Dec 272009
Ms. Hamsher;
It is with deep respect for the passion that you have for the progressive movement that I am writing. I understand the frustration that disappointment can foster and honor your commitment to pushing the progressive agenda.
I do not doubt that you genuinely feel that your very vocal opposition to the Senate health care bill is in the absolute interests of the American populace and progressive politics. I honestly believe that you feel that the administration has let you and other progressives down by not publically pushing harder for elements in the bill that we all hoped would survive the legislative process.
What I doubt is that your actions will ultimately serve the advancement of the progressive agenda that you obviously care so much about. I believe in fact, that quite the opposite will be the result. Pushing for the very best bill that we can get through this congress is laudable, attacking the administration for dealing with the reality that is congress is not.
The 2000 presidential election graphically demonstrates what I mean. Ralph Nader had no chance of winning, and yet he remained in the race. Mr. Nader quite correctly pointed out that in order to keep his agenda in the debate he needed to remain even if it meant Gore would lose votes to a lost cause.
Mr. Nader was absolutely right to stand up for his principals and stay in the election to make sure that his message was getting out. The point is this, if Mr. Nader had dropped out of the race that election would never have been close enough for the Supreme Court to hand to George Bush. Al Gore would have been the 43rd president of the United States and Ralph Nader would have come a lot closer to having the things he cared about realized. Mr. Nader was right, but how far back did he set his own agenda?
At the end of the day it comes down to results you don’t win by being right. It is possible to be completely right and yet damage the cause that you are advocating. As a progressive that is acutely sensitive to the extraordinary damage that was done to this country by the Bush administration I see the need for many democratic terms in which we constantly push the country towards more progressive ideals. Change does not come overnight, we don’t have the luxury of eviscerating our fragile majority for not moving quickly enough. The United States will not survive many more administrations like the last one.
Please consider the progressive agenda as a whole while in the heat of each individual battle, your voice is respected and desperately needed on our side.
Respectfully,
R. Paine
26 Responses to “An open letter to Jane Hamsher”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Follow me on Twitter 
This is actually the exact opposite of Nadar. The senate bill will destroy Democrats. Killing a bill is far better when it comes to electoral prospects.
While I get your overall point, the comparision to Nader "spoiling" the 2000 election is less than apt, as it's far from certain if results would have been any different in 2000 if he had dropped out of the race. Google "did nader spoil 2000 election" to see what I mean.
I wrote up a comment here – but unfortunately, it exceeds the character limit. So I posted it here, on my own little blog. Since it's technically a reply to your post, I password-protected it so it won't annoy the general public. The password is "hamsher" (without quotes). Thanks.
There IS danger that any health reform bill that’s enacted will backfire at some point, sooner or later, on the Democratic party. When folks begin to really paw through the health bill to see "what's in it for me," and discover it's less than advertised (at least for some), a whole lot of trust (and many votes) will certainly be lost.
It’s hard to know quantitatively whether more votes will be won or lost as the Democrats take ownership of a health reform bill, and attempt to employ it in the “real world.” However, I’m making what I hope is the “better bet” by calculating that are more gains than losses for the PEOPLE of this country for whom health reform legislation is supposedly being crafted. If so, the votes should follow. If not—well, I’ll be sure to remember that I defected pretty quickly from the “kill the bill” camp, and have no one to blame but myself (and all those who made the same bet).
I'm not a policy analyst. I'm even less of a statistician, if that’s possible. My analytical and predictive powers are so bad that I take even my OWN conclusions with a healthy portion of skepticism.
As we all know, even those who ARE analysts and statisticians remain befuddled; predictions are “way beyond difficult” to make, even with the finest analytic and policy-making skills.
But I now believe firmly that handing our Democratic president (as corporatist as he may be) an immediate, clear defeat by rejecting the Senate's health bill “on principle” is suicidal. To “kill the bill” until 2010 no longer makes sense to me. It made absolute sense when I FIRST heard that the middle-aged Medicare buy-in was "out the window," along with the public option (and “single payer,” a term no longer spoken aloud in the hallowed halls of government).
My initial response was to stand up on my hind legs and roar, "No! You can't TREAT us this way!" I felt (and still do) that many Senators are getting away with murder (literally, as well as figuratively, according to the "Rep Grayson" world view on GOP health reform policy, which knowingly embraces all those “necessary deaths,” as if they were “collateral damage,” unavoidable in their noble war against “redistribution of GOP wealth”).
