How to build a house majority

[fskimospy]

Sanders is center-left by the standards of the civilized world. Clinton is center-right, and further right than Obama. And Reagan.

And the Republicans are basically the Christian Taliban, but too fat and effeminate and low-testosterone to grow facial hair. Which, incidentally, describes most of their constituency as well.

On no planet is Clinton to the right of Reagan or even remotely close to it. This is absurd.

Reagan's 1st dimension DW-NOMIMATE score was about a .75 and Clinton's last score was -.39. In fact, she was slightly to the left of Obama based on their final Senate scores, and was overall more liberal than over 80% of senators.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Bill Clinton. NAFTA and "welfare reform." I have seen friends die, slowly, due to the effects of both of these. So I place Bill in the same circle of fire and brimstone as all the other greed-is-good, Gordon Gekko types.

 

[xthetenth]

It's a strange thing when someone's signature achievement is a massive expansion of free health care for the poor, financed by taxes on the rich, and isn't considered 'left'.

When you're starting from letting the invisible hand serve as a financial death panel, just about any movement is leftwards, but not every destination is on the left.

 

[theeedude]

Economy is still booming and GOP is not very popular. If we hit a long overdue recession, shit will hit the fan.
2018 is largely irrelevant. But 2020 is census year. GOP should be about as popular as explosive diarrhea by then. If that hurts them down the ballot, redistricting will be a bitch.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's a strange thing when someone's signature achievement is a massive expansion of free health care for the poor, financed by taxes on the rich, and isn't considered 'left'.

The expansion of Medicaid was excellent, and there are good provisions to the Affordable Care Act, but it's essentially a market based approach to health care that no other nation with a robust safety net would ever consider.

Obama also continued or escalated disastrous foreign policies, deported millions of immigrants, and prosecuted journalists.

Bernie?

Closer. Sanders is awful on foreign policy though. Try Corbyn.

 

[fskimospy]

When you're starting from letting the invisible hand serve as a financial death panel, just about any movement is leftwards, but not every destination is on the left.

So to be clear you don't see free medical care for the poor paid for by taxes on the rich as 'on the left'?

 

[agent00f]

So to be clear you don't see free medical care for the poor paid for by taxes on the rich as 'on the left'?

Obama is a centrist even by american standards, which is why his healthcare bill was basically romneycare. Centrist means halfish right, even if it also implies halfish left.

 

[xthetenth]

So to be clear you don't see free medical care for the poor paid for by taxes on the rich as 'on the left'?

It's a decent attempt, but it's gutted by all the sops to right wing policies and loopholes for sabotage in it. I don't see prioritizing the preservation of the insurance industry or states' rights to restrict the expansion of care as being particularly "left".

Single payer is left because it prioritizes care above those things.

 

[fskimospy]

The expansion of Medicaid was excellent, and there are good provisions to the Affordable Care Act, but it's essentially a market based approach to health care that no other nation with a robust safety net would ever consider.

Yes but Obama himself said he would prefer a more liberal system but had to do what he could accomplish, which was true.

Obama also continued or escalated disastrous foreign policies, deported millions of immigrants, and prosecuted journalists.

Foreign policy and immigration aren't inherently left, as plenty of countries far to the left of the US have had interventionist foreign policy (USSR, China). As for immigration, even with deporting tons of people Obama's immigration policy was far, FAR more inclusive than most of the rest of the developed world, so if we are using that standard for health care then Obama is an ultra liberal on immigration.

This attempt to cast Clinton and Obama as not true liberals is just as silly as conservatives trying to declare very conservative people RINOs.

 

[Jhhnn]

I see. On his scale they are both lefties, that's who he's talking about.

So what? His perspective is totally warped.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a decent attempt, but it's gutted by all the sops to right wing policies and loopholes for sabotage in it. I don't see prioritizing the preservation of the insurance industry or states' rights to restrict the expansion of care as being particularly "left".

Single payer is left because it prioritizes care above those things.

The ACA did not include any rights for states to restrict the expansion of care. Where did you get that idea?

Also, what specific provisions 'gutted' the ACA? Please be as specific as you can.

 

[agent00f]

Yes but Obama himself said he would prefer a more liberal system but had to do what he could accomplish, which was true.



Foreign policy and immigration aren't inherently left, as plenty of countries far to the left of the US have had interventionist foreign policy (USSR, China). As for immigration, even with deporting tons of people Obama's immigration policy was far, FAR more inclusive than most of the rest of the developed world, so if we are using that standard for health care then Obama is an ultra liberal on immigration.

This attempt to cast Clinton and Obama as not true liberals is just as silly as conservatives trying to declare very conservative people RINOs.

Unless you're calling Obama a liar his whole gig literally cannot be more centrist, you know to unite red and blue america, which he tried by standing in the middle. That was also literally the clintons' gig until the conservative narrative came to effectively dominate the public image of them. That entire set of politics is meant to win elections by sewing together a coalition that includes RINOs. It might be a pragmatic approach as you mention, as centrism/compromise was created for in the first place.

