• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

Well, structuring universal healhcare after the medicare model will not, for many, "alleviate the economic strain that health insurance is putting on working people"
 
Strickland33 said:
How does that relate to Naomi Klein's stuff? Shock Doctrine, etc.?
Click to expand...

I've only read Klein's No Logo but seeing as the second chapter of Mirowski is called the "Shock Block Doctrine," I think they're fairly well read together. I don't think he disagrees with Klein, but Shock Doctrine had the unfortunate reality of dropping just before the financial crisis. He's interested in explicating how neoliberal solutions to a problem caused by market forces allow the scheme to continue. In other words, how has neoliberalism faired so well after a crisis that by all accounts should have called its ideological purpose into sharp focus?

It may be the case that even those who feel they have a good working knowledge of political theory need to revisit the entire question of neoliberalism, if only to better focus upon the incongruity of the neoliberals coming out of the crisis stronger than when they were paving the way for its onset. It is one thing to glibly appeal to a nefarious “Shock Doctrine” (see Naomi Klein), it is another to comprehend in detail how the reckoning was evaded: something here dubbed the “Shock Block Doctrine.” Neoliberalism is alive and well; those on the receiving end need to know why.
Click to expand...

Neoliberals don’t let a serious crisis go to waste. Instead, the thought collective subsequently made a number of moves that cemented their triumph. This book aims to document the strategies, and survey their successes. Many of these activities involved the economics profession.
Click to expand...
 
ConnorEl said:
Well, structuring universal healhcare after the medicare model will not, for many, "alleviate the economic strain that health insurance is putting on working people"
Click to expand...

You don't think that medicare alleviates economic strain for seniors who would otherwise have to buy insurance at market rates? It's subsidized healthcare; Medicaid is also subsidized healthcare. That's a point tangential to the one I'm making anyway, man: universal Healthcare comes in a lot of shapes and sizes.
 
All I know is no matter how close we come to universal healthcare, which won’t be under a Biden administration given how much industry execs have given him, it will always and consistently be under attack from conservatives. Every step of the way it will be opposed.
 
TownieDeac said:
All I know is no matter how close we come to universal healthcare, which won’t be under a Biden administration given how much industry execs have given him, it will always and consistently be under attack from conservatives. Every step of the way it will be opposed.
Click to expand...

But every step that is made gets closer.

You're wrong about Biden. He was pushing until the last minute of ACA passage for a full public option. Had Biden's plan passed, I think we'd might have universal coverage by now or be very close.
 
TownieDeac said:
All I know is no matter how close we come to universal healthcare, which won’t be under a Biden administration given how much industry execs have given him, it will always and consistently be under attack from conservatives. Every step of the way it will be opposed.
Click to expand...

Likely true until it's not. How to accomplish radical change (read big rather than crazy) is really the only question for most in the center and left. It polls well because once people think it through and/or experience universal coverage people will become accustomed to it. The question is do you slowly nudge long term or to you force it quickly? Said another way, how many people do we want to drag kicking and screaming into that new reality. Most will likely want it once they are there. I tend to lean towards making the case over time (not decades) means we're dragging fewer people and that makes the burden lighter. I could be wrong. RIP off the band aid and all.
 
If an election like 2016 is actually capable of reverting decades of hard fought, rational policy and political progress (a thesis I think I have some reservations about, but one advanced in the "Trump wins in 2020 and we're back to the stone age" posts I've seen in this thread), then (honest question) why subscribe to an incremental political philosophy?

And I don't mean that in a dismissive way. I'm genuinely curious whether or not you think there will never be another election like Trump again or what? Why spend decades to move the needle if it can genuinely be undone in an election cycle. Why not move as fast as the opposition does (again, not sure I subscribe to this, but relying on discourse I've seen here) and demand a more progressive agenda of your own candidates instead of claiming the safest course of politic?
 
RJKarl said:
But every step that is made gets closer.

You're wrong about Biden. He was pushing until the last minute of ACA passage for a full public option. Had Biden's plan passed, I think we'd might have universal coverage by now or be very close.
Click to expand...

The public option has to run better than private care and be a cheaper option from the start if it is going to be more popular than private care and swallow that system like you say. Private industry (like the Aetna exec who has bundled nearly $100k for Biden) dislikes it because the public option is a player in the market and a regulator/referee. They’d fight its expansion tooth and nail. The stepwise approach is making the uphill battle steeper imo.
 
You know what is worse than xenophobia?... pointing out xenophobia when you see it.
 
