Do you believe in Left Right coalitions?

[bluestateguy]

Say you oppose a bill pending in Congress for a liberal reason. You want that bill defeated. Now say there is a conservative who opposes the same bill pending in Congress for conservative reasons. He also wants to see that bill defeated.

Do you think it is appropriate to team up with those conservatives who want to see the bill defeated and cohesively work together, plotting strategy, networking, messaging and doing grass roots activism together?

Should liberal opponents of the health care bill have stood on the street arm in arm with the teabaggers chanting "kill the bill!"?

Should liberal opponents of the recent tax deal have helped Jim DeMint and Michelle Bachmann to defeat the bill?

[RandomThoughts]

1. Depends.

[trackfan]

5. +1

[Ozymanithrax]

2. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Or, use these stupid fucks so I can move my agenda forward.

By using the Teapart people destroy any chance of some small good that can come from a bill. Sometimes, it is important to move the ball fowad by inches instead of making a goal.

[BzaDem]

3. If the right is opposing a bill that you are opposing, you should re-evaluate your assumption that

the bill should be opposed.

That doesn't necessarily mean you should come to a different conclusion all of the time. (For example, if the right opposes a bill to launch hundreds of nukes, it's probably a good idea for the left to oppose it as well.)

But in many cases (particularly ideologically charged cases) over the past two years, much of the opposition "from the left" to Obama's main achievements (the stimulus, healthcare, financial regulation) has been a case study in irrationality and delusion. Actually, it isn't all that different from the same phenomenon that occurred when FDR had to pass Social Security over opposition "from the left." To a certain extent, this phenomenon will always occur, because a certain small group of people will never be satisfied with anything that actually comes out of democratic processes. This should be expected and discounted accordingly (as Obama/FDR did).

But if people re-evaluated their own assumptions after seeing that the right was not only opposed, but deathly afraid of Obama's legislation, perhaps there would be more rational thinking on these matters.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. "irrationality and delusion" - More name-calling and cheap gaslighting tactics.

Also, I don't suppose that you've ever considered that the Republicans fight everything Dems propose forcefully because it puts them in a stronger negotiating position. It gets them more of what they want.

[BzaDem]

8. "because it puts them in a stronger negotiating position"

That logical fallacy comes from misunderstanding what is a negotiation, what is not a negotiation, and what are the two sides in a negotiation.

For example, in the case of the healthcare bill, the only meaningful negotiation was between Democrats. Republicans were not a party to the actual negotiation in the end that produced the passage of the bill. (Sure, they pretended to act in good faith at the beginning, but this was while telling others the main pillars of the bill were not only wrong -- they were "unconstitutional.")

Republicans knew that any government assumption of any responsibility for providing healthcare to any additional people would not only be a huge win for Democrats, but would result (in the long run) in more and more people favoring continued government action on a major problem facing society. They were never going to support ANY program that even HINTED at some sort of expectation of government assistance for healthcare, since that goes against not only their views, but their reason for existence in the first place.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Uh, you do realize the HCR bill we got was originally a Republican idea don't you?

I'm afraid it's you who misunderstands negotiating.

[BzaDem]

20. It depends on what you mean by Republican idea.

If you mean a bill passed by a state legislature that was 8-1 Democratic, and signed by a Republican governor of Massachusetts, or perhaps a bill Republicans introduced for political posturing purposes against Clinton's plan in 1994 (but would never enact and did never attempt to enact when they had the power), then sure.

But if you mean a bill that Republicans would actually pass if they had the power (or tried to pass when they had the power), then no. It was not a Republican idea at all.

I tend to define "Republican idea" as the latter. You are free to define it as the former, though I think such a silly definition makes your underlying point basically irrelevant.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. It was the proposed by Bob Dole to counter Hillary Clinton's back in the 90s.

Democrats later embraced the concept and call it progressive because most Democrats do not understand how to play the game the way the GOP does. They focus on specific politicians and specific pieces of legislation and "political reality", which while often necessary to getting things done ignores the need to steer public discourse and opinion our way. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/9/205251/2950

You may think that by ridiculing the Left that you are defending President Obama and silencing his critics but realize that you are also marginalizing progressive ideas and helping to steer the national dialog on policy issues further to the right.

[BzaDem]

24. Isn't that exactly what I said?

"It was the proposed by Bob Dole to counter Hillary Clinton's back in the 90s."

I think that is exactly what I was referring to, when I said "a bill Republicans introduced for political posturing purposes against Clinton's plan in 1994 (but would never enact and did never attempt to enact when they had the power)."

I'm not sure how a PR bill that they never tried to enact when they had the power supports your point. You are falling for the Republicans' game. Politicians propose bills in response to other bills all the time. That doesn't mean they would EVER enact them if they had the power.