 

[Jhhnn]

The ACA did not include any rights for states to restrict the expansion of care. Where did you get that idea?

Also, what specific provisions 'gutted' the ACA? Please be as specific as you can.

It did when the SCOTUS declared State medicaid expansion to be voluntary. The ACA would be a smash hit in even the reddest states if not for that.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes but Obama himself said he would prefer a more liberal system but had to do what he could accomplish, which was true.

Did true UHC fail because Obama couldn't do any better, or because he refused to push congress the way Trump, Ryan, and McConnell are pushing them on an absurdly unpopular health care bill?

Foreign policy and immigration aren't inherently left, as plenty of countries far to the left of the US have had interventionist foreign policy (USSR, China). As for immigration, even with deporting tons of people Obama's immigration policy was far, FAR more inclusive than most of the rest of the developed world, so if we are using that standard for health care then Obama is an ultra liberal on immigration.

If we treat the USSR and China as the standard of behavior for a leftist government, then no one in their right mind would be a leftist... or is that what you're suggesting? I'm thinking of contemporary leftists, and I'm not aware of any that support interventionist foreign policy.

This attempt to cast Clinton and Obama as not true liberals is just as silly as conservatives trying to declare very conservative people RINOs.

Liberals, sure. I'm fine with that. I see a vast difference between liberals and the left.

Liberals: Obama, Clinton, (Macron, Ossof)

Left: Corbyn, Sanders

 

[Jhhnn]

Did true UHC fail because Obama couldn't do any better, or because he refused to push congress the way Trump, Ryan, and McConnell are pushing them on an absurdly unpopular health care bill?



If we treat the USSR and China as the standard of behavior for a leftist government, then no one in their right mind would be a leftist... or is that what you're suggesting? I'm thinking of contemporary leftists, and I'm not aware of any that support interventionist foreign policy.



Liberals, sure. I'm fine with that. I see a vast difference between liberals and the left.

Liberals: Obama, Clinton, (Macron, Ossof)

Left: Corbyn, Sanders

Please. Obama wasn't in the position to cut off the cash supply the same away that Repubs' radical right billionaire donors are. That's obviously where the pressure is coming from. They're cravenly craving tax cuts.

He wasn't in the same position of financing extremist primary challenges to anybody not toeing the line, either. Carrot & stick. Well, more like a bludgeon.

 

[Blackjack200]

Please. Obama wasn't in the position to cut off the cash supply the same away that Repubs' radical right billionaire donors are. That's obviously where the pressure is coming from. They're cravenly craving tax cuts.

He wasn't in the same position of financing extremist primary challenges to anybody not toeing the line, either. Carrot & stick. Well, more like a bludgeon.

Why are we acting like Obama was some kind of single payer champion that was stymied by congress? His program was subsidized health insurance from the very beginning. He never seriously fought for single payer.

 

[fskimospy]

Did true UHC fail because Obama couldn't do any better, or because he refused to push congress the way Trump, Ryan, and McConnell are pushing them on an absurdly unpopular health care bill?

The data is pretty clear on this, true UHC failed because Obama couldn't do any better. The democratic caucus in both the house and the senate was vastly more moderate than the current GOP congress. Not even in the same ballpark.

If we treat the USSR and China as the standard of behavior for a leftist government, then no one in their right mind would be a leftist... or is that what you're suggesting? I'm thinking of contemporary leftists, and I'm not aware of any that support interventionist foreign policy.

This seems like a no true Scotsman fallacy. I'm not saying anything about what people should support, I'm simply noting that governments that were ultra leftist had interventionist foreign policy, meaning opposition to that doesn't seem to be a defining aspect of leftism.

Liberals, sure. I'm fine with that. I see a vast difference between liberals and the left.

Liberals: Obama, Clinton, (Macron, Ossof)

Left: Corbyn, Sanders

I am using the two terms as synonyms. Regardless, this all came up because someone tried to say Clinton and Obama were on the right, which is ridiculous.

 

[Blackjack200]

The data is pretty clear on this, true UHC failed because Obama couldn't do any better. The democratic caucus in both the house and the senate was vastly more moderate than the current GOP congress. Not even in the same ballpark.

Right, and the president had approval ratings in the mid to high 60s while this debate was going on. I can't agree that he didn't have more leverage.

This seems like a no true Scotsman fallacy. I'm not saying anything about what people should support, I'm simply noting that governments that were ultra leftist had interventionist foreign policy, meaning opposition to that doesn't seem to be a defining aspect of leftism.

I don't see how any of this is useful. Are you honestly arguing that leftists don't vigorously oppose interventionism? Can you name contemporary leftists that are interventionists? Because it's not hard to find contemporary liberal interventionists at all.

I am using the two terms as synonyms. Regardless, this all came up because someone tried to say Clinton and Obama were on the right, which is ridiculous.

