Exercises in Futility

Posted on 12/21/2009 at 10:48 am by Bob Cesca

Make no mistake, I think it’s a great idea to remain mobilized for fixing healthcare and fixing the Senate bill. I’m just trying to figure out the wisdom in continuing the “kill the Senate bill” idea at this point. “Fix the Senate bill” seems more productive and less self-destructive, say nothing of being less disappointing.

First, the Senate bill is going to pass. The only shot for killing it would be to get a progressive senator to vote against cloture and that seems very unlikely.

But even though the bill will probably pass, kill-billers are making a detailed and very angry case against the content of the bill, while also presenting a futile solution, leaving in the aftermath only anger and disillusionment. How does this help progressives?

It’s seems more productive to mobilize around the problems with the bill, but presenting the problems with a realistic path to enacting fixes. This way, the downsides aren’t so fatal and you’re not sabotaging the public impression of the positive things.

Kill the Bill Path:
1. Everyone will hate the bill.
2. Here’s numerous reasons why.
3. So we should kill the bill even though there’s no chance of this succeeding.

You’ve only sold and reinforced all of the awful things about the bill, as well as the notion that there’s nothing redeemable about it. You’ve wasted time, effort and persuasive capital on a futile effort. You’ve left very little room for embracing the good things in the bill because you’ve made a case for them being expendable. Who wins?

Fix the Bill Path:
1. This bill is flawed but fixable.
2. Here are the things to fix.
3. So we should push for fixing the bill, for which there’s a lot of precedent.

You’ve identified problems. You’ve allowed room for promoting the many positive aspects of the bill, and thus promoting progressive policies. You’ve presented your team with a realistic path to substantive victory. You haven’t sabotaged Democratic chances in 2010 — especially progressive Democrats.

One final thing. It’s likely that “kill the bill” activists could eventually shift to a “fix the bill” posture. However, the “fix” case has already been damaged by the “kill” effort. Once the case has been made for the bill being too awful to live, how can you segue to fixing it? Make sense?

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jan

    How can it be “fixed”? Where? When? Surely you don’t mean in in conference committee.Everybody is too busy catering to Nelson, Lieberman et al. Any changes and they will again threaten to not vote for it. And the dems will cave like a cheap tent as usual.So I’m all for fising it but see no way for that to happen.

  • IntoxiNation

    “Once the case has been made for the bill being too awful to live, how can you segue to fixing it?”Because once it is signed into law then fixing it is the only viable option? Sure we could push for repeal, but that would mean voting for Republicans – something I don’t think any progressive is willing to do.My only real question is to the feasibility of fixing it. We only got a year left of the super majority (actually 11 mos since nothing happens after election day), so the best chance at fixing it is day 1 of it becoming law. I highly doubt that will happen since HCR fatigue will be like a plague. So given that, any chances at making really progressive fixes becomes harder and harder.Adding… I don’t think “fix it later” is a really good platform for Democrats to run on. I can just hear the GOP talking point now – “they had a chance to fix it and look at what happened”. The sad part of this is that the average American voter has short-term memory when it comes to politics and they will quickly forget the little details like the fact that this bill isn’t as optimal as it should be is in a big part due to GOP obstructionism.

  • http://broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    We only got a year left of the super majority…Not even. In a few months at the latest, we’ll have too many campaigning for re-election. And super majority? When you have to count Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Pryor, Baucus, etc., there never was a super majority.

  • camel54

    I’m ready to back the effort to change the senate procedures to eliminate the filibuster–or reduce its usage by eliminating it incrementally on each issue. I don’t know if it stands a chance of happening, but how will anything get done if we have to go through this insanity over every issue?If we fix the procedures, we can then move the health care fight along much faster and have some of what we lost during this process put back in before 2012.

  • http://oneceltsview.blogspot.com/ Wolfe_Tone

    Nothing of this magnitude has ever been accomplished in one fell swoop. It’s always been done incrementally, sometimes taking decades.That, in a nutshell, is what I find frustrating about the kill-billers… they lack an historical perspective, and steadfastly maintain an illogical adherence to the instant gratification aspect of modern American culture.I guess I’m just getting old.