"They focus on specific politicians and specific pieces of legislation and "political reality", which while often necessary to getting things done ignores the need to steer public discourse and opinion our way."

It is curious how you mock focusing on the political reality when trying to pass bills. That sort of backs up my point, that many (or at least some) opposed these bills simply deny reality, and believe doing so is a productive method of passing legislation.

The window for passing this kind of legislation was infinitesimally small in the grand scheme of things. You do not pass up that opportunity to pass legislation in order to start a multi-year (or sometimes multi-decade) project to quixotically "steer public discourse and opinion our way." People here greatly overestimate the effect of the use of the "bully pulpit" on the public itself -- let alone the effect on the 60th vote required to pass anything in the Senate. To the extent that such use actually would sway the public (which I will assume for the sake of argument in this case), it certainly would not result in more favorable legislation passing in the tiny window we had to pass such legislation.

"You may think that by ridiculing the Left that you are defending President Obama and silencing his critic but realize that you are also marginalizing progressive ideas and helping to steer the national dialog on policy issues further to the right."

Actually, I'm not ridiculing the left. The vast majority of the left approves of HCR (and other Obama accomplishments). I am ridiculing arguments in opposition to these bills, which are made by a tiny portion of the left (similar to the various tiny portions of the left opposed to other progressive achievements that have passed over the previous century at those times).

And I assure you that I am not "silencing his critics." If you think Obama's critics are silenced after you look at the front page of GD on any given day, then you are looking at a different site than I am. Similarly, I assure you that I am not "steering the national dialog on policy issues" in any direction by a simple post on a message board, so you have little to fear in that regard.

[Hello_Kitty]

26. You should read the link I provided.

Really.

[BzaDem]

31. I actually did read the article, and it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

The article was about swaying the public. But swaying the public actually has very little to do with swaying the 60th vote in the CURRENT Congress.

As any political scientist will tell you, politicians often act in ways ENTIRELY divorced from what the national public would like. Ben Nelson of right-wing Nebraska was required to vote for any final product that ended up passing. The article you quoted might be relevant to replacing Ben Nelson with a more progressive Democrat in the future (or replacing Republicans with Democrats in the future), but it certainly has nothing to do with changing Ben Nelson's own views on this issue in the tiny window we had to pass legislation.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Taking control of the public discourse has everything to do with everything.

The GOP understands that. Dems get dragged wherever they want to go. Wake up.

[BzaDem]

41. Actually, that is false, for the exact reason I mentioned in post 31. n/t

[BzaDem]

29. .

wrong place

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. There is so much wrong there, I hardly know where to start.

"...what is a negotiation, what is not a negotiation, and what are the two sides in a negotiation."

Thing is, when you are talking about the right, the left and the middle, there are THREE sides in the negotiation.

"For example, in the case of the healthcare bill, the only meaningful negotiation was between Democrats. Republicans were not a party to the actual negotiation..."

Of course, we had Dems arguing with Dems, but half the Dems were conceeding to the republicans who were, by your own admission, not even in the fight - again, a three-way argument. The left was telling the so-called centrists "you don't HAVE to conceed anything to them because they WON'T work with you anyway". The left was ignored, the concessions were made, and the right universally opposed EVERY measure.

"Republicans knew that any government assumption of any responsibility for providing healthcare..."

The governemnt is NOT assuming responsibility for providing healthcare - that would be a public option. Obama's 'healthcare' plan specifically foreswore any responsibility for healthcare, opting instead to shore up the not-struggling health insurance industry - that that you would know that from the Republican commentary, which equated it with communism and government bureaucrats taking over the hospitals. Again, in an argument between the Democratic center and Democratic left, the government took the side of the REPUBLICANS.

[BzaDem]

16. I guess I would have to apply your topic to your post.

For example, you say,

"Thing is, when you are talking about the right, the left and the middle, there are THREE sides in the negotiation."

Except YOU are the only one talking about this as if it were a three way negotiation. I am not, and I specifically said I was not, because in reality, it was not a three-way negotiation. It was a two-way "negotiation" between centrist Democrats and liberal Democrats.

"but half the Dems were conceeding to the republicans"

No, you fundamentally misunderstand what happened. The right-most Democrats (Ben Nelson/Joe Lieberman) were not "conceding" ANYTHING to Republicans, because the resulting bill agreed fully with their own views. Look at the definition of "concession:"

"something done or agreed to usually grudgingly in order to reach an agreement or improve a situation"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession

Was the loss of a public option a "concession" to the Republicans, by Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman? Of course not. Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman opposed the public option on their own -- it was an anathema to their own views. They didn't "grudgingly" agree to concede away a public option, in order to reach an agreement with Republicans. It was actually quite the opposite. They stridently insisted on eradicating the public option to get a bill in accordance with their own views -- not to reach an agreement with Republicans. As I have mentioned multiple times, Republicans were irrelevant to the final deal. This was not a "three-way negotiation," no matter how many statements you make to the contrary.