One of the "tipping points" for me was seeing Jane Hamsher appear on FOX to publicize her position (and petition). Purely pragmatically, she can make a case that it made sense "get her message out" by popping up wherever there was a broadcasting venue. In Jane’s view, appearing on FOX was pragmatic, strategic, and tactical. Certainly, she could dispense with certain "ideals" to “win” petition signatures, hearts, and minds. Ironically, Jane is now accused of too much idealism and too little pragmatism. Funny, how words are so protean they morph to fit arguments on all sides, ultimately signifying nothing. (con't in my next comment)
(continuation of my previous comment):
Another "tipping point" occurred when the volume became deafening as I heard liberals use the same rhetoric and intone the same "no!" that we all reject when coming from the ultra-right. Despite huge conceptual differences underlying progressive and conservative arguments, our words were frighteningly similar. And those words were boomeranging around the halls of Congress and the White House with the same crazy-making effects that summer teaparties had on our national psychology.
The sheer momentum of the Senate health bill’s likely passage by Xmas was the final “tipping point” for me. If that health bill does nothing more than to establish the profoundly powerful precedent that "health care is a right" in America—then I think it's worth passing.
And—now that we've established (rhetorically, at least) that "health care is a right” (at least among Dems), it seems worth the nightmare of having to grapple later with all those lesser (although dangerous) precedents in the Senate health bill (or any bill likely to be passed by both houses of Congress).
After all, if upcoming battles over fair provisions and rigorous industry regulation reach huge impasses—as they will—we can always say, "Health care is a right. We've established that. Anything that stands in the way of upholding those rights—or polluting our national principles—must be removed." Rhetorical? Yes. Potent? Probably. It’s at least as seductive as all the life-crushing slogans slung around and flung around by the ultra-right.
You are far too kind. Jane Hamsher is the most devisive and destructive figure in the progressive movement. . . period.
Frankly I disagree with you completely. The very nature of politics guarantees that it is difficult if not impossible for any kind of truly ground breaking reform to get passed with any speed. Add to this the fact that most politicians will only pursue those agendas that they feel fairly if not absolutely certain they have support for.
Therefore with it being the political animals nature to seek only the safest ground, we Progressives do ourselves and our cause no favors when we fail to push aggressively for our agenda. It is only by being a collective loud voice saying over and over again, "This is not far enough, this is not fast enough" that we can have any hope of spurring politicians to move forward at any speed. If we remain silent, then they will assume we are placated. Bottom line politicians don't need help to seek the middle, and if we do not push them in the direction of the frontier we will have regress instead of progress.
Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!
Apologist. Obama is breaking promises he made while he was campaigning. Like "no mandates". His hands off approach to healthcare was bullshit. You think waiting around for more progressive results is the way to go, you're going to be waiting forever. Good luck with that.
One big difference is–we're having a debate about a bill here which is already written. A presidency is unwritten. The Nader movement was meant to put pressure on Al Gore (who WON the election) for the next four years. The fact that the election was stolen, Gore capitulated, and Nader was blamed–shows how cowardly the party can be when it faces serious pressure on TV.
I believe Jane's equally trying to place that same kind of pressure on moderates, as she's telling to progressives to stand their ground. Those are the groups in the midst of negotiating this thing's (almost certain) passage. The political argument for passing the bill is indisputable. The content of the bill itself is a legitimate dispute.
I think your analogy is apt, but I think it makes a positive case. With Nader the pressure was long-term and abstract; Hamsher's pressure is here and it's direct. Since we're finally negotiating Democrats with Democrats, I think she's saying the right things, and I don't think she's costing us any rightward ground.
Silence = death.
Remember that slogan? Politicians don't appease self-silenced voters, no matter who they are. Keep fighting, Jane.
This was very well written and keeps with many of my feelings about Ms. Hamsher and her arguments against for killing the bill.
Over at FDL they argue about the family who will have a maximum cost of $12K with the plans they would get under the Senate bill. They fail to recognize that the same family, without insurance, would likely pay $60K for that same year if they reached their max out of pocket limits (assuming 80/20 coinsurance).
So now even the so called 'progressive' NATION has joined up with the bobble head villagers !
The insurance companies may have needed a bailout in order to contiune to survive – but why on earth should any progressive use that as an excuse to support failed healthcare reform? Dems will likely suffer at the polls in 2010 once the public realizes they have been fleeced once again by a DC crowd that considers Joe Lieberman the center of liberalism.
"attacking the administration for dealing with the reality that is congress is not."