  • eljefejeff

    Exactly Carl, enough talk of this so called supermajority. We barely have a majority. However, I think one way to fix it is either through reconciliation this congress, or make it a campaign issue in 2010. Every candidate should run on whether or not they support a public option, or better yet, a Medicare buy in. The VAST majority of democrats will support it, and almost ZERO republicans will. Democrats will make it very clear that they couldn’t pass this because they got no support from republicans at all. If this is what the voters really want a public option, it could help the democrats.

  • http://www.intoxination.net IntoxiNation

    @carl – very true but we must also remember that “all politics are local”. Take someone like Nelson. Nebraska went for McCain by +15. Even if we got Nelson replaced in a primary by a much more progressive candidate, chances are they will lose in the general. Same thing with Lincoln – Arkansas +20 for McCain.We are stuck with these blue dogs. Even to the people that say “they should switch parties”, they will most likely end up in Congress, just on the other side of the aisle.The majority we have now is the most solid we will have for a very long time.

  • http://nanotyrnns.blogspot.com/ Nanotyrannus

    camel:“I’m ready to back the effort to change the senate procedures to eliminate the filibuster–or reduce its usage by eliminating it incrementally on each issue. I don’t know if it stands a chance of happening, but how will anything get done if we have to go through this insanity over every issue?”Exactly.Pass the Bill Now + Fix the Filibuster = Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson, Baucus becoming irrelevant.Also, I may take a page from Lee’s book and next year make a few videos that remind everyone just where these obstructing senators stood during the debate. I have no doubt that Landrieu, Nelson, Baucus and all the rest will crow about how much their contribution made the whole thing possible. I want people to remember what shitbirds they were for months on end.

  • sketchartist

    Lieberman, Nelson, etc. have shown that the only way to “fix” the bill is to threaten not to vote for it, which they have no hesitation in doing, yet progressives are supposed to give up that same power in advance. Then we wonder why we get “compromised” to death.

  • eve

    this bill will help many peopleto “fix” health care and health insurance we pass this bill with all it’s faults and pass more bills soonif we don’t pass this bill we get nothing for years and years and yearswe pass this bill and it is relatively easy to build on it step by step

  • alopecia

    @sketchartist:Someone (Benen?) explained this pretty concisely a week or two ago. Progressives want to reform the health-care system, want more people insured, and want a bill to get through Congress, while the Rs and conservative Ds don’t particularly care if the health-care system is reformed or not; opponents can therefore show “sociopathic indifference” (lovely phrase) toward the bill. That’s their leverage.(Yes, I know you were just employing a rhetorical flourish, and I apologize for piggy-backing on your comment. But there are folks out there reading this blog who don’t seem to understand.)

  • ceu

    I don’t think we really want to kill the filibuster. As much as it’s being abused by the GOP right now, down the road the Dems may have a valid reason to use it. Eliminating it could have some very nasty consequences for all of us.

  • eljefejeff

    I don’t necessarily think they should kill the filibuster either, but if you have a 59-41 consensus, you should be able to move forward. Something like 56 sounds more reasonable.

  • Alan4s

    Don’t eliminate the filibuster, but put it back the way it was when someone had to truly work to hold up progress. Since “tracking” was implemented there is no need for an endless speach – now just the simple threat of a filibuster can derail a bill.Get rid of tracking, and make the filibuter-ers strap on the diapers if they want to hold things up. That would reduce it’s use immensly.

  • idabamaho

    By all means, lets make a list of improvements.Then capitulate on the list items one by one.

  • veralynn

    Wolfe said

    Nothing of this magnitude has ever been accomplished in one fell swoop. It’s always been done incrementally, sometimes taking decades.That, in a nutshell, is what I find frustrating about the kill-billers… they lack an historical perspective, and steadfastly maintain an illogical adherence to the instant gratification aspect of modern American culture.I guess I’m just getting old.

    nicely done, you have said what I have been trying to say for months….thank you