changing his vote. However, I still respect him - just saddened.

[Romulox]

12. I agree, that is creepy propaganda. Might as well have said "pass it for mom and Jesus!"

Policy is supposed to be defended on its own merit. I'd rather not be forced to buy insurance as a favor to the President. :hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

17. i actually believe Dennis. i think he views this vote not in terms of the bill itself,

which he, and we, both believe is worse than the status quo, but in terms of America's concept of itself. He's seeing this vote as the ultimate test of whether Democrats can pass anything of any substance ever. Much of what we don't like about this bill is of substance.
it's not just fluff. Forcing citizens to purchase private products isn't a small detail.

And the fact that many of it's provisions do take effect in the far future means there is the opportunity to change things before they take effect, which though difficult, may take place. I know I wouldn't want to be in office when some of the parts of this bill take effect.

I don't think Dennis is hanging everything on Obama in a personal sense, but rather, in a symbolic sense. And I think that Dennis has decided that allowing the Obama administration, The Dem Congress, the Unions, The big and small d party to suffer a major humiliating defeat right now would ultimately be worse for the country as a whole than passing this crappy bill would.


The Repos are fighting in this arena, and only this arena. They don't care what's in the bill in the slightest, they only care that it fails to pass because they are completely and totally convinced that their personal political fortunes live or die with this bill. They are probably mostly correct.

Dennis makes a very reasonable argument. He won't lie and say the bill is worth a shit, because it's not. But he will vote for it anyway because he believes a major symbolic Democratic win is more important for the country right now than one more crappy bill passing.

I think Dennis may be right. I think Dennis is very practical. I think by courageously publicly switching his vote, he has propelled the struggle for basic social justice beyond this crappy bill.


Since I became aware of Kucinich a few years ago as a result of his 2004 Presidential race, I've been fascinated by him as a politician. Here's a guy who has won a lot more political races than Obama and Hillary combined, who is one of the only politicians who will put out detailed information on where he stands on a wide range of policy issues and not only tell you specifically where he stands on issues but why he takes that stance.

He's not vague. Which is amazingly refreshing.

So I'm not disappointed in DK. I'm glad he fought for a better bill. He fought long and hard. He showed up. We are going to need him to fight to change the worst parts of the current bill, and fast.

[EFerrari]

24. That's more or less what I think, too. I'm not disappointed in him

in the least. He did what one person can do.

[amborin]

26. totally agree: it's about "saving" O's presidency

K is not the first to say this

actually, sometime approx 3 months or so ago, it seemed as if there was some kind of sudden closed-door meeting among dems, who concluded they had to rally no matter what

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. More like "twisted arm"

n/t

[L0oniX]

18. +¹

[MineralMan]

4. Perhaps, instead, his decision is based on the knowledge of

what losing the Congress to the GOOPers would mean. Have you thought about that possibility?

I see no way in the current political climate where the progressive ideals we all hold can be implemented fully. No way at all. I do, however, see a way that repressive, conservative ideas could take hold and set this nation back 50 years.

Perhaps you're missing something in Kucinich's decision. Perhaps he knows all too well what the defeat of Obama would mean to this country.

I think there's a Rolling Stones song that applies.

[Karmadillo]

5. Get off of my cloud?

nt

[MineralMan]

7. Nah, I was thinking more about

"You Can't Always Get What You Want..."

[LeftinOH]

6. -My feelings exactly (DK is my rep); he is looking at the bigger picture

and he has chosen "slim chance" versus "no chance in hell".

[LibDemAlways]

9. Do you believe that by signing this bill Obama will be

doing himself any favors with the American people? Consider the possibility that when they discover the mandate they might be very anxious to punish those who promised change and delivered an insurance company giveaway.

[MineralMan]

14. You know, I really, really dislike the use of

"The American People" the way you're using it. The American People are not one thing. They are a wild, undisciplined, and unpredictable population. There is no "American People." There are only individuals who make decisions based on the most diverse information and prejudices imaginable.

The Right is constantly saying "The American People." Do you suppose they know what that non-existent group wants or thinks?

What I think is that the majority of the population of the United States of America wants some kind of health reform. What I know is that the majority of that population does not fit into any particular category.

[LibDemAlways]

19. The majority of the voting population, who pulled the lever for Obama,

were promised change.

True the"American People" are a divergent group, but most can tell when they've been had.

[MineralMan]

21. My assessment of that group of Obama supporters is very

different from yours. Watch as his poll ratings jump after this bill passes. That's my prediction.