"The governemnt is NOT assuming responsibility for providing healthcare - that would be a public option."

That statement is only true if you make the common fallacy that subsidizing regulated health insurance plans has nothing to do with "providing healthcare." But that is of course false. Right now, health care is provided in this country through health insurance (for those below 65 and above the poverty line). Very few people in that group pay for hospital bills out of pocket -- the VAST majority of health care is paid through health insurance. Therefore, subsidizing this insurance allows people who otherwise couldn't get care to be able to get care. This is not to say that this is perfect -- that health insurance companies won't screw some people, or that the government will insure everyone. But the bill clearly establishes a responsibility by the government to subsidize health care and ensure that it is affordable for tens of millions of Americans.

Some people claim that having an insurance plan does not ever result in health care, notwithstanding the current reality. However, I put these claims in the same boat as the claims of the ancients that the Earth was flat, and do not see value in wasting my time responding to them that much.

"the government took the side of the REPUBLICANS."

The government did not take the side of Republicans in any way. The side of Republicans in this debate was actually clear, and isn't really open for debate. They made their plan public. Their plan was not to have any subsidies, and any restrictions on insurance companies denying care for pre-existing conditions developed when one didn't have insurance. In fact, they favored unrestricted sale of insurance plans across state lines, which would have had the effect of essentially banning states like Massachusetts from restricting insurance companies from discriminating.

Contrary to your statement, the plan that passed was the exact opposite of the Republican plan. The plan that passed had 200 billion per year of subsidies for regulated health insurance plans, as well as a huge expansion of Medicaid. (Republican plan: 0 dollars for both -- and there exist many supplementary plans to essentially end Medicaid as it exists today.) The plan that passed banned ALL insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions. (Republican plan: not only do they not ban any insurance company from discriminating, but they essentially ban states from banning discrimination.)

[Edweird]

9. "FDR had to pass Social Security over opposition 'from the left'."

Substantiate that.

[BzaDem]

13. Sure.

http://www.news.wisc.edu/18293

"But Witte felt that conservative attacks on the program presented less danger than those from the left. “The strongest opposition we have comes from groups that think that our proposals are too moderate and too pro-employer,” he wrote. “Business men, in my opinion, make a very serious mistake in opposing the President’s program. In doing so, they merely invite more extreme measures.”

And there were many more extreme measures. A group of clergy wrote an open letter to the president in 1935, demanding socialism and declaring that “there can be no permanent recovery as long as the nation depends on palliative legislation inside the capitalistic system.”

Witte wanted his social insurance program to save the capitalist system, not undermine it. He hoped to preserve the sense of liberty and dynamism of market economics — and believed that a minimum sense of security would encourage people to have more confidence in the market. “It is only when people are not undernourished, enjoy good health, and have hope for bettering their lot, or at least for being spared the direst consequences of want, that they put forth their best efforts or are capable of doing so,” he said.

In the end, Congress passed the Social Security Act with overwhelming support: the vote ran 371 to 33 in the House, 77 to 6 in the Senate, making Witte’s plan law in August 1935, just 13 months after he’d left Madison for Washington."

[Edweird]

15. Really? The University of Wisconsin newspaper? You're holding that up as some kind of evidence?

Hell, why don't you write your own LTTE and reference THAT. Then it would say exactly what you wanted it to. I requested substantiation, not school newspaper slag.

[BzaDem]

18. Is it my fault you are not farmiliar with basic historical fact?

Most people would consider that to be your problem, not mine. If you want to believe that the quote of the principal author of the Social Security Act was fabricated, you are free to do so. Similarly, you are free to believe the Earth was flat. That is not my problem.

[Edweird]

21. I bet I could find a Weekly World News article that 'proves' the world is flat.

Come up with some evidence. A school newspaper doesn't cut it. If this is 'basic historical fact', as you claim, it will be easy to substantiate with reputable sources. It obviously isn't since you are resorting to student newspapers. What IS your fault is that you made a claim you are unable to substantiate.

[BzaDem]

22. Just because you say source X or source Y "doesn't cut it" doesn't mean your opinion on the matter

is relevant, or that I particularly care about said opinion.

Edwin Witte (the principal author of the Social Security Act of 1935) was actually a professor at the University of Wisconsin when Social Security was passed. Hence, sources from his university are quite relevant. You are free to believe otherwise (that the newspaper of his school fabricated his quote), though that is not my problem. While I was technically responding to your post, my actual goal was to educate posters in general (or rather, those that choose to read this subthread). The fact that a few will not be convinced does not concern me -- everyone is free to draw their own conclusions.