TownieDeac said:
The public option has to run better than private care and be a cheaper option from the start if it is going to be more popular than private care and swallow that system like you say. Private industry (like the Aetna exec who has bundled nearly $100k for Biden) dislikes it because the public option is a player in the market and a regulator/referee. They’d fight its expansion tooth and nail. The stepwise approach is making the uphill battle steeper imo.
Click to expand...

Then, the fact Biden went against them before should show he'd do it again. $100,000 in a $2Billion campaign isn't even a rounding error. He might pay attention if the bundle was $20,000,000.

Private industry will go crazy if they can save 20-25% on their employee health insurance contributions.
 
MHBDemon said:
God you are awful.
Click to expand...

What's awful are your attacks on the only person who can beat Trump. You and your buddies will be a factor in Trump's re-election, but like everything else in your life (and in Trump's), you will blame everyone but yourselves.
 
Strickland33 said:
I'm just saying that using those figures as a proxy for on-the-ground organizing killed the Sanders campaign. None of the candidates did anything to actually engage black communities on the ground, but I don't think it's unfair to critique the Sanders campaign on these grounds. As you note, there is a big difference between Twitter and real life, and I think that the Sanders campaign took the wrong lesson from 2016 by getting support from prominent "New Left" luminaries and hiring Twitter influencers rather than tap into policy experts (e.g., Warren) and influential politicians in black communities (e.g., Biden). Reasonable minds may differ and I agree with you that the election wasn't won or lost on Twitter. For Sanders, it was lost on the ground. That's my point.



Definitely not saying this. He had the largest and best ground game of any of the nominees, but he basically punted organizing in middle class and poor black communities, and his efforts to garner support through black surrogates from 60s-90s "New Lefts" just didn't work.
Click to expand...

I can tell you from experience and from connections to Bernie staffers that I know personally, that what you're accusing Bernie of isn't true. Bernie's campaign did a lot of organizing in poor communities, and his surrogate progressive political organizations were focused on poor and minority communities. There was no punting. As for middle class - that's where voters live. If you knock doors or phone bank for literally any political campaign, 90% of the time you're going to be canvassing middle class voters. In regards to groups of Dem voters who opposed Bernie or his platform, he would have been crazy to focus on them Fact is, candidates can't and don't spend resources trying to persuade people and groups who are against them. It's a huge waste of time and money, and research has shown that it's ineffective.

What I think you and Ph, and many others are conflating is canvassing the middle class, and targeting the middle class. Bernie did not change his platform or change his messaging to attract middle class/moderate/establishment voters.
 
Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: It's still a debacle

myDeaconmyhand said:
I can tell you from experience and from connections to Bernie staffers that I know personally, that what you're accusing Bernie of isn't true. Bernie's campaign did a lot of organizing in poor communities, and his surrogate progressive political organizations were focused on poor and minority communities. There was no punting. As for middle class - that's where voters live. If you knock doors or phone bank for literally any political campaign, 90% of the time you're going to be canvassing middle class voters. In regards to groups of Dem voters who opposed Bernie or his platform, he would have been crazy to focus on them Fact is, candidates can't and don't spend resources trying to persuade people and groups who are against them. It's a huge waste of time and money, and research has shown that it's ineffective.

What I think you and Ph, and many others are conflating is canvassing the middle class, and targeting the middle class. Bernie did not change his platform or change his messaging to attract middle class/moderate/establishment voters.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders engaged black voters in South Carolina? Cmon, man. I have the same sorts of contacts that you do and they’re all complaining about the schism between old school organizers and social media luminaries in the campaign. Tier one sources, one might call them. I’m not interested in debating this shit and I’m definitely not conflating those things. Sanders got destroyed among black voters over 35. I’m just mentioning what I’ve heard and read about why. He obviously did quite well with POC voters of other backgrounds in large part because of his tremendous ground game in Nevada, California, etc.

ETA: the only candidate with a legitimately great South Carolina ground game was strangely Tom Steyer and his campaign.
 
Last edited:
MHB, I assume this is about Biden criticizing the Chinese government for their handling of COVID-19. I saw a progressive buddy of mine make the same argument.

Which foreign governments can we criticize without being xenophobic?
 
RJKarl said:
Then, the fact Biden went against them before should show he'd do it again. $100,000 in a $2Billion campaign isn't even a rounding error. He might pay attention if the bundle was $20,000,000.

Private industry will go crazy if they can save 20-25% on their employee health insurance contributions.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the private insurance industry fighting it tooth and nail.

Execs from every major insurer have given to Biden. They’re banking on not getting knocked out of the market altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top