I don't think it's a good idea to conflate liberalism with leftists. Liberalism's faith in markets and private enterprise is pretty fundamentally opposed to the way leftists see the world. The OP said that "the left is in trouble", but as others have pointed out, the left is completely out of power here, and has been for some time.[/QUOTE]

 

[fskimospy]

Right, and the president had approval ratings in the mid to high 60s while this debate was going on. I can't agree that he didn't have more leverage.

More leverage was not going to make people who didn't even want a public option on the exchanges due to its effect on the insurance industry suddenly embrace single payer, something that would affect the insurance industry far far more.

I don't see how any of this is useful. Are you honestly arguing that leftists don't vigorously oppose interventionism? Can you name contemporary leftists that are interventionists? Because it's not hard to find contemporary liberal interventionists at all.

Yes, I am arguing that leftists do not always vigorously oppose interventionism as evidenced by the history of leftism. I mean every communist country in history has had an aggressive foreign policy. Every single one. (I'm counting Warsaw Pact nations as one unit with the USSR as they didn't really control much of their foreign policy) What year are you drawing the line at where leftists became against it?

For me to name these leftists you'll have to give me a description of what you consider leftism to be.

I don't think it's a good idea to conflate liberalism with leftists. Liberalism's faith in markets and private enterprise is pretty fundamentally opposed to the way leftists see the world. The OP said that "the left is in trouble", but as others have pointed out, the left is completely out of power here, and has been for some time.

'The left' and 'leftists' as you describe them are not the same thing. Obama and Clinton are clearly on the left, but not as far left as people who want to eliminate private enterprise.

 

[agent00f]

More leverage was not going to make people who didn't even want a public option on the exchanges due to its effect on the insurance industry suddenly embrace single payer, something that would affect the insurance industry far far more.



Yes, I am arguing that leftists do not always vigorously oppose interventionism as evidenced by the history of leftism. I mean every communist country in history has had an aggressive foreign policy. Every single one. (I'm counting Warsaw Pact nations as one unit with the USSR as they didn't really control much of their foreign policy) What year are you drawing the line at where leftists became against it?

For me to name these leftists you'll have to give me a description of what you consider leftism to be.



'The left' and 'leftists' as you describe them are not the same thing. Obama and Clinton are clearly on the left, but not as far left as people who want to eliminate private enterprise.

They're on the left insomuch as they're democrats and the democratic party is the more left party in the US.

Left is generally considered the direction set by the liberal western enlightenment, landmarked by events like the french revolution ending monarchy and so on. Leftist disagree among themselves the appropriate rate of that progress, but it's not contentious that the democrat party tends to be pretty meh about it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I don't think he realizes that the left hasn't held any power in this country since the Reagan era and hasn't had real clout since Johnson.

Try reading the Democratic Party platform from back in the 50's and the 60's.

 

[fskimospy]

They're on the left insomuch as they're democrats and the democratic party is the more left party in the US.

Left is generally considered the direction set by the liberal western enlightenment, landmarked by events like the french revolution ending monarchy and so on. Leftist disagree among themselves the appropriate rate of that progress, but it's not contentious that the democrat party tends to be pretty meh about it.

I would say that's very contentious.

 

[agent00f]

I would say that's very contentious.

It's just a fact they're far less progressive than left parties in the rest of the 1st world. Anywhere else in that world obama/romneycare would typically be to the right of the right party hc solution.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Obama and Pelosi aren't "left"?

Correct, they are not.

 

[Blackjack200]

More leverage was not going to make people who didn't even want a public option on the exchanges due to its effect on the insurance industry suddenly embrace single payer, something that would affect the insurance industry far far more.

Is there any evidence that that's even what Obama wanted? Did he campaign for it? Did he fight for it at all? I don't remember any part of the Democratic Party fighting for single payer.

Yes, I am arguing that leftists do not always vigorously oppose interventionism as evidenced by the history of leftism. I mean every communist country in history has had an aggressive foreign policy. Every single one. (I'm counting Warsaw Pact nations as one unit with the USSR as they didn't really control much of their foreign policy) What year are you drawing the line at where leftists became against it?

For me to name these leftists you'll have to give me a description of what you consider leftism to be.

Leftism is generally associated with socialism and the idea that public interests take precedence over private. Solidarity with working and impoverished classes across all borders is important, so that's why interventionism doesn't make much sense. Vietnam is a communist state that has never had an aggressive foreign policy. Neither has Cuba. You won't find many leftists in power, again, Sanders and Corbyn are the two that come to mind. In terms of higher profile leftist writers, academics etc. I'd say Noam Chomsky, George Ciccariello, Freddie DeBoer, Amber A'Lee Frost and the cast of Chapo Trap House, Adam Johnson, Matt Bruenig, Sam Kriss, and Carl Beijer.

'The left' and 'leftists' as you describe them are not the same thing. Obama and Clinton are clearly on the left, but not as far left as people who want to eliminate private enterprise.

I've not seen a lot of people advocating that. It's hard to imagine Goldman Sachs paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone on the left for a speech. It'd be like Exxon Mobil paying tons of money to climate scientists or environmentalists.