____
Bullshit. Obama was elected to provide LEADERSHIP. Leadership in the interests of the American public.
Jane is right and you are wrong.
This could have easily been writen by one of Rahm's minions or one of the members of the press who see their jobs as a handmaiden to the Obama White House. You believe progressives should SHTFU and take what the Master gives us – it ain't gonna happen.
This ain't the 90's and we know who Rahm is and what he does. We remember the Cliton White House and how they served Corporations and attacked Progressives and aren't going to play that game again. I know you want us to – to roll over and be spit upon and enjoy it but its just not going to go down that way this time. We may and probably will loose but we're use to that. What we can't suport/respect is someone who won't fight for what they "say" they want. Its not that we want to go there but we just know where this road is heading and won't go there again. If we go down we will bring Obama, Rahm and the Corporate Dems they represent with us. Either Obama finds a backbone and starts fighting for the things he says he cares about or he's out of there – its really that simple.
From the day Obama got elected he has been turning his back on gays, lesbians, women, health care advocates and the Unions and we all know it. As the environmental folks will soon discover if they don't already know there is lots of folks under Obama's big bus and its starting to contain a large part of the Democratic base. Rest assurred we are not amused. Obama is much more concerned in buying off Banks, bigPharma and the Insurance Companies than honoring any of his campaign promises or serving the needs of the American People. Sure House and Senate Democrats are corrupt and most need to be replaced but you can't lay this on them – he's the President they are not. The buck stops in the Oval Office not on Capitol Hill.
So, when you say: "Please consider the progressive agenda as a whole while in the heat of each individual battle, your voice is respected and desperately needed on our side." rest assured Jane is – she knows a liar, coward and Corporate Democrat when she sees one even if she's nice enough not to say so publiclly. The same goes for many other progressives we just aren't that polite.
I take offense at calling out another progressive because of their desire to inform and fight against this incompetent congress.
I have been in politics a very long time and I have never seen the condescending, aloof and disparagement directed at a political base.
Hey…suck it up if you want and nothing changes. Me, it's time to be a citizen, not an ideologue.(I can't get in with my google account. I am not anonymous. I am Elegresse.)
one represents the status quo, jane hamsher supports what is obviously right–choice competition the american way
I think this kind of letter would be better directed at Lieberman, Nelson and their followers. Too much effort is being made to convince the liberals to give up and not enough to convince conservatives to compromise.
I do not think that continued fighting for a compromise on this issue will only hurt the "progressive agenda" in the future. The reverse is true, I think giving up now will hurt the progressive agenda by showing that progressives are completely owned by K Street lobbyists and their corporate masters.
I also think it is disingenuous to say the Senate bill is the best bill we could get through Congress. If Obama hadn't cut early deals with the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and instead focused on getting a better bill then a better bill would be exactly what we have right now.
If we as progressives cease to blame the administration for this insurance industry bail out, and unconstitutional mandate, we will be expected to accept each and every disgusting corporate give away that our so called progressives in Congress AND Obama roll our way. We need to stand our ground, take our chances, and stick together. Thank you so much, Jane H!
Hmmm! Sounds like somebody has decided to play "Parrot Mr. Gibbs"
I have a hard time with your implication that loyalty to the Obama Administration = advancement of the progressive agenda.
Clue in: This is not about Barack Obama. This is about millions and millions and millions of working class people.
This administration has made it perfectly CLEAR it absolutely does NOT support a progressive agenda at all.
President Obama has proven to be a great Mascot but a weak leader who laments constantly about how the Republicans won't play his "bi-partisan" reindeer games yet seems completely clueless to the fact that there are an equal number of obstructionists within his own party upon whom he dumps nothing but constant praise. (calling Joe Lieberman)
As for the Democratic Party – well, if the Dem controlled Congress can't even be loyal to the basic principles of the party platform – WHY exactly should any TRUE Progressive be loyal to the Democratic Party. Just because it's politically less work?
You Madam, are a lazy Liberal! And lazy liberals are the ones actually hurting the progressive agenda.
Perhaps the real division here is that we have two types of Democratic Party voter. "Progressives" who vote for their elected officials based on their principles and their policies. This group is the most likely to abandon the Democrats the second a better progressive candidate appears. Then you have "Liberals" – those like the author that believe more in unwavering "brand loyalty" to the Democrats, and worship the two-party system as it is was the greatest demonstration of Democracy on Earth.
Liberals assume that sooner or later, if they just keep electing enough people with a (D) after their neame, we will reach that magical majority number (60…63…65?) that will finally push the country forward instead of in reverse.