[Edweird]

25. Yep. My conclusion is that the only source that supports your questionable assertion is a school rag

That's very telling.

[BzaDem]

27. If you say so. n/t

[Edweird]

28. Yep, I say so. All you've offered is a school newspaper to support an alleged'basic historical fact'

Sad, yet comical.

[BzaDem]

30. Then again, at least I'm not claiming a quote in the professor's university newspaper was fabricated

out of thin air.

[Edweird]

33. You're holding up a self referential school newspaper article as 'basic historical fact'.

That's a joke.

[BzaDem]

34. Do you believe the quote was fabricated? Or not?

It's a yes or no question.

[apocalypsehow]

35. Well, true, and as regards this debate I pretty much support your side of the affair.

That said, still waiting on some case law - even the slightest scrap - that you owe, and that was never delivered.

How about it? :shrug:

[TBF]

37. On Wisconsin is not a "school newspaper"- it is a magazine put out by the

University (one of the best research universities in the world) for alumni and often offers up historical information. Who better to know how it was influenced then the authors of the bill? You don't think most bills are actually written by reps do you? When I worked in DC the lobbyists' law firms drafted a good deal of the legislation offered up, and then it was negotiated by the different parties and edits made accordingly.

If you don't believe in source material, because you're against education or some such, you can read a summary of the process by the Hoover Institute - http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7076. If even conservatives understand how this all went down, I can imagine that you'll eventually figure it out.

[OHdem10]

4. It happens all the time. It is very simple. A Liberal can oppose

a bill for certain reasons and Conservatives oppose it for
other reasons. You oppose the same bill for different reasons.

[JackRiddler]

7. Depends.

[Edweird]

10. No.

[niceypoo]

14. I dont see it

Unless it is something neutral, like running a parks department or something.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I'd like to see left-and-right libertarians work together to legalize pot, stop extralegal spying

get government out of the private lives of consenting adults...

in the examples you cite, however, I think the "liberal opponents" wouldn't have their heads screwed on tight enough if they were considering such goofiness. Honestly, the idea that the status quo on health care, for instance, was preferable to the minor reform we got is just stupid...

and the temper tantrums over the tax bill were just all out of proportion.

[leftstreet]

19. I'd need to see some evidence of a political 'Left' before I could answer

There isn't one in the US

Which actually could make it easier in the long run for citizens to oppose all manner of crap bills and legislation.

As more people realize the right/left dynamic is made up, they'll be more likely to form citizen coalitions.

[TBF]

38. Correct answer - most of the hard left was purged in the 1950's -

some earlier. We have to build the left first, although events are happening so fast that I think we are just going to have to be able to think fast on our feet and do our best as this comes tumbling down.

[SquireJons]

32. If they persue improved policy, why not?

The genius of our political system is the (former) ability to compromise. Many people condemn the back room deals that are made in congress, but that's how things get done in this country. Ideological purists will get, and deserve nothing. As the Buddha says... choose the middle path.

[randr]

36. Governments collapse when opposing political ideologies

unite for a singular cause. It is when the masses realize they are feeding from the same bowl that they turn their differences aside to turn on their masters.
I have been giving much thought lately as to how important it is for the left and right in this country to establish a dialog. It is what is missing in our present society. We are witnessing the opposite as the media and power hungry politicians fuel the differences.
Divided and conquered is what we are.

[GeorgeGist]

39. NO

[Puregonzo1188]

42. I'd be curios to see how the responses would differ if you cited the drug war or US foreign policy

as examples, as opposed to the health care and the tax bills.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Not under the circumstances described, no.

There are circumstances where single-issue collaboration is justifiable. This is when left-wingers and right-wingers may oppose something for *the same reason* (e.g. left-wingers and right-libertarians may both oppose an authoritarian anti-privacy measure). In such a situation, by all means, campaign together! On the issue, left and right-libertarians want the same thing. But the left should never let it lead to a wider coalition, or to left-wingers or liberals compromising on e.g. accepting RW economic policies, or racism.

On the other hand, if left and right want something for opposite reasons, then joint campaigning is likely to end in tears and in danger. For example, a left-winger may oppose a health bill because it will lead to a partially-privatized healthcare system; a right-winger may oppose the same bill because they oppose *any* government involvement in healthcare. In such a case, mutual campaigning is likely to lead to the left-wingers being used as pawns against the public services. More generally, the combination of right-wingers and liberals is likely to lead to the left providing cover for a right-wing agenda, rather than the other way around.

I realize that this thread isn't really about Nick Clegg, but the title can't but make a leftish Brit think of him. And a big ugh to the traitor!