Change. This bill is change. Not all the change I'd like, but change nevertheless.

[LibDemAlways]

22. Not saying the bill is entirely bad. I suppose making adults wait four

years before the "pre-existing condition clause" kicks in won't hasten too many deaths. (I realize there is an interim "high risk" pool costing who knows how much). And I know people will be anxious to sign up for insurance they can't afford three years from now so as to prevent the IRS from fining them.

His poll ratings may well jump upward in the immediate aftermath. But once the media starts publishing the details, there's only one way for them to go.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Actually, they can be fit into all sorts of relevant catagories.

"Average is that which no one quite is" - The Mgt

But at the same time people as a whole are not so nearly unpredictable as you seem to think.
In fact, there are probably a whole lot of people in the population of the US who see themselves as "The American People."

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. That's my take too.

I think he has already accepted the demise of health care reform.

He changed his vote to avoid adding the demise of the Democratic majority along with it.

[EFerrari]

28. We know what his decision was based on because he took an hour yesterday

to talk about it and in detail.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/18/dennis_kucinich_and_ralph_nader_a

[inna]

8. Agree with many points, but I think they're being way too harsh on Kucinich.

As for Kucinich…not much need be said. In the past, the WSWS received numerous letters from his admirers, rebuking us for our “sectarianism” in not endorsing this out-and-out charlatan. Those who continue to hold out hope for anything “progressive” from this individual in the future are victims either of ignorance or willful self-deception—or political scoundrels in their own right.

Come on. As if Kucinich-bashing from the rightist/centrist/moderate liberal perspective wasn't bad enough, now the socialists join in the bashing, too.

Scapegoating Kucinich from either end/angle of political spectrum is ridiculous and misdirected. He is NOT the problem.

[MineralMan]

10. But...but...the "former" Kucinich fans are having so much

fun. They love him. They hate him. It's all good, right? Whatever the latest call is from wherever the call comes from, they're on one side or the other. Tomorrow? Probably they'll change their opinion of Kucinich again.

I like Dennis. He stands firm, but is able to change his opinion when that's the best course. Blind loyalty to a single position is never a really good idea.

[DevonRex]

23. I'm impressed with him, too. He tried hard to get things we all would

like to see in the bill. He changed his position because of the political reality that exists at the moment.

It's all game theory. A sane person does what he/she has to do in order to avoid the worst possible outcome. Dennis is sane and that's a good thing.

What I'm most impressed with is that he jumped right in to change the minds of the undecideds. Today I'll send him an email telling him that I appreciate it.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes. Kucinich is a good guy, most of the time. I've often disagreed

with some of his positions, but he's flexible. I like that in a politician. Rigid positions rarely work in US politics.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. The bill is crap. Dennis and I agree on that. He's not voting for it because he thinks it's good

public policy.

He's voting for it because humiliating this President, this Congress, the Dem Party, and the electorate who voted for Obama would be worse for the country than passing another in a long series of shitty bills.

Also, I think Dennis sees that this bill will have to be modified before it takes effect in whole part, or the people will be voting out giant swaths of incumbents.

When people realize they have to pay criminals for a shitty sub-par product, they are going to be really pissed.

Also, how will we pay for it after the first ten years? You know, after all the savings from Medicare and Medicaid have been realized? (Want to buy a bridge? Good deal!) Where are we going to get our next trillion from?

I'm telling you, it's a shitty bill, but the alternative is the Repos promoting the idea that Dems can't pass even shitty Repo bills they spent 15 months kissing Repos behinds to get bi-partisan support on and then failed.

Kucinich wants to make a statement! YES! The Dems CAN pass shitty Repo bills even if the Repos want to kill it.

And that's important.

[EFerrari]

27. What "former" Kucinich fans?

People who support Dennis understand what he was up against. Your characterization is baseless.

[Fumesucker]

32. I'm blindly against torture..

I guess that's not a good idea, we might run into a ticking bomb scenario.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

15. No. It's based on political pressure. nt

[GreenArrow]

16. "Destroying the village to save it", maybe?

Pass or fail, It's not going to help Obama's Presidency.

[LibDemAlways]

20. Agreed. If it doesn't pass, Obama will

have to shoulder the blame. If it does pass, once the public finds out what's in it, Obama will have to shoulder the blame.

[eridani]

31. I think it's based on being threatened with financial consequences for his district n/t