To that I say good luck and please don't hold your breath.
I crave Democracy and representation – not political expediency. It's the kind of roll over you are suggesting that keeps the "Progressive" movement OPPRESSED and makes the term "Liberal" a powerful GOP slander tool.
Essintitally, the argument is don't anger the abusive husband by pointing out that he is a corrupt, incompetent, lying bastard. If you do tell him this, instead of wisperning how much you support him no matter what, you will get what you deserve and the kids will suffer.
Just curious. Did YOU vote for what you have been handed in the last year?
I didn't. And I have not single bit of investment in the Obama presidency. To go all in for another seven years, and not look for a candidate who is truly Progressive in the next election, is utter stupidity.
Ralph Nader is a person with a perspective on things. He is not an ism. What has hurt the progressive movement has been the demonizing of him. the DLC is running the show. They are beholden to corporate America. Stop putting false prophets like Barack Obama above true American heroes like Ralph Nader who have a track record of
progressive achievements.
Add another reason guys like you are driving us away from the party.
You need to know when you've won and to shut your pie hole.
What patent hogwash.
Let's take just a few of the dumb statements in this article that we are supposed to take for granted, and yet don't make sense:
- Nader's candidacy resulted from Nader's belief that neither candidate would work to help Americans at the expense of the corporations that were, and still are, running things here. If Gore had been such a candidate, Nader would not have been in the race. Gore started out with a substantial lead in the race, and gradually triangulated away support. He lost the race. Nader didn't lose it for him. It's still fashionable to say otherwise, but the reason I and other people voted for Nader is because it was clear that he was right.
- "Eviscerating our fragile majority?" What in the world has this "fragile majority" gotten us but a bailout of the banks at our expense, a stimulus bill that was at most a quarter the size it needed to be to do any lasting good, and a health care "reform" bill that principally serves to transfer more government wealth to insurance companies? As an American, why do I care if that "fragile majority" is eviscerated? Why do I care if it exists at all? Don't tell me that Republicans would have done worse, because so far, you're wrong.
- The progressive agenda as a whole is not being served at all. Neither Obama nor the Senate want it, and I doubt the House is all that interested, either.
Frankly, people like you strike me as so out of touch with what we in the land of "Outside DC" are going through that I have to wonder if you know anyone who is either in the lower middle class or poor. My guess is that you don't. Whether that's true or not, until you can answer these questions intelligently, you don't have an opinion that's worth the light it's written on.
I don't care whether Democrats are running things or Republicans. I don't have a bet going on who will win the next election. I want the country run well enough that at least the next couple of generations can have a standard of living roughly equal to what we have, or that they at least are free, not starving, and have decent health care. If the Democrats don't want to deliver that, and it's abundantly clear they don't, then they don't deserve power, and there's absolutely no reason that we should give it to them.
If you want to see that "fragile majority" stay in place, here's what I suggest you do: Go back to whatever Democratic politician you're shilling for, and tell him that he and his other DLC and Blue Dog pals had better start working for ordinary Americans for a change. Otherwise, you can kiss your majority goodbye, and I, for one, won't be the least bit sad to see it go.
There's an old fable about the frog carrying a scorpion across a river on his back. The scorpion stings the frog halfway across and when questioned the scorpion replies "It's in my nature."
The same goes for Ms. Hamsher's pathetic shortsighted "alliance" with Grover Norquist. Norquist's goal in defeating the Senate Bill is purely to defeat Progressive ideals. Ultimately the Tea Bagger king's wish is to destroy Jane Hamsher's beliefs and agenda. It's in his nature. In a perfect Hamsher world, once the Senate Bill is defeated, how much "help" is she expecting from Mr. Drown Government in a bathtub?
I wonder if she can illicit his help in stalking Joe Lieberman's wife, too.
I don't know how progressives can support this massive giveaway to the insurance industry — especially by forcing struggling American workers to buy private insurance. This is an unprecedented use of government power to support private industry. What next, force us to buy JP Morgan for our retirement, or buy weapons stocks for U.S. national security? Where is the limit to this new form of corporate giveaway.
We all know what the only real solution is – single payer, Medicare for All. Obama and the Dems took that off the table because of the pay to play politics of Washington. They are putting their funders profits ahead of the necessities of the American people.
Kill the bill and start over.
PS The Nader comments are irrelevant and mistaken. Lieberman, the VP of Gore, shows us with his behavior that Nader was right to oppose Gore-Lieberman.